Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936
Editor Crock81[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am reporting editor Crock81 (talk · contribs). Notified: [1]
Reported by Zero0000 (talk · contribs) (involved administrator)
Very long.
|
|---|
|
Charges. Repeated disruptive editing. Declared unwillingness to edit according to policy. Bad-faith and erratic argumentation. Remedy sought. Topic ban from all articles related to the Middle East. Note. Although some of the involved articles arguably lie in the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions area, this editor is not an I/P political pov-pusher and I don't think this case belongs on WP:AE. However, I'll move it to WP:AE if admins ask me to. Samples of problematic behavior
It is clear that this editor does not, and in my view cannot, make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. It is quite impossible to write good articles with editors like this around. Added after Crock81's response: I believe that anyone reading his response and comparing it to the diffs I provided will see immediately how problematic this editor is. Zerotalk 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Comments from other editors: Response from Crock81: 1. Adds private theory about spelling. When I advised him that a source was required, he admitted he had no source It is not a private theory. I cannot provide a source for something that doesn't exist! There are no German words starting with Tz! See for example A handbook of Germanic etymology by Vladimir Orel Brill 2003 and instead wanted me to protect the article so that only he could edit it. Then, after a bit of a rant, he declared (see edit summary) that "every article needs an OWNER" 2. Actually, this isn't a theory. There are many users in Wikipedia that show on their user pages essentially being responsible to a larger degree for achieving FA articles. Zero0000 can call it whatever he wants, but I call it article ownership. His philosophy in his own words is basically: academic sources are nonsense (especially in comparison to the bible), 3. If those were my words, why not QUOTE? But, that is not what I said. Moreover, I do not use the bible for reference. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE the article is about a mountain, and no one had bothered to establish why?. This is because it is called that in the original documentary evidence, which is the Jewish TaNaKh. As I progress through the article editing, I will identify who, how and why changed the mountians to hills. Zero0000 seems to lack patience. Wikipedia is worthless because admins deploy their rules to stop editors like him from improving articles, 4. Which is true! Barely a couple of days after starting, and I am already being judged! And, Zero0000 informed me he was building a case on me in less than 24 hours! he knows the subject better than anyone so we should just step aside while he edits. And similarly in this rant. 5. I object to the term "rant" as insulting. I did NOT at any time state that I "knows the subject better than anyone", but I did say that I am willing to put the effort in to improve the article which no one who has edited it in the past 2+ years I have watched it has bothered to do. And, neither is Zero0000. I am in fact very happy to collaborate and listen to others, and have done so on Zero0000's own advice. Edit-wars [61] [62] [63] [64] to call Mount Zion a "mountain" rather than a hill, against common English usage and the great majority of sources (in reality it is quite a modest hill, but this minor issue could be resolved in a minute by good editors). 6. Common English usage in this case is simply wrong. a. Firstly, there is contemporary cultural context which has a significant impact on the rest of the article's content. Modern sources just don't matter in this case. b. Secondly, the sources cited are inconsitent! Consider Professor Menashe Har-El (name means=mountain of God!, another name for Mount Zion) His book has been republished in 2005 under a new title Goldeen Jerusalem. He deals with topography on p.59. I will deal only with the first paragraph here. "Topography of the City and its Environs Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains and its topography is typically mountainous. The ancient city was built on two spurs: the hill bearing the Lower City in the east, 747 m above sea level, in which the first settlement of Jerusalem as well as the site of the Temple were established and in the west, the hill of the Upper City, which became inhabited in the course of the city’s expansion. This later hill is unjustifiedly known today as Mount Zion, and is 777 m high. A deep vale separated the two hills, and was know as the Cheesemongers’ Valley (Tyropoeon, in Josephus); it served to drain the rainwater and sewage of ancient Jerusalem into the Kidron Valley." b1. He starts off saying Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains, which defines the topography. He then says the Old City is built on two spurs, giving the lower one an elevation of 747m and the higher 777m. I have added a map from 1925 which clearly shows that the upper-most contour in red on Moriah as 740m! So Har-El is not referring to the Upper and Lower parts of the City of David, but in fact he is referring to the MUCH LATER expansion of the city that Har-El calles the Upper City, today the Armenian Quarter, and the elevation just outside the Old City walls. I identified it in my edits per Zero0000 advice as height 768, and again provided a separate map in a separate infobox. The reason Har-El says "This later hill is unjustifiedly known today as Mount Zion" is not because it isn't a mountain, but because it isn't Mount Zion! This was omitted from the article by the original editors. It is a misrepresentation of the source. Not just this source, but Pixner also! Pixner repeats Har-El that "the western hill is erroneously called Maount Zion" (p.321), but the past article editors ignore this, and focus on exploding, but not quoting, his statement that "Zion resembles a moving mountain". Resembles was taken to the extreme of devoting much of the content to show that the terrain elecation with coordinates in the article infobox IS IN FACT THE MOUNT ZION according to "modern reliable sources". But, the source is not exactly appropriate for this statement, being Paths of the Messiah and Sites of the Early Church from Galilee to Jerusalem: Jesus and Jewish Christianity in Light of Archaeological Discoveries. This is because the author has a very clear bias! So the editors couldn't find another source? Moreover, Har-El does not define what is a mountain or a hill. He goes on to list heights of prominent hills, all above 700m in height above sea level. So which is it?! b2. I'm happy to address any issues with referencing/sources on talk page. His reasoning was first an alleged UK (hence irrelevant) rule about the height of mountains above sea level, 7. Actually its an intenrational standard that elevations are measured using the sea level, except in 17th century Germany (?), however ssince Zero did not provide a link and I can't recall my exact words... then about the biblical usage, 8. Zero0000 keeps saying biblical, but I hadn't use any Bible for referencing. I simply satated that all references in the TaNaKh say "mountain". finally settling on a poetic usage in the book of Psalms that obviously should be cited via an expert interpretation if at all. 9. The Psalms is one of the primary documentary sources. If not for them, there would be no such article subject! These sources ESTABLISH the subject of the article! In parallel he was arguing (correctly for once) that the bible uses "Mount Zion" for a different hill (Temple Mount). 10. Actually, TaNaKh everywhere says that the Temple was built on Mount Moriah (name before Davidic conquest)/Mount Zion (Jebusite name adopted by David); TaNaKh uses SEVERAL other names for the same mountain, which I would be editing in now if I didn't have to write here. Although he writes on the talk page, hardly any of it makes sense.[65] (I invite admins to read his text on Talk:Mount Zion; much of it is simply bizarre.) 11. Like what? This was not an opinion expressed before, so for me 'new information'. I would have been happy to explain if Zero0000 had said he is perplexed. Adds geological material with a source that doesn't contain it. After it is removed, he puts it back with another source that also doesn't have much of it and adds two embarrassing links that prove he hasn't a clue what it means. Later he adds to the unsupported geological text his own commentary based on Josephus, starting with a comment of mine from the talk page! 12. Actually I explained that I was misled by a source in Whiley Online Library, and I also said I'm not a geologist and was seeking firther advice from another user. I did think that you wanted me to include that sentence in the content. You said nothing about it until now. I think this is called entrapment He thinks that a biblical quotation appearing at the start of a scientific article proves that the bible is a reliable source for scientific questions! 13. No, I think that I agree with six geologists that a statement made in ancient documents can be worth scientific enquiry. He moved the coordinates to point to the Temple Mount instead (which disrupts the whole article), and immediately afterwords adds an Arabic name for the place the coordinates used to point to. 14. As the quite from professor Har-El point out, I'm not alone in thinking that Mount Zion in th ewestern part of the Old City of Jerusalem is NOT the real Mount Zion. The coordinates in the infobox beofre I started editing pointed ONLY to the Christian identification of the topographic fature, which suggests a cerain WP:Bias; now there are two infoboxes which show the different coordinates of the two claims. And, if you note the Arabic name I added is ON THE 1925 MAP OF THE SECOND MOUNT ZION, but it refers to the false toumb of the Prophed David as Muslims regard him. Yet the Jebel Al-Nabi Dawoud means 'Mountain of Prophet David', HOWEVER that mountian is the City of David, so yes, you, Zero0000 CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. The Arabic term can refer to either the elevation where the city of David was, or to the false toumb built by Crusaders. I note you did not offer any suggestions of sources. In this edit he demands in bold face to know what my religion is! 15. Actually, no, I didn't ask what your religion was; I don't care. I asked if your bias was towards the version of the article that presented the Catholic Church's opinion. I accept that no person is 100% objective, which is to be human. I asked because you DEFENDED the article content as I found it, which is with a bias. At Transjordan (region) has been edit-warring against consensus (and against the facts) to remove the common alternative name "East Bank".[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] 16. HaHaHa! The funny part is that the "good source" that was cited as reference in fact was intellectually dishonest. It referenced to ANOTHER journal article, and a footnote at that, which in fact contained "East Bank" in "Scare quotes", i.e. meanint that THAT author, a self-identified Palestinian-American lawyer, DID NOT THINK THERE IS AN EAST BANK. He removed a good source with a blatantly racist explanation [71] (and a misrepresentation of what it contains). 17. Firstly, I did not identify the author with a racist term. He self-identifies himself that way online! Second, had you read his article, you would realise that it is written with a clear bias. It isi in fact the entire point of the article! I don't have a problem with people writing with a bias, andin fact expect it. He wasn't writingin Wikipedia, was he :-) It isn't that he really believes that "East Bank" doesn't exist as a name for the region, as he has been advised to do this search twice and even provided his own references for it. The problem is that he thinks it is incorrect and therefore we aren't allowed to use it; end of argument. 18. Actually, I don't believe anything, because all beliefs are ultimatelly falsifiable. No, I agree there is an eastern bank of river Jordan. I also provided a Wikipedia published work which shows that the West Bank was a term arbitrarily coined by the Jordanians to enable them to rename the country from Trans-Jordan to Jordan! I also showed that the origin of the East Bank was not a 'common English usage', but was created by Arnold Toynbee who also had a distinct anti-Israel bias in 1950s, and since then was NOT used by English writers until after 1967! All published authors I could find in Google Books who used East Bank before 1967 were non-English speakers :-) However, East Bank is not used by anyone in English speaking world now because Jordanians HATE IT. I it is in "scare quotes" on the official Jordanian Government website! Here he accuses myself and another editor of antipathy against Jews. 19. I stand by these words, and I provided proof in that post. Pluto2012 expressed just such an opinion on another article. Many editors had edited various articles mentioned here, ans some not mentioned, yet not one has said there was a clear anti-Jewish bias. So far EVERY referenced source I have looked at is misinterpreted on purpose to present an anti-Jewish slant to the the article content. It is clear that this editor does not, and in my view cannot, make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. It is quite impossible to write good articles with editors like this around. 20. What is clear to me is that Zero0000'S view is obscured by a 'mountain' of opinions, but without data, that is all they are. No one was writing a good Mount Zion article in over two years I had watched it, and I don't agree with your definitionof 'good' either. I'm happy to edit to this standard. The very lack of talk arguments suggest that no one had even attempted to write a good article, BECAUSE a good article based on the data on which the criteria was written, usually includes "an ongoing edit war or content dispute", BECAUSE someone editing is passionate enough to do so. What are you passionate about? You are passionate about defending an article content you admitted is bad "A great amount of what you added has to go, and a lot of what was there before has to go too. Zerotalk 09:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)", but you are not offering to write a good article either! And, of all the content I added, your entire case rests of my admitted and honest mistake on the Bi'ina formation and two links to chemical materials! 21. In closing, everything Zero0000 brings up is insubstantial, and already covered in the Talk but he doesn't want to listen. It is ultimatelly his choice! The question is more basic, which of the following have I breached? 1. Well written:
the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[3]
2. Verifiable with no original research:[4]
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[5]
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6]
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]
22. I have a preliminary article outline in my sandbox to use as a writing framework, so it is VERY early days in the article editing. I had offered Zero0000 to collaborate on the article, he declined, preferring to insted build a case against me, and now seeks to ban me from editing it. Zero0000 does not want me to edit because I had deleted his sacred "reliable sources" which were in fact misused by earlier editors. He never bothered to verify thes, and rejects doing so now. Denial is not a solution. Crock81 (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
Arbitrary break[edit]
I don't think anyone wants to trundle through that wall of text. Consider consolidating your salient points.--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've run into Crock81 on the "Mountain" Zion issue, and the OP's characterization ("disruptive... bad-faith... erratic") is amply justified. EEng 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, I just took a stab at trying to format that mess into something resembling sane Wiki format and found that the numbering couldn't keep up. How the hell is anyone expected to plough through this and come to a conclusion beyond, "this is one of the most disruptive walls of text I have ever seen on ANI"? Disclaimer: I did read through that mad wall and basically got "let me get on with my WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:SNYTH take on the article. If you want to help, you need to do it my way. Blackmane (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here we go, the "consensus" phase in the 1984 doublespeek :-)
- I didn't pick how this is formatted. My replies address Zero0000 "charges" point-by-point. If you don't have the attention span to read, don't.
- Nor are you allowed to put YOUR WP-words into my mouth. I didn't say "do it my way", and there is nothing original about the content I'm adding to the article. In fact, what I removed IS trully OR based on misinterpretation of one solitary source.
- In regards to ownership, again, you are twisting words. I claim the ownership of the article editing as a project, not the ownership of the article as property/copyright. I insist on very rigid application of how content is referenced, that is the sources must provide content, not just serve as "near enough is good enough" solution via Google search statistics. This requires intellectual honesty, i.e. NOT LYING. However, I know that there are people in Wikipedia who can just roll it all back to 0 or to remove sources they don't like and edit away until the article says something which conforms to Wikiepadia bias. Don't tell me there is no such thing. So, for me this little exercise is just a test of Wikipedia's backbone. If there is one, I will go back to editing and Zero0000 will go back to watching me do it. If not, I will write somewhere else, and publish it. And, the title will be WIKIPEDIA THE LAST BASTION OF JEW HATRED. I think that should get some media outlets interested, and make me a few dollars also. I wonder how Jimmy is going to react to media requests to disclose if and how much funding Wikiepdia gets from the "Middle East"
- And, a word from the past, not me, on the perception of Wikipedia and how it works
[ http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-who-really-runs-wikipedia View thread] (a reliable source) Tektok May 6th 2013, 17:23 Wikipedia is run by those who have the most time to waste and energy to outlast others. Here is the trick to getting an article to look the way you want when opposed: expend as little energy as possible explaining yourself and just edit it to how you want it to look. Make your opponents explain themselves fully. Suggest your opponents use the dispute resolution process (a complete dead end but ignorant hapless victims will only find out after going through hoops and a month of futile waiting). Goad them with false accusations on their talk pages to get them mad while you use polite language. You can be a complete jerk in your actions but not with your language to fool the site administrators who do not like looking deeply at a situation but love to blame the one who gets mad even if they are the aggrieved and provoked party. Develop a record of numerous superficial edits by correcting single grammatical mistakes or deleting any sentence without a reference, this will show to site administrators you are like them and get them to side with you in a dispute. The place is run by ego trippers who cannot make it in the real world after all. People who are capable of contributing meaningfully have a real job or have set up their own websites and do not have the time to waste fattening Jimmy Wales's and his cronies' pockets.Crock81 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since Crock81 seems incapable of understanding even simple policies such as WP:OWN, a WP:CIR block may be in order. WP:NOTHERE works too. EEng 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Proposal
- I'm not seeing any kind of attitude that can be rehabilitated. Crock81 suffers from an inability to work collaboratively by building a consensus and is displaying a "my way or the highway" attitude. Their additional threat to have other editors shamed in the media if Crock81 doesn't get their way is an attempt to silence others. I don't believe they're here to contribute, I believe they are hear to change Wikipedia to conform with their own beliefs. With that in mind, I believe they should go on and write their article somewhere else and go ahead and publish it - but that they shouldn't do it here. An indefinite block is my suggestion.--v/r - TP 02:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support indef I read through the tl;dr this morning and looked over the talk page. What I see from Crock81 is a total inability to collaborate as well as the "tells" of someone who is simply NOTHERE. The refernce to 1984 and the "testing the backbone of Wikipedia" are typical but the "..and the title will be WIKIPEDIA THE LAST BASTION OF JEW HATRED. I think that should get some media outlets interested" is simply toxic and there is no place for that attitude here. JbhTalk
- Blocked: Since this case easily satisfies our usual criteria for blocking unhelpful editors who are judged to be unlikely to change in the future, I've gone ahead with an indefinite block. If another admin disagrees, they can adjust this as they think best. The editor's response (above) is just digging the hole deeper. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
User Shadynasty999 making physical threats / joke?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently blocked Shadynasty999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made left this on their talk page: if you don't unblock me I will shank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious troll is obvious. Remove talk page access, RBI. John from Idegon (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Not surprisingly, Peridon declined the unblock request. Whereupon, Shadynasty999 removed the whole declined unblock and replaced it with this. I've restored the original unblock request and the decline, but left the new unblock request as well. Admins can decide the sincerity or otherwise of the new request. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know if it is still there but someone filled the page with vulgar images, this page should be protected more... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll second that. Made me jump out my chair. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can it be taken down until the problem is fixed? I can't see it, so it must be embedded in a template. John from Idegon (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like everything needs to be protected, including templates then. Someone found a mousehole, and took full advantage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I remember seeing something like this years ago, but damn if I can remember exactly when or what it was, but it was similar to this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Im not surprised, this election has been extra heated and there are plenty of trolls online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I cant risk clicking on these but it looks like Bill, and Chelsea were hit as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Im not surprised, this election has been extra heated and there are plenty of trolls online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This was run-of-the-mill template vandalism. Per WP:RBI I will only say that Special:RelatedChanges is your friend for finding template vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure what is going on here, but there is an obvious legal threat...unknown who made it. Someone needs to be blocked and this AfD probably needs to be re-started. Haven't notified anyone, cause I am not sure who to notify. John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Same threat at Talk:Larry Pretlow. John from Idegon (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would put back the AFD the way it was and then close the AFD. Right now you have a malformed AFD that will cause issues. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done John from Idegon (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would put back the AFD the way it was and then close the AFD. Right now you have a malformed AFD that will cause issues. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also at User talk:JCP541 and in Larry Pretlow too. Pinging Peter SamFan as he seems to be involved in dealing with this. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @John from Idegon:. Legal threat? I didn't know. Recent Changes patrolling always brings me into interesting situations. What I would do is report this, which you have done, find out the IP, and then report that IP to AIV. AIV is the fastest way to get vandals blocked. Peter Sam Fan 19:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also at User talk:JCP541 and in Larry Pretlow too. Pinging Peter SamFan as he seems to be involved in dealing with this. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a new IP now reverting the same AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm as big a fan of AIV as the next guy, but this is pretty clearly a legal threat, or at least an attempt at one. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore and Timothyjosephwood: Oh. Since I have no experience with legal threats, even though I have read about them, it is up to you. All things considered nonetheless, will you delete the articles? Peter Sam Fan 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not admins. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let's at least get someone to protect the page and AFD until this is over. Meters (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've made that request already at RFPP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that an immediate deletion is in order. Shouldn't this be reported to legal? Seems ripe for a DCMA takedown notice. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's almost reason enough to vote Keep at the AFD. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that an immediate deletion is in order. Shouldn't this be reported to legal? Seems ripe for a DCMA takedown notice. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've made that request already at RFPP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let's at least get someone to protect the page and AFD until this is over. Meters (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not admins. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore and Timothyjosephwood: Oh. Since I have no experience with legal threats, even though I have read about them, it is up to you. All things considered nonetheless, will you delete the articles? Peter Sam Fan 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for NLT and semi protected the AFD for one week until it closes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oshwah, can you protect the Larry Pretlow page for now as well please? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can probably go ahead and add RemoveSaltDelete to the chopping block for good measure. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: can you protect the AfD talk page? this happened. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. The user has also been blocked. I noticed it in the user creation log while patrolling, which brought be back here again. If there are any more issues like this, ping me and I'll take care of it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: can you protect the AfD talk page? this happened. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can probably go ahead and add RemoveSaltDelete to the chopping block for good measure. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Article deleted and salted, AFD closed and courtesy blanked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Weird YouTube redirect, source cannot be found in page[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was playing the GeoGuessr game when I landed on I-39. I went to the Wikipedia article for I-39, and found that on the entire page, there was an external link covering the entire page going to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzvP2VOq4M a YouTube livestream. On the livestream chat, everyone was talking about Wikipedia being hacked. I'm not sure why this is happening, looking at Inspect Element, Edit Page, and Common.css, I couldn't find the root cause. Any help?
EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someone's playing template games. Ravensfire (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. Lrhnow has made several of these edits - someone block please? Ravensfire (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Note to adminstrators[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A prolific sock puppeteer is currently using my signature to leave false warning templates on the Talk Pages of various users ([14]). I suspect that the same user may have been behind this impersonation account. If you receive any reports from someone appearing to be me, I would suggest making sure it actually is before taking it seriously. DarkKnight2149 15:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
2.25.129.74 disregarding WP:TVCAST[edit]
2.25.129.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I have been patient with this IP, but they are continually edit warring-ish over WP:TVCAST content. It states that we do not include the episode count and the episode they appeared and ended would imply as well. They go back to early September, but I had a déjà vu moment when the edits reappeared again. They recently returned by readding edits like (Episode 2-onwards) and etc as can be seen here: [15], [16]. I have warned them plenty of times, referring them to the WP article in my edit summaries and in the warnings. I request a block, please. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- The IP has continued with the same disruptive editing: [17], [18]. Will an admin please block? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
IP editor adding apparent spam links[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/79.158.197.80 -- adding spam links to external links sections. User has been previously warned on their talk page (User_talk:79.158.197.80) but continues this practice. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Lewis Carroll[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user has been censoring/deleting the request to have the Lewis Carroll article improved and be accurate. It doesnt contain the fact its well documented in his own time and until now, he use to take pictures of naked little girls (some in explicit poses, which would be classed as child pornography in UK etc). The whole topic keeps getting edited to remove this conversation and now the talk page has been archived clearly another attempt to cover up the fact.
Can some thing be done to stop this control of the article and denial of truth?
Thanks--Simon19800 (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Simon19800: - as you have already been told on the article talk page, you are pushing your point-of-view to add content that is not supported by reliable sources. That is why you keep on getting reverted. GiantSnowman 07:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that I and Chewings72 removed posts from Talk:Lewis Carroll, and it's true that it is hard for inexperienced users to understand Wikipedia procedures. I was a bit short (see the talk page history) but as mentioned in an edit summary, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve articles, based on reliable sources. I hoped that archiving the talk page (here, but without the right-great-wrongs text) would reduce the likelihood of further off-topic posts. My suggestion would be for people to spend a bit of time becoming familiar with what talk pages are for. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and it is not the place to wrong great writers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper and other people in this discussion: from Brittannica online: "He photographed children in every possible costume and situation, finally making nude studies of them." --Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and it is not the place to wrong great writers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well the fact of him taking pictures of naked girls is well documented in his life time even. You can go to wiki pictures and see pictures taken by him of naked little girls! Does that educated you on this fact or is wiki wrong?
Wiki has become more restricted, controlled and biased than it use to, how sad :( --Simon19800 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- What you are discussing is already discussed at length in the article. If you have any specific changes to suggest, please do so on the article's talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Again, please provide some reliable sources for your claims. GiantSnowman 07:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- A quick look at the OP's contribs shows he's a RIGHTGREATWRONGS SPA. EEng 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
2601:2C3:C202:D6E0:5861:2F13:65EA:504 - vandalism and disruption again.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:2C3:C202:D6E0:5861:2F13:65EA:504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I have previously reported this user for disruption and vandalism on multiple pages pertaining to The Real Housewives. @Everymorning: warned this user shortly after my previous report and since then the user has continued with their ways. They have been informed multiple times on their page and in the edit summaries to stop with their disruption. It's getting out of hand and is really annoying to continuously revert their vandalism. They claimed they have created their own account previously and that has been blocked as well. Kelege (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kelege: By my count, they removed content with no explanation nine times after receiving a final warning. Why not just report them to WP:AIV? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Moved from WP:AIV
)
REQUEST for CLOSURE/ DELETION and REMOVAL of PAGE: Kindly remove/ close / delete the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Atheists_and_Agnostics_Society It has been vandalized too many times and people vilifying me again and again. I tried to edit, but your staff referred me to you. I apologize, I am stupid with computers. I am the true founder and Chairperson of PATAS and was never removed, read the article to wit: The woman who lit the fire. and http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-06-atheism-in-the-philippines-a-personal-story But, I would rather have that page closed so that I do not have to deal with it again. Thanks for understanding and kind regards, Marissa Torres Langseth, RN, MSNHapimarissa (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hapimarissa:Since this person didn't post this here, they might not be aware of replies coming in. Hence, this ping. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah no, that's not going to happen. You seen to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not meant to 'make you look good'. This is an online encyclopedia. You don't get to remove information because you don't like it. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ma'am: you have misunderstood me. Kindly revert that wiki PATAS to its original post and you will find a lot of vandalism there. Thanks Marissa Hapimarissa (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see no vandalism. I see a content dispute. I think it would be in your best interest to let this one go. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't delete article because they have been vandalized. The vandalism is simple removed from the article. If the material is a WP:BLP issue it can be hidden from view by REVDEL or Oversight. The content in the article concerning you has been corrected for neutrality. Meters (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear admins:
I apologize, I am stupid with computers. I am the true founder and Chairperson of PATAS and was never removed, read the article to wit: http://patas.co/articles/woman-lit-fire/ and http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-06-atheism-in-the-philippines-a-personal-story But, I would rather have that page closed so that I do not have to deal with it again and give me grief and chest pains.Thanks for understanding and kind regards,
Marissa Torres Langseth, RN, MSN Hapimarissa (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hapimarissa: As stated above, we will not delete the page at your request. I don't see anything in the current version of the article that states you were "removed". I'm not convinced that it would be subject to revision deletion if it were in the page history, either. So, I don't think any further administrative action is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- We're quickly reaching competency issues... Let me be as clear as I possibly can.
- Dear Marissa Torres Langseth: No. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
As the editor above continues to spam the same request on every god damn board they can, literally copy/pasting it, I'm requesting that they be blocked. There is a clear competency issue going on and it's bordering on legal threats now. All attempts to explain how Wikipedia works has failed. I don't know if it's a language barrier issue or what, but this is now disruptive, and it needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to have been resolved about 17 minutes after Tarage's above post. Incidentally, Tarage, comments like this to a living person who feels -- rightly or wrongly -- that they are being victimized through Wikipedia, and who suggests their health is suffering as a result, are not always helpful. Especially when it has been acknowledged that BLP violations did occur. It may have helped in this case, but an abundance of caution would be better. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that too and thought it was callous. I'm glad you spoke up, and I wish I had as well. EEng 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not therapy. It's an online encyclopedia. I have little sympathy for someone who is spamming requests everywhere they can in the hopes that they get their way. The 'violations' you speak of are minor, at best taking away a small amount of credit from the person. If that alone is enough to cause severe distress, then I have no idea how they exist as a person. That is downright vainglorious. Yes, the issue was resolved, but it got an inch away from legal threats. I do not believe that this should be brushed aside so quickly and quite frankly I am uninterested in your commentary. I do agree though that the issue appears over. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lecture on what WP is, Mr. 1700 edits. Apparently you're more of a callous prick than your posts until now led us to believe. EEng 07:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It may not be therapy, but new users aren't your personal shooting gallery either. If you have little sympathy for BLP violations, then avoid BLP situations. Being an "inch away from legal threats" is meaningless. Either they did or didn't. You had no business going there and saying that. We have a policy that covers it: WP:CIVIL. It is also covered in WP:COMMONSENSE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia maybe an online encyclopedia but it's also one that has wider implications for living people. If you can't provided a nuanced response that takes that sort of thing into account, then you would do yourself, and everyone else, a favour and avoid BLP related matters. Blackmane (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not therapy. It's an online encyclopedia. I have little sympathy for someone who is spamming requests everywhere they can in the hopes that they get their way. The 'violations' you speak of are minor, at best taking away a small amount of credit from the person. If that alone is enough to cause severe distress, then I have no idea how they exist as a person. That is downright vainglorious. Yes, the issue was resolved, but it got an inch away from legal threats. I do not believe that this should be brushed aside so quickly and quite frankly I am uninterested in your commentary. I do agree though that the issue appears over. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that too and thought it was callous. I'm glad you spoke up, and I wish I had as well. EEng 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
David Alvarez (actor) undeleted[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the record, I just undeleted David Alvarez (actor) which had been deleted back in 2012 due to a combination of notability and subject's request. As DragonflySixtyseven and Nick can confirm, a person saying they acted on behalf of the subject came to the IRC help channel and explained that the reasons for the subject's request no longer apply (and they knew the reasons as given in the OTRS ticket named in the deletion discussion). They also provided evidence that Alvarez is still subject to ongoing media coverage. Thus I decided to speed up the process and not make them go through DRV. Huon (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just confirming the above account to be accurate, and from my point of view, a perfectly sensible decision given the coverage - no point wasting time with DRV for as solid a case as this. Nick (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. I see no issues here. Carry on. --Jayron32 01:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto. A classic application of WP:BURO. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Something very strange at Donald Trump[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Under the infobox on Donald Trump, there is some sort of Trump template. It has a bunch of links in it which are currently all pointed toward a YouTube video called "An Ancient Evil returns." I can't figure out how to edit the template or fix this vandalism so I'm posting here in the hopes that someone else can figure out what is gong on. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- See above - try purging the cache for that page, it should return to normal. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ha, thanks. Next time I'll try reading the post directly above mine :) Safehaven86 (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Is there something inappropriate about "An Ancient Evil Returns" being linked from the Trump article? EEng 04:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That it's not linked from ALL politician's articles? Ravensfire (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That does it! I'm campaigning with "Nat Gertler: the NEW Evil America Needs for a Change". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Needed a laff today, never expected to get it on this page. Thanks EEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss, have you visited The Museums lately? EEng 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That it's not linked from ALL politician's articles? Ravensfire (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism, probable socking[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two accounts
- CHRISCHANTHEOCDMAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Amaruduk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
are currently engaging in vandalism and violating BLP across multiple articles. I would take it to AIV but the edits from both accounts are suspiciously similar and I wondered if anyone might like to hunt for other socks while they're at it. (Notification pending.) Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have already started SPI investigation, CHRISCHANTHEOCDMAN blanked Amaruduk talk page about it all. Cotton2 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked both, someone can probably close this now unless there's anything that needs discussing here instead of at the SPI. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violations by Maunath[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over a period of two months User:Maunath has received multiple warnings from about copyright violations. This editor has not engaged in any discussion of this and continues to add material to Wikipedia that is clearly in violation of copyright.
On 25 June this editor created Durgadutta Chunnilal Sagar Mal Post Graduate College, Mau using copyrighted material taken from [19] and [20]. Copyrighted material was removed from this article on 17 August. On 5 September there were multiple speedy deletions of copyrighted images that had been uploaded by this editor File:UIET kanpur Lecture Hall.jpg, File:Library CSJMU.jpg, File:Cafeteria csjmu.png, File:ECE building.uiet.png.
On 16 September this editor uploaded several further images, some of which were clear copyright violations File:Bcollege kanpur.jpg, File:Vssd collge.jpg, File:Ppn college.jpg others did not have the copyright properly acknowledged. The clear violations were deleted on 11 October and other files relabelled.
On 10 October this editor added copyrighted material to Education in Uttar Pradesh with this edit and was promptly warned about this. On 15 October this editor has created Institute of Business Management,CSJM University with this edit which has taken the text for the article directly from [21].
I fear that this editor's behaviour continues to be problematic and it is now evident that multiple attempts to address this have not worked. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- They were explicitly warned that adding copyvio could result in a block and didn't stop, so I'm going to issue them a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
IP hopping vandal[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A long-term IP-hopper is forcing forcing their edits through on the Bloodrayne 2 article. Since they rotate their IP constantly, page protection might be in order. Eik Corell (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've already requested semi but they must be long term in order to stop it. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Non-free soundtrack images by User:TrendSPLEND[edit]
User:TrendSPLEND has uploaded many non-free soundtrack images. One lot of those was deleted back in April 2016; see their talk page full of warnings. Non-free soundtrack images fail MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Despite that many newer images have been uploaded by them and I am pruning them again. Please take some admin action as deemed necessary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did you try to write a hand-written message to them about why this is inappropriate? Wikipedia policy pages are not known for being text that is readily understandable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- They were called to discuss at my hand-written FfDs. I don't remember they discussing it. And now they are aware of this hand-written message of mine. That's enough efforts who creates such AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content[edit]
- Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have a concern about this editor's pattern of making significant edits without adding appropriate, or in some cases, any reliable sources. This editor has made over 5000 edits, and was blocked twice this past summer for adding unsourced content. I looked carefully at five edits this editor recently added to AccorHotels Arena, and asked them to explain these edits. This editor responded here, stating that "Just because nobody knows how Jesus look like gives you the reason to prove that He doesn't exit only because you can't find a photo of him showing his appearance? Do you think that it is possible to provide 100% references to all the information I've added? The inability to provide proper cited reliable references doesn't discredit the existance of a past event." Thank you for looking into this. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note that during September and October, this editor made over 70 edits to Entertainment events at Sydney Super Dome, adding the names of 44 performers this editor claims to have performed there. Just 10 of the performers were sourced, and of those, two sources didn't support this editor's claim. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the linked article AccorHotels Arena is a WP:LINKFARM. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please take a look at how I have defended myself against a Wikipedia lawsuit filed by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today.
- I am in the midst of adding proper references (not just bare URLs) to AccorHotels Arena. It is not my intention to add inappropriate references. I am still quite new to Wikipedia since I am unable to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate references. I have added bare URLs because I find it too difficult, troublesome and tedious to do so on mobile edit as I was unable to use my laptop for a while due to some technical issues. I believe that unsourced content regarding to concert should be marked with a WP:CITENEED tag instead until someone else adds proper references to it one day. Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Wikipedia for the past 8 - 9 years & I will always leave a message on his talk page whenever I am in doubt. He understands my editing pattern better than anyone else here. Please discuss with him for a remedy instead.
Just like I said, I have no intention to violate any Wikipedia guidelines's in the first place. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes or otherwise please kindly inform me if I have added any irrelevant references so that I can remove and replace it with a reliable one or WP:CITENEED tag instead. Adding bare URLs or unreliable references doesn't equivalent to WP:DE and thus should not warrant any block at all. Do not block me as I believe that I have already learned my lesson from it last time which is why I'm making a habit to add more references right now although it's tricky for me to differentiate or to decipher between relevant and irrelevant references as I can often gets confused at times. But most importantly, Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatened to block me if I continue to make unsourced edit which is why I was so scared. I had to quickly add new references to defend my actions. Magnolia677 is causing me to distress because this editor seems to be unfriendly when he/she left a message on my talk page. I believe that there is a strong misunderstanding between Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over how I edit the articles. My sincere apology for any inconvenience caused & thank you for your understanding in hearing my side of story. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Comment I have noticed that User:Xinyang Aliciabritney likes to add a lot of content about events and I first saw it months ago at One-north#Notable_concerts and other Singapore venues. I don't think the additions itself are in bad faith, but it creates a problem if other editors (like Magnolia677) have to spend a significant amount of time checking the edits. We only add notable events and those with reliable sourcing. Our standards of what constitute WP:RS are strong and it would be helpful if it can be explained to Xinyang as well. Personally I think Xinyang needs to be advised here, rather than blocked, as they seem to be a good contributor otherwise. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Attention: @Musicpoplover12:, @Arjayay:
- Apologies for the delay in responding, I have been away for 4 days. I have no doubt this users edits are in good faith, although his enthusiasm to add new material needs to be tempered by the policies and guidelines. I had to explain several guidelines, such as date format, overlinking and the use of flags in April, and verifiability and bare URLs in September. The user finds adding proper references "time consuming" stating "It has become especially inconvenient for me when I am editing the article using Wikipedia app on my smartphone as it takes me at least 2 - 3 edits just to get a proper references published." The users English has noticeably improved over the last 6 months, although he still tries to use the Other stuff exists argument. I think that bringing this to ANI has made the user realise that proper references from reliable sources are a fundamental requirement, not an optional extra. I am willing to keep an eye on their edits for the next few weeks, but having no Admin powers, can only re-report them back here - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Stalking and harassment from Orchomen[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm bringing this over from WP:AIAV in the event it's not handled over there. (Link to an old ID version in the event the report's removed.) So I'll just quote myself:
Clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user has been reported once before, but no action was taken. (For reference, Spencer was the one who previously handled the report.) Both IJBall and myself are sure this user is a sock puppet. Of who we don't know, but they've been WP:STALKING IJBall by editing articles he's created or majorly contributed to, and now they're doing the same thing to me. (I'm not as involved in this as IJBall is, I only got involved when IJBall came to me for help.) If you take a look at the articles in my sandbox, that's everything I'm watching (plus some other articles not listed there). After a short discussion last night here, it's pretty clear they're stalking me now and aren't just editing the articles because they happened to stumble upon them. If it were one or two, maybe, but it's quite a few and not just a coincidence. An indefinite block needs to be placed upon this user and an SPI likely needs to be performed as well. I'm growing tired of this, and I'm sure my friend IJBall is as well. More information from IJBall can be seen here. here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll also quote IJBall's response:
Speaking for myself, this editor absolutely has an unhealthy interest in my articles and articles I edit (well, definitely me, and possibly also Nyuszika7H). I can live without a block in this case as long as it's made clear that to Orchomen that their WP:WIKISTALKING of me has to end NOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This user's antics have gone on long enough and something needs to be done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- For context, here's the interaction report between Orchomen and myself, Orchomen and Amaury and Orchomen and Nyuszika7H. This is not just purely "coincidental". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Orchomen: Please comment on the interaction report. Why are you following around editors and reverting every edit they make? ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not. Amaury reverted all my edits. All of which were constructive and aimed at making the articles clearer or more readable. For reasons unknown theyre screaming sock puppet. Which I'm not. I'm sure there are ways you guys can see that. All these articles especially the Disney ones have the same issues. Amaury just reverts my changes a priori. Orchomen (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can WP:DENY it all you want. The facts are there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Orchomen: You aren't answering the Wikistalking charges. Please do so now. Are you going to stop contribution stalking each of us? That's all we want. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've just hit them with an edit warring template after reverting one of Amaury's edits again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the other part of this – I know that Spencer and Floquenbeam thought that Orchomen's edits were actually improvements (personally, I think only about half of them are), but even if you think they are improvements, you still have to discuss them under WP:BRD, something which Orchomen is completely unwilling to do ("[my version] is better" was one of their edit summaries for their revert). Completely unwilling to discuss their changes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've hit them with another edit warring template after they reverted Amaury once again. The user is disruptive, edit warring, ignoring warnings, disregards BRD, etc. The list goes on. Personally, a block for their edit warring is in order. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe some would like to do the Discuss bit of BRD on the endless undoes of my constructive changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchomen (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to throw your attention to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." Discussion should be started by you, not continue to edit war to get your way. You still refuse to do your part; you're calling other users to do it for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You don't listen, do you? I seriously suggest that you stop reverting altogether. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the other part of this – I know that Spencer and Floquenbeam thought that Orchomen's edits were actually improvements (personally, I think only about half of them are), but even if you think they are improvements, you still have to discuss them under WP:BRD, something which Orchomen is completely unwilling to do ("[my version] is better" was one of their edit summaries for their revert). Completely unwilling to discuss their changes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've just hit them with an edit warring template after reverting one of Amaury's edits again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not. Amaury reverted all my edits. All of which were constructive and aimed at making the articles clearer or more readable. For reasons unknown theyre screaming sock puppet. Which I'm not. I'm sure there are ways you guys can see that. All these articles especially the Disney ones have the same issues. Amaury just reverts my changes a priori. Orchomen (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Orchomen: Please comment on the interaction report. Why are you following around editors and reverting every edit they make? ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto. I am losing my patience to the point I am edit warring myself as they refuse to stop. Can an admin please block? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I'm just watching this from the sidelines, as articles this user is targeting are on my watchlist, too. This insanity from this user needs to stop.MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- And now they're block evading as 31.218.131.168. Nope. This user does not deserve a second chance. Not in the slightest. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- To further demonstrate why the user this needs an indefinite block, they have been evading their block using multiple IPs, causing some articles to be protected. The IPs are:
- 31.218.131.168 (Blocked)
- 2.48.71.139 (Blocked)
- 94.205.147.29 (Blocked)
- 91.239.124.123 (Blocked)
- 159.148.186.109 (Blocked)
- 31.218.131.182 (Blocked)
- To further demonstrate why the user this needs an indefinite block, they have been evading their block using multiple IPs, causing some articles to be protected. The IPs are:
- And now they're block evading as 31.218.131.168. Nope. This user does not deserve a second chance. Not in the slightest. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked the main account. As for the IPs, it will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, as no single range will be effective, however, reverting sockpuppets is an exception to 3RR rules....just be very careful that you are correct that an editor is a sockpuppet. Better to ask another opinion if you aren't sure and ask for semi-protection for that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
APEC move[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MidasHotel20 moved Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation. Move is inconsistent with apec.org and I can't see consensus for it. --Polmandc (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Moved back. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:46.19.86.145 (see [22], [23]) has been adding false dates of death to the infoboxes of boxing-relating subjects. Please rollback and block IP vandal, who has already been warned. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Request for review of closure summation[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am applying the following procedure: Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures.
Keeping in mind that
- review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself
and
- if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion,
I request the review of this closure summation WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment.
- Circumstances as I see them are described here: Discussion in Village pump (policy) on my talkpage
- I don't request full review of closure or reopening but only the review of the closure summation for this discussion: WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment.
- request to the closing user is here: [24]
- I was requesting to replace "abandon WP:NPOV" with "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE"
Arguments:
- suggesting in summation that I was proposing to "abandon WP:NPOV" is unfounded, is an advancement of an adversarial position in a closed discussion irrespective of its legitimacy and misleading
- closing editor agrees that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate summation (quote: in the context in which you're using it "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" and "abandon WP:NPOV" are synonymous [25]) I don't agree with the reasoning, but nonetheless, as I see it, there is an agreement that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate.
- current summation suggesting that I was proposing to "abandon WP:NPOV" feels offensive to me and, in my opinion, is ridiculing the closed discussion. This is the main reason why I have reluctantly decided to request a summation review.
Please note that I am following the procedure and I am not requesting to reopen closed discussion and re-argue. As I see it, there is a consensus between me and the closing editor that "alter WP:NOTADVOCATE" is adequate, but the closing editor refused to change summation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:AN as the policy you cited at the beginning tells you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's my fault—in my response to this complaint I directed Asterix to ANI rather than AN as they said they wanted to "escalate" rather than just complain about the closure, so I assumed by "escalation" they wanted to complain about me rather than about the closure, in which case ANI would be the correct place. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse close It's already here, so lets just be done with it. Read through, which is painful in parts, it seems clear that Iridescent's close was the right close. There is no error in the close. I'm shocked they put up the the OP for as long as they did, and in fact, some were calling for a topic ban of Asterixf2. Iridescent was probably doing you a favor, but by bringing it here to ANI, now your behavior is up for review as well as his. Probably not a wise move. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse close probably best to stop digging. As mentioned above editors were already starting to call for a topic ban on FRINGE. This review request over wording makes me think they may have had the right idea. JbhTalk 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse close and summary I read the entire discussion and completely agree with Iridescent's close. (What all the 'this is my first interaction with you' stuff has to do with anything is beyond me, when he posted to a widely-watched page like VPP.) Asterixf2, take our advice and let this go. Iridescent was absolutely correct. Katietalk 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse the close and summary Nothing I can add hasn't already been said above. Blackmane (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your consideration. I am going to respect the result in its current state. Please close the request if you wish. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please revoke talk page access Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feinoha (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff! EEng 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Suspicious AfD issue at Robert Niter[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was sent to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Niter (2nd nomination)) on 11 September. After a re-list, it was closed as Keep on 3 October by a non-admin User:Iiar, who had only edited a few times since April, and hasn't edited since that day. On the face of it, it does look like a Keep or at least No Consensus (6 Keeps / 4 Deletes), however ...
- User:Rniterjr (that'll be a COI issue) voted twice
- One Keep came from an IP that is clearly connected with the subject, if not the above editor
- Two Keeps came from new-ish editors, one with only nine edits, and the other who later added information to the article here written in exactly the same way as the editor above.
- That leaves one good faith Keep from BabbaQ.
- My suspicion is that all of the other five Keep votes spring from the same or related sources.
Even disregarding the suspicious voting, I have dug around the claims made by the Delete voters and other comments and agree with their view of the sources (not independent in the most part, and even the claimed "newspaper article" about him consists of a 2-sentence passing mention). Therefore I am tempted to overturn this close (as it was clearly out of course for a NAC and even if it was closed in good faith, no attempt was made to evaluate the comments) and re-close as Delete. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: the closing user has reacted to a comment by another user on their talkpage and reverted their close. I propose to close it myself now. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparent bias of administrator Sergecross73 at Street Fighter V[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Administrator 'Sergecross73' is constantly protecting the Street Fighter V page because IP addresses are trying to insert accurate and factual information with sources. It's obvious that this behavior is unacceptable and it's likely that he/she has some sort of financial involvement into editing this page. To validate my accusations, I have the following evidence:
- Any suggestion that is made in the talk page is rejected because Sergecross73 either thinks it is not reliable or he simply doesn't answer. Many users have suggested several edits (see talk page), without much result.
Sergecross73 often protects the page when there is negative (but accurate) information about Street Fighter V. This revert of edits he/she does, goes back until all the negative information is removed.
- Now and then he accepts an edit (negative reception) from the talk page. But when other users try to remove that accurate edit, SergeCross73 protects the page again AND he/she removes the valuable source he first accepted as reliable.
- He has a couple of long discussions with several users and IP addresses, where he once laughed with a person behind an unknown IP address, I quote "Capcom infiltrated the Admin Corps four years ago just so they could defend SF5 on Wikipedia.". This behavior is unacceptable for any administrator on Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, the Street Fighter V page remains unreliable, biased and inaccurate.
- I request a solution for the unprofessional behavior of the administrator as well as an apology to all the Wikipedia users that are trying to make legit edits. I also request a more factual and sourced article about Street Fighter V.
I suggest someone else should take a look at the page and decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:95B:975E:4643:82BE (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- To describe the real situation here:
- I stumbled across the Street Fighter 5 article at the beginning of 2016 when following an editor unrelated to all of this for troubling edits they were making.
- I noticed there were repeated instances of IP addresses making unconstructive edits - vandalism, sloppily written content, unsoureced content, commonly writing things with the most negative slant on the subject possible, etc.
- These troubling edits often lead to edit warring, which would lead to me protecting the page. This kept on happening, so the page kept on getting protected.
- As a courtesy, I set up a WP:EDITREQUEST type system, where content could be added if content/sources/placement were directly stated. The complaint of "no action taking place" was generally because the additions generally had many issues with them, where all three things were not present, or were poorly implemented. Here is a common instance of this. IPs editor warred over information, the page was protected, editors explained the numerous issues with the text, and then they just stopped responding, which is why nothing was ever implemented.
- My "laughing at them" is because the IPs would accuse me of being a Capcom employee (the company who makes Street Fighter 5) when I would protect the page from their additions. I laugh because their premise was ludicrous: That I joined Wikipedia 8 years ago, and became an admin 4 years ago, just so I could protect a page from their editing in 2016. (Note that I have no prior history of making contributions to Capcom or Street Fighter articles, so 4-8 years of work on the project would be a ridiculous amount of effort/foressight for a product that didn't exist a few years ago.)
- The complaint that "all negative info is removed is equally ridiculous. Read the reception section. Plenty of negativity present. The complaints of these IP hopper(s) are meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also of note is this edit, where the IP claims to have 10,000 edits, something that wouldn't be plausible to track through an IP hopper who changes ever 5-10 edits. If you chose to believe this, then we likely have a sock/block evading editor. If you chose to reject the claim, then you're stuck with IPs playing game's and doling out personal attacks. Either way, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Could you at least provide direct proof of the removal of information? The burden is on you to do this, not the people you accused or other admins. And stating that a Wikipedia admin of many years is all of a sudden is a Capcom employee protecting their products on this site is ludicrous and will not help this ANI. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did remove information of their once, but that was simply a "revert to last stable version" edit because the IPs were edit-warring over the content yet again. Had I not done it, any number of other experienced editors they were edit warring with would have reverted their edits away once the page protection kicked in again, so that had no real affect on where we would be today. A talk page discussion about the content was created, but the IPs (yet again) refused to discuss particular wording/sourcing/placement options on the talk page, so the information has remained out of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've had the article on my watchlist since it was created. I haven't noticed any apparent bias from Sergecross73. The article page has been repeatedly protected largely because of 2 disruptive IP editors who continue adding unsourced or unreliably sourced content to the article and edit warring with other editors. One of the IP editors, I have had to warn about adding unsourced content and disruptive editing on other articles. Instead of requesting the useful changes, both IP editors just continue to use Talk:Street Fighter V for whining and showing their clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly WP:RS. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the type of stuff I'm talking about when I mention WP:NOTHERE - issues with the IPs have been going on for months, and they've shown zero interest in learning anything about how Wikipedia works. Inform them of a policy they're breaking, and they come up with crazy theories of corruption, or wait until the protection ends to start edit warring again. Then they express bewilderment and shock that the page is protected again. We've been through the cycle like 4 times now. And when they do discuss on the talk page, well over half of the comments would fall under "empty complaining" rather than "providing constructive solutions". There's been zero improvement - they still refuse to sign their talk page messages and often remove the comments of others, despite warnings. This ANI report is just the latest extension to their trouble-making. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- One need only read the talk page to see how frivolous this complaint is. Sergecross73 has been tremendously accommodating to IP editors, explaining at length what standard is expected in order to have material accepted. They were repeatedly advised not to edit war. Even after the page was temporality locked, Sergecross73 asked the IP editors to submit their preferred wording on the talk page so it could be reviewed and approved by all parties. For reasons known only to them, the IP editors invested more time hurling accusations around rather than producing reliable sources and suitable wording. — TPX 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article has had a certain kind of attention from various IP addresses for a long time now; I wouldn't be surprised if most of these IP editors were the person filing the ANI above-- it's almost always the same persecution complex, the same accusing others of bias while being a WP:SPA, and the same compulsive need to add any kind of negativity to the article, which usually is manifested in use of unreliable sources, or misrepresenting what is actually being said by sources. Despite the clear agenda on the part of the contributor(s) in question, these proposed edits have been patiently vetted by Sergecross73 and others very transparently, and anyone who wants to review the vetting can do so on the talk page/archives. --SubSeven (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking through the talk page makes me appreciate Sergecross73's patience, despite the reprehensibly juvenile behavior of the IP editor(s). The person filing this complaint hasn't even given a serious attempt to cooperating; there are simply accusations about Sergecross73 being a Capcom employee or secretly on their payroll. This should be a topic that is closed fast and hard, with potential ramifications for the person who opened it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Book spammer[edit]
Spamming continues, with a name variant to evade the filter: 109.112.131.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 31.157.59.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
Can someone help with Special:AbuseFilter/773 please? Needs to be ra(n)|(m)pini but with paolo either before or after. My RegEx-fu is not strong enough to do this confidently without breaking shit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: Perhaps the edit filter noticeboard can help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks in edit summaries[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know anything about the content dispute on Windsor, Ontario, but the personal attacks by Baul Broe UTTP VGCP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) in these three edit summaries [26] [27] [28] are unacceptable (and continued after warning). agtx 23:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Considering the fact that the SPA is trying to blank the report about them at ANEW [29] and [30] they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that pretty much destroys any credibility, so no need to look any deeper. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- An administrator might want to revoke talk page access, according to most recent talk page edit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that pretty much destroys any credibility, so no need to look any deeper. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Legal threat & other nonsense[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gkable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We have an article, Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), a very highly controversial case in Oz law. And we - wikipedia - have the litigant, Mr. Kable, making serial edits to the page, apparently seeking to make his views known through the article, or by link to his blogs detailing the wrongs of the legal system.
There is a current Conflict of Interest Noticeboard thread about the article and Mr. Kable here.
I had intended to come here to ask for advice on handling Mr. Kable, with a view to suggesting a topic-ban on editing the article, since despite being made well aware of COI issues [31] he continued to seek to add links to his blog [32].
In reaction to my comments at the COI noticeboard [33], and my actions on the article [34] and its talk page [35], he has posted three unambiguous legal threats: [36], [37] & [38]
I'm fairly sure Mr. Kable is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request that admins decide what actions, if any, should be taken at this point. I will post this and then immediately inform Mr. Kable on his talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Clarification User:Tagishsimon, did you mean to include this diff instead of this diff in the legal threats (the first of your two examples) above? LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Tagishsimon corrected above apparently right before I clicked edit to ask the question. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 00:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Legal threats fulminating about "liable" [39] have always occupied a special place in my heart. EEng 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone just revoke TPA on User talk:SPN-86. Thanks. :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done Hut 8.5 18:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated Creation of the same article[edit]
The editor Sparshisgod10 has now 3 times attempted to create the same page (SPARSH MALHOTRA, Sparsh malhotra, Sparshmalhotra) under different names. The user was notified about the speedy deletion requests on both of the first two times, but nonetheless tried a third time. All three times the article was deleted under WP:A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. Not sure if this behavior justifies a block of any length but the behavior definitely seems disruptive in my opinion. Thanks for looking into this, Gluons12 ☢|☕ 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC).
same old dog/rapper vandalism to multiple articles[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rather than reporting multiple articles for page protection, a good starting point this morning is to request that all articles vandalized by [40] be locked. Each of these has been trolled by multiple IPs belonging to same block evader. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Add Lil Bibby to the list....2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Request admin to investigate edits of IP 109.152.89.129[edit]
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but could someone please check the edits of IP 109.152.89.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also the edit summaries please. This looks to be somewhat familiar if I'm not mistaken: all unsourced edits, including some BLP's, with utterly bizarre edit summaries. Thank you. Robvanvee 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Judging from the edit summaries and articles edited, I'd say IP 109.158.85.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person. Robvanvee 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Range block request (67.44.209.0/24, 67.44.210.0/24, 2600:100B:B100::/40)[edit]
A couple of weeks ago, I requested an IPv4 range block for 67.44.208.0/22 and backed away from it when there wasn't a lot of activity from that range for a couple of days after I filed the report. I am now re-requesting, but limiting it to about half the addresses, particularly 67.44.209.0/24 and 67.44.210.0/24. Some editors have referred to the one(s) involved as the Western film vandal, as they have been targeting many Western films going back to the 1950s, or other nearby decades. Their modus operandi have been to falsify plots of these films and insert actors/actresses who are not in these films, but a lot of these actors/actresses are young and contemporary, and a few I am familiar with on Disney Channel. (In plenty of cases, the vandalism looks obvious as they append a section heading improperly, adding something in the form of "{the film} in {recent year}", and the heading is improperly rendered in the article, looking like "==Plot==" followed by the aforementioned.)
Here are some sample articles and their "graffiti":
- Blue Montana Skies [41]
- Colorado [42]
- Fort Yuma [43][44]
- Southwest Passage [45][46]
- The Battle at Apache Pass [47]
- The Last Frontier [48]
Their vandalism hasn't been confined to just Westerns. Even some Disney Channel Original Movies have taken hits (again, falsified additions to plots and actors/actresses not in the films):
Plus one independent film released in 2015, which has been targeted a lot:
The user(s) involved in the IPv4 range occasionally will hop to an IPv6 range, 2600:100B:B100::/40, and do the same kind of damage in these and other related articles. I will also request a range block here.
Sample Western films and diffs involving the IPv6 group:
- Apache Territory [56]
- Colorado [57]
- Rio Grande [58]
- Saskatchewan [59]
- The Battle at Apache Pass [60]
... and from Disney Channel Original Movies:
- How to Build a Better Boy [61]
- Invisible Sister [62]
- Radio Rebel [63]
- Zapped [64]
A few of these articles have seen semi-protection (some are still protected) due to the different IPv4 and IPv6 addresses involved. Summer Forever saw protection in September, and the user(s) continued to vandalize after it became unprotected, leading to another semi-protection period which is still ongoing.
As far as collateral damage goes should you go with the range block: When I brought up one of the articles affected on another editor's talk page @ User talk:Geraldo Perez#Invisible Sister, he indicated that (particularly with the long range I gave with the IPv6) In checking the IPv6 it looks like the vast majority of edits in that /40 range in October were the described vandalism so a /40 block may not be too disruptive to other editors on that range.
He also recommended I monitor the range each day, using links he provided to check contributions. (I do have the option turned on where I can check more than one address if a wildcard is given.)
In my previous request, I was informed that I should consult a checkuser for collateral damage issues, and if I still need to, please refer me to how I go about that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Just saw the block log, and the IPv6 range is currently blocked:
- 02:58, 15 October 2016 NrDg (talk | contribs) blocked 2600:100b:b100::/40 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)
MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Both /24 ranges blocked two weeks. Vanjagenije blocked one of these ranges back in May for block evasion, and I'm wondering who that is. Katietalk 12:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Aydinsalis[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aydinsalis has started threads on Jimbo Wales's talk page about the same topicseven seperate times and it's really annoying. He needs to drop the stick, but although many editors have told him to stop posting about it, he ignores them. This is getting disruptive, and something needs to be done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's disrupting all the useful, productive stuff you usually find on Jimbo's talk page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well its Jimbo's talk page, if he wants to ban someone from it, he can like any other editor. Personally I have some sympathy from someone who is getting the run-around by the WMF and at Meta, so if he wants to badger Jimbo, let Jimbo sort it out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll let Jimbo sort it out. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jimbo knows what the matter. No doubt, he will make the right choice. In addition, he will answer this question: "How long to wait and what to expect?" Aydinsalis (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll let Jimbo sort it out. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm blocking this user temporarily. Look at their contributions; in any other situation this would be considered indef-worthy harassment. They've been extended a high level of patience and attempts at reasonable communication, but since August have refused to listen to anyone, drop the stick, and stop harassing Jimbo on his personal page here, even after he clearly stated he was unable to act even if he believed the user's claims, which he said he doesn't. This kind of behavior is not ever tolerated indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 21:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
James O'Keef's page is being maliciously edited[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Due to recent media and political events surrounding James O'Keef his wiki page has been maliciously edited for political purposes.
Can his page be reverted to the state it was a week ago, and then locked until the election is over?
Here is his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5E1:9200:E0F4:D6C0:EAF0:C591 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Declined. There doesn't appear to be a a high level of disruption occurring with the article at this time. I don't see a need to apply protection to this article. Applying page protection in a purely preventative measure is not allowed; it is done in both a reactive and a preventative measure. This means that we do not protect articles purely because we think that disruption may occur; we protect articles when disruption is occurring and where it is needed in order to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
user:Salvidrim! merging article without discussion or consensus.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Salvidrim closed an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gloucester_dory, to merge, against the little consensus present, and adding an unrelated article, not discussed at all to the mergers. Could you have a look?
This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page.
was posed to Swampscott dory's page; which you can see at a glance was not tagged for deletion, and which you can see at an only slightly longer glance, is not a close relative of the subject he wishes to merge it to. Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- AfD closures are normally contested at WP:DRV, not ANI
- I've said in my closing statement that further discussion (on the target page) of the merge was welcome and may well result in a consensus following a different path. What you should do is make your point there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not watchlisting ANI in a hundred years so ping me if you need further information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Why did you take this straight to ANI? Did you even try to discuss it with him directly? Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:DRV for how to contest a closed AFD. Which imho given DRV's general voting patterns, I suspect will come back with the same result. The discussion was open long enough, it had enough participation, and consensus was certainly clear enough based on the arguments made. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd hate to get carried into an edit war over this but Anmccaff keeps reverting the merge template which I added as an admin action as part of the AfD closure. I was just responding to a closure request from AN and I frankly don't care enough to get into a pissing contest while at work. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
KAvin[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was trying to avoid having to make this thread, but the problems are continuing. I am involved in a content dispute with KAvin (talk · contribs). This dispute has frequently been reduced to personal attacks, which KAvin has been warned about. I've been accused of malice. I've been wikihounded, I've baselessly been accused of bias. Today, I am apparently a "Wiki Nazi". Would someone uninvolved please have a word about personal attacks? agtx 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@agtx Nothing I have stated concerning your editing behaviour is untrue. If you take offence at the way you are described, maybe stop vandalizing other folks edits.KAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at the edits primarily because unlike Agtx you provided no diffs but I doubt vandalism was involved. WP:vandalism has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and calling something it when it isn't it's a good way to fail at ANI. BTW personal attacks aren't acceptable even if you claim they are true. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- "bias" appears to be in reference to the situation mentioned in the "malice" diff, and if what is meant is bias against white supremacists and a refusal to use "Democrat" as an adjective, then there is nothing wrong with having this bias, even if it is not technically a personal attack to point out that such a bias exists. The "wikihounded" diff is also, indeed, problematic, but I would be less inclined to call it "hounding" as to link this page. Monitoring someone's talk page for a week or so after one's own posting there is not really "hounding", but pinging another user involved in an unrelated dispute and attacking Agtx is certainly rather dickish. (The double-sigs are also annoying, but that's neither here nor there.)
- Now calling someone a "Nazi" because they have a perceived liberal bias and bias against white supremacists is ... just about the worst. Reminds me of what this dick did to me a coupla years back. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.
- Indef block, I say.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- (@Agtx: Technical point, but if you were trying to remove the adjectival use of "Democrat" from an article, you shouldn't call it derogatory. Many progressives, non-Democrat Cenk Uygur and non-American Hijiri88 among them, agree with you, but devout Democrat Bob Chipman uses it a lot in a non-derogatory sense, so it seems to be a point of contention, or at least a derogatory term Democrats are trying to reclaim. You should say it is WP:SLANG instead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC))
- And given that the user is arguing that "white supremacist" is derogatory and seems to hold a less-than-positive view of the modern Democratic Party (hence the use of "Democrat" as an adjective), it's not an AGF-violation to read into these edits the common right-wing historical revisionism that the GOP is now and always has been the party of tolerance and integration and it's the Democrats who are trying to hurt Blacks (because that was how it was in nineteenth century). This user is also an SPA. The more one reads into this, the uglier it gets. This isn't even like the Zaostao debacle a few weeks back where the fascist in question was pretending to be subtle about his racist intentions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- This should hopefully be self-evident, but to be clear, I have not engaged in any vandalism. I did remove KAvin's attempt to insert themselves into a discussion on my talk page, which is not vandalism. agtx 04:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at the edits primarily because unlike Agtx you provided no diffs but I doubt vandalism was involved. WP:vandalism has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and calling something it when it isn't it's a good way to fail at ANI. BTW personal attacks aren't acceptable even if you claim they are true. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking over KAvin's contribs, I have to agree with Hijiri88's assessment that it looks and sounds a lot like someone who is only here to argue that a group which sources describe as white supremacists who "intimidated or assassinated black leaders, and discouraged black voting at the polls" was somehow not white supremacist just because they might have had a few Uncle Toms in their ranks. I'll note that Markbassett is the only one who has contributed any sources regarding other (but still compatible) aims for the group and its non-white members. Between that and the Nazi remark, I'm highly tempted to block as WP:NOTHERE, though I would also accept that KAvin be topic banned from articles relating to American politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not certain what is meant by "KAvin's contribs" since this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to. I have provided sources to back up my argument, sources that are listed in the further reading, only to be told that those sources are not good enough to make my case. I simply wanted the qualifier "white supremacist" removed or changed to another less pejorative label, or none at all, since it is not needed, and does not adequately reflect the complexity of the political landscape of the late 19th century in the South. It inaccurately describes a group that actively recruited black members for the express purpose of swaying black voters to vote Democrat to defeat Republican/Northern candidates. However, I have been not been met with polite disagreement but with personal attacks and bias repeatedly. I attempted to take it to moderation in the hope a compromise could be reached to no avail. This has really gotten ridiculous. I have been insulted and maligned, and simply gave as good as I got. I have been scolded and been threatened with banning while the others have not. This experience has honestly opened my eyes to exactly what Wikipedia is...and its not what it is "sold as"!!!KAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by "SPA" and what User:Ian.thomson meant by "someone who is only here to argue". Your contribs clearly indicate that you are an SPA, and since you're not the kind of SPA who abides by policies and guidelines and engages in polite discussion, how you should be dealt with seems pretty obvious. Wikipedia isn't "sold" -- you didn't pay to be allowed edit it, and the community does not owe you a refund. If you want to advocate for white supremacist groups, there are Conservapedia
and Metapedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- So, basically, what you are saying is "newbies not allowed". As far as me contributing anything else, why would I do so, since my first contribution has been so viciously attacked? It seems pointless to me to try and add or edit something in another article, only to have it undone by someone else. Also, I am not "advocating" for white supremacy, I am advocating for truth and facts!!! If you think I am advocating for "white supremacy", its only due to your own bias and bigotry, and not relevant to my argument. Wikipedia claims it relies on people to help build it, but what I have found is that it apperently only wants people, who subscribe to certain viewpoints, to contribute, despite wheter their contribution is based in fact. Hihiri88, you are a prime example of what myself, and apparently alot of others, feel is wrong with Wikipedia. Also, I find it hilarious that a user who ends their name with "88" would infer that someone else is supporting white supremacy, especially since those numbers have a significant meaning in the white supremacist/white power movement. Take care now.KAvin (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- @Hijiri88: The Metapedia comment was out of line, his advocacy for historical revisionism is not that blatant. @KAvin: Responding to comments that offend you with more offensive comments makes you look like you can't handle discussions in a civil manner. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, and thusly stricken. If it's any defense, I really have no idea what goes on on Metapedia or how it is different from Conservapedia. They both look repugnant to me. I also said the same thing to Zaostao a few weeks ago and no one pointed it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although I'm happy to announce that KAvin has now officially joined the prestigious ranks of the users who have accused me of being a fascist because my username has "88" in it, despite the clear explanation on my user page that that is the year of my birth. I didn't even know that the numbers meant anything else until after I started using them -- above-average knowledge of the workings of "the white supremacist/white power movement" does not paint this user in the best light. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I could know about the significance of "88" to the white supremacist movement because I was born in 1971 and remember when white power skinheads attacked Geraldo on his tv show. Or it might be the fact that I was old enough to watch the film "American History X" when it came out. It might have something to do with me and my friends fighting off racist skinheads at punk shows in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm sure none of that matters to you, since you have already stated that I have "above average knowledge" about the white power/white supremacist movement, and, in your words, that doesn't paint me in the "best light". Regardless of what your opinion of me is, those numbers have a very negative conotation attached to them, like the Confederate Battle Flag does. You may want to take that into consideration, or just deal with folks thinking you are a white supremacist, as apparently from your comments above, I take it i am not the first person to think that of you due to your user name.KAvin (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- By "significance", do you mean "importance" or the older sense of "meaning"? Because if it's the latter, then you have no right to tell me what my user name means -- it means what I say it means in this context. If you are not yourself a member of the white supremacist movement and I am not either (and I am not), then why on earth would it matter what my user name means to them? And no one who flies the Confederate Battle Flag is doing so because of a quite common and expectable coincidence -- they know what it means, and it has never had an unrelated or innocuous meaning like the number 88 does. You are only the third person in my eleven years on Wikipedia to accuse me of being a fascist -- of the earlier two one did so while I was editing logged out (read: he did not know my username), and the other is long gone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I could know about the significance of "88" to the white supremacist movement because I was born in 1971 and remember when white power skinheads attacked Geraldo on his tv show. Or it might be the fact that I was old enough to watch the film "American History X" when it came out. It might have something to do with me and my friends fighting off racist skinheads at punk shows in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm sure none of that matters to you, since you have already stated that I have "above average knowledge" about the white power/white supremacist movement, and, in your words, that doesn't paint me in the "best light". Regardless of what your opinion of me is, those numbers have a very negative conotation attached to them, like the Confederate Battle Flag does. You may want to take that into consideration, or just deal with folks thinking you are a white supremacist, as apparently from your comments above, I take it i am not the first person to think that of you due to your user name.KAvin (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- @Hijiri88: The Metapedia comment was out of line, his advocacy for historical revisionism is not that blatant. @KAvin: Responding to comments that offend you with more offensive comments makes you look like you can't handle discussions in a civil manner. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, basically, what you are saying is "newbies not allowed". As far as me contributing anything else, why would I do so, since my first contribution has been so viciously attacked? It seems pointless to me to try and add or edit something in another article, only to have it undone by someone else. Also, I am not "advocating" for white supremacy, I am advocating for truth and facts!!! If you think I am advocating for "white supremacy", its only due to your own bias and bigotry, and not relevant to my argument. Wikipedia claims it relies on people to help build it, but what I have found is that it apperently only wants people, who subscribe to certain viewpoints, to contribute, despite wheter their contribution is based in fact. Hihiri88, you are a prime example of what myself, and apparently alot of others, feel is wrong with Wikipedia. Also, I find it hilarious that a user who ends their name with "88" would infer that someone else is supporting white supremacy, especially since those numbers have a significant meaning in the white supremacist/white power movement. Take care now.KAvin (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- (edit conflict)@KAvin:, in all of your attempted article edits ([65] [66] [67] [68] [69]) you attempted to cite sources only once (rather broadly so, in ways that contradict academic assessment of the work), and otherwise censored reliably sourced information. On the talk page, you again broadly cited that book (or at least its title), again, in ways that contradict academic assessment of said book. You started the assumptions of bad faith in the discussion, claimed that your ancestry and hobby somehow makes you an authority on the subject, threatened to engage in meatpuppetry, engaged in the first real (and subsequent) personal attack in the thread (and are the only person to have done so), and overall refused to address or even acknowledge the numerous academic sources that others brought up to show that your interpretation of a book's title may not be representative of mainstream academia (or even of the very book you cited!). You have not been insulted, you have just behaved shamefully. You have not provided sources, you have argued that your misreading of a title of a single book somehow beats out a dozen sources specifically describing the Red Shirts as white supremacist.
- Going through this point by point, I regret not blocking you indefinitely earlier.
- KAvin, you need to either back off now and agree to a topic ban from American history or you will end up blocked indefinitely as someone who is either unwilling or unable to cooperatively work with others on this site. You don't even have to apologize for the continual tantrum that makes up most of your activity so far, you just need to back off from American history and go work on something you're not so fanatical about. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ian, I actually own the Drago book, and there are several entries and accounts of black Red Shirts in their own words, on why they joined and what their resoning was for supporting them in the post Reconstruction South. I have been told by two(now three) editors that I am "misinterpreting" what I myself have read, and what at least two editors, admittedly, have not read. Now, as I defend myself against yet another attack, you say I should "move on" to another topic and you "regret" not banning me outright? I simply tried to fix a misrepresentation on a Wikipedia entry and have been insulted and maligned constatntly ever since. I suggest that if Wikipedia is only interested in certain folks contributions, that it state so up front. Maybe you can make a "Wiki Policy" that will let new users know what they may be in for if they contribute to an article. I did not start this out to make anyone mad, or start any "wars", as I have been accused of. I simply found something on an article that is improper, and have received nothing but grief and insults since I tried to correct it. I mean, if Wikipedia is a user based entity that relies on users to build it, then all users, whether they are newbies or old pros, should be treated with respect and their contributions taken into honest, unbiased consideration. I honestly feel that this is not what has happened with my experience here. Sorry if that "offends" you, or anyone else, but it is how I feel on the subject.KAvin (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- We gladly accept contributions from users who do not engage in the sort of behaviors I just highlighted. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND already spells that out, as does WP:Assume good faith, all policies already.
- Again: do you agree to back off from pages relating to American history? Do not try to skirt the question, any response that does not answer this may be taken as a response in the negative. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ian, I actually own the Drago book, and there are several entries and accounts of black Red Shirts in their own words, on why they joined and what their resoning was for supporting them in the post Reconstruction South. I have been told by two(now three) editors that I am "misinterpreting" what I myself have read, and what at least two editors, admittedly, have not read. Now, as I defend myself against yet another attack, you say I should "move on" to another topic and you "regret" not banning me outright? I simply tried to fix a misrepresentation on a Wikipedia entry and have been insulted and maligned constatntly ever since. I suggest that if Wikipedia is only interested in certain folks contributions, that it state so up front. Maybe you can make a "Wiki Policy" that will let new users know what they may be in for if they contribute to an article. I did not start this out to make anyone mad, or start any "wars", as I have been accused of. I simply found something on an article that is improper, and have received nothing but grief and insults since I tried to correct it. I mean, if Wikipedia is a user based entity that relies on users to build it, then all users, whether they are newbies or old pros, should be treated with respect and their contributions taken into honest, unbiased consideration. I honestly feel that this is not what has happened with my experience here. Sorry if that "offends" you, or anyone else, but it is how I feel on the subject.KAvin (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by "SPA" and what User:Ian.thomson meant by "someone who is only here to argue". Your contribs clearly indicate that you are an SPA, and since you're not the kind of SPA who abides by policies and guidelines and engages in polite discussion, how you should be dealt with seems pretty obvious. Wikipedia isn't "sold" -- you didn't pay to be allowed edit it, and the community does not owe you a refund. If you want to advocate for white supremacist groups, there are Conservapedia
- I am not certain what is meant by "KAvin's contribs" since this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to. I have provided sources to back up my argument, sources that are listed in the further reading, only to be told that those sources are not good enough to make my case. I simply wanted the qualifier "white supremacist" removed or changed to another less pejorative label, or none at all, since it is not needed, and does not adequately reflect the complexity of the political landscape of the late 19th century in the South. It inaccurately describes a group that actively recruited black members for the express purpose of swaying black voters to vote Democrat to defeat Republican/Northern candidates. However, I have been not been met with polite disagreement but with personal attacks and bias repeatedly. I attempted to take it to moderation in the hope a compromise could be reached to no avail. This has really gotten ridiculous. I have been insulted and maligned, and simply gave as good as I got. I have been scolded and been threatened with banning while the others have not. This experience has honestly opened my eyes to exactly what Wikipedia is...and its not what it is "sold as"!!!KAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, the only thing that will make you happy is for me to contribute to subjects I may not have any interest in, and to avoid a subject I have spent years reading and studying? If that's what it will take to make you happy, I guess I'll do it, but please let me know what exactly constitutes "American history", so I don't end up stepping on anyones toes.KAvin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- A couple of good rule of thumb:
- If an article is listed in categories that mention the United States, American colonies, or any states contained therein, as well as categories mentioning history (including related terms like "era," "timeline," or "events"), everyone is probably going to consider it to be a part of American history. For example, Red Shirts (Southern United States) is listed in four categories that contain the word "history" in them, as well as a category containing the word "era" in it.
- If the article is within two or three degrees of separation from the History of the United States article, it is very likely to be considered a part of American history. For example, Red Shirts links to Reconstruction Era, which is also linked in History of the United States.
- These are not hard-and-fast leash lines, common sense applies. For example, the Cornbread article is mostly safe to edit as long as you stay out of the history section. Likewise, Brassica juncea would appear completely safe unless you added stuff about its traditional role in traditional Southern cuisine (though contemporary Southern cuisine may be fine). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of good rule of thumb:
- So, the only thing that will make you happy is for me to contribute to subjects I may not have any interest in, and to avoid a subject I have spent years reading and studying? If that's what it will take to make you happy, I guess I'll do it, but please let me know what exactly constitutes "American history", so I don't end up stepping on anyones toes.KAvin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- Not a new editor KAvin claimed above that he would have made edits to other articles if his "good-faith" edits to this one article had not been so poorly received, but this simply isn't true. The KAvin account is new, but looking at the page history it's pretty obvious that the same person was making the same edits via various IPs over the past year and a half -- in fact these edits, and the reverts of these edits as "unsourced" or "vandalism" make up basically the entire history of the page since early 2015.[70][71][72][73][74] If the KAvin account is either blocked or TBANned, the page should be semi-protected as well, as it seems unlikely to stop for the foreseeable future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So now I'm being accused of editing multiple times, even though I just recently signed up to Wikipedia, and this was my first edit.? If what you folks really want is to ban a new user, just say so. I'll leave of my own accord and leave it to you "pros", so to speak.KAvin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- Hijiri88, it is entirely possible that KAvin knows what 88 means for white supremacists for the reasons he gave, and that the IPs you listed are distinct individuals acting for diverse reasons. Only two you listed were from SC, and from rather distinct parts of it. There is a type of American southerner who does not know how to reconcile pride in their homeland with its terrible history, and many of them turn to historical revisionism without realizing they are empowering white supremacists in doing so. They are not deliberate racists, they just can't accept that they need to take responsibility for something their ancestors did or don't see how to do so without rejecting their mixed heritage. I am from South Carolina as well, so I've met plenty of them. While I could imagine that KAvin is an IP-hopping white supremacist until I have better evidence I have to assume that those IPs are from distinct individuals and that KAvin just doesn't know how to handle the South's shameful treatment of black Americans.
- Since KAvin has agreed to a topic ban, this should be the end of this discussion so long as he does not continue the same behavior in other articles and does not violate the topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You know, Ian. I have thought it over and, after my experience here on Wikipedia, I will do my reading and research of American History in forums where the members are not as biased and hateful as they are here. Even though you claim I have never been insulted on here, I have in fact been, and that is confirmed by other folks who have read this exchange that are not involved in the "Wikiworld". You say you are from South Carolina, and you have met plenty of people that just don't "know how to handle the South's shameful treatment of black Americans.", and, I'm sorry if you don't like this, that is extremely offensive to myself and alot of other people. I'm not sure exactly what I am supposed to apologize for, since I have never mistreated anyone, black or white, in my life, but if I did in fact hurt someone, I would be man enough to apologize to them for it. Maybe you feel that the South has something to be sorry for, but alot of folks disagree. And if your main issue about the South is slavery, then let me remind you that the entire United States had slaves, not just the South. I imagine that does not matter to you, but it needs to be said. So, I won't waste my time doing research on Wikipedia and being held to some Draconian ban on the subject of the history of the nation I was born in, raised in, and currently reside in, to satisfy people who have a wanton bias aginst certain regions of that nation, and its people and history. Take care.KAvin (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- Ok then, my apologies -- to Hijiri88. I was born and raised in South Carolina, like many of my ancestors, one of whom is buried on the State House grounds (Swanson Lundsford). My mother has traced our family's genealogy for centuries, since colonization and back to Europe. If you don't think that slavery (which the South fought for), the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and resistance to desegregation are something to apologize for, you have completely failed to understand either what those things truly were or else lack basic human decency. I have been hoping it's the former, but your continued bullheadedness is making me fear the later. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- More insults directed at me, this time from an "administrator"? Okay, its not surprising. It simply solidifies my conclusion about exacly what kind of "society" Wikipedia actually is. I appreciate you setting that straight for me. However, I don't feel the need to apologize for things that occurred in history that I had absolutely nothing to do with, but if you do, well that's your perogative I suppose. I am proud to be a Southerner, and particularly a South Carolinian, and refuse to succumb to the "Southern Guilt" that it seems alot of folks expect people from here to express. As I stated, I treat folks the way I would want to be treated, and if I do, or have, wronged someone, I am man enough to apologize to them. I am sorry if you disagree, but being a Southerner doesn't make one "automatically guilty" of hurting anyone, black or white. If you feel otherwise, thats your issue, not mine. Another reason that I prefer the more civil discussions to be found in other forums is that most folks don't use the "tongue in cheek" insults that you, and some other editors on Wikipedia, seem to resort to when talking with a person that they don't agree with, or for whatever deluded reason, think they are somehow better than. I really wish Wikipedia could be a civil place to share information on, but unfortunately, its shown me it is a very harsh and uncivilized community, if you don't adhere to to the prescribed "agenda". You have a good one now.KAvin (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- Ok then, my apologies -- to Hijiri88. I was born and raised in South Carolina, like many of my ancestors, one of whom is buried on the State House grounds (Swanson Lundsford). My mother has traced our family's genealogy for centuries, since colonization and back to Europe. If you don't think that slavery (which the South fought for), the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and resistance to desegregation are something to apologize for, you have completely failed to understand either what those things truly were or else lack basic human decency. I have been hoping it's the former, but your continued bullheadedness is making me fear the later. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You know, Ian. I have thought it over and, after my experience here on Wikipedia, I will do my reading and research of American History in forums where the members are not as biased and hateful as they are here. Even though you claim I have never been insulted on here, I have in fact been, and that is confirmed by other folks who have read this exchange that are not involved in the "Wikiworld". You say you are from South Carolina, and you have met plenty of people that just don't "know how to handle the South's shameful treatment of black Americans.", and, I'm sorry if you don't like this, that is extremely offensive to myself and alot of other people. I'm not sure exactly what I am supposed to apologize for, since I have never mistreated anyone, black or white, in my life, but if I did in fact hurt someone, I would be man enough to apologize to them for it. Maybe you feel that the South has something to be sorry for, but alot of folks disagree. And if your main issue about the South is slavery, then let me remind you that the entire United States had slaves, not just the South. I imagine that does not matter to you, but it needs to be said. So, I won't waste my time doing research on Wikipedia and being held to some Draconian ban on the subject of the history of the nation I was born in, raised in, and currently reside in, to satisfy people who have a wanton bias aginst certain regions of that nation, and its people and history. Take care.KAvin (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin
- I'm blocked KAvin for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HERE and WP:IDHT. Looking simply at the first 10 edits is telling, with patterns that clearly indicate there is a bias at work, and that this might not be their first go around here. He has wasted a lot of time and it isn't fair to other editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia, as it seems obvious that KAvin has a singular mission here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Request admin to investigate edits of IP 109.152.89.129[edit]
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but could someone please check the edits of IP 109.152.89.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also the edit summaries please. This looks to be somewhat familiar if I'm not mistaken: all unsourced edits, including some BLP's, with utterly bizarre edit summaries. Thank you. Robvanvee 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Judging from the edit summaries and articles edited, I'd say IP 109.158.85.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person. Robvanvee 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Atlanta United FC[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Atlanta United FC contains colour combinations in table headers that breach Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Color by a large margin. This undoubtably causes problems for colour-blind and otherwise visually impaired readers. An edit-war has taken place between Jamesmiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and two other editors, Walter Görlitz and BU Rob13; the latter two have attempted to fix the problem by substituting the plain colours that are used by default in wiki-tables. A report was made at AN3.
Unfortunately Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then chose to fully protect the article in the version that breaches WP:COLOUR. Since then, the discussion at the article talk page now has four experienced editors agreeing that the colours used should comply with accessibility standards. At User talk:Ymblanter #Hey, I approached Ymblanter and reminded him that WP:FULL stated "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies
". I also made it clear that when one editor is edit-warring against multiple other editors – and against our policies and guidelines – then full protection is a sub-optimal solution, especially protecting the "wrong version" when it breaches policy. Despite this, Ymblanter has declined to revise his decision on full protection, or to allow the article to be returned to a policy-compliant version.
Sadly, I'd therefore request admin action to override what I believe was a misguided decision on Ymblanter's part and either remove full protection, or revert the article to a form that does not breach our policies and guidelines. Since Jamesmiko has been given a final warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at User talk:Jamesmiko #Edit warring at Atlanta United FC, there is no good reason to make life difficult for visually impaired readers any longer. Thank in advance for your consideration. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to note, before I go to sleep, that I asked RexxS to mention that there was no talk page discussion before I protected the page, but they instead decided to take a battleground position and started to use language that they "offered me smth" and I "refused". The did not offer me anything, they ultimatively required that I unprotect the page, and when I disagreed started to threaten me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention that the protection took place before the talk page discussion. Read up. As usual, it's always easier to attack the reporter with ad hominems like "battleground position" and "threaten me" than to address the problem of their own behaviour. Please justify your stance in keeping the article in a state that breaches accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I should be clear that I'm not supporting any particular color scheme; I have no dog in that race whatsoever. I was just calling for compliance with MOS:CONTRAST (in whatever form that takes). ~ Rob13Talk 21:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm quite confused why we're here. RexxS, why didn't you just make a full protection edit request on the talk page? ~ Rob13Talk 21:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because that would be met with "why didn't you take it up with Ymblanter on his talk page first". I expected an experienced admin to see the importance of using full protection appropriately and of maintaining compliance with accessibility. Was I wrong to expect that? --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm quite confused why we're here. RexxS, why didn't you just make a full protection edit request on the talk page? ~ Rob13Talk 21:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 It's worth noting that @EdJohnston: did not opine on Ymblanter's full protection after he warned Jamesmiko. That being said, a conversation consisting of "I think you're wrong", "I don't think I'm wrong" straight to "I know I'm right so I'm taking your decision to ANI" in a mere 3 posts is a bit aggressive isn't it? Blackmane (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know, ANI is the correct forum to request administrator action - and that's exactly what I'm doing. Could I suggest, Blackmane that you direct your intellect to the substance of the arguments - breaches of WP:COLOUR and WP:FULL - and cut out the ad hominems on my actions? I'm just the messenger here. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Full protection on the wrong version for a short time is not the end of the world. However, since there is now a rough consensus on the article talk page to revert the changed colors, based on a fairly clearly worded accessibility guideline, and since the reason for the need to revert has been adequately explained to Jamesmiko, I don't see a problem with unprotection, and a note to Jamesmiko that he shouldn't change it back (there's really no way he's going to get consensus that the current color scheme doesn't violate WP:CONTRAST). Since Ymblanter indicated he's going to sleep, and since he specifically said on his talk page he'd be fine with unprotection if there was a consensus on the talk page, I'll go ahead and do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
S Marshall (talk · contribs)
Cryptic (talk · contribs)
WP:DRV reads '"A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. WP:NADC 'No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus.'
Despite those WP policy and guidelines, S Marshall has a history of closing DRVs. Just the other day he closed one here[75] as no consensus. As a improper closure I reverted it[76] with a quote of DRV in my edit summary.
Administrator Cryptic came along and undid[77] my revert without a edit summary. Didn't know this User at all before today. I reverted[78] with the additional mention of NADC.
Cryptic reverted (Without edit summary) again[79] and went ahead and blocked me[80] without warning, without an explanation either of why a DRV closure was proper instead of improper per DRV and NADC. Technically, S Marshall's closure was done incorrectly on a third point because he doesn't put a NAC template on the DRV discussion he closed.
As this log shows[81] Cryptic is a regular DRV participant. They should therefore be familiar with the rules for closing DRVs and non-administrator closure rules. As a regular at DRV, and a administrator who should know wikipedia policy but freely admits NADC closures of DRVs are occurring, should they be blocking an editor for applying a WP policy the administrator ignores in that area? WP:INVOLVED?
Why couldn't Cryptic just close the DRV as an administrator rather than block a User? The Rambling Man called[82] his actions a bad block.
When Cryptic finally explained[83] why he blocked me they wrote- You frivolously and repeatedly reverted a discussion closure, closed by a user with whom you'd previously been in conflict. Cryptic, per here[84], is referring to this[85] as a conflict.
Since when is ignoring a Wikipedia policy and a guideline frivolous? The administrator who undid[86] my block wrote here[87]- " Editor reverted a closure twice (for an arguably reasonable reason, it seems to me - I certainly don't see it as frivolity
Also consider Crytic's statement here[88]- "Rather, you haven't made any case for reverting User:S Marshall's closure besides that you don't like his opinion." Cryptic ignores my multiple mentions of DRV and NADC in both edit summaries and on my talk page. Sounds like WP:IDHT.
Administrator Cryptic made a bad block and is apparently enforcing something there is no consensus for and directly contradicts wikiepdia policy and guideline. Non-administrative closures at DRV also needs to be addressed since they are being done when DRV clearly says only says administrators. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with Nadcs at DRV if they followed the guidelines. The one I cite above by S Marshall clearly doesn't. No consensus should with the rare exceptions of WP:NPASR be determined only by administrators....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are mistaken regarding policy: except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question. is part of that policy as well, and the written policy is only a reflection of consensus, which is the real policy anyway. Generally speaking, I don't have an issue with S Marshall closing discussion since he qualifies and I bet most admin agree. Asking for a review of a specific DRV should probably be at WP:AN. This should also be there, since it is an administrative issue more than community issue. As for the block, that is a separate issue. I probably wouldn't have blocked but that doesn't mean much as I'm not the standard for which anyone is measured. You might could argue he was too quick on the trigger, but you were wrong by double reverting on an administrative board. You should have talked to the admin, not just reverted him in a second revert, which looks disruptive even if that wasn't your intent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- If your reversion of a close by a non-admin was then reclosed by an admin, complaining that you were subsequently blocked for warring over the closure is hardly going to get anywhere. Since you didnt actually raise any argument about the close other than 'an admin didnt do it', once an admin did it, you were just being pointy. WP:Consensus is the over-riding policy and where a discussion is going to be closed with a result that requires no admin tools, there is no requirement an admin do it. (Except to appease the Admin knows best! crowd) Provided they are experienced in the area and determining consensus. Which S Marshall is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the rules are descriptive not proscriptive conundrum. Traditionally DRV has enforced an admin only policy because it used to be the case that the vast majority of DRVs would be closed by the same admin - although the identity of said admin changed organically over time as DRV regulars left and were replaced. The rational was to do with consistency and providing a satisfactory final outcome for complainants that there was no ambiguity in the close/outcome in what is supposed to be the final appeal. Over time participation levels decreased and although Roy Smith does an excellent job of closing DRVs, he still likes to comment leaving a rump of DRVs needing closing and no active admin available to do the necessary. S Marshall has been a DRV regular for eons and like a couple of other regulars (Hobit is another) can be trusted to get the close right and not break the wiki. Probably the text on DRV needs updating. I'm sorry you got blocked because you clearly think you were doing the right thing. I personally wouldn't have blocked but there you go.. Wikipedia is full of inconsistency. Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a comment as the unblocking admin here. I thought Crytic's reverting of WilliamJE's unclosing twice with no edit summaries and then blocking with no prior communication was poor form, as was the subsequent accusation of frivolity - we shouldn't assume another editor knows we're admins or understands our actions if we don't actually say anything, and we should assume good faith. Having said that, I think WilliamJE's second unclosing was poor form too, and that after the first one was reverted then a discussion about it somewhere would have been the right way forward. When I unblocked I commented in the log that I thought the block was excessive, but I don't think any other action is called for now - all we need to do is encourage all parties to act more like little Fonzies and talk to each other nicely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen this AN/I, and I intend to restrict my participation in it to just this one comment. Thank you all for saying such nice things about me. Experience with WilliamJE makes me feel that he's very alert to perceived double-standards. I expect he might read the opinions above as giving him latitude to close DRVs, since he's an editor of no less experience than me; this is a point on which I think you might usefully reach a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- He is, however, not an editor that has "extraordinary experience" at the venue concerned, as you do. I agree with Spartaz above; personally I probably wouldn't have blocked him, but he can't say that there wasn't a previous dispute between you (there clearly was), and I don't see him reverting any of your DRV closes before that date, so IMO there's nothing else to do here except to suggest that (a) WillamJE doesn't do that again, and that (b) the language at WP:DRV is made clear. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The language at DRV is plain and clear. It says administrators. I did nothing wrong, explained my actions, Cryptic reverted me two times without saying why then slapped me with a block not one of you has defended. He had ample opportunity to field an explanation at my talk page or address why what I did was wrong BUT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. @Dennis Brown: would have done a edit summary or addressed me on my talk page as would have any other proper acting admin. If Cryptic wasn't an administrator, he might have been termed the disruptive one because of his blatant failure to explain why he reverted in two consecutive edit summaries.
- What is wrong around here except the usual circling of the wagons. Early this year an administrator did what another administrator called 'This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia' and after the offending administrator said 'I had been fighting a cold was given a free pass[89]. In accordance with that judgments would be handed out on the basis of duress[90] and of what magnitude it was, the drums should be banging for Cryptic's head but it isn't going to happen. I don't say I want action based on my personal issue but at the same time it makes a good case for their being a double standard around here when Cryptic's actions are brushed under the rug which is what is going to happen.
Good faith edits that adhere to WP stated policy around here gets a editor blocked and nobody wants to do anything about the administrator responsible. When someone says there is an administrator problem around here, there's a mountain of proof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- As is often the case, William could have handled this better, but his mote doesn't excuse the beam. Dennis makes the relevant point that non-admins can close discussion but note that if you read Wikipedia:Deletion review, you will see that this page is called "Administrator instructions" (see upper right corner.), and you will encounter the term "admin" or "administrator" thirteen times before you see the reference to non-admin closures. That doesn't mean it isn't there (although curiously, the text Dennis cites is from a different page), but when you read Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator... it is understandable that you might think closure should be made by an admin.
- The non-admin exception lists two conditions:
- has not been closed in good time It was opened 8 Oct and closed 16 Oct, only one day after the minimum, so not applicable
- patently obvious The closing statement included the language well-argued points on both sides (emphasis added). While the close decision may well have been valid, the very words do not suggest it was patently obvious
- If all editors followed best practices, I suggest that S Marshall should not have closed it. It neither meets the timing criteria, or the patently obvious criteria.
- The next failure to follow best practices was William, who should have raised the issue with S Marshall, rather than simply reverting. I AGF that William missed the reference to non-admin closure after the 13 mentions of admin. Please note that William included an edit summary with a reason for the reversion (subsequent events show that it was technically flawed, but anyone reading the edit summary should know why William reverted.)
- The next failure is more egregious. The reversion was Good Faith, if technically flawed. Admin Cryptic should not be reverting William's closure without an explanation. The edit summary is perfunctorily description, with no useful explanation. I see no sign of a discussion initiated on William's talk page.
- William then reverted Cryptic's reversion. Per best practices, it would have been better for William to open a discussion, rather than simply revert. In his defence, William did include a relevant edit summary. Cryptic should have read it, and if Cryptic's reversion was based upon the fact that William excerpted part of the guideline and missed the non-admin exception, that should have been explained, rather than simply reverting again.
- The most egregious failure was the decision to block. We aren't talking about an insertion of liberlous material in an article, we are talking about re-opening an internal discussion. We block to stop damage to the encyclopedia. This did not come close to qualifying, especially in view of the lack of warning.
- I agree with the unblocking.
- I'll go further and say this is an example of why I think we should have a block expungement policy. While William may worry more about his block record than some think is warranted, I am sympathetic to the view that some editors care about their block record. This block should not have happened, yet it is in his "permanent record".
- While this would be a lot cleaner if William had handled it differently, I'm not ready to propose that we simply move on. Admins need to be accountable, and need to be held to a higher standard. While I am not sure what should happen next, I think something other than "William. you're unblocked, so just shrug it off and get back to editing" should be the next step. (If nothing else, let's look at our guideline. I'm in favor of non-admin closures of some things, but a DRV is close to a last step in a process, and perhaps it should be absolutely admin only.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Being fairly blunt, edit warring with an admin over a close is seriously poor judgement. There should have been more communication on both sides, but let's not raise a lynching mob over a block that did have substance to it. The block was fine, as was the unblock. If this isn't closed soon, this is going to turn into yet another argument about whether non-admins should be allowed to make closes they're technically able to implement, and we really don't need to reopen that issue. It's been rehashed multiple times. ~ Rob13Talk 21:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- An editor can undo a contested NAC they feel is procedurally improper. However, if an admin restores the close, it should pretty obviously be taken as an administrative endorsement of the close therefore rendering the procedural concern moot. Edit warring with the administrator who does so may technically open you up to a block, even if you don't feel you deserve it. @Cryptic:, I trust you can reflect on a questionable block. That being said, your use of Rollback to revert obvious good faith edits quite simply constitutes an abuse of your administrative tools, and per WP:ROLLBACK, an administrators privileges can be stripped altogether over misuse of Rollback. This is a very basic feature granted to admins and many users, and surely you must already know that what you did is considered an abuse of the tools. Please take care to only use your tools as prescribed and remember that Rollback is an anti-vandalism tool. Swarm ♠ 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I strongly disagree. As explained, I think William could have handled it better, but I think the close was unwise. The block was not fine. Keep in mind you are talking about a block of an editor with 80k edits, who reverted a questionable close and cited a guideline (incompletely, it turns out, but the citation means the reversion was believed to be within policy). The block of an established editor came with no warning, and no justification. If that is now the definition of a good block, I'm outa here.
- @Swarm:I think it is a stretch to treat an admin revert of a revert as an admin endorsement of a close (I certainly hope no one uses such weak inference in any reversion I might undertake). Especially when accompanied by no explanation in an edit summary. Admins are expected to communicate. A reversion of a reversion with no edit summary is not communication, and the suggestion that it should be construed as an admin endorsement of a questionable close is ludicrous. If the admin meant to make that point, it should be affirmatively made. There is not yet an explanation on Williams talk page explaining why the block occurred. There is nothing asserting that the reversion should be treated as an admin endorsement of a close.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated BLP violations by MatthewChown[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MatthewChown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating the BLP policy at Cheryl (entertainer) by, for example, changing the name in the lead (diff) and adding unsourced (and incorrect) information about the subject having divorced their second husband (diff, diff). They have been given only warnings for this in the past by Livelikemusic (e.g. here and here), as well as warnings for BLP vios on a number of other articles (see their talk page's history for a full list), but the user has never responded to these warnings. Linguist Moi? Moi. 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- User has continued to show, time and time again, that they are not here to edit constructively, despite warnings and continuing to violate BLP policies. livelikemusic talk! 00:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked for two weeks: repeated unexplained, unverified BLP edits. They were blocked before for the same thing a long time ago. If they don't change their ways the next such block might well be indefinite. MatthewChown, I hope you are reading this. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Removal of sourced content[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Tvx1 has been removing sourced content from the 2017 Formula One season article without cause and demanding that further sources be provided:
The source provided is considered to be reliable, verifiable and reputable, and it has been noted on the article talk page that publication the source quotes is of a similar reputable quality. Furthermore, the edits Tvx1 has been removing do not add anything to the page that is not substantiated by the content of the source. I can find no valid reason for the removal of this content except that Tvx1 believes it to be objectionable, which is close to a violation of WP:OWN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You know full well that where contractual issues are concerned F1 is a rumour mill without equal. James Allen is certainly a reliable source, but he is reliably reporting that there is a rumour, not an official announcement. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, these situations have occurred before in almost directly comparable circumstances and as a consequence there is existing consensus (that you have been proactive in enforcing in the past) that we do not add such 'facts' to a page until confirmed by a source that is party to the agreement (i.e. the driver themselves or the team involved). Tvx1 removed the content because it is still only a rumour, and one that has come from a party with a direct financial interest in the outcome of contractual negotiations. Pyrope 06:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
2601:586:4400:A4E0:*[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- 2601:586:4400:A4E0:8964:B744:BA8F:9A3E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On 1982 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles: vandalism after final warning. Several of us aren't sure what to do with this guy anymore. Over the last several days he continually adds incorrect info to many many articles. It's an anon editor whose IP jumps daily. See: 2601:586:4400:A4E0:65B8:F630:93E8:157E...
2601:586:4400:A4E0:FC92:8467:D3A6:A67B...
2601:586:4400:A4E0:A009:2BE:4EF5:B64D...
2601:586:4400:A4E0:65B8:F630:93E8:157E...
2601:586:4400:A4E0:D84B:D043:4DBF:C3F2
- They have never answered any of us to stop so I don't know what to do. Can a range block of 3 days be issued over this IP? Maybe that will make him come to us and answer our queries. His vandalism has escalated to the top for several days now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The range 2601:586:4400:A4E0:* contains many non-tennis related edits so that range may be too broad to block. Are there certain articles which could be semi-protected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Checkuser needed please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice this conversation had been moved here. I just wanted to make clear the reason I asked for a block was because I hoped it would get the guy's attention to talk to us at Tennis Project so we can tell him where he's going wrong with his mass name changes. About a third of his edits are good, a third not so good, and a third horrible. Thanks for checking into this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): if problems recur after the block expires, we can extend for longer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
IP userpage vandal[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody please block this twerp and revdel the crap they wrote on my userpage? [91] Thanks. They appear to be here for vandalism purposes only and have been warned before. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- IP blocked for a week, edits revdel'd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone keep an eye on this new editor, and their attempts to add apparently defamatory material at Robert Mersey and elsewhere? The material appears to originate from this "entertainment" blog. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have deleted Draft:William Mersey as a unsourced, wholly negative BLP and given the user a 4-im warning. They have previously received a final warning in August though so if anyone else wants to go ahead and block now I have no objections. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Clear legal threat by IP 113.199.138.241[edit]
On Governing Body Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
113.199.138.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed content with the edit summary: →ISKCON leadership: →The above statement is an offensive statement without any backing evidence against the respective individuals. As per the law, keeping such statements in this page may cause legal actions against the user who posted it.
This appears to be rather old content sourced by a book. Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked for 31 hours, but it is a cellphone IP so not sure what practical value it will have. Feel free to revert him if you haven't already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Legal threats at Nova Science Publishers[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See [92]. This is a long term IP edit warrior with an axe to grind, but now we've got legal threats made. They have been warned before too ([93])Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Does not appear to be a legal threat but a person reporting another party is going to initiate legal action. John from Idegon (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would take that to be a legal threat, of a sort. However, there doesn't seem any point in blocking a very dynamic IP so I've semi-protected the article for 3 months instead (it's been protected for the same reason twice before). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a legal threat. I note Black Kite's observation regarding the IP being dynamic, and agree that blocking will ultimately serve no purpose and protection was the right action to take. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would take that to be a legal threat, of a sort. However, there doesn't seem any point in blocking a very dynamic IP so I've semi-protected the article for 3 months instead (it's been protected for the same reason twice before). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring and other behavior by IP User:64.85.253.62[edit]
On the FIFA Club World Cup page he made six reverts in a few hours. He received several warnings on his talk page. He responded by launching this obscene personal attack. CUA 27 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've given a short block for the personal attack - feel free to contact me if it happens again after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
multiple stub pages mirror main article[edit]
User:Dallyripple has created multiple pages naming individual Virginia Conventions that are merely copy-pastes of sections in the article Virginia Conventions without discussion or consensus, then systematically vandalized related pages by removing links to the main article. They take the form of "Virginia Constitutional Convention of (date)", such as 1829-30, 1850, 1868, 1902, or Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 I have begun reverting some of the vandalism, but he seems prolifically more adept at using wikipedia conventions than I can be. Any assistance would be appreciated, as it seems to me that unless additional research is conducted to justify a separate article, the article sections at Virginia Conventions should not be mirrored in separate stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Dallyripple is acting in good faith, and I don't see any evidence of vandalism. However, I can't see the value of copying the content from one article to create multiple smaller articles and to also add copied content to other existing articles. It certainly makes it hard to follow the chain of attribution for licensing purposes.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. This isn't vandalism, but it's not helpful either, especially as the sub-articles give no new information at all in some cases. I suggest that the new stubs be deleted and a mass rollback of Dailyripple's changes be applied. I would do this myself, but for some reason the mass rollback script does not work for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will observe here that it would probably be better to do this all by hand anyway. However, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is working fine if you need a script. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It seems that all the conventions have been broken apart, see Virginia Convention recently expanded by Dallyripple, a disambiguation page of some seventeen conventions, mostly unassessed, but most are stubs. The writer seems to be locked into the Revolutionary Era of historiography, since the lead says, “Virginia Convention generally refers to one of the five sessions of the Patriot legislature of Virginia, which is anachronistic to the other historical eras of Virginia’s history. The disambiguation page created by “Dallyripple" is also claimed on the user page of Bkwillwm, an early contributor to Virginia Conventions before its expansion.
- @Mojo Hand, Black Kite, and The Voidwalker: Isn't the simultaneous posting of two editors for the same edit some sort of sock pupating? The article Virginia Conventions has been internally linked to a disambiguation page, Virginia Convention which lists articles that mirror the main article's subsections broken down into seventeen stubs by Dallyripple, whose contributions are automatically posted to Bkwillwm's user page as his contributions. There was no discussion or consensus to hide the main article Virginia Conventions. How is this change in article righted?
- Okay, Dallyripple may be acting in good faith. Whenever the article becomes too lengthy, the Convention subsections could be broken out as separate articles, reverting to the summary list-like article of a couple months ago. The Virginia Convention of 1788 written much earlier and remaining a stand alone article, suggests the possible pathway. The first five, Revolutionary Conventions, could be their own article as they were before my expansion, rather than the recently innovated one-per-convention which results in a series of stubs, if pride of prior authorship becomes governing here -- but the unsourced puffery really had to go. In the meantime, there is no consensus for exploding the Virginia Conventions into seventeen stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence of sock puppetry, and I don't think anything else needs to be done via ANI at this point. I do think we need additional discussion regarding the derivative articles, but that conversation belongs elsewhere and hopefully with DallyRipple's input.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated addition of blacklisted website[edit]
The website YuppTV.com is on the Wikipedia's black list for spam.
User:Kpintu keeps adding the site to the YuppTV article inspite of requests on his talkpage not to do so.
Request administrator assistance to deal with this case. Thanks. KhaasBanda (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kpintu - Why are we repeatedly reverting edits to YuppTV and continuing to do so after being asked to stop? Also, I'm not sure of the reason behind the URL being added to the spam blacklist; it looks like an official site homepage of the company to me... (or at least one of them, given the different top level domain)... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it's being repeatedly added to other places where it doesn't belong then it probably belongs on the spam blacklist. However I'm fairly confused here. If it is on the spam blacklist, then it isn't possible to add it to the YuppTV article unless it's whitelisted there. If it's whitelisted there, which makes sense if it's an article on the site, then it being on the spam blacklist isn't relevant. If there are 2 or more official domain names for the site, I'm assuming there must be some guideline on which one to choose, but in any case it's surely a WP:Content dispute which shouldn't need to come to ANI. I don't see how either domain is more promotional than the other. The number of links to the site in the article should also be kept to those that are needed, but this applies spam blacklist or not. If one of the links isn't an official domain but something else, then this most likely doesn't belong, especially given the possible confusion. If this is the site which is blacklisted, then it probably should be removed fom thie whitelist. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The spamblacklist only blocks explicit links, which these links weren't thus they weren't hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean - Jo-Jo Eumerus.(forget that, I see now that "explicit link" means a coded link). It is currently not possible to add yupptv.com into the article as an active (coded) url. So I imagine it needs to be taken off the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, at least for this article. Is there no record of the reasoning why sites are placed on this blacklist? I don't think there can be anything wrong in making YuppTV.com a non-active link until it is removed from the blacklist. If so this ANI is a non-issue, as is the content issue (custom dictates that the .com one will be the main web address). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)- Agreed. This user's not trying to add spam links, they're simply changing ".in" to ".com" on the website's article, with an edit summary, explaining that they're making a correction. As the company claims to be an American-based company that has expanded into India, it would seem to be nothing more than a good faith edit that makes sense. The .com variant should probably just be de-blacklisted. Swarm ♠ 23:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- comment: I located the addition in the blacklist log; the site was added to the blacklist in April 2008 due to additions onto multiple other articles (see: See WikiProject Spam report). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The link is clearly blacklisted, but I'm not actually seeing it on any of the blacklists...anyone know how to remove it? Swarm ♠ 05:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Swarm:
\byupptv\.com\bon MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is the item that is triggering the blacklist. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Swarm:
- Ah sorry I didn't notice that. Since it seems there's a good reason for the site to be in the article it should be whitelisted, unless it's felt it's not needed to be in the blacklist anymore and it can be removed completely. Either way I agree including it as a nonactive link in the meantime is acceptable, and as said before its presence on the blacklist isn't germane as to whether it belongs in the article. Edit: Seems I was slightly confused. I was under the impression sites could be whitelisted for certain pages, but this isn't possible. You will need to find some specific page to whitelist, perhaps http://www.yupptv.com/about.aspx Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here are the two relevant pages for submitting blacklist/whitelist requests:
- Proposed removals from the blacklist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals
- Proposed additions to the whitelist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)
- --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here are the two relevant pages for submitting blacklist/whitelist requests:
Repeated insertion of multiple copyrighted imaged[edit]
Lukesahota has repeatedly re-inserted multiple copyrighted images into Tuck Muntarbhorn after being warned of Wikipedia copyright policies.
- Insert [94] copyvio of [95] [96]
- Re-insert copyvio [97] of [] after it was removed.
- Re Insert [98] copyvio of [99] after it was removed.
- There are a couple more inserte/re-inserts in the history of the page but these should make the point.
- And they have done another one [100] copyvio of [101].
They show no indication of stopping and have now tried at least 4 different copyvio images. I think a block is needed here. JbhTalk 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- All these warnings have come within a day of each other, so I don't want to block him quite yet. I've left a personalized message explaining the issue, perhaps better than a template does. If he does it again, then yes, a block would be in order as now he has been given plenty of notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Consulting?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that User:GreenMountainGate is a fairly obvious sock of User:Newtonslaw40 and is attempting to (ham-fistedly) game the system at this AFD. Note the striking similarities between these diffs: List of sources A, List of sources B.
I'd perform the block myself but I've been involved in the discussion at the AFD and want to avoid using the admin tools here as a result.
Danke, A Traintalk 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Refrence hatting and reverts[edit]
I have started hatting references on long pages when User:The1337gamer started to revert me. I brought the issue to his talk page but he posted a warning to my talk page. I also got a message from User:C.Fred. I reverted them and posted to the village pump but they reverted me again. Marfyman (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm monitoring Marfyman's contributions due to his hatting (more on that in a second); that's how I saw this before/without being notified. Marfyman is using the {{hat}} template to collapse the references, which leaves a message about the discussion being closed. This is inappropriate for a reference section. It was bold the first time he did it, but he's now on his third attempt on several articles. That's starting to turn the corner to intentional disruption, not to mention that WP:3RR is looming around the corner. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Marfyman has made a third revert on Paul LePage (diff) and has been 3RR-warned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- That said, would somebody else like to explain WP:BRD to this new user? He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to The1337gamer or me. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- More importantly, how does an account which has been used for only one hour know about hatting, VPR, and ANI? See also WP:OWB#7. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocking for disruptive editing; this isn't an innocent newbie. I'll let the SPI run for the socking allegation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter which templates are used. Putting the refs inside a collapsible or scrollable box goes against MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Very odd, Good block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given that sockmaster's long and infamous history, looking for sleeper accounts would be a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE user[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not all of the edits made by Geckonian.Rhydlr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) can be strictly described as vandalism, but the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This attempted edit alone is grounds for indef. agtx 20:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Now indeffed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Any admins around with email enabled for an urgent spot of protection?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedA page needs move-protecting urgently. Asking on WP:RFPP or here will be a major case of BEANS. I can't log into my admin account while at work, otherwise I'd do it myself. If you say here that you're ready to check your email I'll give you the details that way. Thanks, BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drop me a line if you like. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think I've caught Dank but if that doesn't work I'll buzz you instead. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think I've caught Dank but if that doesn't work I'll buzz you instead. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Zefr removing sourced content, claims that a newspaper is not WP:RS in the Young Living article[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zefr has reverted an edit I made two times already. He claims that an article published in a local newspaper is not a reliable source and not a secondary source either. The latest diff: [102] He keeps arguing (in a tone not unlike to that of wikilawyering) that the reason why the source is not reliable is because the newspaper has published the company's official announcement. The fault in this line of argument is that half of Wikipedia could be deleted if newspaper content would be deemed "unreliable" based on the newspaper's source (the same could be said about books). I however feel that his arguments are not only nonsensical, but outright wrong as well. I don't think that removing sourced content is right. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- If newspapers just repeat what is in a company handout, then they are not independent sources. There should be some evidence of fact-checking, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Peter. The source you provided is to an article (perhaps better described as a column or a bulletin board) listing three business blurbs, all of them promotional on some level. This is common in smaller newspapers. If all three of those stories are not just regurgitated press releases I'll eat my hat.
- In any case, if this were a valid complaint, it would belong at WP:RSN, not here. John from Idegon (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- here is the edit that CoolKoon made and Zefr reverted, which CoolKoon made again and Zefr reverted again:
The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed $1 billion in it's 2015 sales. [1]
References
- ^ Neely, Karissa (10 February 2016). "Young Living tops $1 billion; Coldwell Banker Relocation Scholarship; Utah Geologists win national award". Daily Herald. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
- That ref is a lightly-edited version of this press release. Great example of WP:Churnalism (about which, fwiw, I am trying to get discussion added to WP:RS - See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Churnalism_-_bold_edit). The problem with the ref, is that it is not actually independent; the problem with the content is that it is basically a misrepresentation. The paper did zero reporting - but look what the content says. I recommend that OP think more carefully about how they use sources and avoid WP:PROMO.
- But this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here at this point. The editors should work this out at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the article's talk page is a better place for discussing this. Unfortunately I've been reverted right at my first attempt at adding some referenced content (without any attempt at discussing things; the new entry has been added only this afternoon, after the replies above). Also, the content itself was about numbers pertaining to the company's performance. He could've changed "The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed" to "The company has reported surpassing" if it's based on a company's press release, but no, he just removed the whole thing. OTOH how else is one supposed to verify a company's claim about his own performance? If a company is not publicly traded (which Young Living doesn't seem to be), its financial/performance data is not public. Thus IMHO requesting a "more reliable" source for something like this is a moot point, simply because there's no way to gain access to such information "independently". -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. May I suggest to tell me that article Hellocopter it was been made by FZKSleapfrog pending which formerly Sockpuppeteer of Synthelabobabe21. User talk:Caneoffire 12:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caneoffire (talk • contribs)
Caneoffire Hello. Thanks for the suggestions; however, it seems that Hellocopter was deleteted in June, and User:FZKSleapfrog pending was blocked at the same time. So I don't know what you are asking. Unless that is your previous account?Can I also ask that as per WP:SIGLINK you adjust your signature to includea link to your user / talk / or contributions page? Many thanks. Cheers,Muffled Pocketed 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)- As I thought. Blocked as a sock by DoRD :) Muffled Pocketed 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
XPanettaa and copyright (again)[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
XPanettaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The previous discussion on this matter ended without any action under the assumption that XPanettaa has heard and understood the problems that were occurring and would stop messing around in the file namespace (no actual agreement was made on XPanettaa's part but it was assumed that that was what happened). That obviously has not occurred. As I was cleaning up some files I noticed that XPanettaa has illegitimately changed non-free logos to free licenses [103][104][105]. This is an enormous problem. Images must be licensed correctly to ensure that we are following relevant copyright laws. Obviously the previous attempt to get them to stop has failed. For that reason, I must ask that XPanettaa be blocked or topic banned from the file namespace entirely. Their copyright violations continue unabated and their actions show that there is little chance of that stopping voluntarily. --Majora (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is also an issue with the use of multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XPanettaa. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Majora: I just saw my friend using my account at home while I was not home and therefore enjoying in the amusement park, shopping at the mall, having a party with someone in the penthouse, and so on. I have spoken with him and my friend, who used my account at home while I was not home, has gotten a lot of past. This makes me predictably disappointed when my friend used my account to illegitimately change non-free logos to free licenses and/or state that images were free when they aren't free at all. I think he made a huge mistake for what he did with my account while I'm not home. XPanettaa (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- My little brother did it. Same issue on nl.wiki here, and oddly enough the same excuse. Karst (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Majora: I just saw my friend using my account at home while I was not home and therefore enjoying in the amusement park, shopping at the mall, having a party with someone in the penthouse, and so on. I have spoken with him and my friend, who used my account at home while I was not home, has gotten a lot of past. This makes me predictably disappointed when my friend used my account to illegitimately change non-free logos to free licenses and/or state that images were free when they aren't free at all. I think he made a huge mistake for what he did with my account while I'm not home. XPanettaa (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Proposal - Wait for the sock puppet investigation to be completed. If confirmed, one year ban, similar to nl.wiki. Karst (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh God, XPanettaa again? They now have more than one account turning Wikipedia into a forum to plug Beatport and various artists? It takes a village, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indefinite block: I think that the fact that XPanetta is indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons says something; they have incredible distinction of being blocked 5 times for copyright violations- normally people tend to understand copyright policies after one or two blocks, or they have a language barrier, but this isn't the case with XPanetta. They seem to revolve in a pattern of 1) ignore copyright rules 2) get blocked 3) pester admins with walls of text until they get unblocked (they seem to have only used the standard unblock template on Commons once) 4) ignore copyright rules again and get blocked again 5) pester the admin that unblocked them to unblock them again until the admin tells them to go away 6) deny reality with more walls of text, gets unblocked, repeat. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. The Commons issues and the ones here are one thing, but the latest comment on the SPI that an IP which is obviously XPanetta is "my friend" editing logged out are something else. We simply don't need - as Commons obviously agreed - someone who is such an obvious timesink for other editors. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyvios[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admin intervention is needed for continues copyvios by Rvijayarajvijay (talk · contribs) --AntanO 06:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @AntanO: FYI, I declined your PROD ;) Muffled Pocketed 06:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked, as final warning was issued a week ago. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Categories recreated after deletion[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I nominated some categories for deletion because they were created by a sock of a banned user. These categories were recreated today; see Special:Contributions/Helloladiesandgentlemen! for the activity. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious sock blocked and categories speedied.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- PS Also blocked the sleeper account AntitheistAtheist888.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Quick! Right on. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- PS Also blocked the sleeper account AntitheistAtheist888.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Retired but not retired[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What if someone says they are retired on their page but they're still editing? That shouldn't be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.131.187 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think there should be a checkuser on this edit. Objective3000 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Objective3000, please explain. You may well be right, but we can do very little without any reason. IP editor, no. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I could well be wrong. It just appears that I may have attracted a troll that is trying to get me blocked instead of engaging in discussion. I suppose I can wait and see. But, it's not as though I, as most volunteers, don't have other things to do. If a checkuser requires a larger rational, nevermind. Objective3000 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- And why shouldn't it 'be allowed'. User pages can say whatever the hell they want within reason. If I want to claim that I am the King of the Moon on mine, why does it matter? --Tarage (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Retired people sometimes engage in working activity for a while. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly Template:Retired says it should only be used for editors who "plan to completely and permanently stop editing". But there are different levels of retirement, as indicated by Template:Semi-retired, etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Note to add: This is an IP from the range that was trolling SwisterTwister yesterday, reverting their edits (mainly) at AFDs with the rationale that "they are retired so shouldn't be editing". User seems to be able to IP hop pretty much anywhere in 162.253.131.0/24 but so far not outside that range. See User talk:Widr#IP Hopping troll in the 162.253.131.0/24 range for more. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- See also Special:Contributions/85.195.75.206, particularly this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Might have guessed. Time for a bit of WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, what the fuck? "Retired but not retired" is a pet topic of mine (see my user page), so when I saw the thread title I naturally came to check it out, but when I do I find it's yet more SwisterTwister bullshit? Seriously? Is it time for one-way IBAN discretionary sanctions yet? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Might have guessed. Time for a bit of WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Attack page reinstatement[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, it looks like User:Dhagan1986 created multiple pages, including his userpage, strictly for attacking another person. The main page has been tagged accordingly, but if an administrator can clean up the mess that would be great. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Cape Verde banner[edit]
I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the WikiProject banner for WikiProject Cape Verde. A few days ago User:Dthomsen8 edited several pages marked with the banner, assessing them but changing the banner for the WikiProject Africa one. I sent him the following message:
- Hi there, Dthomsen8. I noticed you did a bunch of recent edits replacing the {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the {{WikiProject Africa}} one. Thanks for the assessment, but please fix them like this, because WikiProject Cape Verde relies on features of its banner that aren't implemented in WikiProject Africa's banner. Thanks, Waldir talk 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't get a response yet, and I was considering doing the changes myself once I could find the time, but then I noticed that User:Wizardman had just deleted the {{WPCV}} shortcut and the {{Wikiproject Cape Verde}} convenience redirect as G6 (uncontroversial housecleaning). Now, I can can agree with the rationale, even though I would prefer keeping them, but following that action, he went on to replace pretty much all instances of {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the WikiProject Africa one, even after I attempted to explain why that's undesirable for the WikiProject. Meanwhile, he also marked the WikiProject Cape Verde banner template as deprecated, which I undid requesting such a change not to be made without prior discussion agreement, but he repeated the action anyway (page history). This is against the principles of WP:BRD, but I don't want to engage in a wheel war or any conflict for that matter. Any advice on how to proceed?
Thanks in advance, Waldir talk 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't an ANI issue. You need to talk to Wizardman on his talk page first. ANI is a last resort and is focused on behavior of individuals, not content or format. There is probably a good reason why he has done this (he did give a summary) and there are probably venues to discuss whether or not it should exist, but it isn't a problem that needs to go before an administrative board that focuses on editor behavior at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Iwachiw2001, block evasion, unblock requests[edit]
@Someguy1221: blocked Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs) back in 2013-03-27. Today, within a very short period of time, the following users all requested unblocking due to the autoblock: Alexcia.haikalis (talk · contribs), Marlene12266 (talk · contribs), Mshuaib9 (talk · contribs), Nadiana19 (talk · contribs), Natiliaa (talk · contribs), PhantomTheifAlice (talk · contribs), Richard.Lopez (talk · contribs), Tahseenalam (talk · contribs), Vonp3dia (talk · contribs). I find this deeply suspicious, though I suppose it's not impossible that all of these users are unrelated. I'm not quite sure the best course of action here. Someone with checkuser access could do a quick check, though I imagine the Iwachiw2001 is largely stale at this point. --Yamla (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The original autoblock would have expired long since. I rather don't think it's a coincidence that, when Ponyo worked at cross-purposes with me and lifted the relevant autoblock while I directly blocked Richard.Lopez, Alexcia.haikalis promptly ran into the new autoblock. In general, all those accounts popping up at the same tame and acting in parallel does not seem like random chance to me. I'd advocate directly blocking them all for sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Huon:, @Pharos:, @Mozucat:, @Doctorxgc: Now that I, an experienced user and trainer, am unblocked, I can actually comment here. Yay. There was no "random chance" because the accounts were coming from a very active Wikipedia college campus: LaGuardia CC-CUNY. So, it was not random: it is just IS and will happen. All of us here are experienced wikipedians running training sessions (and/or courses) with ambassador support. Many of us are in labs at the same time that run through the same servers. We all have presented at Wikipedia conferences (please feel free to check my User Page for links including a video of a few of us giving talks). None of the trainees or students are actively editing live content. Blocking new accounts from their own sandboxes is an aggressive move that stops training and frustrates new users to no end. Say goodbye to the next generation of Wikipedians. This actions is honestly making them hate it and I have to come up with on the spot work-arounds that in the long run will be more annoying to the admins. Why block sandboxes? That makes no sense. HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- And before anyone asks, yes, I can batch enroll. But A) I ask my trainees to get an account before a session, and B) that does not solve the problem of the Autoblock (which is clearly not working properly since this is a new problem). HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Huon:, @Pharos:, @Mozucat:, @Doctorxgc: Now that I, an experienced user and trainer, am unblocked, I can actually comment here. Yay. There was no "random chance" because the accounts were coming from a very active Wikipedia college campus: LaGuardia CC-CUNY. So, it was not random: it is just IS and will happen. All of us here are experienced wikipedians running training sessions (and/or courses) with ambassador support. Many of us are in labs at the same time that run through the same servers. We all have presented at Wikipedia conferences (please feel free to check my User Page for links including a video of a few of us giving talks). None of the trainees or students are actively editing live content. Blocking new accounts from their own sandboxes is an aggressive move that stops training and frustrates new users to no end. Say goodbye to the next generation of Wikipedians. This actions is honestly making them hate it and I have to come up with on the spot work-arounds that in the long run will be more annoying to the admins. Why block sandboxes? That makes no sense. HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Add Amy_0515 (talk · contribs). I'll place the unblock requests on hold. --Yamla (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Add HullIntegrity (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Following Ponyo's comments at User talk:PhantomTheifAlice and the explanation at User talk:HullIntegrity I'm going to undo my blocks and lift the relevant autoblocks (if I can find them). I'd still like to know how they happened to run into an autoblock for Iwachiw2001 if that account wasn't recently active - it's my understanding that autoblocks are meant to expire. If someone else thinks they should be blocked I won't object, but this does look like some class project. Huon (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weird. I have no objection, but I kind of suspect the person behind Iwachiw2001 is involved. That's not remotely the same as saying these other accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, mind you. It could easily be that Iwachiw2001 is in the same classroom and just causing collateral damage. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- First, the CU data fits with HullIntegrity's explanation, so that bit seems to be settled. As for the autoblock, Iwachiw2001g (talk · contribs) was created last month, so perhaps they tried to log on to their blocked account by mistake, thus triggering the autoblock. Based on the username alone, I'd guess that Iwachiw2001g is evading the block on Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs). —DoRD (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- To add another spanner in the works, it appears the new Iwachiw2001g account was created for legitimate use in a college course as opposed to created for disruption or purposeful evasion. Given that Iwachiw2001 was blocked after attempting to add himself to New York City mayoral election, 2013 over three years ago, wold it be worth extending WP:ROPE to allow them to proceed with their course? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm, obviously, not the blocking admin. Given the length of time which has passed, I'd be okay with that. It would have been better if the user had requested an unblock on their original account, but a fair amount of time has passed since the problems in 2013. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with giving rope here. If we turn a vandal into an editor, all the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given the blatant amount of bad faith displayed by Iwachiw2001 towards other editors, I would advise against an unblock. I do not think that attitude is well-suited for a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello all. User:Iwachiw2001g is my student at LaGuardia, as it should be obvious from the content of his sandbox and the fact that he is enrolled in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/LaGuardia_Community_College/ENG103_Octavia_Butler's_Bloodchild_and_Other_Stories,_Part_II_(Fall_2016)/students. I have only know him for a few weeks, but he seems a pretty amenable and decent guy, unlike the infamous Iwachiw2001. I would appreciate if Huon would unblock his sandbox, as he has homework due this Friday. Thank you. DrX (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Three out of four admins commenting here endorse an unblock. It seems overly-punitive to me to keep an editor who made some misguided edits over three years ago blocked. I strongly advocate for an unblock of the User:Iwachiw2001g account in order to let them participate in the supervised wikiedu project. The encyclopedia would certainly benefit.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but if I may chime in, I believe giving a 2nd chance to someone who appears to be using the site for an academic pursuit. Of course, if they start with their actions all over a block may be again necessary, but in good faith it's worth it to give a 2nd chance. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello all. User:Iwachiw2001g is my student at LaGuardia, as it should be obvious from the content of his sandbox and the fact that he is enrolled in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/LaGuardia_Community_College/ENG103_Octavia_Butler's_Bloodchild_and_Other_Stories,_Part_II_(Fall_2016)/students. I have only know him for a few weeks, but he seems a pretty amenable and decent guy, unlike the infamous Iwachiw2001. I would appreciate if Huon would unblock his sandbox, as he has homework due this Friday. Thank you. DrX (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given the blatant amount of bad faith displayed by Iwachiw2001 towards other editors, I would advise against an unblock. I do not think that attitude is well-suited for a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- To add another spanner in the works, it appears the new Iwachiw2001g account was created for legitimate use in a college course as opposed to created for disruption or purposeful evasion. Given that Iwachiw2001 was blocked after attempting to add himself to New York City mayoral election, 2013 over three years ago, wold it be worth extending WP:ROPE to allow them to proceed with their course? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- First, the CU data fits with HullIntegrity's explanation, so that bit seems to be settled. As for the autoblock, Iwachiw2001g (talk · contribs) was created last month, so perhaps they tried to log on to their blocked account by mistake, thus triggering the autoblock. Based on the username alone, I'd guess that Iwachiw2001g is evading the block on Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs). —DoRD (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weird. I have no objection, but I kind of suspect the person behind Iwachiw2001 is involved. That's not remotely the same as saying these other accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, mind you. It could easily be that Iwachiw2001 is in the same classroom and just causing collateral damage. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the consensus here, I've unblocked the "new" account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Sparkie82 is being/has been very disruptive. Just recently they came to my talk page and accused me of harassment. They put "ass" in their edit summary when they made this edit, but I didn't notice this until a few minutes ago [106]. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive and it's not the first time this user has been disruptive and exhibited WP:BATTLE like behavior. Last month they edited one of my comments on a talk page. And although neither of us violated the WP:1RR, Sparkie82 reported me for edit warring which would have been perfectly fine if they didn't do exactly what they accused me of doing a few days after reporting me. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have noticed the Sparkie at one point was removing disputed content having to do with the infobox on a daily basis as not to break WP:1RR. In his defense though there may have been a prior consensus in August. I had already asked for full protection which was granted for a day or so [107] but this does not seem like it has worked. I urge editors to wait for the RfC on the talkpage to close (Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle), hopefully an admin will put this issue to rest by closing it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Now Sparkie82 says they are going to ignore me and that they are done with me [108]. There's currently an active RfC we are both involved in and ignoring me could disrupt the consensus building process. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's juvenile and not really conducive to a collaborative effort. Blackmane (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- This user has been removing people from the lead infobox in United States presidential election, 2016, subverting consensus in this discussion. While I re-add them, this user accused me of disruptive behavior while asking me to undo my own edit as to avoid being blocked as per the revert rule. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior after this report was made[edit]
Sparkie82 reverted a user after they closed an RfC [109]. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that this user did this after there was a clear consensus to end the RfC. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Mass blanking of Top Model articles again[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP range of 2604:2d80:c029::/48 was previously blocked for repeatedly blanking Top Model articles. They have since returned, this time as 134.161.28.0/23. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorted 4 IPv4 addresses:
- 134.161.28.131
- 134.161.28.162
- 134.161.29.58
- 134.161.29.91
| Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 512 | 512 | 4 | 134.161.28.0/23 | contribs |
| 192 | 64 | 2 | 134.161.28.128/26 | contribs |
| 128 | 2 | 134.161.29.0/25 | contribs | |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 134.161.28.131 | contribs |
| 1 | 1 | 134.161.28.162 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 134.161.29.58 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 134.161.29.91 | contribs | |
Issues with User:TheMagnificentist[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cut down this article, created by TheMagnificentist, as the page had over 100 "sources" which were in fact itunes links, soundcloud links, facebook posts and routine song announcements only - nothing from anything in any way reliable. This was since reverted by this user, who has now proceeded to claim sabotage and vandalism (templating me a few times also) and also opening a rather misguided SPI investiagtion on me also. I'd like some uninvolved editor to comment on whether these edits are justified as I'm at my third revert. See My talk page also. Cheers Nikthestunned 14:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, now we have this also. Nikthestunned 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- That should have been reported to WP:ANEW, if anywhere. You're both at 3 reverts, and you both may get in trouble if you persist. The SPI is probably not long for this world.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently he intends to retire? Karst (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which was immediately followed by another round of reverts, breaking 3RR also. Do I need to report this elsewhere also or am I OK leaving this here? Nikthestunned 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikthestunned if you discuss the behaviour of another editor on a noticeboard, you must inform the editor you are doing so. Unless I am missing something, you do not appear to have done that. DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which was immediately followed by another round of reverts, breaking 3RR also. Do I need to report this elsewhere also or am I OK leaving this here? Nikthestunned 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently he intends to retire? Karst (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- That should have been reported to WP:ANEW, if anywhere. You're both at 3 reverts, and you both may get in trouble if you persist. The SPI is probably not long for this world.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I looked at the history but I must have missed it. Thanks for the clarification and my apologies to Nikthestunned. DrChrissy (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Edit summary fail, my apologies! Nikthestunned 15:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've edited this page before, and added the EPs and singles sections after being asked to help out. Although I do agree with removing excessive prose referenced by iTunes links, I'm not opposed to primary sources like iTunes verifying the mere existence of said songs in charts sections, which is why I added them there originally (per WP:RS#Vendor and e-commerce sources, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times"). However Nikthestunned, you seem to have blanked some valid content, like discussion of Illenium's Billboard peaks (with links to Billboard) and content referencing articles like this. Sure, there are few reliable sources that talk about EDM, but they're not all unreliable. Ss112 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I really don't understand this point of view that Bubbling Under peaks like the Ultratip chart "do not count". If bubbling under charts did not count, peaks on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles would not be allowed on Wikipedia. If Ultratip peaks did not count, they wouldn't be allowed on single articles, but they are. I don't know where you've gotten this from, or the idea that legitimate peaks on countries' charts can be replaced with dance chart peaks (as if a country's dance chart is more notable than saying the song peaked just outside the main singles chart?), but this is not the case on music articles. I don't think everything you've removed from these types of articles is valid. Ss112 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that linked article whatsoever - apologies if I removed that one but it's somewhat hard to keep track of those valid bits when there are 100 song-announcement "sources" from the same or similar website. My editing of the page was an attempt to cut it back to an actually workable and legible state, which I think I accomplished. Yes, some sentences should be re-added per the above, but the 100 other invalid sources shouldn't be. Also, what purpose do the 20 itunes links provide? A single reference at the end to the artist page makes much more sense. Also, none of this addresses the issue I kinda came here for, the SPI, 3RR and repeated unnecessary talk page warnings thrown about by this user. Also re: bubbling under, see WP:BADCHARTS. Nikthestunned 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with WP:BADCHARTS and nowhere on that page does it talk about not using bubbling under peaks for any country, so please stop removing bubbling under/Ultratip peaks, because this is not supported by policy. The only part that talks about bubbling under peaks is WP:USCHARTS, which says not to combine Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling Under peaks and to use a note to indicate it didn't make the main chart, which, if we're extrapolating with the Belgian chart, means what you did in removing notes from EDM artists' pages is against policy (as you replaced notes with dance chart peaks as if the main chart of the country is the dance chart). Please don't claim things are on policy pages that are not. Ss112 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that linked article whatsoever - apologies if I removed that one but it's somewhat hard to keep track of those valid bits when there are 100 song-announcement "sources" from the same or similar website. My editing of the page was an attempt to cut it back to an actually workable and legible state, which I think I accomplished. Yes, some sentences should be re-added per the above, but the 100 other invalid sources shouldn't be. Also, what purpose do the 20 itunes links provide? A single reference at the end to the artist page makes much more sense. Also, none of this addresses the issue I kinda came here for, the SPI, 3RR and repeated unnecessary talk page warnings thrown about by this user. Also re: bubbling under, see WP:BADCHARTS. Nikthestunned 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I really don't understand this point of view that Bubbling Under peaks like the Ultratip chart "do not count". If bubbling under charts did not count, peaks on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles would not be allowed on Wikipedia. If Ultratip peaks did not count, they wouldn't be allowed on single articles, but they are. I don't know where you've gotten this from, or the idea that legitimate peaks on countries' charts can be replaced with dance chart peaks (as if a country's dance chart is more notable than saying the song peaked just outside the main singles chart?), but this is not the case on music articles. I don't think everything you've removed from these types of articles is valid. Ss112 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've edited this page before, and added the EPs and singles sections after being asked to help out. Although I do agree with removing excessive prose referenced by iTunes links, I'm not opposed to primary sources like iTunes verifying the mere existence of said songs in charts sections, which is why I added them there originally (per WP:RS#Vendor and e-commerce sources, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times"). However Nikthestunned, you seem to have blanked some valid content, like discussion of Illenium's Billboard peaks (with links to Billboard) and content referencing articles like this. Sure, there are few reliable sources that talk about EDM, but they're not all unreliable. Ss112 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Edit summary fail, my apologies! Nikthestunned 15:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I almost blocked the Magnificentist indefinitely, but decided to leave a rather curt final warning on their talk page instead. They are no longer allowed to call anything vandalism, they are no longer allowed to revert more than once. We tolerate this kind of thing too much. @Nikthestunned:, you needed to use the talk page more and the revert button less here too, but these two editors are not behaving the same, and "you both edit warred" is kind of a false equivalence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am at a complete loss here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex is the fifth time the IP placed a deletion notice on an article, one minute later DBrown SPS creates the deletion discussion page with a !vote opposing the deletion, then the IP completes the nomination. I am assuming there is some connection between the two editors, but I can't quite nail it down.
I asked DBrown SPS about it and received a non-explanation here.
The discussions involved are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Dex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinylz (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javotti Media (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heartbreak Kid (mixtape), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex.
The IP is one of several that have been used to place fake block notices on DBrown SPS's talk page.[110]
It seems clear to me that the IP is a problem, but I can't seem to figure out how DBrown SPS has been immediately on top of the deletion nominations. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've hardblocked the IP for 72 hours. Either the IP is hounding DBrown SPS or they're the same person creating drama. If it's the latter, the hard block will hit DBrown SPS too, given how stable the IP has been over the months. ~ Rob13Talk 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Update: The registered account (DBrown SPS) has been SPIed and blocked for a week: [111], [112]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- JoetheMoe25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Racism in Israel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I don't believe I've ever encountered JoetheMoe25 before yesterday, when he added original research to the lead of Racism in Israel, violating WP:LEAD in the process. I reverted his edit, saying in my edit summary that I was assuming good faith. He undid my reversion with the edit summary "Your name gives away your bias." He also started a discussion at Talk:Racism in Israel, although it addressed neither WP:NOR nor WP:LEAD.
I left a message on JoetheMoe25's talk page, cautioning him against making personal attacks. His reply was to tell me:
- "Do not question a judgement I made from observation. Your pathetic Black Power bitching will also get you nowhere fast. I've dealt with editors like you in the past and I am certainly not intimidated by your threats."
He also replied at Talk:Racism in Israel (where I had replied to his message, explaining my concerns about OR and LEAD):
- "Malik Shabazz, I suggest you be a man and keep your child-like ranting to yourself. The American Constitution did not guarantee freedom from slavery until 1865 and legislation was passed to abolish the African slave trade in 1808. Not to be prejudice at all, but even your username hints at anti-Israel bias."
- "After reading that message you sent to my user page, I now laugh at how much of a hypocrite you are. Apparently, you can't keep cool either. The text clearly states protection based on race, sex and religion. Though I can't prove this claim, maybe protection of religion was the reason why godless Moshe Dayan didn't tear down the Rock of the Dome when he captured it during the Six-Day War. The Black Power movement is lost. Grow up."
I have asked him again to stop, and he keeps digging a deeper hole.
Will somebody please explain to JoetheMoe25 that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You seem adept at giving even better (or worse) than you get as shown here: What the fuck are you ranting about, JoetheShmoe? I'm talking about a Wikipedia policy called WP:No original research, which you violated by your addition of material sourced to a primary text. You also violated our WP:LEAD guideline. Would you care to address the substance of my message instead of making personal attacks? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)]] Motsebboh (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- That came after three attacks from him. I still asked him to try to reply to my concerns about Wikipedia policy. Nowhere has he addressed them, or even explained why he reverted me in the first place. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Still, it's a good idea when when entering the halls of justice to do so with clean hands. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am sensing WP:COMPETENCE issues here. See the discussion they opened on my talk page. It's very odd. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not being called a liar but JoetheMoe. Possible NPA? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am sensing WP:COMPETENCE issues here. See the discussion they opened on my talk page. It's very odd. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Still, it's a good idea when when entering the halls of justice to do so with clean hands. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Now reported at WP:AN3#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) after making four reverts in little more than two hours.
- The editor has prior warnings on his talk pages for personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which Talk page, Malik? You probably already know this, but JoetheMoe25 = 75.72.35.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has edited from this public library: 204.169.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and according to this Sockpuppet investigation, Joe is likely several other colorful characters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to User talk:JoetheMoe25, where he's got warnings about making personal attacks from March 2011, June 2014, and August 2016. And warnings about edit-warring from March 2011, October 2011, September 2014, November 2014 (blocked for 48 hours), August 2016 (blocked for 1 week), October 2016, and a 3RR violation within the past 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which Talk page, Malik? You probably already know this, but JoetheMoe25 = 75.72.35.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has edited from this public library: 204.169.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and according to this Sockpuppet investigation, Joe is likely several other colorful characters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked for a week for the personal attacks. (I note that the "What the fuck are you ranting about..." response was suboptimal, but was under significant provocation). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I did not think I would see JoetheMoe25, after all these years. Yes, he is most certainly the account created after utilizing the IP address 75.72.35.253 for disruptive, unilateral behavior. Back in 2012, most of his dealings were with the banned user Zhoban, who I'd describe as being his frienemy and the most toxic individual I have come across throughout my last decade on this site. Malik Shabazz's civility has been dubious, but it pales in comparison to JoetheMoe25's conduct. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
IP keeps deleting all the pictures at 3D bioprinting[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In IP editor (IP keeps changing, first was USER:81.134.80.244) keeps deleting all of the images out of 3D bioprinting[113][114][115][116][117]. Not sure why and never get a clear answer other than they were commercial or product placement. The fist IP involved made some adds for a competing 3D bioprinting group out of Swansea[118][119] so this may just be "deleting the competitors". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I listed the page for protection at WP:RFPP. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: And now it's semi-protected for two weeks. If it comes under attack again when the protection is up, a report at RFPP won't be particularly controversial. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please revoke talk page access for this user. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I am being wiki-hounded and don't know how to proceed[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, I was blocked for edit-warring. The other editor involved in the matter, User:AlexTheWhovian, was not. Since then, the user has apparently been stalking my edits, reverting me at every given opportunity and in general being, well, creepy. Virtually every article I had edited in since being unblocked has him showing up, either to revert my contribution or to offer a snide little comment inthe article talk. I've asked him, on his talk page so as to not embarrass him in open articles to stop (1, 2, 3). His response was to call me a 'sweet troll', remove the request without comment, or to refactor my posts in his talk page. And of course, the wikihounding has not stopped. He has claimed that he is innocently editing on his watchlisted pages, but seriously, there is no way that every one of his interests would be the same as mine. He's managed to chase me away from several articles I really liked but no longer enjoy editing because of his constant and negative edits. A simple look at the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool indicate that's he's managed to follow me to at least four different articles in the last month and - clearly - several dozen more over the past several months when I wasn't noticing it.
I get that I make a mistake and was blocked (for the first time in years), but does that allow the other editor in the dispute to follow my edits around and revert me willy-nilly? I'd like some guidance on how to proceed, because this user's behavior is seriously making me uncomfortable and giving me the creeps. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I cannot speak to Alex's actions or responses directly to Jack, having worked with Alex at the Television project and across its articles, I can say that they are active, very active, or at least generally aware of edits, on all of the articles that were produced in the Editor Interaction Analyzer (as can be seen with the amount of edits, generally larger than Jack's contributions, and the fact that Alex's is in blue, indicating the first to edit said articles). So I don't necessarily think Alex is following Jack around specifically seeking them out on the articles they edit. However, any other comments or actions towards them from Alex, I cannot comment on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I believe a significant number of those single edits are of Alex changing column sizes and general wiki-gnomish stuff. Its when he gets to reverting and commenting that the problems arise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, you need to provide proof of your claims by providing WP:DIFFs. You have provided zero proof (editor interaction tool is meaningless at ANI), and at this point your edit summaries and personal attacks, aspersions, name-calling, and threats are far more incriminating of you than of anyone else. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Scottlavender, let's look at some of those edits:
- a - submitting an RFPP for a page I was actively editing on, characterizing my and other editor' work as edit-warring
- b - while discussing a matter on another editor's page, AlexTheWhovian just shows up to comment and insult me
- Too many diffs to include from Arrow (TV series) but Alex has made every effort to make editing there exceedingly unpleasant.
Actually, This is just hounding on 3 or four articles. I don't edit column sizes in hundreds of articles; I edit in a few articles per month as time permits. I am going to withdraw this complaint for now. I am sure that the user in question will supply me with sufficient proof over the course of a few months. Then I will present more than just me being uncomfortable and creeped out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ludicrous. This is what this report is. This is a report filed against me because the editor is uncivil and disruptive when it comes to me, and it is he who attempts to come against me at every turn. Many of the edits and conflicts between the two of us come from pages on my watchlist, which he seems to want to take his own view on and scream harassment and hounding, and claim that I am lying. This is false. He attacks me on this very page and states that my edits have been only minor contributions as "general wiki-gnomish stuff", when I have created and contributed templates and modules that have now become extremely widely used in the Television WikiProject.
- Now, in regards to the diffs that he has linked, the only case of contributing to a page that was not on my watchlist that he had edited was when I viewed his contributions no more than any other editor has, to find two situations: 1) yet another case of his edit-warring on another page, among four-odd other editors, so I requested the page to be protected (his first link), and 2) after a rather nasty attack from him, where I knew that he would take it elsewhere and attack me without notification on another editor's talk page, which he has done before (his second link). As Softlavender has noted, the only iteration that Jack Sebastian wants with me is to personally attack me, and then when I respond in any format, they yell abuse. He edit-wars multiple times, and then claims innocence and states that he did no such thing, even after four or more reverts on a page. The editor has even gone and posted on the talk page of an administrator who blocked him, stating that the admin had pretty much no idea what they were doing. An attack. To even add further to the list of false accusations he files against me, per his recent report at WP:AN3 (where, after realizing that he was in the wrong, he claimed to redact it), he accused me of canvassing, having reverted Jack thrice at an article and then another editor having come along to revert Jack. He sarcastically claims that this is a coincidence, indicating that he believes that I had some part to play in this; however, a look at my contribution history would note that I did no such thing.
- This report is simply a case of an editor who disagrees with almost everyone he comes across, claims innocent in every case against him, and demands that his preferred actions be taken place against falsely reported activities. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not the first time that AlexTheWhovian and Jack Sebastian have come to a standstill. In fact, this has happened on more than one occasion stretching back well over a year (an example of one their past arguments is at Talk:Gotham (TV series) from May 2015, where terms such as "edit war" and "3RR violation" were thrown around). And as a neutral party, I'm not exactly sure why Jack Sebastian was the only user blocked in the recent edit war that AlexTheWhovian was also involved in. Perhaps the two of them can come to a resolve? DarkKnight2149 07:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I would be open to a resolve, but the reporting editor seems to have decided to take it upon themselves to attack me at every turn possible. If you with to see the reason behind the block, the report is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326 § User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: blocked). Alex|The|Whovian? 07:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Terrorism[edit]
مصعب (talk · contribs) has moved Category:Palestinian terrorism to Category:Palestinian political violence, and likewise changed all usages in 163 articles and 8 subcategories. By the way, he actually used Category:Palestinian political violence. with a dot, but I moved that. I propose to revert this unilateral move as being highly POV and a non-discussed circumventing of WP:CFD. User:مصعب has argued that the category should be named just like its main article Palestinian political violence, but 1. It remains POV 2. It remains non-discussed and circumventing CFD 3. There is no such rule that we rename categories or articles just so that they should match. 4. WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. And before that i contribute in unifying categories like category:nitrogen cycle with their main articles and no one tell me that this is wrong exept now and i fell that there is a bias in this position. That's all. Regards--مصعب (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here.---مصعب (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- No category should be moved without going via the speedy process or a full discussion, so the change should be reverted. I will do this shortly. Number 57 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- but the rule is very clear: From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. And it is a conventional rule. Can you give reason for reverting without discussion? At least if i am wrong please explan the policy. And it is more benifecial to discuss the naming befor just moving the category another time without reason. If my move is wrong because there is no discussing then your moving is the same because there is no discussion--مصعب (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @مصعب: It was wrong because editors are not allowed to move categories without using the WP:CfD process above, and if editors do things like this without discussion, then it always reverts back to the status quo – no discussion is needed. By all means request a move via the speedy route if you feel it meets the criteria. Number 57 12:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- but the rule is very clear: From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. And it is a conventional rule. Can you give reason for reverting without discussion? At least if i am wrong please explan the policy. And it is more benifecial to discuss the naming befor just moving the category another time without reason. If my move is wrong because there is no discussing then your moving is the same because there is no discussion--مصعب (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to add that since the move is contested, the speedy rename process is not an option, only a full Cfd discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes -- IP 173.79.122.37[edit]
This particular IP has been consistently inserting entire movie plots as episodes into this article, despite multiple reversions (all of them on my part, so block me if you must, I apologize for not coming here sooner). I have warned him on his talk page to stop (forgive me again if there was a template I could have used for that purpose). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are definitely way over 3RR. Best is to discuss the issue on the talk page. The plot summaries don't look excessively detailed to me--they're each a couple of paragraphs. Some of the text appears to have originated on Wikia in 2010 or earlier.example If that's where it came from, then it's CC-BY-SA so we can use it with attribution. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what's happening though -- he's (or, he was) inserting plots from the various direct-to-DVD films (such as Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire) into the list as if they were actually episodes of this show. He seems to have stopped now though since I warned him on his talk page. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rather than leaving those obnoxious and threatening templates, it's nicer (AGF etc.) to just explain that movies aren't episodes, so the movie summaries should go in the movie articles instead of the episode list. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did explain that to him via edit summaries; mayhap I should have done so on his talk page as well. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Another idea is to just move the descriptions to the movie pages yourself and let them know. It also looked to me like some episode descriptions got reverted as well, but I didn't understand the issue at the time that I looked, so I might have misunderstood. I barely remember that show and didn't realize it had such a following. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Straight-to-DVD movies are not the same as episodes of a TV series, so if Black Yoshi is right, then the edits in question are very close to being unambiguous vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. The only reason I say "very close" is because, given the subject matter, it seems likely that the IP is a child making vandalism-like edits in good faith (i.e., no vandalistic intent). Blocking someone for reverting a child making unconstructive edits that don't technically meet the criteria laid out on WP:VANDAL ("a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia") would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That said, using the IP's user talk page to explain, politely, why their edits are being reverted, would be preferable. I personally don't like the warning templates, since using them on experienced editors is an insult, and (the way they are worded) using them on new editors is not very welcoming, but Black Yoshi can't be blamed for doing something that I personally disapprove of but which almost everyone does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Another idea is to just move the descriptions to the movie pages yourself and let them know. It also looked to me like some episode descriptions got reverted as well, but I didn't understand the issue at the time that I looked, so I might have misunderstood. I barely remember that show and didn't realize it had such a following. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did explain that to him via edit summaries; mayhap I should have done so on his talk page as well. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rather than leaving those obnoxious and threatening templates, it's nicer (AGF etc.) to just explain that movies aren't episodes, so the movie summaries should go in the movie articles instead of the episode list. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what's happening though -- he's (or, he was) inserting plots from the various direct-to-DVD films (such as Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire) into the list as if they were actually episodes of this show. He seems to have stopped now though since I warned him on his talk page. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it as anywhere near vandalism. It's likely to be solvable with some friendly discussion if the IP hasn't given up on us. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't vandalism, but the exact wording of 3RR assumes that a child making disruptive edits because they don't know any better is not a significant problem. It would definitely be better to engage in friendly discussion than to edit-war, but the same is true for persistent vandalism (technically in the latter case semi-protection is supposed to be sought). What I am saying is that when we have someone making disruptive edits because they apparently don't know any better, we should treat what is technically a 3RR-violation the same way we would if the edits were vandalism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- When I looked earlier there had been no attempt to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. Black Yoshi mentioned some edit summaries but that apparently didn't work and maybe wasn't noticed. An even more collaborative approach (as mentioned earlier) would have been to just transfer the movie info to the appropriate articles, and leave a talk message thanking the person for the contributions while explaining that they had been moved. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. That's just not what I was talking about. I was saying that there isn't really any reason to block the OP (despite their own saying "block me if you must"). They technically ran afoul of 3RR, but the vandalism exception to 3RR doesn't make sense unless we also apply it to cases like this one. As you said, the material was copy-pasted from another wiki, so while it is OK to re-add it to a separate article, it shouldn't be a requirement to know about Wikia copyright licensing to remove it. If it had been copy-pasted from a non-free source, it would have been a serious violation to remove from one article and add it somewhere else. So Black Yoshi's not having done that from the start is not a point against them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- To my knowledge they were copy/pasted from the Wikipedia articles on the films. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. That's just not what I was talking about. I was saying that there isn't really any reason to block the OP (despite their own saying "block me if you must"). They technically ran afoul of 3RR, but the vandalism exception to 3RR doesn't make sense unless we also apply it to cases like this one. As you said, the material was copy-pasted from another wiki, so while it is OK to re-add it to a separate article, it shouldn't be a requirement to know about Wikia copyright licensing to remove it. If it had been copy-pasted from a non-free source, it would have been a serious violation to remove from one article and add it somewhere else. So Black Yoshi's not having done that from the start is not a point against them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- When I looked earlier there had been no attempt to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. Black Yoshi mentioned some edit summaries but that apparently didn't work and maybe wasn't noticed. An even more collaborative approach (as mentioned earlier) would have been to just transfer the movie info to the appropriate articles, and leave a talk message thanking the person for the contributions while explaining that they had been moved. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Springee and Dennis Bratland (again)[edit]
This will be the third ANI thread involving these two in recent weeks (the first two: [120][121]). Both complaints had tl/dr issues and got archived with no action. The situation appears to have snowballed into some very disruptive edit warring at wikiproject automobiles - [122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131].
I was sympathetic to Dennis' side of this dispute in the previous ani threads - but at first glance I don't see how Dennis' removal and edit warring of Springee's talk page comments can be justified here. See also the multiple warnings and accusations of harassment on Springee's talk page that start with this diff and subsequent edits. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- 3RR doesn't prohibit removing blatant harassment. Anyone can see that these long posts are intended to draw a long reply, to which Springee adds his own long reply, in which he ignores the previous answers to his questions, and repeats the same questions as if he hadn't heard. He expects me to go on this merry go round indefinitely. Springee edits Wikipedia only to fight battles, nothing else. I know no other editors want to see another thread like that. It's badgering, and policy is to remove it. I did so as a favor to all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm done with this. I'm sorry that I would like Dennis to actually explain his POV and explain why he feels that the RfC on the automotive project page doesn't have a clear consensus etc. I regret restoring the comments he deleted of mine and, though I didn't notice it, I had no right to restore his comments to the talk page if he wished to delete his own comments. I would suggest implementing the remedy suggested in the original ANI, neither Dennis nor I are allowed to initiate complaints about the other anywhere other than ArbCom. I apologize to the editors who have to deal with this issue again. Springee (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Changing sources and then accusing others of dishonesty[edit]
I got into a discussion with LuckyLag360 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Libertarianism#Centrist Libertarianism. In the context of that discussion I linked to this article which at that time was entitled "Trump a puppet for Clinton!" Seventeen minutes later LuckyLag360 pointed out that it had a question mark at the end and accused me of dishonesty for misrepresenting it. When I showed that Google Cache confirmed there had indeed been an exclamation mark, LuckyLag360 doubled down, said the age of the cache confirmed that there had been a question mark for several days, and that they had always seen a question mark. Now check out the Twitter feed linked at the top of the page in question (cached version in case something suddenly changes). It contains this tweet (screenshot in case something suddenly gets deleted). So the source page was announced to the Twitter world at large (including the exclamation mark) by someone using the Twitter name "LuckyLag360". I don't believe in that much coincidence.
To me this looks like LuckyLag360 trying to pass off his own website as a reliable source, to change its content when challenged, to accuse someone else of dishonesty on Wikipedia because of the change, and to double down when evidence is provided that the other person was actually right. I know I'm skirting WP:OUTING here, but I do not think such conduct - effectively changing a source and lying about it to smear others' on-wiki reputation - should be tolerated in Wikipedia editors. Huon (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is you're attempt to discredit me. First off this source has nothing to do with the discussion you brought up in the talk page. You quickly try to discredit the source and attempt to appeal to people who are biased against media not friendly to Clinton. Its a political opinion piece obviously not everyone will be happy with it. Its not sourced in the article that we where suppose to be discussing and its a attempting bring up a pointless discussion and when I call you on it you get mad and go to the noticeboard. Also I said clearly that im not disputing had a ! on and before October 17th. Thats never something I disputed. I clearly stated that today when you linked it on October 21st it had a ? and you said it had a !. Honestly this has all to do about nothing. Please stop harassing me actually reach a consensus with me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. That's less exciting than I hoped it would be, Huon. That this website is not a reliable source, however, seems pretty clear to me--hiring a copy editor would be a good first move, but the second, third, and so on moves are even more important. LuckyLag, I don't see the harassment, although I don't think this is worth an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay I'll agree with that and I'd like to add this is a big waste of time for everyone. LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, to be blunt, I don't think someone who promotes his personal website as a reliable source, changes its content and uses this change to accuse others of dishonesty, and then bluntly and transparently lies about their actions should be editing Wikipedia. For obvious reasons I can't block LuckyLag360 myself, thus this thread. Huon (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but where do they use it as a source? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Huon the site itself is sourced but the article you claim is not. Regardless please just stop with this and reach a consensus with me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another page from the same website was used in the article's section that was being discussed. They used this particular page on the talk page to engage in accusations of dishonesty. Basically, I linked to the page, they modified it, accused me of being dishonest because my quote did not disagree with the article title after they changed it, and then continued to lie about it. I don't really care about whether the article has an exclamation mark or a question mark, I do care that LuckyLag360 used it and lied about it in an attempt to undermine my credibility. If LuckyLag360 changes that exclamation mark and lies about it in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a talk page discussion, how can we trust them in anything else they say? Huon (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thats not what happened though. We've been over this, your attempting to discredit me simply because you disagree with me and Im not about to let that happen. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- All I know is, under no circumstance should that website be considered a reliable source for anything here. Clearly fails WP:RS, so punctuation (even if deceptively changed) is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The website is not even a source anymore and that specific article was never a source. So everything he is saying is a moot point. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which doesn't change my point. I took the liberty of removing it as a source at Center-libertarianism as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay perfect, thank you for doing that. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which doesn't change my point. I took the liberty of removing it as a source at Center-libertarianism as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The website is not even a source anymore and that specific article was never a source. So everything he is saying is a moot point. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another page from the same website was used in the article's section that was being discussed. They used this particular page on the talk page to engage in accusations of dishonesty. Basically, I linked to the page, they modified it, accused me of being dishonest because my quote did not disagree with the article title after they changed it, and then continued to lie about it. I don't really care about whether the article has an exclamation mark or a question mark, I do care that LuckyLag360 used it and lied about it in an attempt to undermine my credibility. If LuckyLag360 changes that exclamation mark and lies about it in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a talk page discussion, how can we trust them in anything else they say? Huon (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Huon the site itself is sourced but the article you claim is not. Regardless please just stop with this and reach a consensus with me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but where do they use it as a source? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, to be blunt, I don't think someone who promotes his personal website as a reliable source, changes its content and uses this change to accuse others of dishonesty, and then bluntly and transparently lies about their actions should be editing Wikipedia. For obvious reasons I can't block LuckyLag360 myself, thus this thread. Huon (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see Lucky has been edit warring to get some stuff in the Libertarianism article for weeks. Pity I cleaned it up just now; I didn't realize how disruptive they had been. Lucky, if you run a blog and want to edit Wikipedia, you should really start by proofreading. If you stick something in a half a dozen times it shouldn't be riddled with mistakes anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I dont run a blog but yes I am working on fixing my grammar. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Constant harassment by User:The_Banner[edit]
I made an edit to Sean Connery, delinking his nationality in accordance with WP:OVERLINKING due to Scottish being a major nationality. User:The_Banner reverted me with no explanation, and then proceeded to stalk my edit history and revert eight other edits of mine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), even though all of them followed the MOS. I informed him that his behavior constituted wikihounding and harassment, to which he responded, "Get over it." He has continued to stalk and harass me on my talk page, and is now trying to accuse me of personally attacking him, even though I never did so. I suspect he is doing this because he is aware of his own uncivil behavior, and is now trying to lie and paint himself as the victim in order to distract from his uncivil conduct. User:The_Banner has twice been blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", with two different admins noting his "battleground mentality", and one admin noting his "absolute refusal to engage in discussion". It is clear that his behavior has not changed in the slightest. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is true that i came across this overly aggressive user through this edit on Sean Connery. To my opinion that is no overlinking as User:Wash whites separately claims (For easy of use, I will shorten his name to WWS). So I reverted the edit. A short time later he again unlinked [[Scottish people|Scottish]] ([132]) this time with as comment major nationalities are not linked in opening sentence. As it constitutes no nationality nor overlinking, I reverted again. Again, reverted by WWS. So, I started a discussion on Talk:Sean Connery#Overlinking before reverting and pointing to the talkpage here. When pointed on the fact the "Scottish" is not a nationality, he just came up with another link to a guideline. Effectively, there was no discussion.
- It is also true that I did look at a few other articles. Most of them did not bother me, but the use op "WP:PEACOCK" to my attention and after checking the edits, I reverted at F. R. Leavis, Lillian Hayman, Sadie Gray and J. J. Cale. In all cases WWS reverted those articles with a summary of reverted unhelpful wikihounding. I took issue about that and complaint on his talkpage. As a replay, he called my criticism harassment. Personal attack followed personal attack, while I tried to stay cool and calm. (see the talkpage)
- At no time WWS tried to start a serious discussion but he continued in a very aggressive and bullying matter. I warned him multiple times about his behaviours, but to no avail. In the cases of F. R. Leavis and Lillian Hayman I opened a discussion on the talkpage. (The other two I did let go) And as you can see, it is now WWS who is going to my history to get extra info to hide his own aggressive behaviour. The Banner talk 21:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- In a rather short time WWS accused me of wikihounding, harassment, being hilarious ([133]), stalking ([134]), playing innocent ([135]), stalking and harassing ([136]), lying and playing the victim ([137]), more lying ([138]), actively harassing and attacking ([139]), lying ([140]). Only about Margaret Sanger was a tiny bit of a normal discussion, although at that time he acted in a way that showed that he had no clue what he was doing, just policy-waving and accusing of censoring the article ([141]). The section he added is completely irrelevant and highly contentious, By the time of this writing, the info is already removed twice. The Banner talk 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You were accused of harassment and lying because you literally were committing harassment and lying. Your wikihounding, harassment, threat-making, and absolute refusal to remain civil are what started all of this, and now, like I said, you are trying to lie and play the victim in order to wiggle your way out of the consequences of your own actions. There was never a point in any of our interactions where you even remotely attempted to engage in a reasonable, civil discussion. Even when I clearly explained MOS policies to you, you ignored them and continued to harass me (as evidenced by your attempt to call legitimate use of the MOS "policy-waving", lol). —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a perfect example of his aggressive and bullying behaviour. The Banner talk 08:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a perfect example of his phony self-victimization and dishonest behavior. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- So let me get one thing straight: looking up and reverting some of your edits is wikihouding and stalking but you going through my history is perfectly okay? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Going through eight different edits and reverting them with no explanation, then telling me to "get over it", then continuing to attack me on my talk page, then falsely accusing me of bullying you when I defend myself from your harassment, all constitutes uncivil behavior. So it makes perfect sense for me to check and see if this was a pattern of behavior for you. Me checking your block log is not even remotely equal to you stalking my edits. You looked through my edits in order to harass me; I looked through your logs in order to see if you had a history of harassing people, and you do. —Wash whites separately (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- So let me get one thing straight: looking up and reverting some of your edits is wikihouding and stalking but you going through my history is perfectly okay? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a perfect example of his phony self-victimization and dishonest behavior. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a perfect example of his aggressive and bullying behaviour. The Banner talk 08:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You were accused of harassment and lying because you literally were committing harassment and lying. Your wikihounding, harassment, threat-making, and absolute refusal to remain civil are what started all of this, and now, like I said, you are trying to lie and play the victim in order to wiggle your way out of the consequences of your own actions. There was never a point in any of our interactions where you even remotely attempted to engage in a reasonable, civil discussion. Even when I clearly explained MOS policies to you, you ignored them and continued to harass me (as evidenced by your attempt to call legitimate use of the MOS "policy-waving", lol). —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- In a rather short time WWS accused me of wikihounding, harassment, being hilarious ([133]), stalking ([134]), playing innocent ([135]), stalking and harassing ([136]), lying and playing the victim ([137]), more lying ([138]), actively harassing and attacking ([139]), lying ([140]). Only about Margaret Sanger was a tiny bit of a normal discussion, although at that time he acted in a way that showed that he had no clue what he was doing, just policy-waving and accusing of censoring the article ([141]). The section he added is completely irrelevant and highly contentious, By the time of this writing, the info is already removed twice. The Banner talk 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- For a further example I have also seen Wash Whites Separately remove wikilinks for the same reason at Terry Wogan. I think the complainant needs to examine their own edits and the reasons stated for the reversion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not just Terry Wogan; WWS's last five hundred edits are almost exclusively the same edit (removal of linked nationality). And in no case ever with an edit-summary; I make no judgement as to whether this is an attempt to avoid cursory scrutiny for these edits, but policy is pretty plain on the need to use summaries. Muffled Pocketed 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary. I get attacked for using edit summaries, and I get attacked for not using edit summaries, so what's the point anymore? I explained to Richhoncho multiple times what the policy stated, and he still was bitter enough to find this thread in order to comment against me. I explained the policies to Banner numerous times as well, and he refused to listen. Even if I were to use the edit summaries, some editors simply refuse to listen. —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Explaining? The Banner talk 08:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for proving my point. I cited a policy that easily answered your question, and you just ignored it. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Explaining? The Banner talk 08:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sheesh, cleaning up overlinking is some of the most thankless work on this website... —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- As is cleaning up BLP violations such as this which you have repeatedly inserted into the Jimmy Page article. You will *not* accuse/imply or otherwise intimate living people have committed a crime where they have neither been arrested, charged or even questioned on it. Multiple editors have attempted to keep that material to a neutral description given the sources involved, and your editorialising is a blatant BLP violation. BLP's are under discretionary sanctions, so if you continue to edit in that way, the next stop will be arbitration enforcement where I will request a blanket ban from BLP's. Then you can find something better to do than making suspiciously bot-like edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- As is dealing with needlessly hostile editors like yourself who make disgusting threats upon the slightest editorial opposition. It's the unstable hotheads like yourself that make this community feel so unwelcome. Funny how you're so passionate about combating intimation, but then you baselessly intimate that my edits are bots. *None* of my edits are bots, thank you very much. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression I made a threat. I said you will not editorialise on BLP's and accuse living people of a crime or you will end up at arbitration enforcement. It was not a 'threat'. It was a description of the consequences of you continuing to violate WP:BLP You will follow the BLP or you will find your editing of biographies restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- And you seem to be under the impression that I gleefully run around habitually violating WP:BLP, when all I did was mention that he committed statutory rape because the source said he committed statutory rape. I thought it was within boundaries since the source stated it, but I made this thing called a mistake. You're not even using the word "editorialise" correctly because I never included my opinions; I only included what was sourced. Anyway, I made the appropriate corrections, so my editing of biographies will continue. :) —Wash whites separately (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression I made a threat. I said you will not editorialise on BLP's and accuse living people of a crime or you will end up at arbitration enforcement. It was not a 'threat'. It was a description of the consequences of you continuing to violate WP:BLP You will follow the BLP or you will find your editing of biographies restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- As is dealing with needlessly hostile editors like yourself who make disgusting threats upon the slightest editorial opposition. It's the unstable hotheads like yourself that make this community feel so unwelcome. Funny how you're so passionate about combating intimation, but then you baselessly intimate that my edits are bots. *None* of my edits are bots, thank you very much. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- As is cleaning up BLP violations such as this which you have repeatedly inserted into the Jimmy Page article. You will *not* accuse/imply or otherwise intimate living people have committed a crime where they have neither been arrested, charged or even questioned on it. Multiple editors have attempted to keep that material to a neutral description given the sources involved, and your editorialising is a blatant BLP violation. BLP's are under discretionary sanctions, so if you continue to edit in that way, the next stop will be arbitration enforcement where I will request a blanket ban from BLP's. Then you can find something better to do than making suspiciously bot-like edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary. I get attacked for using edit summaries, and I get attacked for not using edit summaries, so what's the point anymore? I explained to Richhoncho multiple times what the policy stated, and he still was bitter enough to find this thread in order to comment against me. I explained the policies to Banner numerous times as well, and he refused to listen. Even if I were to use the edit summaries, some editors simply refuse to listen. —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not just Terry Wogan; WWS's last five hundred edits are almost exclusively the same edit (removal of linked nationality). And in no case ever with an edit-summary; I make no judgement as to whether this is an attempt to avoid cursory scrutiny for these edits, but policy is pretty plain on the need to use summaries. Muffled Pocketed 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- For a further example I have also seen Wash Whites Separately remove wikilinks for the same reason at Terry Wogan. I think the complainant needs to examine their own edits and the reasons stated for the reversion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Without condoning the edit warring by either side, I think that the edits by Wash whites separately that were linked to above were generally helpful and should not have been reverted. Wash whites separately comments that, "I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary." I consider that an inappropriate attitude. An informative edit summary and a link to a relevant policy or guideline is always appropriate when making an edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- If we're done discussing the (alledged) shortcomings of the OP, can anyone comment on the actual complaint? Kleuske (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I think the complaint is reasonable, and that it would be appropriate to politely suggest to The Banner that he leave Wash whites separately alone, and to warn both users against edit warring too, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did not accuse him of wikihounding, stalking, harassing etc. what he did to me. But I do take issue to his aggressive attitude towards me. The Banner talk 00:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can find the attacks and accusations here: User talk:Wash whites separately. I am unwilling to go down the same line as the OP. The Banner talk 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're unwilling to make accusations against me, but you are willing to do all of the things I accused you of doing. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is a classic deception tactic. The Banner goes out of his way to harass me, and when I defend myself from his harassment, he accuses me of having an "aggressive attitude". Thus, he can be the aggressor and paint himself as the victim at the same time. Given his two prior blocks for harassment and battleground mentality, it's not unreasonable to suspect that this tactic is what he has done to other editors in the past as well. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can find the attacks and accusations here: User talk:Wash whites separately. I am unwilling to go down the same line as the OP. The Banner talk 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did not accuse him of wikihounding, stalking, harassing etc. what he did to me. But I do take issue to his aggressive attitude towards me. The Banner talk 00:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I think the complaint is reasonable, and that it would be appropriate to politely suggest to The Banner that he leave Wash whites separately alone, and to warn both users against edit warring too, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
What is to be done here? I do not think at this stage there is any point in calling for sanctions against a specific editor. Rather, both editors should be advised to avoid edit warring and to stay out of each other's way as much as possible. If that suggestion does not help resolve matters, then further action may be required, but at this stage there is nothing else that can be done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- There was no edit warring involved, because I started a discussion in a number of cases (and left the rest flow). And I have nobody accused of wikihouding, lying, playing the victim, harassing and so on. But I do accuse WWS of bullying and an overly aggressive attitude to avoid scrutiny of his edits. The Banner talk 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given the initial exchange, I humbly submit it was you, doing the bullying. If conversations are started that way, all hopes of a fruitful collaboration go down the drain. Kleuske (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Read it properly, and you can see that by that time I was already accused of wikihounding and harassing. The Banner talk 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- And instead of addressing the reason for your reverts, to reach some consensus, you chose to advice WWS he does not take criticism well. Criticism, at least the constructive kind, entails some elements of "here's what you did wrong, and this is what it should be, because reasons". These all seem absent. Instead you escalated the situation, using some platitude that would annoy anyone, almost guaranteed to offend. Kleuske (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- THANK you! —Wash whites separately (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kleuske, by that time I was already accused of wikihounding here, here, here and here. But see also my attempts to discuss the edits on Talk:F. R. Leavis#Peacock?? and Talk:Lillian Hayman#Peacock??. As you see, I started discussions on two articles. From the rest I disengaged after a WWS-revert. Not exactly escalating the situation... The Banner talk 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You revert multiple edits with no explanation (and no "unhelpful" is not an explanation), each of which results in an alert for the user you just reverted. Any such alert results in a WTF?!-moment for any good faith editor, "what the *** did I do wrong?". If it's one revert, and there's an explanation, it's not that bad. Live and learn. If there are several reverts, all from the same editor, one may begin to suspect something. If there's eight reverts, all from the same editor, for no apparent reason, one may be forgiven for thinking it's harassment. Kleuske (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you think that 8 reverts is a perfect excuse to throw all civility overboard and go into attack mode? Poor Wikipedia... The Banner talk 07:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Banner, I'm afraid I must agree with Kleuske here: "get over it" is a phrase that can never be expected to produce a constructive result; it's entire purpose as an idiom in the English language is to demonstrate one's disdain for the complaint of another. Perhaps it has a place in personal life, but it is per se inappropriate for a collaborative project based on civil discussion. This is true no matter how hyperbolic you find another's complaints, because (again) it serves no purpose other than to allow you to vent and show your low regard for the other person. Nobody ever "got over it" by being told to "get over it". There are always better ways to express disagreement.
- So you think that 8 reverts is a perfect excuse to throw all civility overboard and go into attack mode? Poor Wikipedia... The Banner talk 07:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- You revert multiple edits with no explanation (and no "unhelpful" is not an explanation), each of which results in an alert for the user you just reverted. Any such alert results in a WTF?!-moment for any good faith editor, "what the *** did I do wrong?". If it's one revert, and there's an explanation, it's not that bad. Live and learn. If there are several reverts, all from the same editor, one may begin to suspect something. If there's eight reverts, all from the same editor, for no apparent reason, one may be forgiven for thinking it's harassment. Kleuske (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- And instead of addressing the reason for your reverts, to reach some consensus, you chose to advice WWS he does not take criticism well. Criticism, at least the constructive kind, entails some elements of "here's what you did wrong, and this is what it should be, because reasons". These all seem absent. Instead you escalated the situation, using some platitude that would annoy anyone, almost guaranteed to offend. Kleuske (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Read it properly, and you can see that by that time I was already accused of wikihounding and harassing. The Banner talk 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given the initial exchange, I humbly submit it was you, doing the bullying. If conversations are started that way, all hopes of a fruitful collaboration go down the drain. Kleuske (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Likewise, I have a hard time understanding how you would fail to realize the potential for disruption in going through the edit history of another editor you had a content disagreement with and reverting eight unrelated edits, especially when accompanied by the common edit summary of "revert unhelpful edit", which in no way addresses the disparate policy issues of these varied changes. That certainly gives every impression that you are personalizing matters--and yes, it arguably qualifies as WP:HOUNDING, even if you had been correct about each and every edit being flawed (and I don't think you were). Even if it was not your intent to harass, there was enough going on here that a reasonable editor, being on the receiving end of those actions, could understandably perceive them as goading, provocative behaviour. Even had there been a more universal theme to the edits you reverted, in terms of a single unifying article subject matter or a highly specific edit type, the appropriate thing to do would be to broach the issue with the editor, and, if that failed, take the matter to an appropriate community forum. Stalking another user across numerous namespaces, reverting random edits as you go, is never going to have productive result, but can be counted upon to incense the other user and set you both on a course for complaints that are going to consume community time and effort---and you are experienced enough that you must know that. Snow let's rap 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Except for the 8 revert-articles and Margaret Sanger I had no run ins with WWS nor did I follow him around in other namespaces. I did not even go through his history, as he did with mine. And the irritated "get over it" was only after being accused of wikihounding and harassing. A content disagreement should not be shot down with an accusation of wikihounding. A protest against an accusation of wikihouding should not be met woth an accusation of harassment, shutting down every attempt to come on speaking terms. At that time, I would have accepted an apology for the accusation wikihounding, closing down the case. But much to my dislike, it was only escalated. The Banner talk 08:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Likewise, I have a hard time understanding how you would fail to realize the potential for disruption in going through the edit history of another editor you had a content disagreement with and reverting eight unrelated edits, especially when accompanied by the common edit summary of "revert unhelpful edit", which in no way addresses the disparate policy issues of these varied changes. That certainly gives every impression that you are personalizing matters--and yes, it arguably qualifies as WP:HOUNDING, even if you had been correct about each and every edit being flawed (and I don't think you were). Even if it was not your intent to harass, there was enough going on here that a reasonable editor, being on the receiving end of those actions, could understandably perceive them as goading, provocative behaviour. Even had there been a more universal theme to the edits you reverted, in terms of a single unifying article subject matter or a highly specific edit type, the appropriate thing to do would be to broach the issue with the editor, and, if that failed, take the matter to an appropriate community forum. Stalking another user across numerous namespaces, reverting random edits as you go, is never going to have productive result, but can be counted upon to incense the other user and set you both on a course for complaints that are going to consume community time and effort---and you are experienced enough that you must know that. Snow let's rap 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let me be clear--I think you both missed the train on this one. Looking at the timing of the edits, it seems that you began your chain of reverts on those eight articles before he re-reverted you on Sean Connery; so it's not like he would have had cause to see retaliation as a motive for your edits. On the other hand, you did follow him to eight separate and unrelated articles to revert his work with absolutely zero policy rationale in the edit summaries for any of those reverts, other than a blanket criticism of his contributions as "unhelpful". That's a behaviour that is fairly described as disruptive even if we assume full good faith in your motives. There are few editors indeed who wouldn't feel like they were being forced into a confrontational situation by that. So even by the point that he referenced your behaviour as hounding in his own re-reverts, you were still at least as responsible for the developing ill will as he.
- You then went to his talk page. At this point, you could have opted for explaining that there was nothing personal in your edits and provided your policy rationale for them (since, again, you had failed to do so at all for ANY of the reverts you made to on the eight separate articles you followed him to). Instead, you chose to essentially tell him that he "just doesn't know how to take criticism"; so at this point you're once again far behind in the civility and best practice departments. When he (rather predictably) responded by reiterating that he felt harassed, you told him to "get over it"...
- So, I'm not saying that in his place I would have characterized your behaviour as hounding right out of the gate--I don't think I would have. But I'm still having a hard time seeing him as the instigator of this battle of personalities. I think you took far too much umbrage to how he worded his responding edit summaries, given how much you had already contributed to setting this mess in motion. I take it as a given that asking either party to be the first to apologize here is pointless, but what I will do is suggest that the best thing for each of you (and for the project you both are here to improve) would be to admit that neither party's behaviour was exactly ideal, then make your best approximation of a grudging handshake and let yourselves get back to editing. Snow let's rap 11:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War detailed map[edit]
Three editors:
- Lists129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Coneleir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
keeps re-adding challenged material into the Syrian Civil War detailed map, and refuse to provide an inline citation to a reliable source when they do. It is explained how to add an inline citation on the map here. I have tried to explain that they, according to the verifiability policy, have that burden, but it's like they don't want to listen. See e.g. this diff which is a revert of this edit. Note that Lists129, after several requests, did provide a diff that included a citation for Jubb Hamad, but no one have ever provided any source for Abu Mendil (except from maps which we can't use according to the Rules for Editing the Map), and they never use inline citations. See also this, this and this discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
To clarify a bit:
- On 23 September, I removed Jubb Hamad ash Shallal from the Syrian Civil War map. Ref. diff
- On 27 September, Lists129 readded Jubb Hamad. Ref. diff
- On 28 September, I reverted Lists129, asking for a source. Ref. diff.
- On 10 October, I removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff. Lists129 restored the material without a citation. Ref. diff. I started a discussion about Restoring unsourced places. Ref. diff. Pbfreespace3 restored Abu Mendil, making a duplicate listing of the village. Ref. diff. Note that none of the sources given are valid (Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.).
- On 11 October, I reverted Lists129 and the duplicated listing of Abu Mendil Pbfreespace3 added. Ref. diff and diff. Coneleir reverted me. Ref. diff and diff.
- On 12 October, I removed Abu Mendil again. Coneleir restored again. Still no source given. Ref. diff.
So. "Jubb Hamad ash Shallal" are now marked as IS-held on our map. That is sourced by this tweet, but you have to find the diff manually to check it. Its here. "Abu Mendil" are now listed twice on the modulpage, and as far as I know, no RS have ever been given. It was added by Pbfreespace3 on 15 July. Ref. diff. The source given in that diff does not even mention the village. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Some questions:
- Is it vandalism to remove information that lack an inline citation to a reliable source, as they claim here? If not, is it harassment to repeadedly mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism?
- Does the burden to demonstrate verifiability lie with the editor who restores material as the verifiability policy says?
- Should challenged material be restored with an inline citation to a reliable source as the verifiability policy says?
- Is it disruptive editing to repeatedly add and re-add material that does not satisfy the verifiability policy?
Erlbaeko (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please, ping me when this report have been deal with. Thanks.
Bumping thread. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Niele~enwiki have removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff, so that is ok. However, I would be nice if an admin could clarify if and how the verifiability policy applies to the map. It's largely based on self-published tweets and as a reader you are not even able to check what source it's based on. What's the point of having "Rules for Editing the Map" if nobody enforce them? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Erlbaeko: I assume this was never replied to because any edits made to that "module" are difficult as hell to understand or follow for almost anyone. However I've had to involve myself in issues with this map before and I know it can be a source of problems. The overarching "law" is even simpler than the specific module rules though. Deleting contentious unsourced content is not problematic or disruptive, certainly not vandalism. The burden of proof does indeed lie on the claimant, i.e. anyone adding, re-adding or asserting anything is required to provide verification. "Challenged" material should be restored with a reliable source, obviously. Restoring unsourced content after it has been removed is edit warring and disruptive editing that is usually dealt with via blocking. And yes, it is absolutely disruptive editing to repeatedly add any material that does not satisfy WP:V, even if it's "true". Please feel free to contact me personally if any of these problems continue. Swarm ♠ 05:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Felsic2[edit]
User:Felsic2 is an agenda driven POV pusher who is desperately trying to add a body count or murder, death, kills to as many pages as possible. He has even created a POV pushers guide to doing so (User:Felsic2/Gun use) in clear violation Wikipedia:Advocacy. In his latest edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms [142] he claims his position is supported when it is in fact heavily opposed (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms). I recommend a permanent firearms topic ban and the deletion of his POV pusher guide (User:Felsic2/Gun use).--RAF910 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Whew. That's a lot of personal attacks without any real support. I suppose that RAF910 could be called "an agenda driven POV pusher" who is desperately trying to prevent some type of information from being added to firearms articles. However he won't find me making a bunch of edits of the type he's describing. I've enaged in discussions anywhere I've made potentially controversial edits. FWIW, the community supported the edit the SIG MCX, in a well-attended RFC, Talk:SIG MCX#RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? RAF910 is mistaken when he says I claimed support for the change to the Wikiproject style suggestions. Rather, I noted a lack of opposition for the change and a lack of support for the existing text, which is contradictory to the actual Wikipedia guidelines at WP:ADVICEPAGE. I request that RAF910 stop making personal remarks about myself and other editors on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive and prohibited by WP:NPA and by specific ArbCom edict. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Mmm. One person's POV-pusher's guide is another person's essay touching on important aspects of policy. It is not a great surprise to see a division such as this, and I doubt it'll be healed anytime soon. But there's no incident here for admins to take action in response to, beyond what seems to be a complete mis-use of this board by RAF910. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't to the level that I see sanctions, but looking briefly at the essay and their actions at the WikiProject, it seems pretty obvious there is a POV in play here. I would remind Felsic2 that we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or shove our ideas against consensus. If that essay was put into meta space as it is currently worded, it wouldn't be long before it was pushed to WP:MFD as political advocacy. It does look like you are focusing purely on an anti-gun agenda, as I sample some diffs. There are plenty of over zealous pro-gun people as well, but that isn't on the table. People who swing from editor to advocate tend to have a short career here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are a few cases where I've seen this issue come up (I don't really edit on military equipment or firearms). But when I have seen it, I've always been astonished by the arguments that are willing to trample so blatantly over voluminous and high quality sources. I think the objection, stated or unstated, is that if a weapon's use in shootings is included in the article on that weapon, it casts the weapon in a bad light, and/or promotes gun control legislation. Such an objection looks like pure WP:ADVOCACY. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- If someone is coming in and their goal is to either add the weapon on all crime articles, or remove it from all crime articles regardless of consensus, that is advocacy in equal measure and violates policy. There are times when it is relevant and when it is not, which of course is a talk page issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Darouet: @Dennis Brown: - I don't want to violate any rules here. I appreciate the guidance. I looked at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It says:
...we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [and] ...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.
- The material I've sought to add to articles is all reported in mainstream media and books from reputable publishing houses. It is not original research. Just the opposite - it represents the majoritarian view. With rare exceptions, the only time individual firearms are mentioned in mainstream media or scholarly publications is in relation to a crime. By excluding that information, we're saying that firearms articles can only use sources like hobbyist magazines and manufacturer websites. Some editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms have been trying to forestall consensus seeking on article talk pages by inappropriately using a project guidance page to overrule the views of individual editors,[143] and by refusing to seek consensus.[144][145]
- What is the best way to address pro-gun advocacy which subverts Wikipedia content policies to exclude what some perceive as negative information? Felsic2 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are missing the entire entirely, and probably will still miss it if you get indef eventually because of it. We don't publish every fact just because there is a source for it. WP:RS is only one policy, like our policies on advocacy are not the only policy on neutrality. And most importantly, you seem to think that the written "rules" are what matters at Wikipedia. You would be wrong. All that matters is consensus. The written version is simply based on the consensus. What matters is practice and how it is enforced, not an individual's interpretation of the written policy. Wikipedia is unique in that. Trust me, if you only spend your time doing what you have done so far, you won't last long. If your focus is to counter pro-gun bias, you won't last long. If you manage to turn it around and instead focus on writing neutral articles, then you will do fine. Countering any perceived bias on a full time basis is advocacy. Think about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- If someone is coming in and their goal is to either add the weapon on all crime articles, or remove it from all crime articles regardless of consensus, that is advocacy in equal measure and violates policy. There are times when it is relevant and when it is not, which of course is a talk page issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are a few cases where I've seen this issue come up (I don't really edit on military equipment or firearms). But when I have seen it, I've always been astonished by the arguments that are willing to trample so blatantly over voluminous and high quality sources. I think the objection, stated or unstated, is that if a weapon's use in shootings is included in the article on that weapon, it casts the weapon in a bad light, and/or promotes gun control legislation. Such an objection looks like pure WP:ADVOCACY. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh...I forgot to mention that Felsic like to endlessly badger his fellow editors on the talk pages. Also, if you fail to respond to one of his comments or answer one his questions, he believes that "Silence equals consensus."[146] and will then make whatever edits he sees fit.--RAF910 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I have always sought to achieve consensus and have offered compromises based on WP policy. Stating, as you have done, that compromise is impossible and that you intend to prevent consensus by objecting without explaining your reasons is tendentious. Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay and not widely accepted. It would be foolhardy to rely exclusively on an obscure essay, which has no basis in enforcement. You can't just cherry pick parts of policies or essays to justify your actions here, you have to actually learn what real consensus is here, on a global scale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm trying to learn the ropes here. It's confusing to know which policies, guidelines, and essays have actual authority here, or if none of them do and a vote to determine consensus is all that matters. It's also confusing to know what to do in response to apparent activism - its not allowed but if it's found no one should oppose it? In any case, I'll keep using talk pages to work towards consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay and not widely accepted. It would be foolhardy to rely exclusively on an obscure essay, which has no basis in enforcement. You can't just cherry pick parts of policies or essays to justify your actions here, you have to actually learn what real consensus is here, on a global scale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Despite Felsic "Aw shucks mister, I'm just learning the ropes" proclamation and a promise to adhere to consensus, he is currently ignoring consensus and edit warring on the AR-15 variant page [147][148][149] and continuing his Wikilawyering on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus for the oddball article title. I've repeatedly raised the issue on the article talk page. No one has provided a source showing it's a common phrase to encompasses the material in the article. If you care about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms then participate there. Please don't cast asperesions or assume bad faith. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Felsic is now forum shopping on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council where he acknowledges that "Members of the project are averse to any changes" to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page.[150] Yet, he still pushing his agenda and still refuses to accept that he does not have consensus to make the changes he wants to make.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does appear that Wikiproject Firearms is misusing a style advice page as if it was a content guideline. Yes, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE that is an example of WP:OWNERSHIP. And yes, the Wikiproject Council is an appropriate place to raise concerns about Wikiprojects. It'd be great if you were part of the solution. Felsic2 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The best advice I can give you is to never revert more than once. Just make it a rule you stick to, before the community forces it on you. Then you will use the talk page and seek consensus sooner, before you upset people for edit warring. Many editors do this exact same thing to keep the peace and to make it clear they want to work with others. It is very rare that I will even revert twice, maybe once a year. Instead I post on the talk page, wait a week, and if no one replies, I assume I can revert again without issue as I have given a good faith effort to communicate. If in doubt, don't make the edit and use the talk page. Of course, if you use the talk page to advocate a particular bias, it is still a problem. Worry less about written rules and more about how people actually do things here. That is all the advice I can give you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Felsic is also incompetent on the firearms subject matter. His latest edits to the M16 rifle page[151] indicate that he either still believes that the ArmLite AR-15, Colt AR-15, and the M16 rifle are the same guns or does not care. Despite being repeatedly told by multiple editors, for many months, on many different talk pages that they are different firearms. He also, now seems to believe that the M16 and M4 are completely different firearms. Even though both the M16 and M4 pages make it absolutely clear that the M4 is nothing more than a shorten version M16. As a result he removed a reference,[152] which he clearly made no effort to read, because both the M16 and M4 were mentioned within. He also, seems to believe that AR-15 gas operated piston models are AR-18 variants[153], when they are completely different firearms designs made using different materials and completely different manufacture processes. He also removed a vast amount of referenced materiel from the Automatic rifle page.[154] Because, he apparently does not understand that all Assault rifles are Automatic rifle despite being repeatedly informed of such. This editing style is highly disruptive and forces knowledgeable editors to continuously waste our time and efforts to correct his edits.--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- He hasn't edited at all since my last comment, which is a bit of warning, so I'm likely to wait and see what he does moving forward before taking action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Felsic finally realizes that his own edits are not helping his case. At this point, he is fairly confident that no action will be taken against him. So, he going to take a few days off. Wait for this ANI to expire and begin again with a vengeance when the spotlight is off.--RAF910 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see some tirritating edits/commentary at the AR-15 variant talk page, but not all of it from Felsic. It's pretty obvious that we have a couple of experienced editors who can't see eye to eye. I do not approve of Felsic's way of behaving themselves on the talk page or in the article--those CN tag edits to the lead are uncollegial and disruptive. I hope they will listen to Dennis Brown whose advice is, as usual, reasonable and and helpful. Thank you Dennis--and you're right, if they keep this up they will be headed for a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- RAF910 is bringing up content disputes, including edits he's reverted without discussion. I'm trying to be collegial by using the talk pages to seek consensus. I'm not sure which policy I'm being accused of violating or what I've done wrong. @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown:, could you please be more specific about what behavior I need to change? Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not up for digging through diffs again and that isn't always fruitful. I've given you some advice above, Drmies has endorsed it, I suggest reading through that again and simply slowing down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Felsic, the problem I see with your comments on the AR-15 talk page is that especially the tone of some of your comments irritates some of your colleagues there, and I think that your undiscussed move of August 2016 came across as uncollegial and set the tone for the rest of the discussion. As I indicated, that editwarring over the CN tags, that's not helpful either. You've been on that topic for some time now; it is probably time to start a well-advertised RfC. Now which policy? Sorry, but if you want me to wikilawyer in response, I'd say WP:5P4 or something like that, since such lengthy discussions easily become disruptive, and the edit warring easily is. So I don't understand why you made this edit, unless it was to make a point. Your argument is "AR clones are called AR"--start that RfC, and may the best argument win. One of the things that talk page needs is fresh eyes. For the record, I do not (yet) see evidence for the statement that Felsic is a "desperate" "agenda driven POV pusher". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm kind of irritated too, by the constant attacks. As for the "AR-15 variant" issue, we've actually made some progress today, because a couple of the editor have made explicit that their concern is simply with trademark issues. I don't know why they didn't say so weeks ago. I've asked for input about what guidelines apply to aricle naming in this case. You're right - this will probably conclude with an RFC. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Felsic2 either can't understand the advice they're being given, or doesn't care what others think, as evidenced by this post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms today where they feel that no explicit objections equals support, in spite of being told in this thread that it isn't so. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Thomas.W: I'm using the talk page to work with editors to find a compromise we can all agree on. But a lot of the responses have been stonewalling. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Stonewalling is a way to tell you that they don't see any need for changes, and counts as opposing your proposed changes. And posting walls of text to wear other editors down until you get your way isn't "working with other editors to find a compromise", besides, people there, me included, don't want a compromise, they want the text to be left as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think those comments describe one part of the problem very clearly. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it does, but not the way you seem to think, instead it shows that you never, as in never ever, respect that others don't share your opinions, and never drop the stick. Proposing changes does not mean being entitled to at least a compromise, as you seem to think, if a majority of other editors feel that no changes are needed or wanted, then that's the way it's going to be, whether you like it or not. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think those comments describe one part of the problem very clearly. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Stonewalling is a way to tell you that they don't see any need for changes, and counts as opposing your proposed changes. And posting walls of text to wear other editors down until you get your way isn't "working with other editors to find a compromise", besides, people there, me included, don't want a compromise, they want the text to be left as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Thomas.W: I'm using the talk page to work with editors to find a compromise we can all agree on. But a lot of the responses have been stonewalling. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- RAF910 is bringing up content disputes, including edits he's reverted without discussion. I'm trying to be collegial by using the talk pages to seek consensus. I'm not sure which policy I'm being accused of violating or what I've done wrong. @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown:, could you please be more specific about what behavior I need to change? Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Felsic is now making edits which appear to serve no purpose, except to provoke his fellow editors and challenge them to revert same.[155] Said edit was indeed reverted by Springee[156] and sparked the following discussion on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms where his fellow editors do not understand why he would make said edit. Bardbom following statement is telling "To me, your edit looks like you are deliberately trying to increase the prominence of the subject your interested on editing. It looks a bit like POV pushing, to be frank. There was no issue with the way it was before, and there seems to be no reason for it to be moved higher up on the page other than to conform with your particular POV"--RAF910 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal attack?[edit]
Am I guilty of making personal attacks? @Miguel Escopeta: has twice accused me of personal attacks,[157][158], including once when I asked for an explanation. I don't want to attack anyone and I feel this editor is mislabelling legitimate editing. Am I in the wrong? If so I'll apologize. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you trying to change subject here, and make yourself look like a victim? If you feel Miguel Escopeta has made anything sanctionable (which I, after reading the diffs, don't feel he has) bring it up in a separate thread here or somewhere else, but not here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The subject of this thread is my conduct. I'm not asking for any actions agasint @Miguel Escopeta: - I'm asking for a review of my own behavior. Frankly, I find Wikipedia policies confusing and I'm not sure if I've actually done something wrong. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You have done a lot of things wrong, so if you haven't done so already (which I doubt you have since you continue doing the exact same things you've being criticised for...) I suggest you read the text above in it's entirety, starting at the header saying "Felsic2", and continuing all the way down to here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk
- The subject of this thread is my conduct. I'm not asking for any actions agasint @Miguel Escopeta: - I'm asking for a review of my own behavior. Frankly, I find Wikipedia policies confusing and I'm not sure if I've actually done something wrong. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that first diff is supposed to show, but this did not remove anything remotely like a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any personal attacks there either, but this is just taking away from the primary issue, Felsic2 cherry picking policy to try to justify edits. I don't think it is all malice, but the previous advice still stands, he needs to worry less about picking out particular sections of policy, and worry more about simply getting along and accepting when a majority disagree with them. That doesn't mean they need more information, sometimes that means you need to accept that you aren't going to get your way, even in a small measure. We are all on the losing side of consensus every now and then, Felsic2 needs to learn to accept this with grace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Felsic2 hadn't edited for a few days but started again today, on articles outside their previously very narrow field of interest, so let's hope they've learnt something from this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. His talk page edits make it clear that he still believes that "silence equals consensus" and that he will make unilateral changes if no one responses to his comments or answer his questions, even if those edits were repeatedly opposed in preceding discussions.--RAF910 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Help with JT Leroy page[edit]
JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello Wikimedia, I've noticed vandalism of the [JT Leroy] page. The quality of the page has been sacrificed because of personal vendettas, and maintaining the scholarship of the page seems to require tedious maintenance. I have spoken to the individuals implicated and would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to someone regarding this matter. Ideally, a brief in-person discussion in San Francisco would be the most efficient way to clear up and resolve the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:855C:2C00:9822:FACF:A50B:E20B (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, for our older readers: is this some gangsta-stylee threat to take it outside?! Muffled Pocketed 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to meet you in person. If you could explain the specifics of the problem (and maybe avoid the florid prose), that would help. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think OP is asking to talk with someone at the WMF. Could someone explain to them how to contact the OTRS volunteer team instead? There's an email address for that but I don't remember where to find it. That's the right channel if you need to discuss a problem like this privately. If it doesn't need to be private, it's best to just say here what the issue is. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The OP should read Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and Wikipedia:Contact us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, No this is not a "gangsta style threat," it's someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and process... I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread. I just want to help figure out a solution to this issues I've seen on this page. Here's an example:
On October 14, NVGDAO13 added this quote (with citation):
She later commented, "I had survived sexual and physical abuse and found a way to turn it into art [...] Having struggled with issues of gender fluidity when there was no language for it, I created a character both on and off the page who modeled this as yet to be named state of being."
Before the day was over, "76.21.32.54", stripped out that quote and the one that followed (also cited):
Writing for The New York Times in 2016, Albert noted, "I meet a lot of young people and they're shocked that it was an issue to even have an avatar. Because they've grown up where you have multiple fully formed avatars."
Today NVGDAO13 undid the deletion and explained,
Laura Albert created JT LeRoy -- eliminating her comments is vandalism.
I know there is some general media controversy over authors using pseudonyms, avatars, etc. I have a strong personal opinion that for anything published as fiction, the identity of the author isn't something the audience has a right to know or claim, and any avatar or pseudonym offered to represent the author is fair game as association with a fictional work. It's not a court of law, it's literature, entertainment, art. Anyways, my personal opinion aside, I think the editing war on this page is getting out of hand for NVGDA013 to handle, who is trying to maintain the page with credible sources- and it's especially unfair to Laura Albert. No matter whether you like or dislike Laura Albert, or agree with her- her quote in The New York Times is a quote in The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.35.0 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Eliminating comments is vandalism? I'm not sure you quite understand how Wikipedia works. Also, IP-hopping doesn't help matters either; you might want to register an account. One thing you are correct about, however—the same users (NVG13DAO and and one more who hasn't been around in over a week) keep edit-warring even after being warned and blocked; not to mention after the article had been protected. Perhaps longer blocks and stronger protection are necessary? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.
The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.
I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A quick update -- a reply from Aloha27: Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- IF you're going to quote me, at least have the decency to quote verbatim:
"::(talk page stalker) Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"
And my response: Aloha27 is deliberately trying to obfuscate what they have done. The links given above are completely unrelated to what Aloha27 did on October 15. Huon's edits have nothing to do with Aloha27's October 15 undoing of my edit, which was vandalism. Instead of hiding what they're doing, I insist once again that Aloha27 either explain in what way the original text that was on the page had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This kind of dissembling has to stop, and the page has to be repaired -- and protected from further vandalism.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note that this topic seems to have become somewhat decentralized and spans the article talk page, as well as a couple user talk pages. (The users were already involved, so WP:CANVAS was not violated.) I've twice advised the editor who did it to keep the discussion here. No further comment further comment on the discussion itself. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, it kind of does constitute canvassing, as it falls under spamming territory. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
AndrewOne[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AndrewOne continues restoring parts of his preferred, contested revision to Terrence Malick, where I had opened an RfC days ago to avoid his kind of edit warring. AndrewOne refuses to abstain from restoring his bold edit and adhere to WP:BRD, continuing to remove portions of the content his revision had originally removed. Another editor has already voiced disagreement with AndrewOne's revision at the RfC. His revision is plagued by poorly sourced original research and puffery, which multiple editors at the RfC have acknowledged. The RfC is open, AndrewOne knows full well it is, I've warned him several times, at the RfC and at his talk page, but he continues behaving this way, reverting in lieu of getting consensus, discussing, etc. I warned him I would report him if he continued and that the article might end up being page-protected from everyone; he did not care. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- 00:02, 18 October 2016
- 13:55, 18 October 2016
- 10:35, 19 October 2016
- 00:07, 20 October 2016
- 10:03, 20 October 2016
- 12:32, 20 October 2016
In the latter two revisions, his removal of the same material is explained first that the source wasn't referring to critics, and then in the second, explained that the source was referring to critics but was wrong in doing so. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I prevented the lead section from misleadingly telling readers that three of Malick's films initially polarized critics. Dan56 supposedly provided two sources for the argument that The Tree of Life did, but those two sources turned out to center (as I have told him), on audience responses rather than on critical responses, and are thus inapplicable. He has also used as a source a sentence from an author of a book about war films. I have attempted to explain why review aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are far better sources for determining critical reception. AndrewOne (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- So along with being a poor contributor of original research, you're also a liar ([159], [160]) Also, the book by the film scholar about war films (since Malick's The Thin Red Line was a war film) actually verifies this "to be engaging and unique, while others consider it pretentious and gratuitous" bit, which you decided to pick and leave in your butchering of the lead. Pick and choose what works for us, right? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
When a film is "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes and receives an 85/100 on Metacritic, one's choice to dispute the statement that it polarized critics is not an instance of picking and choosing whatever works. Review aggregators are called review aggregators for a reason.
Also, please refrain from name calling (e.g. "windbag") on "Talk:Terrence Malick", as well as on all other talk pages. It is unhelpful and rude. AndrewOne (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Review aggregators are useful, but they have weaknesses and limitations. You can't simply ignore the this and synthesize from them that a film was critically acclaimed. For example, see this discussion at WikiProject Film, where there was a consensus not to use Metacritic to authoritatively describe a film's reception. Still, this is mostly a rehash of the RFC debate, which I already contributed to. Two editors on the talk page (Dan56 and me) have identified the changes as original research, and this should be respected – let the RFC play out and don't change the text until you can get a consensus to do so. AndrewOne has a point about Dan56's incivility, so maybe Dan56 can try a little harder to stay calm during discussions he finds frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Content dispute and edit war. This does not belong here at ANI. It belongs at the RfC, and if there is edit-warring, on WP:ANEW (after user-talk warning). Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Battle of France[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive Infobox edits in the Battle of France article by User:KevinNinja reviving an old dispute. Please scrutinise. Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a content dispute, which should be discussed and resolved on the talk-page. The contested edits do not seem very controversial to me, but both of you need to mind the 3RR-cliff. No admin-tools required, IMHO.Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everybody currently edit-warring on that article is aware of WP:EW. It is, after all, only a month since Dennis Brown fully protected the article after another edit war (also involving Keith-264), stating that 'If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff.'
- There are some rather short memories there. Muffled Pocketed 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri 88: I see all kinds of bickering on the TP, what I don't see is any consensus. The conflict has been brewing since last spring and bth sides have not reached (or moved towards) any form of compromise. Hence I still think it's an content dispute, with an edit-war as a result. Perfectly happy with the approach Dennis Brown announced. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not likely to protect again and will just block anyone warring. It isn't fair to other editors to keep locking it. KevinNinja needs to read WP:BRD. If someone removes material you add, it is up to you to take it to the talk page. The default is the status quo, so stop adding it back until something of a discussion can be had. I don't suggest anyone do anymore reverting until a discussion is had on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I came here sooner rather than later to avoid trouble, not cause it. At bottom the dispute is whether contents of the infobox should follow the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict, which is unambiguous. The details are in the talk page ad nauseam. Despite the clarity of its contents I have compromised by leaving in the asinine "Decisive" German victory (it was anything but, according to the informal and impressionistic RS survey, which was about 15:6 for German victory) and only removing the extraneous bullet points. Other editors appeared to have been willing to settle for that until last night's edits. I asked for scrutiny because by posting here I have created a conflict of interest, something which I took to be obvious. Thank you for your comments Dennis but I am of the opinion now that an outsider should dictate the contents of the Result criterion. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then start an RFC on the talk page, that is the best way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I fear that it would be pointless, as some of the comments above demonstrate but thanks for the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: No. Lots of articles have almost no community oversight and the "status quo" was the work of one editor who is ignorant of our content policies. As I said above, this is a general point, and does not appear to apply to Battle of France article. As for your last comment: Umm... why would you wonder about that? ANI is filled with non-admins who comment on a larger number of threads they are not involved with than I do. Many of them aren't even helpful or observant, and look like deliberate trolling. Indeed, in the past you have closed threads I was involved in apparently based on the opinions of such users. At least, unlike several others I could name, I look at the evidence and try to deliver an honest opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- But that's a general explanation of why I feel free to comment on threads in which I am not involved. As for my specific motivations for getting especially involved in the past 2-3 weeks, it's a little complicated. I figured if I helped resolve a number of threads that appeared later than mine, someone would take notice and help me out with the Korean grammar-fascist who's been trolling me. This plan didn't wind up working out for me (the hread got archived a few days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in taking sides, and given what DB said above, I'm not really inclined to comment on this thread any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Dennis Brown, my version is a revised one with suggestions made by editors in the past (ie what points should be kept as important), and my version is also an improved version of what has stood FOR YEARS in the past. Keith keeps undoing for no apparent reason, and although I want his feedback, I obtain none. So, please stop wasting my time with this Keith, thanks... (I'll also note that there is no reason for you to undo my stuff, since result sections in multiple other GAs use pointers)
- So to summarise, please stop creating conflict out of nothing, especially when you provide no reason for undoing my peer approved edits. KevinNinja (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- See what I mean Dennis? KevinNinja ignored your suggestion to read WP:BRD and replied with broken record. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- See my edit on BOF/Talk: "You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have."
- Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from.
If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. JbhTalk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If there is a specific thread or part of a thread which shows differently, which the later threads do not invalidate, please link to it and I will reconsider. JbhTalk 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You could look here [161] or [162] (as an example of WP:uncivil that I'm trying to avoid). The facts are that the RS and the infobox criteria are indisputable. The Battle of France was a German victory partly because it was but mostly because most of the RS consulted put it like that. Plenty of editors agree but you'll have to look back to at least Archive four to see it. My and Kevin's historical opinions are irrelevant as I frequently point out. I want the RS view in the infobox according to the Template:Infobox military conflict criterion for result. Quite why anyone made a fuss in the first place I don't know but it has obscured the issue and the editors who are in consensus about German victory and no bullet points. Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see nothing there which changes my opinion. Right now consensus is against you. I suggest that you either drop it or start an RfC. The best option, in my opinion, would be drop it - if there are enough people who agree with you the change will be implemented anyway. If you think dropping it guarentees a "wrong version" that is a very strong indicator consensus is against you. JbhTalk 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doing a little sampling, KevinNinja's version of [163] does seem to be common if you go back in time, which would indicate the burden is on Keith-264. I would remind Keith-264 that WP:4RR refers to *any* reverts, not just the same revert, and you are at 3RR as I write this. None of this required an admin, just looking at public diffs. As a fellow editor, I would read policy as saying leave the three lines in (which is the current state) and have a discussion or RFC. Even if a consensus decides to leave it out next week, nothing is damaged by it being there for now, as it does have support simply by having been there a while. Now, please move the discussion to the talk page, we are really done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the trouble but the talk page and RFC will be futile; either the Template:Infobox military conflict: Result matters or it doesn't. I suggest you go back a little further in your sampling. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Dennis Brown here (if not his opinions near the top of the thread regarding the general applicability of BRD and "implied consensus", and the precedence of BRD over BURDEN), and have gone ahead and opened the RFC. I am neutral on the result, and will probably refrain from further comment on the page. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- [164] Request a ruling on the propriety of this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Ruling"? I'm not a judge, I can just give opinions or take action on policy violations and I have no idea what the problem is. If it is just because he said "for fuck's sake", I would say you are being overly sensitive. I've said worse, we all have when frustrated from time to time. Under no circumstances is that a violation of WP:NPA and I don't see it as particularly uncivil. It is just peppered exasperation. We don't censor here, after all. The content seemed to be his opinion regarding your edits and the problem they are causing. And they may be correct in stating you are working towards a topic ban. Was it something else I missed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's a figure of speech "for fuck's sake". I told you an RFC was futile now you're proving my point as well. Please stick to the point, which is that the latest outburst of abuse is the latest in a series, enough is enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keith, you really don't get it. I feel for you, but you really don't understand. Someone saying "for fuck's sake" might not be optimum, but it isn't an attack, it isn't abuse. Sometimes people say words like that here. I think many would find that less offensive than your badgering at the RFC. Even when proof is put in your face, you argue against it, such as the long standing consensus at the article. You really are on the way to a topic ban or block, make no mistake about it, because people are tired of arguing with you when you won't listen to their perspective and simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your opinion. (ie: WP:IDHT) Maybe Wikipedia isn't for you, I don't know, but at the rate you are going, that choice will likely be taken from you before too long. As for the RFC, just glancing over the comments, it seems to be moving along just fine. Whether you think it is a waste of time or not, that is completely meaningless. This is how we do it here, so it is best to get used to it if you want to stick around. I'm a bit weary of this thread and you dragging up new offenses that aren't offenses, so I suggest you ponder the advice given here and just let others give their opinions in the RFC, and stay out of it, as you've already given your opinion more than once there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- In view of you insulting my intelligence, threats, personal abuse, intimidation, failure to WP:AGF and flagrant bias I decline to engage further with you. Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here is another example of how summarizing a whole article into a single word, for the sake of filling an infobox' parameter results into an intractable edit war. (1) The Westfeldzug (10 May - 25 June 1940) was decisive for the French Third Republic (who disappeared) ; (2) The same Westfeldzug was not sufficient to decide the issue of WWII, because the issue of a World War is decided at the World scale. Both of these assertions are clear, and unchallenged. Why not trying "result=decisive, but not sufficiently"... or simply avoiding this parameter ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why not try not opening another front in the interminable discussion about the BoF infobox here. This is properly a discussion about which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience, not whether the German's victory was decisive or merely a victory (or, according to one Keith, something that is so very far from a victory that it needs to be explained in the aftermath section.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Pldx1: leave me the hell alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User:Tagishsimon. I will not deny that "which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience" is an interesting question. But, in my opinion, a better question would be: "what can be done to contain this kind of mole-hill battle" ? Here Westfeldzug was not one battle, but a whole campaign, i.e. something between a simple battle and the whole World War. In the infobox, "result" is supposed to be a shortcut for "result_of_the_campaign". On the contrary, in 2016, "decisive" is not read as "in 1940, Gamelin has taken a gamelle (=a French bowl)", but as "this decided, at least in part, the issue of WWII". For the bulleted list, one can argue that "allowed the Ostfeldzug" was one of the main results of the Westfeldzug. And so on. Since there cannot exist a single word that summarizes the whole situation, the best fix is to remind all the contributors of this simple fact. Thus, "result=German victory" with the footnote: "for more details, read the article" appears to be the best way to avoid a further re-ignition. Solutions are supposed to be preventive, aren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why not try not opening another front in the interminable discussion about the BoF infobox here. This is properly a discussion about which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience, not whether the German's victory was decisive or merely a victory (or, according to one Keith, something that is so very far from a victory that it needs to be explained in the aftermath section.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please close this content-dispute thread. An RfC was started 6 days ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyright vio again[edit]
A recent edit of Mahussain06 has the sentence "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012" which is very similar to the sentence "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012" from [165] The user has already been blocked for doing this before. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is a limited number of ways you can paraphrase that, and it is just one sentence. You have to say "calendar" to differentiate types of year, same for "first time", "since 2012". If this one sentence is the only problem, I don't see it as problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are more in their recent edits but that was just one I picked up at a glance. You would think to give them the benefit of the doubt if they had not consistently done it before and been blocked for it. See some examples at WP:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. (The user changed their name from Ruthless-paki) 80.235.147.186 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Also here is the rest of the sentence "when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO" and from the same source "when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." That would be easy to paraphrase and could at least have the entire sentence rearranged. I would say copyright violations are problematic. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thos aren't compelling examples, meaning I'm not going to block for those, they are paraphrasing and isolated sentences that again, can only be said so many ways. I'm not going on a fishing expedition through his contribs. If you file the report, you need to provide enough evidence to show infringement. More than two isolated sentences that individually and taken alone, are not copyright infringement. The burden in on you to provide clear and convincing evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually one sentence and can be said in many ways. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why is it being said? Sounds WP:CRYSTAL to me. Is there something special about fighting three times in a year? Even when the year ends and it presumably becomes a true statement, so what?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the passage and warned the user before coming here, because it looks like a pretty clear-cut case of copyvio/too-close paraphrasing to me. The source is the ESPN article, which also says that the fighter prides himself on being in a lot of fights. That's the crux of why it's an important detail. I have gone ahead and re-written the material to demonstrate an example of how this passage could be worded. "Golovkin prides himself on being an extremely active fighter, and this is the first time since 2012 that he has been in fewer than
fourthree fights." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the passage and warned the user before coming here, because it looks like a pretty clear-cut case of copyvio/too-close paraphrasing to me. The source is the ESPN article, which also says that the fighter prides himself on being in a lot of fights. That's the crux of why it's an important detail. I have gone ahead and re-written the material to demonstrate an example of how this passage could be worded. "Golovkin prides himself on being an extremely active fighter, and this is the first time since 2012 that he has been in fewer than
- Why is it being said? Sounds WP:CRYSTAL to me. Is there something special about fighting three times in a year? Even when the year ends and it presumably becomes a true statement, so what?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually one sentence and can be said in many ways. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thos aren't compelling examples, meaning I'm not going to block for those, they are paraphrasing and isolated sentences that again, can only be said so many ways. I'm not going on a fishing expedition through his contribs. If you file the report, you need to provide enough evidence to show infringement. More than two isolated sentences that individually and taken alone, are not copyright infringement. The burden in on you to provide clear and convincing evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This IP address is located at City Hall, London, Ontario, Canada[edit]
Just a note to Admins as I see other contribs from this IP range, this is a governmental office bldg that has edited City of London in the past as an example. It may be in the interest of neutrality to give this user an editnotice or some other means of conflict of interest deterrence. Thanks and regards, 198.20.47.158 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 198.20.47.158, thank your for the note, but this is not really the best place to post this. In order to deal with these IP addresses accordingly, we place templates on the IP talkpages that state what type of IP that it is, and where it is registered to. I have gone ahead and posted this template on your IP talkpage for you, as it is registered to University of Western Ontario. Regards. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz[edit]
First of all, please read the discussions of User:Signedzzz and User:RioHondo about the obvious possible WP:CoI and WP:BIAS. Just recently, I have been accused by User:Signedzzz of the so-called 'death threat' on my post on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive, because I have followed all instructions from him regarding the use of tags. I have also viewed his revisions and how he delete some sourced contributions and replacing it with the negative ones, that may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:COI.
User:Signedzzz: Huh? Excuse me 'po', but I'm only 15 years old, contributing for WP:NPOV maintenance of Wikipedia, and I think you're an adult already, and you're accusing me "death threat". Seriously, are there no any excuses to remove those tags aside from accussing me of 'death threat'. So childish on your part. Nakakabastos. So scary, because my conscience can't endure that. Okay, back to "false accusations" (read first the WP:BULLYING, WP:NPA):
- First time that I have put those tags on Rodrigo Duterte article, because of your discussions with User:RioHondo on several disputes of content, with mentions of WP:CoI.
- Then, you removed it with a summary of "tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk".
- I've added those tags again and left you message in talk page to tag specific sections, but you have removed those tags, with a summary of 'death threat is no explanation', and removed also the talk page 'need of tags' section, with a summary of 'remove death threat'.
"PS: Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not."
So now, guys, is the quote above a "death threat"? No, It's just a friendly reminder. Like User:Hariboneagle927 said, "it is a reminder for users to be accountable for their edits", because we can be blocked by admins if they found out that our contributions have conflict of interest. It is true that all contributions here in Wikipedia may be seen by both Wiki and non-Wiki members as they can also edit or create an article. Also, I based the quote on the following quote by User:RioHondo:
"Your (User:Signedzzz) September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history."
Wait, for Signedzzz to have interpreted it 'to include Davao Death Squad', which is one of the topics of the discussion, is a foul. I have no any affiliation and will never have on those extrajudicial killers. have now explained my side. Now, this bullying made by User:Signedzzz is truly unjustifiable on the rules of Wikipedia. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The user in fact has a problematic behavior and is intent on turning the Rodrigo Duterte article into a WP:COATRACK. He has been engaging in edit wars with anyone who he sees are trying to add or defend "pro-Rodrigo Duterte" edits, in the article on Rodrigo Duterte. It is evident in the tone of several sections, particularly on Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (really? A viagra comment to introduce his personal life?)
- I first called him out after his attempts to delete whole sections of sourced positive content September 14 1,2,3,4. Since then he has been adding his POV sources, most recent of which is his edits on media killings by inserting out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him.5.
- He also turned our section dispute (of where certain sections must be placed in the article) 9 into an accusation of removing them entirely. 6. In another disruptive edit, he left a note saying "Revert pro-Duterte changes" 7. Really? Anything thats favorable to the person in the BLP is not welcome in his own BLP? But he continues adding his anti-Duterte sources and no one removes them. About his accusation of death threat against the complainant, he was called out in the article's talk page by another user for making that accusation and was told not to delete the post as it was rude, but that ended in another edit war apparently.
- The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving me a laugh, albeit unintentionally. I was intending to ignore this, but I would just like to point out that I wrote little or none of the article sections linked above. If some admin could block the OP, or failing that explain to them the basics of when, why and how to tag articles, that would be helpful. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also I am out of reverts so could someone remove the offending talk page section right now please, thank you. zzz (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I guess no editors have heard of the dog-whistle concept (all the rage now in the Philippines, personified by the subject of the article ...) I was discussing this earlier and I was told "Yes it obviously is, and the fucking [geniuses] at Wikipedia won't be able to understand", so I'm not altogether shocked. It's identical to a death threat, it conveys no (other?) useful or valid information, but "you can't prove it" :( zzz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- That makes a lot more sense now, thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
To the OP, please learn how to link to diffs and sections. It's very hard to follow your evidence when you don't know how to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Links were prepared, User:Someguy1221 ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The OP is too long, but I did make a sincere attempt to read it anyway. None of it makes much sense, and the English is terrible. I've only once before encountered a user who randomly started writing in another language when their point didn't seem to be coming across in English. I can't see any evidence of a bad-faith death threat accusation (or any death threat accusation for that matter). I "Ctrl+F" the words "death threat" (which the OP placed in quotation marks) on the linked talk page, and they do not appear there now. If they have been removed, then a diff should have been provided. Both PopingJuan and RioHondo may be showing signs of WP:CIR issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The death threat accusation is in an edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, the words were used in an edit summary. I do think the wording PopingJuan used is problematic, and it is not difficult, in-context, to read it the way Signedzzz did, as clarified in their following edit summary. I think the way we should deal with these kind of "borderline death threats" should be similar to how we deal with borderline legal threats. clear statement by the user who posted the offending material tht they did not mean this as a threat should be issued, and if such a statement is forthcoming neither user should be blocked. Since it does not appear any statement was made before this ANI thread was opened, Signedzzz should not be sanctioned for attempting to remove what they, in good faith, interpreted as a threat, but since the opening of this ANI thread counts as a de facto statement that no threat was intended, Signedzzz should refrain from further mass deletions. The specific text about people off-wiki seeing the material about death squads should be removed, however, as it is very likely to be interpreted as a threat and the de facto retraction took place on ANI rather than immediately below. If any more edit-warring to reinsert the offending material takes place after this is done, those who reinserted the material should be blocked; if Signedzzz again removes text that does not look like a death threat, he should be block (although reverting any further attempt to reinsert the implied threat is acceptable). I would also caution PopingJuan to be very careful about their wording in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The death threat accusation is just the most recent of his WP:BADFAITH behavior. As with most of the user's dealings with other users in the page, it started from an edit war on appropriately tagged concerns. 1,2,3. Apparently, the user does not see any issue with his edits despite the multiple concerns i brought up on the talk page. It's this pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring and treating the articles mentioned as a battleground that indicate the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. One only has to look at their page histories to see his WP:POINTY edits and how he's basically WP:OWNed them. I just stopped editing in those articles to avoid getting into trouble with someone who does not intend to collaborate and who has a declared conflict of interest. And I commented here only because I was tagged in the discussion. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- RioHondo have explained about it on the above,
~Manila's PogingJuan 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 [originally titled "I am sorry for my country") that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles."
— User:RioHondo, this very noticeboard section- For more information on the subjects tagged, Senator Leila de Lima is the staunchest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration, especially the declared 'war on drugs'.. 1 2
- RioHondo have explained about it on the above,
- @RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Hijiri88: I've removed Tagalog words and eng translations of it (originally italicized) are the replacements. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @PopingJuan: Yes, I read those already. Posting them again does not answer my question about COI, nor does it explain what that has to do with the death threat issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88 Hijack the thread? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure my comments were directed at the WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:BIAS issues that were brought up by the complainant above against the user. And because i was tagged in this discussion, i just had to explain that. As i said, the user admitted his connection to Leila de Lima, an anti-Duterte politician which explains his anti-Duterte edits and hostile behavior in all the articles i mentioned above. It's this pattern of behavior (edit warring, reverting "pro-Duterte edits", malicious accusation) that has lead to this conflict as far as those articles are concerned. The fact that he continued with this problematic editing for a month in those articles with little resistance means every ounce of WP:AGF was extended to him. But AGF can only go so far. That is why i am not surprised with this death threat accusation coming from the user. And again, I am only explaining the dispute with regards to those WP policies that were brought up. I am not "hijacking" this discussion or whatever you'd like to think.--RioHondo (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The actual subject of this thread is the borderline death threat on the talk page. It's clear-cut and already resolved. If you want to accuse Signedzzz of tendentious editing, you should start your own thread. No one is still reading at this point, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:WIKILAWYERING. Only you and your friend see it as a 'death threat'. Everyone else sees it as a pattern of bad behavior from someone who does not want his edits to be questioned or challenged, despite the obvious violations of WP policies. And edit warring to achieve this end.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RioHondo: Signedzzz and I are not friends. We have interacted once before, and while we were kinda-sorta technically on the same side in that dispute, the same was true of virtually everyone involved. Also, please read my comments more carefully. I never said I thought it was a death threat. While acknowledging PopingJuan's statement that it was not meant as a death threat, I said I thought it looked like a death threat. You and PopingJuan, both of whom appear to be non-native speakers, seem to be the only ones who don't think it looked like a death threat. The portion of text that looked like a threat has been removed -- why are we still here? Seriously, if you have evidence of tendentious editing on the part of Signedzzz, I would be happy to look through it, but so far you have given me nothing (the diff of him coatracking the article was something I had to go and dig up myself); and even if you present evidence in this thread at this point, chances are I will be the only one to read it, and I'm not an admin. You should draft your evidence off-wiki or in your user space, and open a new ANI thread when it is ready. This thread has already gone way past WP:TLDR with bullshit about whether PopingJuan meant his comment as a death threat or it merely looked like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hijiri88 A classic example of WP:POV RAILROAD. If the user really saw it as a serious death threat, he would have been first to report it here or to [email protected] per WP:CIVILITY and WP:BULLY. But the user made the accusation in the middle of an edit war with the OP and only thru an edit summary, nothing more. If you think only the OP and I think it is not a death threat, check the Talk page history.--RioHondo (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should check the page history yourself. User:Hariboneagle927 basically agreed[166] with me about the sentence at the end about people off-wiki seeing the commentary being open to interpretation. The only difference is the degree to which we thought it inappropriate -- Hariboneagle interpreted it as PopingJuan apparently intended, while I interpreted it the same way as Signedzzz. Signedzzz's removing the whole thing again[167] was, in my opinion, inappropriate, but he has already essentially agreed to refrain from doing so again (I think he thanked me for one of my posts where I said he should), and I have said that he should be blocked if he does so. PopingJuan's jumping in and reverting Hariboneagle[168] without any explanation was definitely out of line, and his lack of contriteness here indicates to me that he is likely to do it again. Your own choosing to read so much (Signedzzz being insincere) into Signedzzz's not going to the trouble to research normal practice with regard to perceived threats is ... actually pretty disgusting. You should drop that train of thought immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- However you try to justify the user's behavior, it was still done in the middle of an edit war and using that same talk page accusation just to revert the OP's edits--"death threat is no explanation"01 02 03. That accusation itself falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, especially when the user is trying to misrepresent actual edits just to discredit the other editor. He's done that in the past as I have explained in my initial comment.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, an edit war took place. Yes, accusations were made. Yes, both sides made those accusations. The most recent inappropriate revert was by PogingJuan. Signedzzz has said he will stop reverting. PogingJuan has not, and neither have you. You are now the one trying to claim that Signedzzz was in breach of this or that policy or guideline, and therefore you and PogingJuan must be in the right. It is perfectly obvious that Signedzzz was acting in good faith when he read PogingJuan's edit as a threat. You can say what you want about how he should have emailed emergency services rather than removing the offending text, but that's beside the point. I should clarify that I have not read your initial comment: it was 442 words long and I could tell from the first few words that it had nothing to do with whether or not there was a death threat issued. If you want to sum up your problems with Signedzzz, I suggest you be more concise next time. ANI, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is voluntary: if you are too verbose, no one will read what you write. I went out of my way to read the mess PogingJuan posted at the top of this thread so I could respond, and I didn't feel like expending more effort on the unrelated mess you posted.
- And there is also the problem of what on earth you are trying to accomplish here. Do you want an admin to block Signedzzz but not PogingJuan or Hariboneagle for the already-concluded edit war? Blocks are preventative -- if two parties in a three-way edit war (Hariboneagle and Signedzzz) have already agreed to a compromise, then the only preventative block would be one of the third party (PogingJuan). Blocking Signedzzz because you think he was wrong to make the initial revert is not preventative, because he has already agreed that this was wrong and only removing the text that looked like a threat was the way to go.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- "the article must be reviewed to address BLP violations" is not an issue for ANI. I have posted on BLPN for. You don't need to thank me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Allow me to at least say Arrigato. :) But WP:AAEW and WP:NOTHERE, particularly disruptive behavior pattern and battleground, still fall under this ANI thread I think.--RioHondo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- "the article must be reviewed to address BLP violations" is not an issue for ANI. I have posted on BLPN for. You don't need to thank me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- However you try to justify the user's behavior, it was still done in the middle of an edit war and using that same talk page accusation just to revert the OP's edits--"death threat is no explanation"01 02 03. That accusation itself falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, especially when the user is trying to misrepresent actual edits just to discredit the other editor. He's done that in the past as I have explained in my initial comment.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should check the page history yourself. User:Hariboneagle927 basically agreed[166] with me about the sentence at the end about people off-wiki seeing the commentary being open to interpretation. The only difference is the degree to which we thought it inappropriate -- Hariboneagle interpreted it as PopingJuan apparently intended, while I interpreted it the same way as Signedzzz. Signedzzz's removing the whole thing again[167] was, in my opinion, inappropriate, but he has already essentially agreed to refrain from doing so again (I think he thanked me for one of my posts where I said he should), and I have said that he should be blocked if he does so. PopingJuan's jumping in and reverting Hariboneagle[168] without any explanation was definitely out of line, and his lack of contriteness here indicates to me that he is likely to do it again. Your own choosing to read so much (Signedzzz being insincere) into Signedzzz's not going to the trouble to research normal practice with regard to perceived threats is ... actually pretty disgusting. You should drop that train of thought immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hijiri88 A classic example of WP:POV RAILROAD. If the user really saw it as a serious death threat, he would have been first to report it here or to [email protected] per WP:CIVILITY and WP:BULLY. But the user made the accusation in the middle of an edit war with the OP and only thru an edit summary, nothing more. If you think only the OP and I think it is not a death threat, check the Talk page history.--RioHondo (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RioHondo: Signedzzz and I are not friends. We have interacted once before, and while we were kinda-sorta technically on the same side in that dispute, the same was true of virtually everyone involved. Also, please read my comments more carefully. I never said I thought it was a death threat. While acknowledging PopingJuan's statement that it was not meant as a death threat, I said I thought it looked like a death threat. You and PopingJuan, both of whom appear to be non-native speakers, seem to be the only ones who don't think it looked like a death threat. The portion of text that looked like a threat has been removed -- why are we still here? Seriously, if you have evidence of tendentious editing on the part of Signedzzz, I would be happy to look through it, but so far you have given me nothing (the diff of him coatracking the article was something I had to go and dig up myself); and even if you present evidence in this thread at this point, chances are I will be the only one to read it, and I'm not an admin. You should draft your evidence off-wiki or in your user space, and open a new ANI thread when it is ready. This thread has already gone way past WP:TLDR with bullshit about whether PopingJuan meant his comment as a death threat or it merely looked like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:WIKILAWYERING. Only you and your friend see it as a 'death threat'. Everyone else sees it as a pattern of bad behavior from someone who does not want his edits to be questioned or challenged, despite the obvious violations of WP policies. And edit warring to achieve this end.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The actual subject of this thread is the borderline death threat on the talk page. It's clear-cut and already resolved. If you want to accuse Signedzzz of tendentious editing, you should start your own thread. No one is still reading at this point, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88 Hijack the thread? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure my comments were directed at the WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:BIAS issues that were brought up by the complainant above against the user. And because i was tagged in this discussion, i just had to explain that. As i said, the user admitted his connection to Leila de Lima, an anti-Duterte politician which explains his anti-Duterte edits and hostile behavior in all the articles i mentioned above. It's this pattern of behavior (edit warring, reverting "pro-Duterte edits", malicious accusation) that has lead to this conflict as far as those articles are concerned. The fact that he continued with this problematic editing for a month in those articles with little resistance means every ounce of WP:AGF was extended to him. But AGF can only go so far. That is why i am not surprised with this death threat accusation coming from the user. And again, I am only explaining the dispute with regards to those WP policies that were brought up. I am not "hijacking" this discussion or whatever you'd like to think.--RioHondo (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @PopingJuan: Yes, I read those already. Posting them again does not answer my question about COI, nor does it explain what that has to do with the death threat issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: First, the one who accused me of 'death threat' is Signedzzz. He removed the section I've placed and wrote on the summary as 'remove death threat'. You may want to visit this one. By the way, I saw your contributions on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte, also stating of the summary that "removed pointless borderline death threat threats". I'm not going to revert it back as I'm tired. I've explained on the OP that this one is not a death threat, and just a friendly reminder that we may be blocked by admins if they found out that our contribs has a conflict of interest or it's written in a non-neutral PoV. Now, about CoI. You said in a question, "Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte?" He doesn't like Duterte and like the critic De Lima? Well, I don't care, it's his/her business. But if it's affecting on how he write articles about the said subjects, and when he starts writing within a PoV, deleting other sourced contributions and replacing it with anti-Duterte contribution that's pretty much wrong as it is violating rules. And he has been deleting the tag of Template:POV, asking me what's the basis, and now I've answered and I just reminded, then now I am being accused of 'death threat'ing a Wikipedian. That's it after all. I hope you understand my sentiments of writing with neutral point of view, with User:RioHondo. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- You did post a death threat on the talk page. Whether you meant it as a death threat is irrelevant, because that is how it was interpreted, and this interpretation had merit. The portion of your comment that constituted the threat has been removed now. You should be more careful going forward. Can we close this thread now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: First, the one who accused me of 'death threat' is Signedzzz. He removed the section I've placed and wrote on the summary as 'remove death threat'. You may want to visit this one. By the way, I saw your contributions on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte, also stating of the summary that "removed pointless borderline death threat threats". I'm not going to revert it back as I'm tired. I've explained on the OP that this one is not a death threat, and just a friendly reminder that we may be blocked by admins if they found out that our contribs has a conflict of interest or it's written in a non-neutral PoV. Now, about CoI. You said in a question, "Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte?" He doesn't like Duterte and like the critic De Lima? Well, I don't care, it's his/her business. But if it's affecting on how he write articles about the said subjects, and when he starts writing within a PoV, deleting other sourced contributions and replacing it with anti-Duterte contribution that's pretty much wrong as it is violating rules. And he has been deleting the tag of Template:POV, asking me what's the basis, and now I've answered and I just reminded, then now I am being accused of 'death threat'ing a Wikipedian. That's it after all. I hope you understand my sentiments of writing with neutral point of view, with User:RioHondo. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Move to close PopingJuan posted what looked like a death threat, and Signedzzz attempted to remove it several times. PopingJuan has clarified that they did not mean it as a threat. The offending text has been removed. There seems to be an ongoing (good-faith) content dispute, but that is not something ANI can or should resolve, at least until evidence is provided that it is anything more than a content dispute. Both RioHondo and PopingJuan have insisted that this is more than a content dispute, but have not provided any evidence. They have been advised to regroup, organize what evidence they have, and open a new thread later, if they so choose. The "death threat" issue discussed at length in the top half of this thread has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I and Riohondo have given you links on Signedzzz's edit, showing the most possible non-neutral POV. why should we close this ANI, if there were issues like the most possible POV-edits of Signedzzz? Do you really think, it's only the WP:BULLYING that I am continuing this fight for, despite of busy schedules outside Wiki? No, this started once and for all, because of POV edits of Signedzzz, proved by me and RioHondo using links we have posted on ANI. I think we need other contributors' opinion regarding the issue. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88:: Another thing, if that the alleged 'death threat' was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags. This time, you really have to answer this, @Signedzzz:. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or else, I have to tag Signedzzz as incompetent as since the time this ANI has started, I haven't see any explanations of Signedzzz about his non-NPOV edits on Duterte and related topics. And wait, what is his rationale on, my humble opinion, this non-sense reply of him: "If some admin could block the OP,"? ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Give it a fucking break already. Signedzzz was wrong to remove your whole post rather than just the bit that looked like a threat. You were wrong to reinsert the bit that looked like a threat. Signedzzz has said he will no longer attempt to remove your whole post now that the bit that looked like a threat is gone. Why the hell are we still here, apart from your stubbornly wanting to continue discussing a content dispute on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or else, I have to tag Signedzzz as incompetent as since the time this ANI has started, I haven't see any explanations of Signedzzz about his non-NPOV edits on Duterte and related topics. And wait, what is his rationale on, my humble opinion, this non-sense reply of him: "If some admin could block the OP,"? ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88:: Another thing, if that the alleged 'death threat' was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags. This time, you really have to answer this, @Signedzzz:. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I understand the frustration of being accused of making a death threat, (it is the lowest form of 'argument' in an edit war that borders on harassment if you ask me), we can still discuss these issues in a civil and polite way and not have to resort to shouting (bold letters) or saying the f word as User:Signedzzz did above. Having said that, is this 'death threat accusation' really just an isolated incident that stemmed from misunderstanding? Or is it part of a growing pattern of abusive or hostile behavior on the part of the accuser? I have laid down my own observation of the user and i say here: i saw it coming. Remember this started with a simple POV tag to the article. It wasn't like deleting any of the user's numerous questionable contributions to the article.01. The user reverted the OP saying it was unexplained 02. As the user continued editing the article, the OP then restored the tags saying discussions on talk page enough for declaring the article with 'NON-NPOV' and has a 'systematic bias03. Again, none of his edits were being reverted but just the tags which IMO, are reasonable given our disputes in the talk page. The user again rejected it and asked the OP to tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk04 When the OP did and provided a link to the talk page discussion as requested by the user05, the user then out of nowhere accused the OP and reverted him with a casual note: death threat is no explanation06. Was the accusation then a legitimate grievance? or an argument in an edit war meant meant to silence the OP? Even without context, the accusation was still made in the midst of an edit war which puts the accusation in question. And then when you consider the history of the user's behavior in the article, this pattern of disruptive behavior, it tells us it is false and a harassment against the newbie OP, as I myself have experienced with the user.--RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rodrigo Duterte is a seriously badly written tabloid-like (over written trivia, under written hard content) article on a vile individual, a true monster. I can imagine that in that environment/on that topic the merest implied hint of a death threat could have serious inplications, and even something unimplied can be easily misinterpreted as being one. And people actually worry about a few offhand words said by Donald Trump! Compared to Duterte, he is a saint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your observation. User:Hijiri88 already posted those article concerns on WP:BLPN which I hope will really clean up or straighten out those neutrality and coatracking issues raised. The anti-Duterte user has been editing that article more than any of us here so he knows what he was doing and what he was getting himself into. Despite the controversial nature of the person in the BLP, it hadn't been this hostile an environment and in fact people have been editing the article freely with both pros and cons being accepted in good faith. It all changed when those mass deletions of pro content and replacement with all negative trivia took place. Since then, edit wars became frequent with the user now questioning every pro edit. He continued editing at his will though. Neither the OP nor I deleted any of his edits except the time i reverted his deletions. The article talk page is proof of this long standing neutrality dispute so the user has no reason to edit war on simple tags. Or cry foul and make baseless accusations in doing so. I hope your article on Donald Trump is not as hostile though :).--RioHondo (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rodrigo Duterte is a seriously badly written tabloid-like (over written trivia, under written hard content) article on a vile individual, a true monster. I can imagine that in that environment/on that topic the merest implied hint of a death threat could have serious inplications, and even something unimplied can be easily misinterpreted as being one. And people actually worry about a few offhand words said by Donald Trump! Compared to Duterte, he is a saint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Edit warring anew Ok. This is too much. User:Signedzzz has been engaging in edit war again today, after deleting a sourced content calling it WP:SYNTH or WP:OR when that text has been there long and is clearly supported by ref. He has taken ownership of the article, wouldn't even reply to my msg in his talk to explain his Synth and OR claims. 123. I dont care if he hates Rodrigo Duterte, but this hostility towards users trying to put balance and objectivity to the article has got to stop.--RioHondo (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RioHondo: (1) Your pun on WP:ANEW was delightful, and gave me a good chuckle. Thank you. (2) Your wording is clearly not supported by the source. The Ombudsman's office said they had not been gathering evidencd against Duterte, not that no such evidence existed. The quotation about Not finding evidence (presumably having searched) comes from the Senate justice committee, which is clearly not the same as the Office of the Ombudsman. (3) You say he "wouldn't even reply to [you on] his talk", but his last edit was eight minutes before you posted on his talk page. (4) I highly doubt anyone other than me is reading your continued commentary in this thread. (5) Your behaviour here is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. You have a content dispute wih Signedzzz, and virtually every thirs pary so far has taken his side in this dispute because he seems to have the better position. You have been tying to get around the proper dispute resolution avenues by painting this as a one-sided user conduct issue and wikilawyer your way into getting some kind of undefined sanction against Sinedzzz. You clearly do not have a leg to stand on. If you continue in this behaviour rather than opening an RFC or DRN discussion on your content dispute, I will request that you be blocked or TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why the above user keep speaking on behalf of Signedzzz, and "interpreting" the user's actions and intentions as if he was his designated spokesperson, but where is the Senate committee on justice in this Rappler source cited? This was a January 2016 Ombudsman decision when Duterte was not yet president. The senate justice committee is an entirely different matter and came much later when he was already president. Btw, can the above user get his friend to do the explaining here instead of providing his alibi all the time? And why is he even more angry than the accused? He claims to have only interacted with the user on one occasion, but he talks like he knows all the issues of the user and even the article where he is not even an active contributor.--RioHondo (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RioHondo: (1) Your pun on WP:ANEW was delightful, and gave me a good chuckle. Thank you. (2) Your wording is clearly not supported by the source. The Ombudsman's office said they had not been gathering evidencd against Duterte, not that no such evidence existed. The quotation about Not finding evidence (presumably having searched) comes from the Senate justice committee, which is clearly not the same as the Office of the Ombudsman. (3) You say he "wouldn't even reply to [you on] his talk", but his last edit was eight minutes before you posted on his talk page. (4) I highly doubt anyone other than me is reading your continued commentary in this thread. (5) Your behaviour here is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. You have a content dispute wih Signedzzz, and virtually every thirs pary so far has taken his side in this dispute because he seems to have the better position. You have been tying to get around the proper dispute resolution avenues by painting this as a one-sided user conduct issue and wikilawyer your way into getting some kind of undefined sanction against Sinedzzz. You clearly do not have a leg to stand on. If you continue in this behaviour rather than opening an RFC or DRN discussion on your content dispute, I will request that you be blocked or TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:
- User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
- User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough. Also, he is altering the discussion. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: PBAN User:RioHondo from the Duterte article and its talk page[edit]
I don't know if some of Signedzzz's oher edits have been disruptive, but clearly the basis of this thread is flawed (the death threat accusation was not in bad faith -- it really looked like one) and in the recent "edit-warring" he was trying to keep unsourced material out of the article that RioHondo was insisting on including. RioHondo's above refusal to drop he WP:STICK indicates that he isn't interested in civil discussion of their content dispute, and is engaged in harassment of Signedzzz. Therefore, I think banning RioHondo from the page would be a reasonable solution to the current disruption.
- Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. Do not alter the discussion. It's Signedzzz and you that should be banned and blocked. You said Signedzzz would not be disruptive again. One more thing, speaking for another user is not right, even without presenting evidences that he really said that. Let Signedzzz explain in this ANI. And why I have raised this ANI? It's because I believe that it is a part of his strategies so I would stop tagging the POV tags on Duterte article. And he was in so-called good faith in removing the whole need of tags section because of only one sentence reminder that he said is a death threat? He could remove that sentence only, but he instead removed all, even the POV tags on Duterte article that is needed due to discussions in the talk page. Well, I did raise this ANI in good faith. RioHondo and I have presented evidences of disruptive behavior and POV edits of Signedzzz above with good faith and with accordance of Wikipedia policy. While you have been lawyering Signedzzz and Signedzzz have not presented his rationale on why he should be absolved. We are not even in a judicial court for a need of lawyering. Also, Signedzzz proposing that admins should block me without rationale and I should be taught on how to tag, while I have tagged it correctly. It's not even right. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you even want to ban RioHondo in Duterte article and talk? Ah I know why, you've been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion was opened. Therefore, so no one can stop Signedzzz on his, sorry for the word, shit POV editing of the article. But I'm sorry, I'm back on the track. I'll still fight for neutral point of view editing and still looking for admin's sanctions on Signedzzz for his accusation of so-called 'death threat' that he said I have placed, just to stop me on putting NPOV tags. I'm still for the improvement of Rodrigo Duterte article and I'm ready to put sourced contribution, even it is a positive or negative one. Stop biased editing here. I really don't care if you like or hate Rodrigo Duterte. On Wikipedia, we must be neutral. And to Hijiri88, stop lawyering Signedzzz like we are in a judicial court. Let him explain. Do not be his same user. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:
- User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
- User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough.~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @PogingJuan: "It's ... you that should be banned and blocked" That's pretty ridiculous. What would blocking me do? Or banning me? What kind of ban? A page ban? I've only edited the page once, an innocuous edit several weeks ago. And what did I do either here or on BLPN that would merit a block? I have been consistently trying to calm the situation and get the three of you to discuss your content dispute in a civil manner. I proposed a reasonable solution to the perceived death threat and edit-warring that Signedzzz accepted and you appear to have tacitly accepted, but you have continued arguing that something should be done to "punish" Signedzzz for having edit-warred and overreacted to your comment even though the problem abated. Signedzzz has indicated he is amenable to dispute resolution, whereas the two of you have just continued making outlandish claims and insisting that the admins indefinitely block Signedzzz (I think?) without any evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: What reasonable solution? The deletion of that sentence reminder? Not bringing it back does not mean I did agree. Do you think it's not hard to be accused of something you didn't really do, while you only did something in good faith and without malice? To remind you, the discussion is not only opened because of the accusation of death threat, but also because of its roots, like POV editing of Signedzzz and his continuous removal of POV. It's a chain reaction, bro! The fact that this discussion is not yet closed, Signedzzz is still continuously being engaged in edit wars and still with Duterte article, as RioHondo have explained with evidences. Isn't it enough for Signedzzz to be blocked indefinitely? He will not stop unless he'll be blocked. And the fact you have been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion opened with Signedzzz himself do not present rationale, instead, say that I must be blocked because of no reason and say I must be taught by admins when to put tags, while I have put it properly and rationally. Let him explain in this ANI. One more thing, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while he have acted properly? He did contribute to the article and Signedzzz is keeping on removing it while the contribution was sourced. On the logic, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while both of them, RioHondo and Signedzzz, are involved? It will be biased if you only want RioHondo be blocked, while Signedzzz you don't want, just for the dispute be stopped, and Signedzzz will continue his disruptive behavior because no one will oppose him even his activities are against Wikipedia policies. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reasonable solution was that (1) the portion of your post that resembled a death threat be removed (a concession on your part), (2) Signedzzz stops trying to remove the rest of your post (a concession of Signedzzz's part), and (3) both of you stop edit-warring over the post (a mutual concession). It is obvious that the edit-warring on the article has continued, but it takes two to edit-war and (in the most recent instance regarding what the Ombudsman has said) Signedzzz appears to be right with regard the substance and Signedzzz has not tried to wikilawyer his way to a "victory". "because of no reason" is incorrect -- anyone who examines any of your posts in this thread, or on the talk page, can see how the project may be better off without you. I say "may" because I myself think that you are acting in good faith and, if your dispute with Signedzzz were properly mediated, there would be no problem, and this is why I have not proposed that you be blocked. If you continue to make accusations about how I am acting as a "lawyer" for Signedzzz I will reconsider this opinion. I have not been paid, nor have Signedzzz and I entered into any kind of agreement, and I have actually been rather critical of him if you go through everything I have posted in this thread. The only reason it seems like I am taking sides is because, by and large, Signedzzz has politely accepted my criticism and acted in accordance with my advice, while you and RioHondo have been refusing any form of compromise and aggressively attacking me as being in some way partisan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: What reasonable solution? The deletion of that sentence reminder? Not bringing it back does not mean I did agree. Do you think it's not hard to be accused of something you didn't really do, while you only did something in good faith and without malice? To remind you, the discussion is not only opened because of the accusation of death threat, but also because of its roots, like POV editing of Signedzzz and his continuous removal of POV. It's a chain reaction, bro! The fact that this discussion is not yet closed, Signedzzz is still continuously being engaged in edit wars and still with Duterte article, as RioHondo have explained with evidences. Isn't it enough for Signedzzz to be blocked indefinitely? He will not stop unless he'll be blocked. And the fact you have been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion opened with Signedzzz himself do not present rationale, instead, say that I must be blocked because of no reason and say I must be taught by admins when to put tags, while I have put it properly and rationally. Let him explain in this ANI. One more thing, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while he have acted properly? He did contribute to the article and Signedzzz is keeping on removing it while the contribution was sourced. On the logic, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while both of them, RioHondo and Signedzzz, are involved? It will be biased if you only want RioHondo be blocked, while Signedzzz you don't want, just for the dispute be stopped, and Signedzzz will continue his disruptive behavior because no one will oppose him even his activities are against Wikipedia policies. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- How about if all of you end this idiocy and go back to editing articles? EEng 16:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Rajasekharan Parameswaran[edit]
User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is an undisclosed COI editor, who has extensively edited his own page, Rajasekharan Parameswaran. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues at hand.
- Firstly, the undisclosed COI- despite a notice on his talk page and on the article's talk page, he has not disclosed it as required.
- This is problematic as he is making very promotional edits- see the state of the article before I mass-removed a lot of promotional cruft.
- There is also a second problem- as he hasn't disclosed his COI; in not doing so he has not actually proved that he is Rajasekharan Parmeswaran. This is problematic because he's now started to upload his own artwork- see his contrib history. Despite one of his files being listed at FfD (and duly deleted), he still failed to provide proof that he was Mr Parameswaran.
- This is problematic because a section of his page is copied and pasted from his own biography- the section entitled "Early life" can be found in its entirety here- an article published in 2009, predating the Wikipedia source.
I opened a COIN thread in September, but rather embarrassingly no one responded. He has continued with these edits and uploading of his own artwork, hence I have taken it to ANI, as he has not responded on any talk pages, or noticeboards, or FfD. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- He has now replied on my talk page, but has taken away completely the wrong message, saying that he won't upload his own artworks, which was not the point at all. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would be reluctant to make a big deal about the non disclosure. While technically it's true he hasn't formally disclosed, realistically when someone called "Rajasekharan Parameswaran" is editing an article called Rajasekharan Parameswaran, adding the name to List of Tamil people, etc; most editors are more likely to see that this could be a problem then a formal disclosure on the user page of an editor called "Anrdt" which many people aren't even going to see. More importantly, does editing an article on yourself and adding yourself to other pages, even if fame probably helps your business as an artist even fall under Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? My impression is it doesn't, in which case it's questionable if disclosure is mandatory or just very strongly encouraged. I would be slightly concerned about the issue of Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names namely whether the editor concerned is really who they say they are or there is a possibility of impersonation but this is a WP:BLP issue rather than COI issue. Practically, we don't always require confirmation, especially when the editing is mostly limited to stuff relating to themselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've accepted requests to remove birthdates, deletion and other stuff where a subject's wishes are sometimes taken into account without actually confirming it's the subject. The copyright issue is related and quite concerning. I would suggest the text is removed until we have confirmation that the copyright holder has authorised re-use. Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
First thing that user Good_times_charlie,_he_walks_like_this (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does it open an AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination). That is not normal behavior for new users but what more according WP:ARBPIA3 new users are not allowed to edit such articles at all and certainly not start AFD discussions.So this discussion should be closed probably.--Shrike (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Given that the discussion has already started, I see no harm in letting it continue. This editor does not have the ultimate say over the result of the detabe. Number 57 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is an interesting question. If someone is not eligible to edit an article, then they can't go to AFD with it without violating policy. It is suspicious that a new user would start in AFD, so my sockpuppet radar is going off, but regardless, this is clearly a violation of Arbitration restrictions. This is more of an AE issue than ANI, but there, I would say block and delete AFD, and ask for a CU to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Should I take it to WP:AE then?--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- What more I see three users votes that not allowed to edit there. --Shrike (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think yes, AE, mention all the voters and let them hash it out there, and notify them of course. ANI is not well suited for this, as it is an administrative decision to interpret Arb's rulings, not so much community's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Smells like dirty socks to me. Might be worth running by WP:SPI. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC).
- More so the reason to move it to AE, you will find more CU bits around there and it is easier to get a binding solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Good times charlie, he walks like this has been indef blocked as a sock by User:DeltaQuad, describing it as "Someone's obvious sock behind a proxy". The AfD discussion does not look bad as discussions go, but there are a number of participants who are not extended-confirmed. The least stressful option might be to let the AfD run to a normal conclusion but then have the admin closer not include the opinions of those unqualified under ARBPIA3. Anyone who wants to warn the non-qualified voters not to continue could do so. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I left a note in the AfD pointing to the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction. I hope that others agree that the AfD should run normally but the ineligible votes should not be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Good times charlie, he walks like this has been indef blocked as a sock by User:DeltaQuad, describing it as "Someone's obvious sock behind a proxy". The AfD discussion does not look bad as discussions go, but there are a number of participants who are not extended-confirmed. The least stressful option might be to let the AfD run to a normal conclusion but then have the admin closer not include the opinions of those unqualified under ARBPIA3. Anyone who wants to warn the non-qualified voters not to continue could do so. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- More so the reason to move it to AE, you will find more CU bits around there and it is easier to get a binding solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Smells like dirty socks to me. Might be worth running by WP:SPI. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC).
- I think yes, AE, mention all the voters and let them hash it out there, and notify them of course. ANI is not well suited for this, as it is an administrative decision to interpret Arb's rulings, not so much community's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- What more I see three users votes that not allowed to edit there. --Shrike (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Should I take it to WP:AE then?--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is an interesting question. If someone is not eligible to edit an article, then they can't go to AFD with it without violating policy. It is suspicious that a new user would start in AFD, so my sockpuppet radar is going off, but regardless, this is clearly a violation of Arbitration restrictions. This is more of an AE issue than ANI, but there, I would say block and delete AFD, and ask for a CU to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Close the AfD Allowing an AfD begun by an editor not permitted to do so effectively undermines the rule. For the same reason we normally revert edits, even non-controversial ones, added by banned editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it was a fresh AFD I'd agree, but I think enough people have now engaged with it in good faith that it's probably better to let it run. It's running towards a "no consensus" anyway so it's not like the status quo is going to change. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC).
User:Objective3000 acting in an intentionally disruptive manner[edit]
In a dispute on The Pirate Bay (TPB) Objective3000 is being intentionally disruptive and ignoring a source in favor of personal opinion. He has also interpreted it as illegitimate because he believes it to be an unreliable quote despite no evidence that it is (and more importantly giving no sources that it is). He also alludes to a comment warning in the page, a practice that is not allowed per MOS:COMMENT.
The dispute relates to whether or not TPB should be listed as non-profit, and the source in question: [169], listing it as transferred to a non-profit. No sources given stating anything else. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The source you give links to a "403 Not allowed" site. Do you have an actual link? Moriori (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It works for me, could this be related to the internet outages today? Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. Can’t believe he actually brought this here. Long ago, there were long discussions on whether The Pirate Bay (TPB) is or is not non-profit. The consensus was that the claim by TPB was disputed and controversial – particularly since the judge at the TPB trial said that they were not. The consensus was that the claim of non-profit status could not be placed in the infobox as it was disputed and controversial, and an infobox should not include disputed info. To stop edit-warring, a note was added to the infobox not to change the status and why. Editor distrait cognizance removed the warning and the long-standing text, replacing it with a previously rejected claim of non-profit status multiple times. He bases this on a puff piece that merely copied, word for word, text from the TPB site, which is run by anonymous people who have been on the run from country to country for years. It’s uncertain as to what country they are located and their names are still unknown. He refused to gain consensus and issued a threat to take this to ANI twelve minutes after I reverted. I really think that bothering ANI after 12 minutes is a tad disruptive.
- Incidentally, he also failed to mention this ANI incident on my talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The claim of "non-profit" in that page doesn't appear to have the same meaning as the legal definition of a non-profit, and was a weak claim based on a weak claim, so I wouldn't make any edit based on that singular mention, particularly since a court of law has deemed them non-eligible as a non-profit. "Non-profit" isn't just a claim, it is a legal status, a type of corporation or organization that is recognized in law. Saying this is well sourced is false. More to the point, if there is a long standing consensus, and the bold change is reverted, then the burden is clearly on Distrait cognizance to leave it alone until they can form a consensus on the talk page. Continuing to add it back is edit warring, against the principles in WP:BRD, and is clearly disruptive. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Distrait cognizance, you skipped all of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not a suitable place to resolve content disputes. Please go back to the talk page, make your arguments for including this content, and if you're not able to persuade the article's regular editors, you can seek a third opinion, or start an RfC.- MrX 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue here is not about the content dispute, but one about ignoring sources in favor of personal opinion. As that violates policy it is an AN/I issue. If a single source, or even a link to the alleged consensus was brought forth this wouldn't need to be here. MOS:COMMENT does not allow such comments if they try to forbid users from making an edit, it might be appropriate to link to a discussion, but there was no such link. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- 1.) It was not personal opinion. It was long-standing consensus. 2.) You threatened another editor for a single revert and brought this to ANI after 12 minutes with no attempt at resolution or in gaining consensus yourself. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- What Objective said. And MOS or no MOS, we often use hidden comments when there is a consensus and there is problem with people changing it against that consensus. It is for their benefit. See also: WP:IAR. MOS is a set of important guidelines, but it isn't chiseled into stone. Take it to the talk page of the article and have a discussion there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is discussion on the talk page, and progressing better now with more voices present. However, the issue at hand surrounds the "shoot-first, ask questions later" attitude behind the multiple reverts without so much as an attempt to bring forth sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Once you have been told there is an existing consensus, the burden is on you. The "source" you brought is not adequate and falls very far short of what would be expected to change consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is discussion on the talk page, and progressing better now with more voices present. However, the issue at hand surrounds the "shoot-first, ask questions later" attitude behind the multiple reverts without so much as an attempt to bring forth sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- After Mr X. reverted to consensus, Destrait cognizance once again, just now, changed it to non-profit -- disputed. He is edit-warring even during an ANI. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- May I request that a sysop revert to consensus during discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Admin can't do that, that would have us getting involved in content. As "admin", our role is maintenance and behavioral. Doing so would mean we can no longer act as admin on that page during this dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that. But, I don't want to bother ANI with an edit-warring complaint -- obvious as it may be. Was hoping an uninvolved admin could just revert to consensus for now. It's kinda weird now. It says non-profit, and as a ref, provides an article stating that it isn't. Even if this made some kind of sense, it should be reverted for WP:EW. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someone else did it, which keeps me free to use the admin tools if needed, which is the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken. Unfortunately, he partially reverted the fix reintroducing the poor source while discussion and the ANI continue. He has also erased the suggestion posted to his user page. Perhaps another gentle suggestion is in order that he stop editing the article while the discussion continues. Objective3000 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someone else did it, which keeps me free to use the admin tools if needed, which is the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that. But, I don't want to bother ANI with an edit-warring complaint -- obvious as it may be. Was hoping an uninvolved admin could just revert to consensus for now. It's kinda weird now. It says non-profit, and as a ref, provides an article stating that it isn't. Even if this made some kind of sense, it should be reverted for WP:EW. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Admin can't do that, that would have us getting involved in content. As "admin", our role is maintenance and behavioral. Doing so would mean we can no longer act as admin on that page during this dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Wwikix and categories[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user User:Wwikix has basically re-arranged the whole of wikipedia category structure and processes without consultation or any form of sign of checking against standard established procedures of reaching consensus in project or talk space.
When challenged the general responses have never referred to general policy or established procedures, simply referring to common sense, I think and similar phrases.
I believe a reasonable level of WP:AGF here on english wikipedia, has allowed this user to exploit the general disinterest in large scale re-arrangement of category structure and unfortunately a number of editors who have worked in the area are not currently active or editing.
My concern is that the discussions at project Category, the users talk page, and the general responses require a closer look, as the editors who have challenged the changes, are responded to in a way that I believe requires a more critical look at what exactly is going on. JarrahTree 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense, very exaggerated. Wwikix (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Show me where you consulted first before changing category strucuture on english wikipedia, and could you be kind enough to explain to english speakers what [[170] means, and what was all that about? JarrahTree 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that needs much translating, actually! -although what the actual offences were might be relevant. Think I saw Drmies around recently...? Muffled Pocketed 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't speak Dutch, but a Google Translate of [171] shows a very similar pattern to what we see at User talk: Wwikix. Evidence of a great number of changes not based on policy but based solely on the user's view of what is good and what isn't. agtx 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that needs much translating, actually! -although what the actual offences were might be relevant. Think I saw Drmies around recently...? Muffled Pocketed 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Show me where you consulted first before changing category strucuture on english wikipedia, and could you be kind enough to explain to english speakers what [[170] means, and what was all that about? JarrahTree 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's a fairly spot-on explanation of your activities and your responses when questioned. And I was also, earlier today, considering registering my concerns here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo: to whom are you replying? Muffled Pocketed 15:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to be as WP:AGF as possible (was wp en meant to be a fresh start? or a continuation of the same on nl?), but the responses from the editor to date, as to why and how he is implementing changes to categories and category structure, and the explanations at his talk and the category project talk, suggest that regardless of the context of the blocks there at NL, the problem here, is something that needs to be considered carefully, and not dismissed without careful examination of what exactly is going on.
- To Wwikix, where he states that JarrahTree's complaint is an exaggeration, but the outdent is obscuring the hierarchy of responses.
- @Largoplazo: to whom are you replying? Muffled Pocketed 15:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's a fairly spot-on explanation of your activities and your responses when questioned. And I was also, earlier today, considering registering my concerns here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Something is weird an edit has removedJarrahTree 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A claim was made that Wwikix is changing "the whole of category structure on Wikipedia". That indeeds sounds like an exxageration. I have quite a few categories and Cfd-related pages on my watchlist, but haven't noticed his activities yet. @JarrahTree, what are you referring to? Debresser (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think it is an exageration - by creep through the whole range of edits - by implication and possible precedence - have a look at his edit history, you will see... the having parent and child cats on the same cat has created a fundamental change to structure and specific conventions by editing, and only responding after being discovered on smaller items - no attempt to consult or check before it was all happening - the admins who have visited have been either argued with, or ignored, or simply deflected by claiming that it is something he likes to do rather than indicating a policy or procedure we have here on wp en JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I do speak Dutch. The Dutch ArbCom noticed that Wwikix often edits against broad consensus, and decided that whenever an objection was raised against an edit of his, he would have to establish consensus first, and can not further edit that article till he does so. For the course of one year. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, I just spent ten minutes looking for the 2010 Dutch ArbCom case, which I (finally!) was hoping to find here--but to no avail. Do you know where it is? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Isn't that Agtx's link? Or maybe that one links to it ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah yes--thanks. There was a name change, I suppose.
OK--the ArbCom case said nothing about categories, as I thought it might from the enormous amount of category-related complaints on their Dutch talk page; it's rather a more general case, where it was decided that the editor did not handle criticism well and regularly edits against consensus. That case is not of much help in this particular thread. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is it this one? Note that on his Dutch block page, he has been barred since June as per this reason. Case of WP:NOTHERE? Notified the Dutch admin that the case is being discussed here as a courtesy. Karst (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah yes--thanks. There was a name change, I suppose.
- @Drmies: Isn't that Agtx's link? Or maybe that one links to it ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ha, I was about to look into this matter--the conversations on the editor's talk page concern me. (And now, Debresser, I see where your comment came from.) "The whole of the category structure", that's hard to do by oneself; I would like to see a more detailed charge. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- He is here at last - you are most welcome sir - but I have to return in about 7+ hours, who know what might happen here in that time - fundamentally the cat editing is massive and there may well be massive ok edits in the 40k + , the assumptions of explaining after changing a slather which might not 'fit' into general practice - it was a good idea at the time responses - seem to never actually refer to any conventions we have here on wp en - having the parent and child cat on the same page was of concern - (and it has an echo of another editor who was challenged some months ago about gross category overlap - nothing happened and it still continues) - not a very coherent explanation, but about to sign off for the night, hope there is something to get a hint from JarrahTree 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wwikix, you are making huge amounts of unexplained edits which we should be discussing here. That the plaintiff made a lousy case doesn't mean there is no case--please stop making those category edits right now so we can figure this out. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The issues with this user on the NLWiki were mostly with not following nl:WP:BTNI. I don't know if there is a local policy like it, but in general it says, "don't change things that are not wrong". For example changing the spelling from Dutch to Flemish, changing titles if they're not wrong, reordering a list on a page or things like that. Other issues were over categorising. It looks like the user has an own view of the way the encyclopedia should be ordered, and doesn't want to accept anything that's not according to that view. The arbcom case on the NLWiki has the following rules in play for Wwikix: When an objection is lodged about an edit on a page, it's not allowed to edit that page, until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. When an objection is lodged about a certain type of action, it's not allowed to do such an edit until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. Wwikix can ask an moderator of his choice to lift the objection and edit restriction when he feels the objection is invalid. A year after the objection, the restriction is lifted as well. There have been over 20 cases involving Wwikix for the NLwiki arbcom, but these restrictions have been in place since 2010. Unfortunately, Wwikix does not show any progress in following the community guidelines it seems. Iooryz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I've lodged various complains about the edits of Wwikix on the dutch talkpage, so the explanation above might have been coloured by it
- Due to RW issues I will not be back on to explain and clarify the reason for the complaint for some hours. JarrahTree 23:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iooryz It is called WP:AINT here. RW = real world (let's not use jargon too much here, shall we). Debresser (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- response to various editors above. If I have misread any editors intentions or general mission, or the differences, my apologies, I would rather editors made any judgement other than myself. As an observor of the editors activity for some time, and the responses to queries on the talk page, I had come to the belief that editors who deal with massive category shifts need to be accountable, and need to be able to explain against general policy/rule conditions. I repeatedly asked on the talk page - where's the policy that allows you to do so and so - and always got a response that suggests no knowledge whatsoever of generally accepted practices. So what does one do, walk away from such activity and responses ? I noted that other eds has concerns as well.
- The claim that I have exaggerated the claim that a large number of categories have been re-configured, or the problem that not enough context is given, I have not seen where the multiple or parallel category system that has been initiated by the editor has been discussed before the changes.
- In WP:AGF I had not wanted to include links the activity on other wikis, but it is possible that the issues there might have shed some light on activity here, however the similarity of complaints might be considered by others I have no idea.
- The one diff that I offer up to illustrate my concerns, and which might shed light on the larger pattern is: [172] I take responsibility for a poor edit summary, but I would like to offer this, as my area of editing is in relation to Indonesia at times:
- Category:Indonesia
- Category:Indonesia - Geography
- Category:Geography by country -Indonesia
- Category:Geography by country
- Category:Geography of Southeast Asia - Indonesia
- Category:Geography of Asia by country
- Category:Geography of Oceania by country
- Category:Geography of Melanesia by country
- Category:Geography of Southeast Asia by country
- The one diff that I offer up to illustrate my concerns, and which might shed light on the larger pattern is: [172] I take responsibility for a poor edit summary, but I would like to offer this, as my area of editing is in relation to Indonesia at times:
- I offer to anyone who has worked with categories and the issues that arise from the mix/overlap/cat-subcat events that have occurred on wp en over the years, as to whether this mix is acceptable and exists within the current written policies and generally accepted wikipedia community standards. I have chosen one example, and I believe that such edits are widespread within the users edit history. My query to admins/watchers/commentators - is it acceptable editing ? If so could we have somewhere guidelines/policies where the reasons are given, as just getting I like it responses from the editor in my mind is not what I thought wikipedia community consensus grew from.
- I have very serious doubts as to whether the structures created by the editor are viable, however there is a stray comment at the category project page that is coherent as to what the editor might be up to [173] and also the editor has suggested category surfing and visibility are of importance. I would appreciate others comments on this as I have no idea where the visibility of category contents are anything to do with their construction.
- Once again, if I have misunderstood the editors intentions, my apologies, or confused readers here, my apologies again, I do hope this explanation goes somewhere to clarify things. If it hasnt please let me know as I would rather hope this particular item is cleared up and not prolonged. JarrahTree 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Proposal. Despite a lull in activity after this item was filed, Wwikix has resumed his large-scale re-categorizations, doing them now at a pace of better than one per minute, as shown here. And this is being done despite the fact that extended discussions about his activity have taken place on both his talk page and a WikiProject talk page. And also despite the fact that adminstrator Drmies asked him here to stop doing it until the matter was resolved. I therefore propose that Wwikix be
blockedbanned, for two months, from making any edits to the categorizations of articles or categories. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Topic ban for Wwikix,
twothree months, from any edits to any categories or to any article's categories, as widely construed as necessary. Actually, I think the fact that they have recomenced the same behaviour that brought them here in the first place indicates a degree of WP:IDHT that necessitates a longer absence from that area of the project. Muffled Pocketed 13:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC) - Comment - having brought the issue here, I leave it to admins and others to pass judgement, what concerns me is who where and how the creations of the editor are adequately reviewed - and how and when a system can be created to ascertain valid edits against those deemed unsuitable. There are the ones like the one above that I used as an example of multiple child/parent combinations in the one setting. It would be very good for anyone who has a good handle on the resolution of problems created - rather than just reverting edits - but reviewing where the editing is ok, and identifying the problematic settings somewhere. I believe if done properly, it could be a good lesson for all, to see where the 'hitches' are. JarrahTree 14:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I have blocked, and will leave a note there before I come back here. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, this was ridiculous. Wwikix finds the time to make hundreds more unexplained edits (against consensus, if I read the porject page for categories correctly), but can't be bothered to say anything here beyond "exaggerated". ("Wrong".) Please see User talk:Wwikix for a rationale for the block. I encourage you all to keep an eye on their talk page and copy their comments, if they have any, to this ANI thread. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wwikix's response to the block notification by Drmies (who has been rolling back edits made by Wwikix after he was asked to desist), in full: "Undo the rolling back of my recent edits, they are constructive edits." Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Drmies. That has certainly allowed the dust to settle for the time being. Muffled Pocketed 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I am very unhappy with this. Next up, I am afraid they'll start digging in. All that was required was a little bit of cooperation and a brief pause, at least to stave of an immediate block. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It was the only thing to be done: this way, we have the time to examine and repair any damage, whilst at the same time talking to W. and seeing if he is salvageable as an editor (which I don't [think I] doubt for a minute, but some of his TP remarks are rather opaque to me at this point). Plenty of time though. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I left a message on their talk page as well. They appear to have blinders on, all I can do is try to provide some guidance moving forward. I have no idea how this ends, but blocking was the only logical reaction, so I endorse that action by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think there is not much to fear that this editor will "dig in". He seems to be interested only in doing his thing, what he thinks is right, and doesn't listen to anybody anyways, both on the Dutch Wikipedia and now here. A block is probably the best thing for an editor who is so obviously not here to participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
User violating his topic ban countless times each day[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
David Aaron is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions covering Israel/Palestine, broadly construed. The user violates this ban daily. Despite repeated warnings in the last days [174], [175], [176], David Aaron keeps editing Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Gush Dan etc. Since the topic ban was put in place, the user has violated it at least 20 times. Even if one would argue that one can edit articles related to Israel/Palestine without touching on ARBPIA (which I doubt when "broadly construed" is used), edits such as this [177], go to the very heart of ARBPIA He's been given at least 3 "final warnings" to respect it, to no avail. This is making a mockery of the whole idea of TBAN as the user just goes on and on, ignoring it on a daily basis. Jeppiz (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I respect the Wikipedia policies to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia, however I really can't understand why was I put in the topic ban, and how do I be sure if an article is a part of the topic. I asked this question on my talk page but quite didn't get an answer. I don't understand how articles like Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, Gush Dan come under Israel/Palestine? By my recent edits I don't mean to violate, I just want to understand why was I put in the topic ban. Regards and Sorry. David Aaron talk 15:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @ה-זפר: You don't understand how Gush Dan (fought over as part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War), Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War), and Tel Aviv (one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the Arab-Isreali conflict? Some editors here will probably find that very hard to believe, I assure you. Particularly when 'broadly construed'... Muffled Pocketed 15:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- To avoid ARBPIA problems, look at the talk page of each article to see if it has the banner 'ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES.' Articles that have such a banner are off limits to you due to your ARBPIA ban. Some articles don't have the banner, such as Tel Aviv and Gush Dan. On those pages you should be OK so long as you don't touch anything that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reasons for your ban are given at User talk:ה-זפר#AE and the sections below. It is not Wikipedia's problem that you have so many questions about your ban; you have received answers. If you truly have no idea what is going on you should work in a different area. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- So If I'm okay with editing Tel Aviv, Gush Dan,, as long as I don't touch anything related to ARBPIA, then why I'm being reported with them (top message by Jeppiz). The topic ban I understand is about Israel-Palestine conflict which surely includes Jerusalem, but Golan Heights is like Israel-Syria dispute and about I being reported for revert conflicts on Golan Heights, I think I got to have an explanation from the admin who added the topic ban to me, why were the other users involved in revert conflict not topic ban, and after a talk page discussion was under way to stop the revert conflict there, I was put on a topic ban. I feel sad about it. David Aaron talk 16:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Aaron, I cannot comment on why you got a topic ban, I was not involved in that. Personally, I have no problem with you and your edits. That's not the point, though. Even if you believe the topic ban to be wrong, you must follow it. And if you're not sure which areas you can edit, here's a piece of advice: do not edit any article in any way connected to Israel. I'm not saying every such article is covered by your ban, but if you can't tell that it's a topic ban violation to remove a map from Israel because you don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, then I'm afraid you will keep running into problems. Jeppiz (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- This has all been explained to you in great detail on your talk page: see User talk:ה-זפר#Topic_ban"?. At least three of the people explaining this were administrators, and one was a former member of the arbitration committee. You are not going to get significantly different advice here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jeppiz, About today's removal of UNOCHA map from the article, there was a talk page discussion under way to consider change/keep. As it was re added without consensus, I removed it. I was told again, "Until further consensus, leave it alone". It's not that I don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, It's actually like I wanted the map to be back after a consensus. The discussion in detail was to be about to add a map which included Golan Heights as "administrated currently/occupied territory/disputed" (in shades). I feel some editors get me wrong in their first encounters with me. I just wanted present facts (Purple Line to be shown as present defacto control) to be displayed in there. I'm now waiting for a further consensus, as told. But as I studied other UNOCHA maps today I got to learn a lot of UNOCHA maps of other countries similarly did not include disputed/administrated/occupied area with the country, I got to learn that UNOCHA maps shows the international border recognition of any country. David Aaron talk 16:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Aaron, don't you get it?? You are not allowed to edit this topic. No matter if you think you're right or wrong, you're banned from the topic. It's really that simple. I'm sorry to invoke WP:COMPETENCE, but if the user cannot get it after all these admins and other users have explained it over and over again, then it will just go on. Jeppiz (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Aaron, today you removed a map from the Israel article, for whatever reason. Since Israel is marked on its talk page with the ARBPIA template, it is off limits to you for editing. Please confirm you will make no more edits of any kind at the Israel article. If you don't do so, an admin may decide to block your account for persistent failure to follow your ban, after many explanations. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Aaron, don't you get it?? You are not allowed to edit this topic. No matter if you think you're right or wrong, you're banned from the topic. It's really that simple. I'm sorry to invoke WP:COMPETENCE, but if the user cannot get it after all these admins and other users have explained it over and over again, then it will just go on. Jeppiz (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jeppiz, About today's removal of UNOCHA map from the article, there was a talk page discussion under way to consider change/keep. As it was re added without consensus, I removed it. I was told again, "Until further consensus, leave it alone". It's not that I don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, It's actually like I wanted the map to be back after a consensus. The discussion in detail was to be about to add a map which included Golan Heights as "administrated currently/occupied territory/disputed" (in shades). I feel some editors get me wrong in their first encounters with me. I just wanted present facts (Purple Line to be shown as present defacto control) to be displayed in there. I'm now waiting for a further consensus, as told. But as I studied other UNOCHA maps today I got to learn a lot of UNOCHA maps of other countries similarly did not include disputed/administrated/occupied area with the country, I got to learn that UNOCHA maps shows the international border recognition of any country. David Aaron talk 16:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- This has all been explained to you in great detail on your talk page: see User talk:ה-זפר#Topic_ban"?. At least three of the people explaining this were administrators, and one was a former member of the arbitration committee. You are not going to get significantly different advice here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- David Aaron, I cannot comment on why you got a topic ban, I was not involved in that. Personally, I have no problem with you and your edits. That's not the point, though. Even if you believe the topic ban to be wrong, you must follow it. And if you're not sure which areas you can edit, here's a piece of advice: do not edit any article in any way connected to Israel. I'm not saying every such article is covered by your ban, but if you can't tell that it's a topic ban violation to remove a map from Israel because you don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, then I'm afraid you will keep running into problems. Jeppiz (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- So If I'm okay with editing Tel Aviv, Gush Dan,, as long as I don't touch anything related to ARBPIA, then why I'm being reported with them (top message by Jeppiz). The topic ban I understand is about Israel-Palestine conflict which surely includes Jerusalem, but Golan Heights is like Israel-Syria dispute and about I being reported for revert conflicts on Golan Heights, I think I got to have an explanation from the admin who added the topic ban to me, why were the other users involved in revert conflict not topic ban, and after a talk page discussion was under way to stop the revert conflict there, I was put on a topic ban. I feel sad about it. David Aaron talk 16:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm getting cynical in my old age, but I'm not convinced he is as confused as he appears to be on the limits of the topic ban. If he is, then WP:CIR is an issue, if not, then he simply doesn't care. Either way, he should expect an indef block if he makes one more edit that violates the topic ban, and I wouldn't come here or AE first. I was about to block when EdJohnston made his last edit, so in that spirit I will hold off, but I do think it is an act. AGF is not a suicide pact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since they are clearly testing their boundaries, may I suggest Dennis Brown, that 'no more edits of any kind at the Israel article' is indeed broadly construed and that it covers the previous articles mentioned. Otherwise, we'll be back here over Lebanon, Gaza strip, etc., each time. Muffled Pocketed 18:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I support Dennis's proposal of an indef block. The only way this editor's behavior makes sense is if he has difficulty with English, but he seems to understand English quite well. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support an indefinite block. David's never been blocked before. Jumping from nothing to indefinite seems like a rather extreme escalation, no? Often, editors refuse to revise their behavior until their ability to edit is removed. A reasonable medium-term block should be tried before jumping to indefinitely barring them from contributing. One month seems reasonable to me, but certainly no longer than three months. It's a five second fix if they return to violating their topic ban after their block expires. ~ Rob13Talk 20:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- For violating an Arb restriction after multiple warnings and a topic ban at WP:AE? No, an indef block is not extreme. Indef doesn't mean forever, it means we don't know how long, and how long is up to the person blocked. This is not the typical case. Here, I can't assume good faith and it looks like he is gaming the system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support an indefinite block. David's never been blocked before. Jumping from nothing to indefinite seems like a rather extreme escalation, no? Often, editors refuse to revise their behavior until their ability to edit is removed. A reasonable medium-term block should be tried before jumping to indefinitely barring them from contributing. One month seems reasonable to me, but certainly no longer than three months. It's a five second fix if they return to violating their topic ban after their block expires. ~ Rob13Talk 20:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I support Dennis's proposal of an indef block. The only way this editor's behavior makes sense is if he has difficulty with English, but he seems to understand English quite well. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since they are clearly testing their boundaries, may I suggest Dennis Brown, that 'no more edits of any kind at the Israel article' is indeed broadly construed and that it covers the previous articles mentioned. Otherwise, we'll be back here over Lebanon, Gaza strip, etc., each time. Muffled Pocketed 18:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In defense of David[edit]
I feel sorry for this guy. He was topic banned after a tiff with probably Wikipedia's most tendentious Syrian nationalist. He didn't defend himself at AE because he wasn't even properly notified: this-copy-and-paste URL is basically gobbledygook to someone not cognizant with wikiblabber like that. I tried to raise the issue here but nobody cared. The indef topic ban was also harsh for a "first offense", and the regular system-gamers reported around the same time for comparably poor behavior all wriggled off the hook due with some successful pleading and WP:NOTTHEMing from them and their buddies.
And it is difficult to know which articles are have been ARBPIAed and which haven't. I know, because I deliberately refuse to edit any article that has the dreaded banner or blue lock etc. Tel Aviv and Gush Dan most certainly aren't. Israel, yes. Israeli telephone companies? No. Israeli cigarette brands? No either. This is a ban from the conflict, not Israel.
Also, some of the "sanctioned articles" are absurd, like Hummus. In theory, David isn't allowed to edit that article, and we're supposed to put a big blue lock on it. (Incidently, the aforementioned Syrian nationalist was one of the editors responsible for the various rancorous disputes that lead to that banner having to be slapped on it.)
This guy may have a strong POV, but he is not the traditional ARBPIA POV-pusher. Nobody is suggesting his edits to Israeli towns, cities and companies are problematic. They're generally not subject to ARBPIA sanctions and we should give him a break. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someone who is 'not the traditional ARBPIA POV-pusher' is still a POV pusher. He has a topic ban and he's violating it. Simple as. If he wants to appeal it, that's one thing, but I'm seeing IDHT instead. Katietalk 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I dispute the claim that this user is a POV pusher. I see a good faith user who wanted to improve articles related to the Middle East, wandered onto the ARBPIA minefield and lost a limb. He has a personal POV born of a series of assumptions rather than part a deliberate effort to tilt the encyclopedia. I've seen a fair few POV-pushers in the sorry time I've observed that area, and I can tell you that Zionist POV-pushers never make improvements like this to Palestinian cellphone service providers. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indef block should be the result of the very next edit on such obviously connected articles as Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, etc. It's very clear that David Aaron has not been following his topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the concern AnotherNewAccount, but his attitude during this investigation hasn't been reassuring. He's on his last bit of rope. No one want to block him, but there are and have been problems, and there should be no question how to avoid a block here. And if in doubt, ask an admin before editing that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights, Palestinian National Authority, Ramallah, State of Palestine or any other IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan (city in Israel), and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics.
- On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel.
- I'm sorry, I just don't want other editors to get wrong of me, I want some one to understand me. Thank you to AnotherNewAccount, to raise the issue. Regards David Aaron talk 01:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The user continues to defend his editorial position while not acknowledging his ban from ARBPIA articles and talk pages. Topic bans have value only for those who understand them and intend to follow them. It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban. The only remaining option is a block. I've gone ahead with a one-year arbitration enforcement block of User:ה-זפר for violation of his AE ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the editor wants this reviewed, I suggest filing an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, proper action. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The user continues to defend his editorial position while not acknowledging his ban from ARBPIA articles and talk pages. Topic bans have value only for those who understand them and intend to follow them. It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban. The only remaining option is a block. I've gone ahead with a one-year arbitration enforcement block of User:ה-זפר for violation of his AE ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the editor wants this reviewed, I suggest filing an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- To the majority of casual editors - that is the majority of Wikipedia editors - terms like "DS", "ARBPIA", "AE", "ARBCOM block" etc. are bureaucratic gobbledygook. This is fine as it was always supposed to reign in the perennially problematic users who knew exactly what they were doing and where they were editing, not some random who wandered onto Golan Heights, tried to edit it just as he'd edited several other articles, and came up against one of the topic-area heavies. He dosn't understand the ban because he doesn't really understand the Israel-Arab conflict, has no interest in it, and is not here to push an agenda on it.
- Sadly, it seems that David has decided to cease editing entirely anyway. Not surprising. Another casual editor chewed up and spat out by the bureaucratic Wikishredding machine. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors. Will somebody bother to write a eulogy on WikiProject Editor Retention? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the acronyms are confusing, but he had them explained more than a few times and was very aware that he was on thin ice by virtue of this discussion. As far as "pushing an agenda", I don't know, I didn't look at the content of the edits, just the edits, but some here would disagree and say he did have a POV problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Born2cycle personal attacks[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit by User:Born2cycle contains the edit summary "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness" followed by the personal attack "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this." and finishes with "So, I'm done with your goal-post-moving, straw man-creating, trolling over such a minor wording change. We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness."
I removed this personal attack, per WP:NPA and WP:TPO. User talk:JuanRiley decided to intervene, and re-post Born2cycle's personal attack. Twice. [178][179].
Born2Ccyle has been sanctioned before for this kind of thing, and is very likely going to post several hundred words here arguing the content dispute rather than addressing the personal attacks.
Please delete these personal attacks, and take necessary action to prevent them from posting any more personal attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I found nothing uncivil in the comments by User:Born2cycle--in the broad context of a heated discussion as is usual in WP. I found it more than a wee bit uncivil for User:Dennis Bratland to delete said remarks from the talk page. So I restored them. Only to have him (a) warn me of some dire repercussions on my talk page and (b) delete said comments by Born2cycle again. I have restored them again. That is all. Juan Riley (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're asking us to sanction someone for saying
it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this
? While it may not be the politest comment ever made, there's no earthly way that could be considered a personal attack. Having wasted part of my life actually reading the content dispute in question (it's over whether to describe queues of traffic as "lanes of traffic" or "rows of vehicles", to save anyone else the effort of reading it) I can't see anything remotely sanctionable; the two parties explaining why they consider their position correct and inviting others to comment in an RFC is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just reverted User:Dennis Bratland again for "redacting" User:Born2cycle talk page comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Again User:Dennis Bratland has "redacted: another editors talk page comments. I have reverted him again. I am getting tired. Juan Riley (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just reverted User:Dennis Bratland again for "redacting" User:Born2cycle talk page comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Calling someone irrational, saying they have an "illness" i.e. calling them crazy (twice), and accusing them of trolling is not remotely a personal attack? And because I called a phrase (not an editor) "weird", that makes it OK?
As far as wasting anyone's time reading all this, I have tried to convince Born2cycle to make a greater effort to resolve this without dragging others into it. I agree it's too petty and too much to read, and I actually think it could have been resolved by local consensus, had the accusations of mental illness not been repeatedly posted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Calling someone irrational, saying they have an "illness" i.e. calling them crazy (twice), and accusing them of trolling is not remotely a personal attack? And because I called a phrase (not an editor) "weird", that makes it OK?
- Then stop editing other's talk page comments and calm down and discuss. And please stop threatening me on my talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I redacted the worst, most direct personal attacks and defamatory accusations from Born2cycle's comment. I kept the gist of his arguments, hostile though they are. You keep putting them back. I posted the necessary warnings on your talk page about personal attacks, which include links you should read to help you understand talk page policy and the policy on personal attacks. Now you accuse me of "threatening" you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then stop editing other's talk page comments and calm down and discuss. And please stop threatening me on my talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- IS there a limit on editing other's editor's talk page comments? Even if just the old three and out User:Dennis Bratland must now be suspect...yup he reinstated his "redaction" of User:Born2cycle's talk page comments. And he keeps threatening me on my talk page. Sigh. 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hey User:Dennis Bratland..please do not paste your comments out of order. Tis confusing. It is not up to you to decide what you find offensive. Leave Born2Cycle's comments alone. I suspect that you are already guilty of 3rr..gotta be worse when the R's are of other editors comments on a talk page. And as I said...stop trying to threaten me on my talk page--in fact stay off my talk page. Please revert your last revert and restore Born2Cycle's comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not really any help out there is there. Would some self-important admin/factotum please talk reason to this man? Juan Riley (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Official factotum decision: you're all acting like idiots. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest the editors involved should read WP:TPO which among other relevant information states that on Talk pages,
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
DrChrissy (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)- Doh! Juan Riley (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- My Parthian shot: how uncivil of User:Floquenbeam to call us idiots. Should we redact his comment? Juan Riley (talk)
- I hope you're joking. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) He didn't call you idiots, he said you were acting like idiots. Your failure to see the distinction isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- To User:Callmemirela: Rhetorical? Hard to answer while riding on a horse backwards. (Pssst I would never do or condone such an action nor do I like a talk page freeze which leaves in place such an action.) Does User:Dennis Brown know sarcasm when he reads it? I have no case--I was upset that one editor was reverting/changing another editors comments on a talk page. I am an idiot..and User:Floquenbeam is a factotum. Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Psssst. Stop feeding the trolls. Juan Riley (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- To User:Callmemirela: Rhetorical? Hard to answer while riding on a horse backwards. (Pssst I would never do or condone such an action nor do I like a talk page freeze which leaves in place such an action.) Does User:Dennis Brown know sarcasm when he reads it? I have no case--I was upset that one editor was reverting/changing another editors comments on a talk page. I am an idiot..and User:Floquenbeam is a factotum. Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- My Parthian shot: how uncivil of User:Floquenbeam to call us idiots. Should we redact his comment? Juan Riley (talk)
- Doh! Juan Riley (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest the editors involved should read WP:TPO which among other relevant information states that on Talk pages,
- WP:LAME hmmm a wee bit politically incorrect..why don't you start there? Juan Riley (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Talk about a mountain out of a molehill eh? Juan Riley (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Cyclists. Love 'em. Despite being nice people, they can suddenly get so aggressive. Is it the testosterone? Or the fact that a little carelessness can kill or mame them? I think so.
- Born2cycle's last paragraph was a bit much. He deserves a stiff finger waved at him. Removal of the last paragraph was justified. Dennis Bratland removed too much. JuanRiley put too much back. They then edit warred. Block Dennis Bratland and JuanRiley for thirty minutes with a warning over the edit war. Unprotect the page so that Talk:Lane_splitting#RFC:_looking_for_outside_opinions_on_dispute_about_wording may proceed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- We did not edit war....Bratland edited another editor's talk page comments--which you apparently feel was "a bit much". Well la di da. As I said above, stop feeding the idiot troll--which is apparently me. Juan Riley (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- PS User:SmokeyJoe: If you do not like my cavalier attitude towards your superficial take on the issue, just change my comments till you find them acceptable. Juan Riley (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- We did not edit war....Bratland edited another editor's talk page comments--which you apparently feel was "a bit much". Well la di da. As I said above, stop feeding the idiot troll--which is apparently me. Juan Riley (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I, for one, object to the characterization of cyclists as compulsively aggressive, though I resemble that remark. One of the most heated discussions I've had on Wikipedia was in dispute with Born2cycle over a difference of interpretation of policy, and this supposed attack is, to put it mildly, well, mild. It's a long way off from a redactable personal attack, and I don't know what would possess one to revert war over it. Sometimes the best response to a borderline personal attack is to ignore it; I don't think this is even so serious as to call it borderline, though. Everyone should probably move on from this one. 🚲🚲*ring!* *ring!* Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Never said compulsively. Many cyclists are peace loving pacifists. But, a pack of cyclists, a car driver threatens one, it's more like a swarm of wasps than a pack of rabbits. Even if it was the one cyclist's fault. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe the lesson from you bitter experience with Born2cycle was not to allow incivility to escalate? I've had the same experience with him, and ignoring personal attacks didn't help at all. It got worse. I don't think all these put-downs (idiots, lame, silly, must be hormonal?!? Really? What's next? Estrogen?) are helpful. That's not how third parties step into a dispute and bring it to a resolution. Please: anyone who wants to "help" in that way? Don't. These taunts are not what anyone needs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- My comment refers to the intensity of our debate, not the severity of the personal attack; actually as I recall it was B2C who first accused me of attacking him. The solution wasn't to edit war over it, he asked me to redact. I didn't, but that's a different thing. The point is we didn't let revert warring over a possible insult distract from the important issue we were debating. Whether or not B2C's comment was redactable, it's the edit war that entirely derailed the discussion and required it to be protected. Understand that that's as much your fault as it is Juan Riley's. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis is an editor with good intentions but this was clear edit warring on his part and he should know better. He did the same to me about a week back, again claiming he was right to cut talk page comments, and was warned at that time[[180]] While I'm sure Dennis is here to improve Wikipedia, he needs to understand that disagreement with others its not evidence that the others aren't here for the same reason. Springee (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Springee, you wouldn't tolerate for one second anyone saying you were mentally ill, or incapable of reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis. Certainly not me. I made a general statement about "illness" (that was intentionally vague and can mean just about anything) that admittedly suggested it might apply to the given context, but ultimately it's up to you and everyone else to decide whether it actually applied, and how. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis' lesser redact was justifiable though not ideal. Better would have been to ask B2C to do it. He might have responded well to a polite question. Removing intended words without even a note is probably not helpful. I prefer disemvoweling, it leaves the intended message but the work required to read it eliminates the shock value. This is not to excuse the editwarring, but an acceptable version was protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to officially inform Dennis that the appropriate reaction to a perceived personal attack is to ask the alleged attacker to refrain from doing so, rather than editing someone else's comments? I haven't verified but apparently he's done this before and needs to know doing so is indicative of mental illness. Just kidding, Dennis! But seriously, editing others' comments should be a last resort, not the first action. --В²C ☎ 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know absolutely nothing about this discussion, but it worries me immensely to see that editing another's comments is being put forward as a legitimate behaviour. It is not. Please see WP:TPO. DrChrissy (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You (B2C) directly stated another editor was ill - either mentally or otherwise - and your comments above where you defend it as saying you made it 'intentionally vague' certainly bear out that you know exactly what you were doing. It was a clear personal attack aimed at another editor and subject to removed under WP:NPA which is policy. DrChrissy, WP:TPO is a guideline for best practice. It is not wikipedia policy. Removing blatant personal attacks is allowed by policy. Please read the actual policies before commenting in future. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out, and you are correct. For those interested WP:No personal attacks (a policy page), states
Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.
DrChrissy (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)- Yes, I knew exactly what I was writing. There was no attribution to anyone in particular in the wording in question. Don't believe me? Here it is again: "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness"[181]. It's an intentionally general statement, not an attack on any one, much less on any particular person. At any rate, at most the removal of that alleged "attack" was arguably defensible; not the removal of the entire comment. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure if that comment was directed at me, but if it was, please save your words; I have absolutely no intention of taking "sides" in this thread. DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew exactly what I was writing. There was no attribution to anyone in particular in the wording in question. Don't believe me? Here it is again: "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness"[181]. It's an intentionally general statement, not an attack on any one, much less on any particular person. At any rate, at most the removal of that alleged "attack" was arguably defensible; not the removal of the entire comment. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out, and you are correct. For those interested WP:No personal attacks (a policy page), states
- I guess my repeating "see WP:NPA, WP:TPO" wasn't clear enough. I should have directly quoted the policy saying any editor may remove derogatory comments.
Born2cycle is sitting here baldly lying, denying obvious facts. I can't just say that, unfortunately. I have to prove it. I have to break it down, point by point. I wish I didn't. But what other option is there? So here it is. Of course, I'll be criticized for posting a wall of text. What else can I do? I'd like someone to tell me.
What is vague about Born2cycle's words "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness... it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this... We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness." What other kind of illness can this be except mental? What other kind of illness is "fed" by continuing a discussion with me? When you say a person cannot have a rational discussion, you are referring to their mental state. Any possible ambiguity about which kind of illness is meant is given context by "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you". The carefully-chosen reference to illness is made twice.
Born2cycle has confirmed twice his words are deliberate. The denial "Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis" is contradicted by the contents of the personal attack. The thesis of the entire post is "Since you cannot be reasoned with, an RfC is needed to involve others who are not you". That is not a "general statement", it doesn't refer to "anyone". Born2cycle was directing his words at nobody but me. Discussion with Dennis would "feed his illness".
What of the rest of the post, the parts where he is not calling me mentally ill or irrational? The entire post consists of characterizations of my behavior, a litany of accusations that I am erratic, contradictory, inconsistent, and a fabulist. No other editor is mentioned. Every single word is about me.
This denial, "Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis. Certainly not me. I made a general statement about 'illness'" is a blatant lie. "Gaslighting" is a fancy word for telling lies to deny your own behavior when caught red handed. "There was no attribution to anyone in particular in the wording in question."?! "Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is why I asked for an RFC. But let me try this. First, the "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this" statement is separated from the "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness" by nine paragraphs of explanation. Second, what if I had said, "We need another set of eyes here, not more eating of cookies". Would you have thought I was accusing you in particular of eating cookies? Anyway, here's some reading that might be of use[182] (not necessarily to anyone in particular). --В²C ☎ 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I guess my repeating "see WP:NPA, WP:TPO" wasn't clear enough. I should have directly quoted the policy saying any editor may remove derogatory comments.
Personal attacks and accusations[edit]
Mztourist (talk) is repeatedly issuing personal attacks and false accusations about me here despite my best efforts to keep the discussion constructive. This is disrupting the progress of the discussion and resolution of the issue. Could you please intervene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I know it runs afoul of WP:AGF, I'm curious about something that's probably also going to be on the nearest passing admin's mind: how are you this well versed in how Wikipedia works? Other than two edits from May of this year and June 2007, your first edits were just over two days ago. Have you ever edited under a different identity? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10, and a quick look at the talk page in question (Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon) shows that there are valid reasons for believing that the IP is a sock of site banned User:Z07x10. It's not just Mztourist who believes that, BTW, but other editors too, even though the IP chose to report only Mztourist... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a WP:DUCK to me..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The edit pattern as well as the behavior on the articles and talk pages is identical to Z07x10. --McSly (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- My thanks to the previous users who have pointed out the absurdity of this complaint, which is an obvious counterattack by a suspected sock (who supposedly has only been active on WP for 2 days!) to my SPI. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- RunnyAmiga ※ talk I looked up how to go about complaining about a user on Wikipedia as my use history will validate. I should also clarify that this complaint is not a result of his SPI, it is a result of his persistent derailing of a talk topic by continuing the allegations on that page. With the SPI already raised, this was both disruptive, defamatory and unnecessary. I should also add that Mztourist (talk) has accused another user Draco2k (talk) with the same charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- My thanks to the previous users who have pointed out the absurdity of this complaint, which is an obvious counterattack by a suspected sock (who supposedly has only been active on WP for 2 days!) to my SPI. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The edit pattern as well as the behavior on the articles and talk pages is identical to Z07x10. --McSly (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Request 3 Month Rangeblock on Disruptive IPv6 Range: 2605:e000:6201:1300::/64[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
*2605:e000:6201:1300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
Over the past couple of months, the person behind this IP range has been disruptively removing sourced content into various airport articles, and replacing it with purposefully incorrect and unsourced content. Here are a list of the disruptive IP's that I was able to find:
- Only 1 minor test edit, but still part of the same IP range, never warned or blocked
- Edit warring, unsourced content, vandalism, warned – Blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist (08:03, 12 October 2016)
- Blatantly childish vandalism, warned, persisted past level 3 warning, never blocked (Note: I'm counting the welcome message as the level 1 warning on this one...)
- Edit warring, removing sourced content/replaced with unsourced, obviously incorrect content, rapidly reverting other editor's contributions w/o any explanation, warned, never blocked.
There may be more IP's that I have not been able to uncover, but according to this IP range calculator, making a block on the /64 subnet range will not have too much collateral damage – which is why I imposed the block to be lengthy in duration, with my proposal being a 3 month block, but an admin who looks into this case of course, may choose to perform a different block duration if they choose to... :-)
Because of the disruption from this IP range, the following articles have had to be recently protected:
- Portland International Airport (twice, each for 1 month by KrakatoaKatie & Oshwah)
- Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (once, for 1 month by Vanamonde93)
With the evidence/information that I have given here, would an admin that knows how to perform rangeblocks be able to perform this block? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm looking into this. Please stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Declined. I don't question the fact that disruption is taking place from these IP addresses at all. It's definitely happening, but it is not happening at a frequent enough rate for me to justify that a range block is needed. This also includes an individual block of the IPs reported; all of them are stale to the point that blocking them would be pointless and yield no benefit. Neither reported articles appear to be under enough disruptive edits at a high enough rate to justify protection. I think we just need to keep an eye on things, and report problems to AIV to be dealt with on an individual basis, and the articles re-evaluated for protection needs during the time that disruption is actively occurring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Oshwah. Thanks for taking your time to look into this... I wasn't asking that we block the IP's individually, since they are really stale. More or less, I was just wondering if a rangeblock could be applied in order to prevent further disruption from this IP range in the future, and it didn't look like a block would affect any other editors. Though, I completely understand your reasoning for declining, and I will try to keep an eye on the pages, so the IP's can be reported to AIV, or if they get access to another IP range (which shouldn't happen, but if it miraculously does for whatever reason...) then I will go to RFPP. Thanks! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring sock at Timothy Leary[edit]
IP 2605:A000:1200:C024:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B is edit warring at Timothy Leary to re-instate a description of Leary as a "philosopher" in the lead. See here for the eighth revert against five other users, and here for number nine. The IP is behaving this way despite talk page consensus, following a request for comment, that it is inappropriate for the article to label Leary as a "philosopher". See here. Based on behavior, the IP is clearly the now indefinitely blocked AcidRock67, evading his block. Requesting immediate block for IP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know how strange this request is, but could any admin who sees this thread please ignore it and go to WP:RFPP and WP:AIV? Paring down those backlogs really needs to be a higher priority than posting here, at least right now. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The IP was blocked by Dennis Brown, but respectfully I think the admin made a mistake by saying, "If you come back making the changes against consensus again, you will be blocked again and the article protected, so either use the talk page (after the block expires) or go do something else (after the block expires)". The IP is AcidRock67 evading an indefinite block, and should not be editing at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @FreeKnowledgeCreator: I agree with you entirely but at this point, if this thread (and my accompanying whining, which I hope you don't think was aimed at you) has admins doing anything at all to deal with the backlogs, I'll take it. The oldest report at AIV still waiting for administrative response was added twenty-one effing hours ago and even a subpar block like that is a more valuable use of admins' time and effort than sitting around here, explaining to that one guy over and over that yes, Golan Heights falls under an Israel topic ban. And @Dennis Brown and EdJohnston: have a couple of pings in case I'm not already too far out of my lane. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The IP was blocked by Dennis Brown, but respectfully I think the admin made a mistake by saying, "If you come back making the changes against consensus again, you will be blocked again and the article protected, so either use the talk page (after the block expires) or go do something else (after the block expires)". The IP is AcidRock67 evading an indefinite block, and should not be editing at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know that it was Acid* but time will tell. I was assuming good faith as I didn't connect any dots and just made the block purely on behavior at this time, not a pattern over time. That takes a lot more time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User adding false info or removing info without explanation[edit]
User:58.120.40.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly removed or added false information the the articles Informal Talks and A Bright World. They are both talks shows where a group of foreigners representing different countries discuss issues.
On the Informal Talks page, this user has:
- removed info about the countries the representatives represent.(Link)
- added false information about the english names of representatives (Link).
I have reverted these edits stating my reasons in the edit summary (Edit 1)(Edit 2).
However this user has simply re-added the false information they previously added, and removed information they removed before, without any explanation.(Link 1)(Link 2)
I reverted the edits once again and left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69 explaining my reasons for reverting his/her edits, and asking him/her to stop removing or adding false info. I explained in the message that some representatives represent 2 countries, which has been explained on the show numerous times. I also pointed out that the name "Nio Ruiz" he/she put down is actually false, because (Link) confirms that the representative's name is actually Antonio Coll, not Nio Ruiz. Because of this, I have also removed other names this user has added, as there are no sources confirming these are the correct names. However, the message has been ignored, and once again, this user has added/removed the same info, with no explanation.
On the A Bright World page, this user has:
- removed info about the countries the representative, Gaive Junior represents (Link). In Season 2 Episode 2, he has clearly stated he represents both the Republic of the Congo and France, not just the Congo.
I reverted the edit stating my reason in the edit summary (Link), and talked about this in the message I left on his/her talk page. However, once again, this user has removed this information again, with no explanation.
I would suggest perhaps warning this user on their talk page, but since this user doesn't respond to their talk page, and provides no explanation for their edits, perhaps blocking would be more suitable.
Thank you for your time.
PurpleLights123 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of slightly editing the comment above to link to the IP's contribs and talk. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Keithchan1[edit]
User:Keithchan1 has been making mass changes to Hong Kong politics-related articles that are not properly sourced, sometimes nonsensical and I think sometimes amount to WP:OR. It's turned into an edit war so I'm coming here.
- example edit – unsourced and the use of the term "subjectivity" is unclear and unexplained
- uncited. Edit summary says that groups can only be classed as "localist" if they have been elected to the legislature, which makes no sense.
- uncited, I have never before heard the term "cosmopolitanism" in relation to HK politics. absent a reliable source and no Google search results, appears to be WP:OR
I guess this user has some beef with the classification of certain groups as "localists". Fine, but mass changes should be accompanied by citations to reliable sources. The sources should be inserted into the article, not just alluded to in the edit summary when challenged. Citobun (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not rally surprising that the Hong Kong article would get some interest after the events in the LegCo last week. I wouldn't be too surprised if a few more editors start popping up on HK politics related sections and articles. Blackmane (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I also note that @Keithchan1: is a very new user and is willing to discuss on talk pages, thus I would say direct them to the principle of BRD and beware of biting them. However, they should be cautioned not to let their political views affect their edits. Blackmane (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Block evasion by User:XPanettaa[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edits have resumed by User:86.84.247.233, which is the IP of User:XPanettaa. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XPanettaa. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Croatoan21 – disruptive editing part 2[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(cc @Euryalus, Dennis Brown:)
Following their block on 2 October, Croatoan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned but their behaviour has not changed, unfortunately. They are still changing caps and stats without updating timestamps:
Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked two weeks. Perhaps he didn't notice the 2 day block, he is more likely to notice this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Shueisha was moved to "Islamic state in Japan"[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page Shueisha was moved to "Islamic State in Japan" and subsequently nominated for deletion by The Nightingale Sang the Words of Love (talk · contribs). Can a friendly admin please restore order and move the page back again? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Lists of songs[edit]
Wondering what peoples thoughts are on these
I have deleted a few as they are unreferenced and copied from elsewhere without attribution.
User:Fmm134 is creating a bunch of them but they do not look like encyclopedic articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- User is a newbie who needs to stop creating new articles. All of the new articles need to be deleted, and the user needs a topic ban on new articles unless he goes through WP:AfC. He has also made several unexplained disruptive mass POV deletions at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016: [183]. Someone needs to warn him and keep an eye on him. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Legal threat at Damien Walter[edit]
Legal threat issued at Damien Walter by this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Walter&oldid=745607114 the legal threat being contained in a delete template. User issuing legal threat was User talk:171.100.99.12 Special:Contributions/171.100.99.12. I am not sure if it is a dynamic or static IP. I reverted the edit. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like you handled it about right. The edit was reverted and a level 4 warning dropped on the IPs talk page. If there is any repetition I'd support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Non-involved party: The IP has now been disruptive past the level 4 warning. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Non-involved party: And are continuing to do so, reverted again... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is case of WP:DOLT. You weren't the only one adding contentious unreferenced BLP material, granted, but it is contentious unreferenced BLP material nonetheless. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have placed a request for a temporary semi-protect at WP:RPP to stop the back and forth so an uninvolved party or parties can step in and sort BLP matter out. Safiel (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that this situation is going to resolve itself. Damien Walter is at AfD which is turning into a WP:SNOWBALL for delete. Since that outcome will obviously be satisfactory to the original offender, unlikely we will see him again. Safiel (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have placed a request for a temporary semi-protect at WP:RPP to stop the back and forth so an uninvolved party or parties can step in and sort BLP matter out. Safiel (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is case of WP:DOLT. You weren't the only one adding contentious unreferenced BLP material, granted, but it is contentious unreferenced BLP material nonetheless. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Non-involved party: And are continuing to do so, reverted again... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Non-involved party: The IP has now been disruptive past the level 4 warning. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Possible BLP violation[edit]
User being reported: Special:Contributions/72.200.116.34
Relevant thread: Talk:Jessica Drake#Real name
User previously attempted to include what they claimed to be the subject's real name into the article which was reverted: diff.
The editor persists in revealing the subject's name and has now posted it to the Talk page, along with the suggestion that they might post the subject's credit report obtained through a "friend". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The edit to the article was handled and redacted by Drmies yesterday (one edit isn't "persisting"). Since he is an admin, and involved in the talk-page thread, he is perfectly capable of removing it from the talk page if he deems it problematic there. In the future such issues should be reported at WP:BLPN rather than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
BelAirRuse – Harassment[edit]
- BelAirRuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After being warned for harassing comments made, the user in question continued the harassment. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- BelAirRuse is already blocked for the next three days for edit-warring. There's not much point in doing anything else. His posts are on his own talk page (where editors have a freer rein), and you should not be removing them; see WP:TPO. Leave his talk page alone except for notices which are absolutely required, such as for edit-warring, and take his talk page off your watch list. That should solve your problem. I recommend that this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:TPO is a guideline. WP:NPA is policy. Blatant personal attacks can be removed *anywhere*. TPO does not give you permission to call other editors cocksuckers and if you think it does, you need to go and read WP:NPA some more. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm considering extending their block to indefinite. Such personal attacks are not okay, whether done on one's own talk page or not. Not to mention the user did this after being blocked twice in three days for edit warring. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't issue indefinite blocks for going off on one's own talkpage (especially after being blocked, when users generally blow off a lot of steam on their own talk page). Unless there is some egregious long-term pattern of behavior outside of his own talkpage, this thread is a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but combined with the previous remarks of a similar nature and the two edit warring blocks in three days one could make a case for extending to indef either under WP:NOTHERE. Regardless, you are right that users often sound off after being blocked, so I have used a liberal dose of AGF and just gave them a personal attack warning. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't issue indefinite blocks for going off on one's own talkpage (especially after being blocked, when users generally blow off a lot of steam on their own talk page). Unless there is some egregious long-term pattern of behavior outside of his own talkpage, this thread is a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday I PRODded a new article (Universe (journal)) and subsequently took it to AFD after the article creator, Redwheel removed the PROD. The AFD discussion rapidly degenerated into a litany of personal attacks by Redwheel on my integrity. I politely requested that we stick to the issues and refrain from personal attacks. The conflict spilled over to George Smoot. I again requested that Redwheel refrain from personal attacks and stick to the issues. I was answered by this rant, telling me that I am "incompetent and ignorant", "by no means able to conduct such a discussion in good faith", and to "go away" to avoid "appearing as ridicolous as you are now". My polite requests not having any effect, I am coming here. (PS: the last rant mentions the fact that I am an admin. Please note that at no point during this conflict have I used my tools or even mentioned the fact that I am an admin, as that is clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thanks.)--Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a short holiday from the project in order to allow Redwheel the opportunity to regain their equalibrium. Some of those remarks were pretty choice, and in any case totally unnecessary. Muffled Pocketed 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Randykitty - Thank you for filing an ANI report regarding Redwheel's responses and arguments in the Universe (journal) AFD discussion, as well as Talk:George Smoot. I appreciate you for remaining patient, attempting to repeat and explain Wikipedia's policies, and for keeping a cool head and for keeping the discussion aimed towards the issues at-hand (even when the other person was not). The only comment that you made that threw me off a little bit was here, where you state that "per WP:BOLD it is up to you to justify your addition". WP:BOLD states the opposite - it states that those who feel that their changes are improvements to the article are encouraged to "go for it", be bold, and make your change without the need to know every single rule. However, when these additions are challenged by another editor, the burden of asserting verifiability, reliability, and content justification relies on the person who is adding the information being questioned and challenged (per WP:PROVEIT, which is what I believe that you meant to refer to). It's no big deal at all and doesn't count against you, but it may confuse a new editor if you state this and then point them to a guideline that says, "have at it!" (they just don't read far enough along to notice the paragraph you're referring to. They get maybe 1-2 paragraphs down and then go, "wtf?") - this, however, is not relevant to the real issue at hand, which is Redwheel's conduct and behavior in both the AFD and the talk page of the George Smoot article.
- Redwheel - Your behavior in these discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is unacceptable per Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, specifically where you have cast aspersions toward Randykitty. I am leaving you a final warning on your talk page regarding your behavior - this behavior is unacceptable, against Wikipedia's five core principles, and even not in-line with your request here, where you ask everyone involved to "not be destructive" and to "act in a constructive way". If this sort of civility continues, you will be blocked for violating this policy. You are to discuss grievances, disputes, and disagreements by keeping the conversation directed towards the issue at-hand, and you are to drop the stick when asked to do so or it is clearly time to do so. I highly recommend that you take a break from these discussions, review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I have provided in this response, and return to the discussion when you feel that you can discuss your thoughts in a positive and constructive manner. Failure to do so can lead to being blocked. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Oshwah. I assumed that anybody reading BOLD would read further than "go at it" and arrive at the "challenged" part. Perhaps that's assuming too much... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Again, figured I'd mention it. New users typically wont... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Oshwah. I assumed that anybody reading BOLD would read further than "go at it" and arrive at the "challenged" part. Perhaps that's assuming too much... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
On blocking User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts[edit]
- Muhd FUad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhd FUad/Archive
I am not sure this is the right place to report but it seems to me that the blocking of User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts was not duly justified as the only reason was using several accounts but there is no evidence of abusing or illegitimate behavior. Andres (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- User creates multiple poorly-sourced (or unsourced) stubs - and sometimes articles with no information at all apart from an infobox! - on various sportspeople of dubious notability. They are asked to stop (or improve the articles to show notability). They completely ignore this and carry on. Eventually, they are blocked. They then use sockpuppets not only to continue their disruption but also, in many cases, to re-create articles that had been deleted. If that's not an issue, I'm not sure what is. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that Wikipedia wants to have all articles sourced from the beginning. But for a newcomer (whose first language probably isn't English) it is difficult to realize at once what is expected from him. As far as I can see no personal message was sent to him, only unpersonal universal messages he needn't understand. And commonsensically it is difficult to understand why using several accounts is bad behaviour.
- Wikipedia has a regular deletion procedure for cases of dubious notability. All articles that were noted on User talk:Muhd FUad are still there, they have been turned out to be notable and other uses have edited them.
- I came across this via the article Getter Saar. Look at [184]. Yes, it is poorly written and contains unimportant information but it is sourced (though not referenced according to the rules) and it is not obvious it should be deleted. The only reason why it was deleted (even after substantial revisions by other wikipedists) is that the author has (or is thought to have) several accounts. And the only ever reproach (as far as I know) was that notability had not been established by the original author, not even bad writing.
- I think we should try to contact newcomers personally and explain them how to improve their contributions. I think blocking and massive deletion is counterproductive in cases like this. Andres (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is very probable that the author didn't understand the messages (maybe even that he had been blocked and his articles had been deleted) and just kept trying again. I am not sure his behaviour wasn't bona fide. But the main thing is that he hasn't done so much harm as it has been done by deleting his articles and blocking him. Sorry if I am wrong. For me these procedures were surprising. If the others think it's normal then let it be. Andres (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I understand Andres' concerns and I sympathize. However, if an editor does not understand messages posted to his talkpage at all then unfortunately he is unlikely to be able to contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. It may still be that his contributions were made with good intentions. But, long term, his continuing to edit here would likely be disruptive if he cannot understand messages from other editors. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I applaud Andres raising this here, because it is only through such requests for review that we can understand when the English language Wikipedia might not be handling such matters as well as it should. The English language Wikipedia needs as many editors as it can get, so if there are problems with how new or problematic editors are handled, then all information and viewpoints are valuable and well worth reading. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- endorse block - what I am seeing is an editor who made around 2000 edits and used a talk page ... 5 times - see edit count. 4 of those talk edits were to their own talk page, blanking things (see history search); the other edit was blanking another editor's talk page. plenty of people who speak little english are ready to ~try~ to communicate. Muhd FUad is anti-communicative; ignoring and even blanking efforts to communicate, creating socks, and blanking SPIs (diff and diff through one of their socks) which are all signs of someone who doesn't want to be responsive to the editing community, and that is a requirement, not an option, of retaining one's editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see, it's really hard to defend or justify his behavior.
- The reasons cited for blocking didn't specify this. Andres (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that Wikipedia wants get rid of deceptive or otherwise malicious users. (Though it's probable that unfriendly and unpersonal treatment provokes them to exhibit their worst character traits.) But I see no point in mass deletion of articles. I think dubious notability, poor writing or imperfect referencing cannot justify this. If we delete the articles then the appearance of the topics will be delayed indefinitely and we don't use the contribution of a (though deceptive) user. Andres (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- My question is where all the things started. All the above mentioned things are follow ups to one (right or wrong) starting point. And I cannot find the point, where the blocking penalty started and if it was the right measure - especially because due to this were already deleted around 50 (correct) articles, into which also other authors invested a lot of time. And by the way: I also want to keep my discussion percentage close to zero - this here is a very seldom case where I feel it is necessary to communicate. Florentyna (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- people create articles, other people delete them. happens all the time here. there are ways to respond if you object. but you have to engage with other users. you have to talk. this is not social media, but it is a working community and people have to talk each other; that is the foundation of this whole project. not liking deletions so repeatedly recreating them is not an option; recreating them through socks is even less of an option. The only person to blame for Muad's being blocked, is Muad. It is clear as day in what Muad chose to do (and not do) here. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with @Andres:; we should block the user for his truculent/lazy editing practices look at the articles on a case by case basis before a mass deletion. If they meet the standard for inclusion except for the fact that they were posted by an inept user then I'm not sure if it makes sense to delete them. if it turns out that all or most of them are spam then that's different. I'll volunteer to take a look at some today just to get the ball rolling just to at least determine if they all have enough sources to make them worthwhile to salvage. Alicb (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for answering here in the archives, but it seems that nobody is following this case anymore (except the mass deleters). There is still no answer why the user was initially blocked, and why there were deleted about 50 articles, even if there contributed more than 3 users to make the articles Wikipedia ready and that there are interwiki links. The next time such an article will be deleted I will initiate a vandalism discussion. Florentyna (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Creepy, obscene and nonsensical edit summaries[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FeatherPluma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I first noticed this editor's edit summaries at 17th Satellite Awards, where a now-redacted edit summary read "pro licks dogs' balls".
On Oct. 22nd, I cautioned this editor here, and received a reply from that editor here stating "Of course. Not a problem. I will ease it back a notch." Unfortunately, the edit summary accompanying the message read "here is a Reddi-whipped, gooey chocolate sauced, crumbly chocolate crusted, pudding mix with oodles of vodka-laced icecream".
I also here contacted administrator User:Bbb23 to ask if they would redact the offensive edit summaries from the article, per WP:CRD #2, which addresses edit summaries that are "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value".
Since then, a sample of User:FeatherPlumas edit summaries include:
- [185] - "sex with low-brow freshly baked gingerbread dolls in the privacy of your own kitchen is more about calmly maintaining the status quo and not really extolling rebellion, outrage or anarchy".
- [186] - "spelling- Tertullian's idea is I believe that the idea is right b/c its so totally fucked up it couldnt just be a fucked up brain fart in the brain of a fart, so in a fucked way I kinda know its false but I will go with using it as true".
- [187] - "clean up wikipedia delay and jump resulting in inadvertent error, which it would apparently be VULGAR to call dog poop on the lawn but which metaphorically is the white encrusted waste matter crisscrossing the terrain".
- [188] - "reorgz: hv had my finger in this wet hole for long enuf today I will now bugger off and come back after a while (tomorrow?) to hv another go at twerking it".
I'm not trying to be prudish, but leaving vulgar, non-nonsensical messages in public places isn't cool, and it certainly doesn't benefit the project. As well, young people edit Wikipedia, as do schools (Wikipedia:Training/For students). This sort of creepiness does not send a positive message. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're not being prudish. Even without the profanity or erotic context, the whole point of an edit summary is to help users identify what change was made, right? The second link about "brain farts" was just a diff of him correcting a typo in the word "For"; there's no way to tell that from reading the summary though. Those edit summaries would be useless even if they weren't potentially offensive to readers and I think that it is important to caution this user so that they understand that edit summaries aren't just for random ramblings. My concern is that if you just chide him for the bad language he will think that it is OK to write random gibberish instead. Alicb (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, at the very beginning of that edit summary it explains concisely what they are doing. They should have stopped there. Generally, these are pointless edit summaries in which the user is being self-indulgent and immature by saying god knows what for god knows what reason. I've posted a warning to the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not spend any time on this. The problem is I am utterly bored here and intellectually understimulated, and have become more than a bit unruly. I think it's time to let you all stay here unmolested as I take a walk outside. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should request a block of yourself, per WP:NOTHERE, if you can't take a break without coming back to stir the pot. Borderline behavior that you know will provoke a reaction, which then leads to others having to waste their time discussing whether your behavior is just this side of the line, or just on that side of the line, is called trolling. It's a deliberate distraction that serves to express your boredom; it does not serve the goal of building an encyclopedia. Don't put the burden on everyone else to stop wasting time on this, when it's entirely in your power to put a stop to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not spend any time on this. The problem is I am utterly bored here and intellectually understimulated, and have become more than a bit unruly. I think it's time to let you all stay here unmolested as I take a walk outside. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, at the very beginning of that edit summary it explains concisely what they are doing. They should have stopped there. Generally, these are pointless edit summaries in which the user is being self-indulgent and immature by saying god knows what for god knows what reason. I've posted a warning to the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
User:MidasHotel20 mass moving pages without consensus, against naming conventions[edit]
MidasHotel20 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been on a spree, mass moving nearly 500 pages during the last year without any discussion or explanation, making incorrect page moves that against the naming conventions in WP:PLACE, MOS:JAPAN#Place_names, WP:NAME, and WikiProject Japan's guidelines. For example, he has removed the prefecture names from article titles, making them ambiguous, he has changed WP:BLP people's names, fiddled with capitalisations, category names, etc.
For example, MidasHotel20 moved Mamushi to "Japanese pit viper" without any discussion or explanation. The move is without consensus and inconsistent with the naming conventions in WP:NAME as discussed on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.
Could there please be a mass revert of these moves?
I am notifying MidasHotel20 of this ANI discussion.
85.255.234.37 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I buy it. MOS:JAPAN#Place_names seems to talk of 'when disambiguation is needed', which it is not in the case of all those for which the prefecture name has gone. Japanese pit viper sounds like WP:EN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that MidasHotel20 is moving hundreds of articles without saying anything. It is difficult to understand his reasons because he does not use edit summaries, he does not participate in WikiProject discussions, and he does not seem to reply to comments on his talk page or on article talk pages. User:DAJF made a previous criticism of his page moves on his talk page, but he has never replied and he has carried on mass moving hundreds of pages.
- Those Japan articles have all been assessed by WikiProject Japan as per MOS:JAPAN. Removing the prefecture names from articles is clearly without consensus. It seems to me that MidasHotel20 should be trying to build consensus first to show there is a need to do mass moves of hundreds of pages. The user, however, does not seek consensus. He never replies to comments and ignores previous criticism of his page moving.
- In the case of "Japanese pit viper", it is an ambiguous title because it includes all species of Japanese pit vipers, and all except one of them are irrelevant to the article. "Mamushi" is the better title because it refers uniquely to the species G. blomhoffii which is the subject of the article. "Mamushi" is also the WP:EN term used in the English literature, as shown in the citations to WP:EN peer-reviewed WP:RS. Therefore, it seems to me from WP:TITLE that the best title is Mamushi. This is discussed in more detail on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.
- 85.255.234.34 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- An editor who will not communicate can be problematic, I agree. I have not looked at the history or lack thereof of his/her communications. And you may well be right about vipers. You have yet to make anything approaching a case on the much larger matter of place names. The standing consensus that I understand on wikipedia is to use the common name of the thing being described in the article. I see nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Article titles nor MOS:JAPAN that mandates or even suggests that prefecture names should be used, in situations in which disambiguation is not required. And it is unavoidably the case that disambiguation was not requred for all of those which were successfully moved back to their settlement name sans disambiguator. So I suppose the possibility exists that if you're getting on the editors case about a consensus breach in a situation in which consensus is not being broken, your overtures are being spurned. Certainly, right now, I find myself more concerned about your insistance that another editor is doing something wrong in a situation in which the editor appears to be doing a perfectly consensual thing, than I am about the viper business or the alleged lack of communication. Where *exactly* is your evidence that there is consensus for the inclusion of prefecture names in articles titles of Japanese settlements for which disambiguation is not required? What should we make of this ANI listing if you are unable to point to such evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is a total lack of communication when his edits are challenged. This is not a future problem; it is having a current impact on the quality of Wikipedia as well as taking up other editors' time needlessly. He never replies to comments. He is ignoring this ANI despite its having been mentioned on his talk page and he has continued editing afterwards. I see the same editor was the subject of another similar recent ANI thread ANI only a few days ago regarding one of his many page moves (it was reverted). He ignored the ANI.
- Here is an example of a bad title resulting from one of his page moves moved Nago, Okinawa to Nago which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different "Nago":
- 南居 (Nago), 南瑚 (Nago), 名古 (Nago), 名呉 (Nago), 名子 (Nago), 名護 (Nago), 名郷 (Nago), 奈古 (Nago), 奈呉 (Nago), 奈胡 (Nago), 姓護 (Nago), 那古 (Nago), 長尾 (Nago)
- Another example: moved Uruma, Okinawa to Uruma which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different Uruma:
- 売間 (Uruma), 宇流麻 (Uruma), 宇瑠間 (Uruma), 宇留間 (Uruma), 宇留麻 (Uruma), 漆間 (Uruma), 潤間 (Uruma), 爪間 (Uruma), 粉間 (Uruma), 粳間 (Uruma), 賣間 (Uruma), 閏間 (Uruma), 閠間 (Uruma)
- The same problem affects more of his page moves but I have not checked all of them; there are far too many of them. Japanese place names are ambiguous in English. Keeping the prefecture in the title helps to make it clearer which place is meant. Unfortunately it is not easy to know because if you do not know Japanese, you will not know when a name that is transliterated into English is ambiguous.
- Looking at his page moves in more detail, I see this is about much more than place names. His incorrect page moves include Category:People from Fukuoka (city) (reverted), capitalisation changes ("Kōri no ue ni Tatsu yō ni" → "Kōri no Ue ni Tatsu Yō ni" reverted), wrong changes to people's names (WP:BLP applies to Mai Satoda (reverted), Mikiyo Ohno (not yet reverted), Chieko Nohno (not yet reverted), Maki Ohguro reverted), erroneous place names Gotemba, Shizuoka (reverted), wrong names Sumitomo Masatomo (not yet reverted). Editing [189] while logged in and also editing [190] while logged out via an IP address in Makati city, the Philippines (Seiko Hashimoto). I could go on. This pattern of disruptive edits needs to stop. He needs to listen and communicate. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is a total lack of communication when his edits are challenged. This is not a future problem; it is having a current impact on the quality of Wikipedia as well as taking up other editors' time needlessly. He never replies to comments. He is ignoring this ANI despite its having been mentioned on his talk page and he has continued editing afterwards. I see the same editor was the subject of another similar recent ANI thread ANI only a few days ago regarding one of his many page moves (it was reverted). He ignored the ANI.
- An editor who will not communicate can be problematic, I agree. I have not looked at the history or lack thereof of his/her communications. And you may well be right about vipers. You have yet to make anything approaching a case on the much larger matter of place names. The standing consensus that I understand on wikipedia is to use the common name of the thing being described in the article. I see nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Article titles nor MOS:JAPAN that mandates or even suggests that prefecture names should be used, in situations in which disambiguation is not required. And it is unavoidably the case that disambiguation was not requred for all of those which were successfully moved back to their settlement name sans disambiguator. So I suppose the possibility exists that if you're getting on the editors case about a consensus breach in a situation in which consensus is not being broken, your overtures are being spurned. Certainly, right now, I find myself more concerned about your insistance that another editor is doing something wrong in a situation in which the editor appears to be doing a perfectly consensual thing, than I am about the viper business or the alleged lack of communication. Where *exactly* is your evidence that there is consensus for the inclusion of prefecture names in articles titles of Japanese settlements for which disambiguation is not required? What should we make of this ANI listing if you are unable to point to such evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No comment on the place names, but I've moved the pit viper article back to its original name. There does appear to be enough evidence that COMMONNAME uses "Mamushi" and that the pit viper name is ambiguous. This should now be discussed.
- And looking through the contribution history, there are moves that concern me - specifically the amendments to romanised names and changes of some people names. I would not wish to give the impression that I think there is nothing to discuss. I see the single instance when someone has informed the user of romanisation issue - but not in a way demanding a response. I see no other engagement with the user on their talk page. ANI is not a substitute for talking to the user first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've left a link to WP:COMMUNICATE and informed him that he needs to use summaries when moving, which seems like WP:COMMONSENSE, if he keeps it up and refuses to explain, we might not have a choice but to block until he communicates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that. I hope it leads to an improvement. We will probably not have long to wait to see whether it does. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The editor is continuing to edit (without edit summaries and without discussion) while logged out, as per the following example. 85.255.236.93 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Similar pattern of edits in Japan and Philippines articles by 49.150.36.119 (contribs)
- Technically sockpuppetry, to avoid scrutiny. I've blocked the ip, left a note on his page, but patience is about exhausted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- He is back at it again. WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOTLISTENING. He is still ignoring this ANI and has still not discussed any of his controversial page moves such as Talk:Mamushi or any of the hundreds of others. 85.255.233.180 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Technically sockpuppetry, to avoid scrutiny. I've blocked the ip, left a note on his page, but patience is about exhausted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The editor is continuing to edit (without edit summaries and without discussion) while logged out, as per the following example. 85.255.236.93 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that. I hope it leads to an improvement. We will probably not have long to wait to see whether it does. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The last diff provided makes we wonder about WP:CIR issues, and I would like another admin to take a look, since it is about an AFD I started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest a one month block, in the effort to ensure a dialog. No objection if someone wants to do an indef block but then check back to see if that leads to a response. These moves are not exactly vandalism but the ones that go against naming conventions risk creating a lot of inconsistency. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've done just that, I think EdJohnston's approach is the right one to start with a month, which should get his attention. Note that I kind of let him slide for logging out and editing as an IP. Hopefully, this won't be a problem in the future, but at that point, I would consider an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest a one month block, in the effort to ensure a dialog. No objection if someone wants to do an indef block but then check back to see if that leads to a response. These moves are not exactly vandalism but the ones that go against naming conventions risk creating a lot of inconsistency. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rather than indulging in discussion process, User:Rameezraja001 keep on edit warring and continuously renaming the mentioned page. --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Both of you are edit warring. Don't edit war even if you think you are right. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've left a 3RR warning (Rameezraja001) & (Saqib) for both users. It looks like both have already reached WP:3RR, and gone right past it. It looks like both Saqib and Rameezraja001 are displaying a case of Ownership --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked 60 hours. At this point, it isn't even about number of reverts, what they are doing with moves and editing over each other and reverting, it is all disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Many unsourced, unexplained data changes[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone nuke the 'tribs of JSOhm, the're all unsourced and unexplained baseball record changes, or I can continue to do it manually. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked and nuked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Thank you, but there are still many live 'tribs left, maybe for some unknown reason to me though. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I used the nuke tool, and filled up my watchlist so bad I had to manually trim it. Have they not been reverted? If not, it may require manually going through. If someone edited after them, then yes, it would require a manual edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: No problem, I'll go through them, it's a boring day :P. Thanx for what you do
- Mlpearc (open channel) 23:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: No problem, I'll go through them, it's a boring day :P. Thanx for what you do
- I used the nuke tool, and filled up my watchlist so bad I had to manually trim it. Have they not been reverted? If not, it may require manually going through. If someone edited after them, then yes, it would require a manual edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Thank you, but there are still many live 'tribs left, maybe for some unknown reason to me though. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked the first 100, they are all reverted. Some by you, some by me. They will still show up as contribs of course. I just punch up the hist for each article in a new tab, and use CNTL-F4 a lot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll get-r-done - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SlitherioFan2016 is a SPA more or less whose activity is confined to rating articles such as Motion picture rating system, Television content rating systems, Video game rating system and Mobile software content rating system . He has undertaken numerous changes without consensus to the color schemes used by the tables at these articles, which arguably offer less contrast. These changes are now the subject of an RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users? but SlitherioFan2016 persists in making alterations while the RFC is ongoing and generally thwarting the process.
These are his changs to the color scheme since just the RFC started:
- October 9: [191], reverted by Robevans123
- October 10: [192] (with the plea that "Maybe editing of the color code could be postponed till after the survey?", although he obviously means this to apply to everyone but himself)
- October 16: [193] (changes the black text on orange scheme to a low contrast white text on orange scheme. Reverted by Eyesnore.
- October 23: [194] (radical new color scheme not proposed at all at the RFC, but helpfully suggests "You may comment on my talk page telling me what you think of this "proposed" color scheme.") Reverted by me.
- October 23: [195] (white on orange again) and [196] (new color scheme), reverted by Pppery and me.
- October 24: [197] (states "Restored descriptive notes but kept existing color scheme"). His edit summary is categorically UNTRUE. He undertook substantial changes to the color scheme by reintroducing the white text on orange background. Reverted by me once again, and I explain at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Orange.2Fwhite_combo why white text on an orange background is a poor idea.
Apart from the constant disruption there is also an ongoing sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016. SlitherioFan has been undertaking alterations at all articles while logged out and denies it was him (even though in some cases he uses the same edit summaries), and then contributing to discussions under different IP numbers to "agree" with himself and thereby creating the impression there is mass support for his changes. I am not going to outline the whole case here but you can see at the case submission there is a lot of compelling evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I probably would have reverted his second change of color if I hadn't believed his edit summary. Pppery 19:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the message posted on my talk page saying I will make no further disruptive edits to content ratings articles for the next four weeks. Also I would like to request temporary 30/500 protection just for motion picture rating system. Would that be okay? Furthermore, I will try to make my edit summaries as tru as possible and will avoid misleading edit summaries. And, as with my second color alteration and the "summary plea" applies to everyone and that includes myself. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- SlitherioFan2016, this is not the deal I proposed on your talk page. You should make *no edits at all* at Motion picture rating systems for the next four weeks. Are you ready to agree to that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, yes I am. That's why I want to request Extemded confirmed (30/500) page protection. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- SlitherioFan2016, thanks for your agreement not to edit the Motion picture rating systems for four weeks. We'll hold you to it. On 23 October I had already applied semiprotection to Motion picture rating systems. One requirement for extended confirmed protection is that it should be used "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." It is not yet evident to me that this increased level of protection is needed. The main problem that seemed to be annoying people was the constant changes to the article's color scheme while an RfC was still in progress. I trust this will not continue. Is there anything more to be addressed here? EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, yes I am. That's why I want to request Extemded confirmed (30/500) page protection. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- SlitherioFan2016, this is not the deal I proposed on your talk page. You should make *no edits at all* at Motion picture rating systems for the next four weeks. Are you ready to agree to that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the message posted on my talk page saying I will make no further disruptive edits to content ratings articles for the next four weeks. Also I would like to request temporary 30/500 protection just for motion picture rating system. Would that be okay? Furthermore, I will try to make my edit summaries as tru as possible and will avoid misleading edit summaries. And, as with my second color alteration and the "summary plea" applies to everyone and that includes myself. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Lack of cooperation by User:Xboxmanwar[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On Oct. 21st, User:Xboxmanwar performed a non-admin closure of an AfD here on the article Big Baby D.R.A.M.
I cautioned User:Xboxmanwar about doing that here, because they were a major editor to the article, and had advocated keeping the article during the AfD discussion. The editor did not revert their AfD close.
User:Lemongirl942 made two attempts to encourage User:Xboxmanwar to revert their non-admin close of the article, here and here.
User:Xboxmanwar responded here, saying "That AfD was already destined to be kept, so why waste more time to relist, its already been done, and a whole bunch of people voted for it to be kept, which it will."
User:John from Idegon explained here: "Because it is a behavioral policy. Behavioral policies are not subject to WP:IAR. Every social interaction in the world has rules, and Wikipedia is no exception. So are you refusing to comply with the rules?"
User:Xboxmanwar's non-admin close of Big Baby D.R.A.M. has still not been reverted. Perhaps an administrator could discuss with User:Xboxmanwar the importance of cooperating with other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Magnolia677 also has issues with cooperating with other editors yourself, they aren't innocent as they appear. Also, perhaps the administrator that could be involved in this issue can let the issue on Big Baby D.R.A.M. slide because again, it was already full of keeps, so the article already stays. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not really that simple, I'm afraid. Discussions on this project are not decided by the number of !votes alone, so an evaluation of local consensus of discussion, as interpreted within the constraints of broader community consensus, is almost never performed by one of the same parties who advocated for one of the positions, because such decisions are quite susceptible to confirmation bias. This is actually a rather perfect example of why we do not allow that: while it's true that there is a 10:2 weight in favour of a keep in that AfD, I've looked at every !vote, and it's a veritable smorgasbord of arguments best avoided in deletion reviews; seriously, I don't think one of them is predicated in an actual viable policy rationale or an accurate reading of WP:NALBUMS. Looking at the article, 4 of 6 of the sources utilized are links to an itunes listing (clearly not a reliable source for anything) and the other two are blurbs in trade magazines, though one has the benefit of being a Rolling Stone entry.
- Mind you, I'm not staking out a position on whether this topic is notable or not, with any degree of certainty; since the album is now released, there may very well be more substantial coverage out there. What I am saying is that this was not an open and shut case by any means, and it underscores the reasons why we don't want involved parties making the "obvious" call on content disputes to which they were a party, no matter how confident they are on the basis of the number of !votes supporting the approach they favour. I'd suggest that the best thing to do here is to revert the close and let a neutral party come to their own conclusions in due course; in the meantime, if the article has in fact begun to receive expanded coverage in the media (as one party to the AfD asserted, but did not demonstrate), then those sources should be added to the article, as this would lend actual policy support to the !keep determination, which is more compelling than any number of "it's obvious, isn't it?" style !votes. Snow let's rap 06:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Edits by 70.75.13.251[edit]
Not sure what these edits are about, but they are weird and may contain privacy violations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's an atypical case, but WP:EMERGENCY would seem to apply here, since there is a suggestion of violence. It's very likely to be trolling, but our policy is "better safe than sorry" where this type of thing is concerned. Let us know if/when you drop a line to the WMF, so we can know that aspect has been attended to--or if you don't wish to send the email, let us know that as well, so someone else can. Snow let's rap 06:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've sent an email to WP:EMERGENCY.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note that we're looking into this from our side (any block etc that would normally be done can go ahead and be done however). Jalexander--WMF 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- The CSI, MI5, and Stasi stuff certainly suggests trolling; it's interesting, however, that they mention both Calvary and a (real) address in Plymouth, Devon? Muffled Pocketed 07:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that mental health issues are just as likely as concerted trolling; without going into detail, there are tell-tale markers in both the form and content of the messages. That said, our speculation ought to end here; the WMF has the relevant information and they are the only ones empowered to pursue this further--anything further on our part will only serve to possibly prolong the policy violations and undermine the effort of the oversighter. I'm not sure who redacted the edits/summaries, but it's worth noting that, thanks to SineBot, the edit on Ian's page remains there still, and the most recent version ought to be scrubbed, since it contains all of the (possibly real) private info of the the other edits, combined into one. Snow let's rap 08:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The automobile project has been having a discussion about whether vehicles used in notorious crimes (the crime having its own article) shoould also have the crime mentioned in the vehicle article. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Propose: Add notoriety statement to Ford F-650 article for use in 1995 for Oklahoma City Bombing Suggestion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles# Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles.
The summary of the two sides is:
- Con: WP:TRIVIA advises that the crime should not be mentioned in the vehicle article unless it had a material affect on the design, sales or reputation of the vehicle.
- Pro: The vehicle was an important part of the crime, therefore the crime deserves to be mentioned in the vehicle article.
So far, the discussion has disagreed about whether WP:TRIVIA has any validity at all, what constitutes consensus, how much time is required for consensus to be reached (the discussion has been going for a couple of months) and whether "no consensus" means the articles should be reverted. To my knowledge, nobody on either side has been persuaded by any arguments made by the other side. Some of the principle proponents have been brought before the administrators during the discussion for uncivil behaviour.
I am requesting an administrator to advise us on the following:
- Whether WP:TRIVIA is a valid convention for us on the automobile project?
- If WP:TRIVIA is not valid then should a less restrictive version be used instead?
- Have we reach a "no consensus" status or should we continue the discussion?
- If we have reached a "no consensus" state then should we revert the 2 example articles under discussion to their previous state (one of which had the crime mentioned and one which did not)?
Thank you. Stepho talk 11:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs:
- No.
- Yes.
- I don't know.
- Probably.
- That said, this looks like a content dispute. "Some of the principle proponents have been brought before the administrators during the discussion for uncivil behaviour" -- can you name names? You didn't notify anyone of this ANI thread. This page is for reporting incidents of problematic user behaviour, and your not naming anyone in particular looks like a way to get around the requirement to notify the subject. I say looks like, because this makes it look like a good-faith mistake. if you want to "[ask] for an administrator to step in [and close the discussion with a consensus statement]", you should post on WP:AN.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs: Re-pinging you since I suspect that my forgetting to sign my above post (at first) might have negated my ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs: IMO the best route to answering this question is a formal RfC, since admins are just editors with mops. We have good insight into policies on reliable sources, spamming, user conduct etc., but our views on what constitutes trivia in this kind of case are of no especial merit. Aside: it's an interesting question, a sort of parity of significance. If we mention X in article Y, does that mean we should mention Y in article X? My main experience of this has been in articles where the mainstream view is included in the article on some bit of batshit craziness, but the crazy view is excluded from the mainstream article. That's a different kind of parity. Admins will of course be happy to review the RFC discussion and close it for you at the end, though I suspect the result is likely to be "it depends", and proceed on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- What Guy said. An RFC is the solution, this is a content issue, not an administrative one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There was an RFC. It ended with no consensus. The oppose side now wants to restore the article to the original configuration. While the pro side refuses to do so, claiming that no consensus means the info can stay. Hence the ANI.
P.S. This criminal use nonsense that started on the firearm pages, is now spreading to automotive, pressure cooker, utility knives, fire, mudslide and other articles. It is very disruptive. It's leading to open warfare and a lot of bad blood between editors. It's time for Administrators to PAY ATTENTION and set up some serous policy regarding it's inclusion (when, where, how & why or not at all). --70.170.74.199 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (plus others) fails to see they are using incorrect evidence to use against me, resulting in bullying[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following on from User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Phew... and my own talk page, I had (in bad faith, admittedly) closed or relisted some AfDs. Having some good advice from sarahj2107, Fortuna along with Lourdes and Izno, started bickering at me on my user page after I (again, with bad faith) accused them as trolls on RFPP, to which I apologised, [198] to which Fortuna, I believe, has not either seen, nor accepted. Fortuna then took the discussion to their user page, along with the latter two left after I put through a statement, and assisted Izno after I recnsidered his AfD to which I relisted and since closed and left it at that. Fortuna then refused to let it die and started using false evidence against me, using an old talkpage under an old pseudonym I was using, User talk: Nordic Dragon, to which I moved to get speedied after it contained personal data, since deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (pinging for his input). I kindly asked Fortuna to reassess what he had done and he refuses to either look at the evidence that I provided or he blatantly refuses to stand down out of spite, now calling me a troll. [199] Now as matter of course, I have referred it to ANI for administrator assistance. Since then, another user has got involved, Light2021, who reverts my NAC on an AfD which I thought was correct. I require admin assistance on this too. Nordic Nightfury 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I won't speak to the AFD issue, but it appears you're asking Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to be sanctioned/lectured for calling you a troll after you called him a troll, in what you admit was bad faith. The answer is, grow up and stop wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- On an off topic note, user:Jeni posted on my talkpage soon after to comfort me. Truth of it is, work probably got the better of me and this is probably how this all started. I, however, don't understand the confrontational behaviour of Fortuna, even after I apologised. Nordic Nightfury 15:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- On a tangent, I've deleted the moved talk page described by NF above, and please consider this a red herring. Someone posted to an incorrect, blank talk page, and their post was suppressed. NF is not really trying to hide anything by moving this and asking it to be speedied. While deletion wasn't really needed, it does no harm, and makes life just a little simpler. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Had you ever considered another change of user name to something like "Nordic Nightbalm", "Nordic Hedgehog", or "Nordic Harvest mouse", etc. But I'd try and steer clear of names like Rattus Norvegicus, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Nordic Nightfury: As far as the substance of this issue goes, you may wish to read WP:Relist bias, an essay I wrote a while back which certainly applies to this situation. You've asked an administrator to deal with the user conduct issues here. Here's how I see what's happened so far. You made a series of clearly erroneous closes (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celestine_Ogbu, where you relisted a unanimous outcome). Multiple editors politely requested that you reconsider your relists, providing an explanation for why they were not appropriate (diff). Your response demonstrated a lack of understanding of consensus (diff), and further editors requested that you reconsider your closes to prevent the community from wasting time overturning them. Instead of discussing this, you removed discussion from your user talk page and replaced it with a notice not to discuss the issue with you (diff). This goes against WP:ADMINACCT, which most certainly does apply to non-admins when they act as closers. You then requested full protection of your talk page to enforce this lack of discussion, calling the editors attempting to discuss their concerns with you trolls (diff). In what looks to be a direct response to this comment and continued attempts to dodge discussion and responsibility for your closes, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi stated your actions were "close to trolling", a statement which comments on your actions, not you as an individual (diff). This should have been phrased better. Having read that summary of what's happened, with diffs, do you really want to request administrator attention here, or are you able to accept this as a lesson learned and return to editing productively? ~ Rob13Talk 15:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Very wise and understated advice above. I think a withdrawal by the O.P at this point would be in everyone's best interests. Just an uninvolved observation. Irondome (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
LTA Sju hav currently committing major BLP violations, SPI forum not doing anything[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sju hav is a longterm sockmaster whose main focus is controversies covered in Norwegian news, often leading to major BLP violations. He is currently editing Therese Johaug as an IP, making the doping allegation section wildly undue, in addition to other problems. He was reported to the SPI board on 3 october, with later follow-ups, but they have pretty much vowed not to do anything. Iselilja (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion while AfD still open[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@RHaworth: speedy deleted Donald Trump's hair while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair is still open and by far not clear on the "delete" side, let alone anything near speedy. --SI 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- The page was deleted as an attack page (CSD G10), which could supercede the AfD that was in process. I will say that this is the wrong venue, and that you could post this in deletion review for a better examination on the delete. It's not unusual for a page to be CSD'd during a AfD though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Did you read the article?? I didn't say that this generally can't be done, but here it was really really ungrounded. --SI 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did read the article, and commented in the AfD. My comment was simply that CSD during an AfD isn't unusual, that's all. It wasn't a comment on whether the page was worthy of a CSD or not (and that's honestly for DRV, not here). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Did you read the article?? I didn't say that this generally can't be done, but here it was really really ungrounded. --SI 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I pinged RHaworth on the AfD. I generally agree that G10 was the wrong way to go, but wanted to hear his side of the story/see if he would restore. I agree with RickinBaltimore that WP:DRV would be more appropriate than ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I nominated the article for G10. I fully accept that reasonable minds can differ on this, though I do believe it was an attack page. I posted my rationale in the AfD and I'll re-post it at DRV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
User:P3DRO[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, this is getting tiresome. From now and then, P3DRO (talk · contribs) harasses and insults me (mostly in Portuguese) on my talk page: [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206].
User constantly makes bullshit and laughable accusations against me, such as: wanting to be the "last editor" on articles; "destroying" contributions; "not respecting" users; "childish and disrespectful behaviour". More recently, user has called me "canalha" (scoundrel), and said it will stop editing pages which I edit.
My conclusion is that P3DRO wants to limit my action on Wikipedia; what I can or cannot edit. And this is not acceptable. SLBedit (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've left a crystal clear warning on his talk page. He doesn't do it often, but doing it in Portuguese thinking no one can find translate.google.com is pretty silly of him. If it continues, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are constantly reverting my work, you do not respect other users contributions. Also "canalha" does not mean that. You call that to little kids who behave badly. Do not misrepresent my words. I do not want to limite your work, I only want you to stop that behaviour and stop reverting my edits. Looks like you're chasing me, constantly reverting my edits with poor excuses.
The way you do things looks like you want to be the last editor, only the things you edit are correct, you do not respect other people. That's what it looks.
Also, you continue to ignore me in your talk page. P3DRO (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- More silly accusations. "Canalha" is offensive and it means "patife", which means ""scoundrel" (A mean, worthless fellow; a rascal; a villain; a person without honour or virtue), "rascal" (Low; lowly, part of or belonging to the common rabble), "knave" (A tricky, deceitful fellow; a dishonest person; a rogue; a villain), "villain" (A deliberate scoundrel). You want to limit my action, change my behaviour, how I edit, what I edit. More baseless accusations. I use my watchlist. No, I read all the nonsense you wrote there, hence the reverts/cleanup. SLBedit (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Portuguese girl here to offer my two cents. I am Portuguese through my father and although I have Portuguese citizenship, meu português esta um pouco fraco. Regardless of my level of the language, the context itself is enough said. To tell a user to go ahead and take their bike just said it all for me. You are seriously reminded of WP:CIVIL. Your constant posting on SLBedit is mounting to WP:HARASS. If an editor refuses to communicate with you, look for other ways to reach them or bring the attention to the article's talk page. Consistently posting on someone's talk page is essentially harassment. Canalha is translated to negative and insulting words. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Professor Carl Hewitt threatens litigation[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Prof. Carl Hewitt wrote today that "this whole thing is going to be escalated and re-litigated once more."[207] To me it looks like he is threatening legal action. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tbh, it appears that they're using it in the sense of "redebate" since BLP and content were debated before by Carl and other users. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster defines litigate as "to make (something) the subject of a lawsuit : to cause (a case, an issue, etc.) to be decided and settled in a court of law." If this is what Carl Hewitt intended to say, he should be blocked per WP:NLT. He should get a chance to clarify or withdraw what he has said. Over to you, Professor Hewitt.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to support my claim, Dictionary.com gives an archaic meaning of litigate as "to dispute (a point, assertion, etc.).". But I agree that the user needs to clarify and should be given the chance do so given that it's not unambiguous. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster defines litigate as "to make (something) the subject of a lawsuit : to cause (a case, an issue, etc.) to be decided and settled in a court of law." If this is what Carl Hewitt intended to say, he should be blocked per WP:NLT. He should get a chance to clarify or withdraw what he has said. Over to you, Professor Hewitt.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's universal, but saying that something has or will be "re-litigated" is a common informal term for going back over an issue that was previously thought settled (often in a legalistic manner, which would be appropriate for eg. a policy dispute here.) It's common in political discussions, too, eg. [208]. It's clear from the context that he didn't intend that as a legal threat, especially since reading it as literally would require assuming that he has engaged in actual legal action over the topic in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- TBH I didn't see it as a legal threat, but most dictionaries nowadays give the primary meaning of litigate as involving legal action in a court. The Oxford dictionary also does this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- As common synonyms for "litigate", we have "dispute" and "contest." Carl (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've heard with some frequency the use of "relitigate" to mean to reargue a point already previously discussed, and not at all to mean in a legal context. I would see this comment as use of an idiom that's at least somewhat commonly used, not an actionable legal threat. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since English is a decidedly ambiguous language, wouldn't the simplest solution be that the good Professor strike "relitigate" and replace it with a less loaded term such as "rehash"? Then we could all go have a beer and shoot some darts. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @John from Idegon: At this point... we're at the 'two more scotch, and two more beers' stage I think :) Muffled Pocketed 07:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since English is a decidedly ambiguous language, wouldn't the simplest solution be that the good Professor strike "relitigate" and replace it with a less loaded term such as "rehash"? Then we could all go have a beer and shoot some darts. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- The word used was "re-litigated", which if taken in its strict legal sense implies that a prior legal action occurred. That doesn't appear to be the case here, so I think it is reasonable to conclude that "re-litigated" was meant in the sense of "discussed again". I think this can be closed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've heard with some frequency the use of "relitigate" to mean to reargue a point already previously discussed, and not at all to mean in a legal context. I would see this comment as use of an idiom that's at least somewhat commonly used, not an actionable legal threat. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- As common synonyms for "litigate", we have "dispute" and "contest." Carl (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- TBH I didn't see it as a legal threat, but most dictionaries nowadays give the primary meaning of litigate as involving legal action in a court. The Oxford dictionary also does this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, in short (i.e. minimally documented by wikilinks) as I actually feel sent from Pontius to Pilatus: I just reported two IP-related sockpuppet investigations, but they were removed without any 'ping' two hours ago. btw: two further about two weeks ago were handled, a week later, commenting too late to investigate... These incidents started three weeks ago when I reported some obviously sockpuppets, and four hours ago additionally requested semi-protection for Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern) ([209] > [210] > [211]) where it started end of September (IP edits, imho trolling), and Alternative Bank Schweiz and VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz which imho also were affected in October. Now remarking, that I was 'silently recommended' to report here. Please kindly take notice, that first I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#How_to_handle_potentially_sock_puppetry on 26 September 2016 how to handle, but imho were no recommendations or support, hence, I started above mentioned to avoid further îmho trolling. Honestly frustrated and kindly asking your support, thx Roland zh (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, so I can't help you with blocking IP addresses, but maybe I can help explain a few things. It's a little difficult for me to understand your writing, but it looks like you're asking why your reports were declined. The reason why your SPI report was removed was because 1) you requested an investigation at "quick CU requests", and 2) you requested a CU on an IP address. The quick check is not for investigations of sock puppetry; you need to file a full report for that. The other problem is that CUs generally won't publicly comment on IP addresses, so even if you had filed a full report, the CU request would have been declined. To file an SPI case, you should follow the directions at "How to open an investigation" at WP:SPI: click on "show", enter the sock master's name, and follow the prompts. If you think the case is too complicated for SPI, you can bring it here, but you'll probably still be told to go to SPI. You were redirected here (or AIV) in your request for page protection because there wasn't enough recent, obvious disruption to the articles. Also, most of the recent IP edits on Public Eye came from a single IP address. If those cases, you can warn the IP editor and get the individual IP address blocked (either here or at AIV). I think that's what Oshwah meant when he said to warn the user and report them here. If you need further help in managing Wikipedia's labyrinthine bureaucracy, you might try asking at WP:HELPDESK. Oshwah himself is pretty helpful, and if you ask him to explain what he meant, he will assist you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The SPI quick check was removed because there's nothing to check. This is likely one person editing from school (the dynamic IP in the 128.178.188.0/22 range) and from home (the static IP). The first article kind of skirts the level of disruption necessary for protection, but I don't think it's quite there yet. The other two haven't been edited in more than two weeks.
- I've warned the static IP for disruptive editing, and you should escalate the warnings as necessary if he persists. Oshwah gave you good advice at your RFPP request when he said to report to AIV next time, because that's where this belongs. I hear your frustration, but this is rather minor. Katietalk 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Katie and NinjaRobotPirate. I tried to 'historize' these 'incidents' as short as possible (before, hours were spent to report sockpuppeting/trolling at three WP:XX sites) back to my first inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#How to handle potentially sock puppetry, one month ago. I appreciate especially your explainations why I was redirected/declined. Though I wasn't 'ping-ed' today as mentioned, it's no complaint about any Wikimedians/Administrators, definitely and in no sense. I'd tried to ask again how to handle, and semi-protection for IP's seemed to be a potentially solution. Yes, I am disappointed and frustrated as mentioned, but particularly about imho trolling (from home and work/school, I'd professional IT experiences) those wikis by assumably the same sockpuppet/circle as reported in early October, i.e. registred users/IP's ranging from Lausanne to Amsterdam. As I don't like to wikipolice unregistered users, whose contributions I appreciate very much and even thank at the related IP-talks, I appreciate your attention and thank you for your recent efforts. Closing kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Stealth offsite canvassing[edit]
I found the page on canvassing to not be clear on how to deal with stealth (offsite) canvassing. See the discussion here. Someone posted on the Wikileaks Reddit asking for users to change the Wikileaks article to make it more favorable to their POV, and a number of users did just that. What action should I take? -- Rei (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drawing too much attention to it just feeds the trolls, which is what they are searching for. Usually, a note at WP:AN is best, since what you really want is to bring it to the attention of administrators, not necessarily everyone. ANI is ok, just not optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Short-term page protection is probably the way to go here; since you can't positively identify the actor making the request (who may very well be an inexperienced and/or IP editor themselves), you can't combat this with sanctions, but most of the recruits are likely to be IP's (or new accounts with minimal number of edits), meaning that page protection, combined with some basic effort at examining recent involvement on the article for signs of meat puppetry, should stymy the efforts of the offsite canvasing/POV pushing. Snow let's rap 06:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Legal Threats by user Janthana[edit]
I recently listed some articles for deletion which were being persistently vandalized by, among others, User:Janthana. After checking their history they appear to be engaged in persistent edit warring with various IPs/socks. Regardless of the merit of these edits, the user has continuously accused others of "stalking" and has engaged in persistent personal attacks. However, one edit in particular, Special:Diff/745569312 includes what appears to be a legal threat. I'm not sure if this falls under WP:NLT guidelines but it seems worth pointing out given the user's generally hostile nature. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysquirrelpants (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Question @Jimmysquirrelpants:: Where did you ask this user what they meant about the statement in that diff? What "emergency" action are you wanting users to take with respect to Janthana? Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't address it because I was not the intended recipient. The action I am seeking is what is appropriate per the WP:NLT guidelines, I just noticed it while browsing the user's history. If this is not the appropriate forum I apologize. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed a couple of revisions from that diff which were made by some kind of troll. The diff quoted seems like not much to worry about in itself, but perhaps it's the tip of an iceberg. It seems Janthana has been swatting trolls for some time. It's probably worth asking if they are getting over-involved and want to tone it down a bit. I also see a recent related block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed I have. And the legal threat is not from me, I couldn't be bothered with it, plus it's not allowed here. But it might come from outside. Let me be absolutely clear. For the last 6 months the following profiles and IPs, who I am absolutely convinced are the same person, have been obsessively vandalizing, stalking, slandering and disrupting anything regarding article Douglas R. Docker. Following this, the articles has been semi-protected and has gone quiet since. However, Mr SquarePants and/or his aliases have since then have been plugging libelous, slandering, false, unreferenced and offensive edits anywhere, with a particular love for connecting Douglas R. Docker and his father with Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad with lovely rants such as "the butcher of Saddam" and the like. We're talking about a rock musician here. This is very serious and has created VERY SERIOUS damage to his image and livelihood. I wrote to him. He took action. That's why most secondary IPs have been blocked or gone quiet. But Mr SpongeBob here keeps trolling at a low level to keep things interesting. Obviously very disturbed person with not much to hang on the Xmas tree this year. So yes, I have been troll whacking, and all attempts to get me banned or blocked or articles where I got involved deleted have failed. I do know that there are several admins looking into this and if that's not enough you can bet I will get the Foundation involved directly. I've been using a humorous tone mostly, but this is very serious stuff. Just to be perfectly clear, these are the profiles and IPs that have been vandalizing the most, often using a "good cop/bad cop" strategy to look legit and then blast away elsewhere. Jimmysquirrelpants, AFJP FAN 420 (got blocked for adding false references to justify his slander), Mystic Technocrat who acts as the good cop, but systematically interacts almost exclusively on the same articles as the others, and then professional trolls 161.113.11.16, 161.113.20.135 who have been good boys for a while, waiting for the article to be unprotected, and a slew of others which you can discover in the article history page. most of these have been blocked, but a few are returning like bad roaches. SO yes, it is the tip of an iceberg, you're just looking at the wrong end of it. Janthana (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is exactly why you're supposed to discuss issues with users prior to jumping immediately to ANI. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, but with all due respect a neurotic troll has little to discuss, his goal being to disrupt at all costs. I'm not the one opening ANIs all over the place, that said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janthana (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks to Janthana for the summary. If we could politely ask Janthana to just appear a little less excited in their edit summaries, as this is precisely what trolls feed off. I am sure admins will do what they can to help out. Unfortunately the diff quoted is probably one of the less forseeable edits, but I've watchlisted the article and a couple of others in case they reappear in the same place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to add a tip: Janthana, the only time you will ever see me make edits without summaries is when dealing with trolls. I simply revert, blank summary. If it needs revdel, email an active admin. If I needed (pre admin) to file at AIV, keep it simple. If it needs oversight, use the link on their page. Like zzuuzz said, trolls feed on reaction. If you want to starve them out, give them no reaction, which means no satisfaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Point well taken and I agree completely. Sometimes when this stuff has gone on for months it's hard to keep it serious though. Thanks to all for the support and tips. Hopefully things are going to quiet down for a while now and i can get back to constructive editing instead of policing.Janthana (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks to Janthana for the summary. If we could politely ask Janthana to just appear a little less excited in their edit summaries, as this is precisely what trolls feed off. I am sure admins will do what they can to help out. Unfortunately the diff quoted is probably one of the less forseeable edits, but I've watchlisted the article and a couple of others in case they reappear in the same place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, but with all due respect a neurotic troll has little to discuss, his goal being to disrupt at all costs. I'm not the one opening ANIs all over the place, that said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janthana (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is exactly why you're supposed to discuss issues with users prior to jumping immediately to ANI. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed I have. And the legal threat is not from me, I couldn't be bothered with it, plus it's not allowed here. But it might come from outside. Let me be absolutely clear. For the last 6 months the following profiles and IPs, who I am absolutely convinced are the same person, have been obsessively vandalizing, stalking, slandering and disrupting anything regarding article Douglas R. Docker. Following this, the articles has been semi-protected and has gone quiet since. However, Mr SquarePants and/or his aliases have since then have been plugging libelous, slandering, false, unreferenced and offensive edits anywhere, with a particular love for connecting Douglas R. Docker and his father with Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad with lovely rants such as "the butcher of Saddam" and the like. We're talking about a rock musician here. This is very serious and has created VERY SERIOUS damage to his image and livelihood. I wrote to him. He took action. That's why most secondary IPs have been blocked or gone quiet. But Mr SpongeBob here keeps trolling at a low level to keep things interesting. Obviously very disturbed person with not much to hang on the Xmas tree this year. So yes, I have been troll whacking, and all attempts to get me banned or blocked or articles where I got involved deleted have failed. I do know that there are several admins looking into this and if that's not enough you can bet I will get the Foundation involved directly. I've been using a humorous tone mostly, but this is very serious stuff. Just to be perfectly clear, these are the profiles and IPs that have been vandalizing the most, often using a "good cop/bad cop" strategy to look legit and then blast away elsewhere. Jimmysquirrelpants, AFJP FAN 420 (got blocked for adding false references to justify his slander), Mystic Technocrat who acts as the good cop, but systematically interacts almost exclusively on the same articles as the others, and then professional trolls 161.113.11.16, 161.113.20.135 who have been good boys for a while, waiting for the article to be unprotected, and a slew of others which you can discover in the article history page. most of these have been blocked, but a few are returning like bad roaches. SO yes, it is the tip of an iceberg, you're just looking at the wrong end of it. Janthana (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed a couple of revisions from that diff which were made by some kind of troll. The diff quoted seems like not much to worry about in itself, but perhaps it's the tip of an iceberg. It seems Janthana has been swatting trolls for some time. It's probably worth asking if they are getting over-involved and want to tone it down a bit. I also see a recent related block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't address it because I was not the intended recipient. The action I am seeking is what is appropriate per the WP:NLT guidelines, I just noticed it while browsing the user's history. If this is not the appropriate forum I apologize. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And again trouble in WP:ARBPIA area a "new" user HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an I/P conflict article(with perfect wiki syntax) Issa Amro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that he is not allowed to create per WP:ARBPIA3.This article should be speedy deleted.I think its clear cut case so I didn't take to WP:AE but if something there is maybe broader issue here I will be happy to do it.--Shrike (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I am a new user, and this is the first wikipedia article that I've ever written. If you're questioning the article because of the syntax, I need to say that I researched wikipedia tutorial pages a lot and experimented with the preview button until it seemed right, since I wanted to present a good result, and saved the text every so often on a google doc. If you are in doubt about the context, I would suggest that you follow some of the references, especially the statement issued by the UN special rapporters, or simply google "Issa Amro." If it is about the article not being relevant enough, then I don't see why there is an article on activist Bassem Al-Tamimi and there are already at least three other wikipedia articles mentioning the subject of this article. Is there a way to keep the article but have a contribution from an eligible author, if eligibility is the issue here? --HumanRightsUnderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It has some dubious sourcing, but not entirely; perhaps this is a case of WP:NOTBURO and to WP:IAR. It's not particularly tendentious or attacking? And if HMU is a new user, they can hardly be expected to know of WP:ARBPIA3, I'd imagine.
- Of course, this is all on the assumption that the new user is indeed that; if it turns out that they are are footwear-related, then the usual ploughing of salt into the ground etc. should probably occur. Muffled Pocketed 16:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I reviewed this article and it seems like the type of content we should keep. Also, there is no speedy deletion provision for enforcing Arbcom remedies, as far as I know.- MrX 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a look and from my mind the article is extraordinarily slanted and hagiographic, but that's not all that uncommon in this topic area from both sides. It's not so bad that it requires speedy deletion, but now the original author is in the odd position where they're not allowed to edit an article they created. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC).
- I reviewed this article and it seems like the type of content we should keep. Also, there is no speedy deletion provision for enforcing Arbcom remedies, as far as I know.- MrX 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kuru, you blocked this range before: long term abuse, you said. Email me if you like--or get a real CU to look at this. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, e-mail sent. Kuru (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pity I'm sitting at Five Guys waiting for some hamburgers, and no email on my phone. Later! Drmies (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sacrilege. Presumably you are bound to a region bereft of our lord Whataburger. Kuru (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- If I recall, I was something of a wiki-syntax savant early on, and we have "Show preview", so the perfect wiki-syntax argument is not a clincher for me on whether this user is a sockpuppet or not. If they are a new user, though, they seem to be missing the point that new users aren't allowed edit articles on this topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sacrilege. Presumably you are bound to a region bereft of our lord Whataburger. Kuru (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, e-mail sent. Kuru (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- What y'all need to decide is whether this article is worth keeping. Kuru, no Whataburger here, and I was kind of disappointed tonight. Do you know they charge 4.29 for a hotdog? Crazy. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Who goes to Five Guys for a hotdog? I mean seriously. Too bad Shake Shack hasn't made it to Tirana. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As the author, I'd like to apologize for not realizing that I am not an eligible user to create the page. I should have been more established in the wiki community before going into a controversial subject like this one. But now that the page is created, (and should you choose to keep it), I don't have the chance to make improvements on it either. Also, I don't know if I can take any steps to verify that I really am a new user, but I'll be happy to do so. -- HumanRightsUnderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Shrike, depends on what you mean by "this". I'm kind of waiting to hear from Kuru about the range block, from which this editor comes. The other "this" is the article, where you all, the community, need to decide if you want to keep this even if it was made in violation of ARBPIA and/or, depending on what Kuru says, by a banned editor. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've placed extended confirmed protection here as per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. ~ Rob13Talk 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that the March 2016 amendment strains the limits of the kind of prohibitions that ArbCom should be allowed to declare; those kinds of broad pronouncements which affect large numbers of future editors ought to be vetted by the community at large. And this particular proscription raises a lot potential issues, some of which are highlighted by this very instance; how is a new editor, operating in good-faith, to know about this restriction? And what are we to do with the work product of such an editor if it does not otherwise violate the discretionary sanctions scheme, nor any other conclusion of the line of ARBPIA cases?
In any event, since the amendment has created this situation (which is as-yet unique, but likely to be duplicated at some point), and we are forced to adopt an ad-hoc response, I'd argue for retention of the article, as the editor and his content do not give any signs of being representative of the kind of problem scenarios which that amendment/prohibition is designed to preempt. Yes, I agree the content has a slightly hagiographic bent, but on the whole, it's pretty decent material for a first outing (if this is indeed a new user--I give the benefit of the doubt, as a matter of AGF). More so than that, given the high profile of the article's subject and the upcoming trial, this topic is inherently notable, useful to our readers, and bound to be replicated by someone eventually, so we might as well start from the content HRU has produced. Snow let's rap 08:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Rangeblocks needed for LTA[edit]
The Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal has been quite active, but I think we can make it more difficult for him if we block four ranges of IPs. Here are the IPs from the last three weeks:
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:A0E4:928E:FB42:1421 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:C12A:2D61:8921:D1A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 22 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:E138:C8D6:2538:8F8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:C4AF:E9A4:E8FF:93BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:4B9:63C4:BA91:85E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
- 49.195.26.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:D4E1:826:53FC:830B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:C5D9:6DD2:C0AC:1137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
- 49.195.29.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
- 49.180.142.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
- 49.180.151.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:35F0:FEC9:8E67:4B25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
- 49.180.144.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
- 49.180.137.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
- 49.195.6.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
- 49.180.174.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 October 2016
- 49.180.158.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 October 2016
- 49.181.196.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 13 October 2016
- 49.195.35.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12 October 2016
- 49.181.198.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12 October 2016
- 49.195.19.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 October 2016
- 49.181.222.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 October 2016
- 49.180.152.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:A116:65C8:2555:D6C4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
- 49.180.166.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:D19D:2125:E411:DDDB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 9 October 2016
- 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:159C:178E:E1E2:28E6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 October 2016
- 49.181.203.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 6 October 2016
- 49.180.141.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
- 49.180.173.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
- 49.180.165.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
- 2001:8003:8511:2C00:DC52:57C:9B76:3E11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
- 49.180.160.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
- 49.180.138.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
- 101.188.6.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
- 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:B4:1162:81D:2001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2–3 October 2016
To me it looks like we can block the following ranges and slow him down:
- 2001:8003:2435:8600:xxx
- 49.195.6.0 to 49.195.35.255
- 49.181.196.0 to 49.181.222.255
- 49.180.137.0 to 49.180.174.255
Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the possibility of a filter if I can nail down the behaviorism/phrases in use. Might be worth noting the best IP ranges would likely be:
2001:8003:2435:8600::/64- contribs49.180.128.0/18- although that's a large range, the contribs show this is mainly the vandal
- -- samtar talk or stalk 19:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Samtar and I are working on some possible filters to help catch the edits from this vandal, no matter from which Australian IP they originate. I agree that 2001:8003:2435:8600::/64 should be blocked, along with 49.180.128.0/18. So that's two out of four suggested rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Binksternet and Samtar! Thanks for taking the time to list out these IPs and check out the ranges of both. From my calculations, the ranges appear to be as follows:
- 2001:8003:2435:8600::/64
- 49.180.128.0/18
- Hi Binksternet and Samtar! Thanks for taking the time to list out these IPs and check out the ranges of both. From my calculations, the ranges appear to be as follows:
- Update: Samtar and I are working on some possible filters to help catch the edits from this vandal, no matter from which Australian IP they originate. I agree that 2001:8003:2435:8600::/64 should be blocked, along with 49.180.128.0/18. So that's two out of four suggested rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then on top of that, we have a few IPv6 addresses that are outside the average range (three of them), as well as a few IPv4 addresses that are in the 181 and 195 subnets, as well as one that's way outside the others (the 101.188.6.30 address). I'm interested to run a geolocate and see if all of these are from the same location. I'll also note that both pages involved with the LTA have been semi-protected (and with quite an extensive expiration) by NeilN and HJ Mitchell. I almost feel that it's pointless to block now. I'm going to dig a bit further and get additional thoughts... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Quite a few articles have been disrupted by this person, not just two! Here's a list of the recent targets:
- John McPhillips, semiprotected by Ymblanter for six months, expiring in April 2017.
- Just Dance Kids, pending changes protection by NeilN for six months, expired in April 2016.
- So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2002, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired August 2016.
- Nothing's Real but Love
- So Fresh: The Hits of Winter 2012, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired August 2016.
- So Fresh, semiprotected by Ged UK for six months, expired June 2016.
- Hi-5 House, semiprotected by Ymblanter for three days in May 2016.
- The Spirit of Christmas 2006
- Template:NOW music albums
- Pixel Pinkie, semiprotected by CambridgeBayWeather for one week in October 2016.
- Bad (David Guetta and Showtek song), semiprotected by Ceradon for two months, expired September 2016.
- So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2016, semiprotected by CambridgeBayWeather for two weeks in October 2016.
- Hayley McElhinney
- Call Me Maybe
- Play School (Australian TV series)
- Isabella Dunwill, semiprotected by Ymblanter for one week in October 2016.
- Ah Yeah!, semiprotected by Ponyo for one month, expired October 2015.
- Hit Machine
- 50 Years 50 Shows
- Sergio Di Zio
- ARIA Music Awards of 2016
- Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)
- Lips of an Angel
- Left Outside Alone
- Incomplete (Backstreet Boys song)
- Don't Cha
- Cut Snake (band)
- ARIA Award for Best Dance Release
- C-sharp minor, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired May 2016.
- Nigel Pilkington
- Now: The Hits of Summer 2011
- Triple J Hottest 100, 2015
- ARIA Award for Song of the Year
- 3e
- Now: The Hits of Spring 2010
- Down (Jay Sean song)
- Somebody That I Used to Know
- List of artists who reached number one on the Australian singles chart
- Say My Name (Peking Duk song)
- Pyramid (Australian game show), semiprotected by Ymblanter for one month, expiring in November 2016.
- There are more than these, but I have to go make an appointment. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- EF live but not yet disallowing at Special:AbuseFilter/802, with some updates to follow -- samtar talk or stalk 09:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog and their mass tagging of Educational Project Articles[edit]
| OP Blocked |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Jytdog has decided to go and mass tag Draft articles belonging to an educational class project as being mass copy violations. They then spoke with User_talk:SwisterTwister who advised them that there is no evidence of this. Any other editor would be blocked for actions like this. Jytdog has been the subject of weekly AN/I threads. Yes they do great work but the means does not justify the end, especially after a lengthy block. This block MUST be revisted as this cannot continue any longer. I am not linking diffs because there are too many but here is an overview:
03:51, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+602) . . N Draft talk:Uncinectomy (warning) (current)
|
Lowercase sigmabot III not working properly at all[edit]
Lowercase sigmabot III isn't working properly at all. The archiving here at WP:ANI has been set to 72-hours-old for years now, but there are currently threads that have gone 5, 6, and 7 days without responses or archiving. I've seen countless other article-talk pages over the past several months with threads well past that page's "expiration" that Lowercase sigmabot III has failed to archive. It appears we need a replacement for this bot as it is failing. ANI in particular needs a working bot that archives stale threads promptly.
The bot's creator, Σ, hasn't edited in 6 weeks. Someone may need to email him.
PS: I'm posting this in a couple of places so that it is seen by those who can help. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the correct venue would be Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user and suspected socks have repeatedly added unsourced controversial content on N. Shanmugalingam, a BLP, despite numerous warnings and a brief block. I request a further block and full protection of the article.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Socking accusations belong elsewhere, preferably with some evidence in support. The user hasn't edited in several days. You didn't notify them of this discussion as you're required to do. Otherwise, you're doing very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Having a bad day? I'm not required to notify others of this discussion - the notice above only says "please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". Some editors edit every day, others occasionally. Lalapappa has only edited N. Shanmugalingam in main space in the last 2½ years and he edited the article three days ago - I would say that was recent.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Uncivil behavior by User:Pinoyhoops[edit]
I nominated an article for deletion that Pinoyhoops (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) created. In response, the user left this message on my talk page, with a personal attack in both the body and the edit summary. After I warned the user about personal attacks, I received this templated warning in response. I don't think that this approach to other editors is acceptable here. agtx 17:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- What is a "Wiki Gestapo"? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Their reaction to your entirely reasonable nomination was inappropriate. Your comment on their talk page was fine. Their response was petulant but best ignored. However, I don't yet see a need to bring this to ANI, let's see if this blows over as it possibly will.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Use of CAPITAL LETTERS is uncivil and is like shouting, so you did the right thing in deleting an uncivil message. I agree with Sphilbrick: Just chill for a while. Go out for a walk. Let's see what happens. My opinion only, but I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
- There's no doubt that Pinyhoops' message was uncivil. "What's your beef?"? I find that insulting. Plus, it should be noted that Pinyhoops then nominated Agtx's user page for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Agtx). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- "What's your beef?" is a slangy, old-fashioned way of saying "What's your complaint?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki Gestapo is the part that was the most offensive. If the user hadn't compared me to Hitler's secret police, I wouldn't have brought it to ANI. agtx 18:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would have called that a personal attack, flat out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that Pinyhoops' message was uncivil. "What's your beef?"? I find that insulting. Plus, it should be noted that Pinyhoops then nominated Agtx's user page for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Agtx). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Use of CAPITAL LETTERS is uncivil and is like shouting, so you did the right thing in deleting an uncivil message. I agree with Sphilbrick: Just chill for a while. Go out for a walk. Let's see what happens. My opinion only, but I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
- Their reaction to your entirely reasonable nomination was inappropriate. Your comment on their talk page was fine. Their response was petulant but best ignored. However, I don't yet see a need to bring this to ANI, let's see if this blows over as it possibly will.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note that Pinoyhoops was more than just uncivil/attacking, they also nominated Agtx's userpage for deletion with a preposterous nominating statement. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Agtx.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which has been reverted. I followed up with a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the user's most recent edit on the AfD makes me sense competence issue. They imply that they know more than those who have been here longer than them and basically insulting RickinBaltimore (sp?) if you ask me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll admit my AfD comment might be a bit flippant, but my point stands on the page. I can understand the editor is frustrated an article they are working on is marked for deletion, I get that, however insults and incivility isn't the way to go to handle this. The user just recently came back from a 6 year break (with the exception of one article), however civility hasn't changed in that time. I'd suggest that they tone down their rhetoric or they could be blocked if it keeps up sadly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the user's most recent edit on the AfD makes me sense competence issue. They imply that they know more than those who have been here longer than them and basically insulting RickinBaltimore (sp?) if you ask me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which has been reverted. I followed up with a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Possible crosswiki spam[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An article about a non notable band (Bonnevilla) got deleted twice at es.wikipedia. It's been recreated here and the user just won't stop removing the maintenance tag I put a few days ago. See [212]. Best, --181.167.131.136 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user has added unsourced information over and over again on American Music Awards of 2016 list of performers, claiming he knows "the true list of performances, you will see, I Work for them (& Miley Cyrus is negoc to be The host)". Has been warned, but still doing it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gave him a final warning for unsourced content. If he persists, AIV is thataway. :-) Katietalk 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Resolve needed[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedCan an Admin resolve this issue, user needs blocking or Nancy Newman needs extended-semi protection, semi no longer works. More info is on the article's talk page. Thanx - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
there is more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Newman Lyndsayalarice (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- @SilentResident: I volunteered to mediate in a dispute that arose about points in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (if it is read right through) for the result and the details of the dispute. User:SilentResident agrees with me that a block or other serious sanction is needed against User:DevilWearsBrioni. User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third. Before resorting to the extreme of blocking DevilWearsBrioni, I prefer to see what consensus there is on the matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: In addition to me and Mediator Anthony Appleyard, also Mediator User:Iazyges agrees with us on a block: [213] -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Officially endorsing topic ban As per my statement linked above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This issue won't go away. This issue, with User:DevilWearsBrioni constantly arguing that any post that he doesn't agree with is original research, seemed to be one that needed to go to formal mediation. If they continue to filibuster after the mediator has reminded them to stay on the subject, it is time for sanctions. A topic-ban from Expulsion of Cham Albanians and any related topics as a arbitration enforcement sanction may be preferable to a block, since one simply sits out a block and comes back. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I shall clarify that when I said "block" (above in my previous comment), I meant "ban" and not account block or whatever. Robert McClenon was very kind to explain the difference between bans and blocks on my Talk page [214]. My apologies for the initial confusion of terms ban/block.
- And like how Robert said, we have a case of disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles, where any text they do not agree with, the editor falsely perceived/claimed it as being OR. Their unfounded and false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH accusations, combined with their 3RR breaches and ARBMAC violations, NPOV violations, acting against consensus, refusal to abide by the DRN's resolutions, and failure to be reasoned with in the RfM, leaves us no other options. A permanent topic ban is necessary. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
3RR, BLP violations, incivility in edit summaries, repeated adding of unreferenced content by IP[edit]
User:2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 is repeatedly adding unreferenced material to Doc Love in violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:3RR. Oddly enough, he cites 3RR in justifying his edits, perhaps accusing other editors of doing so, I don't know. However, as best I can tell, no individual editor has reverted him more than three times in the last 24 hours, and in any case as a BLP violation, their reversions are justified. Additionally, the IP has been showing incivility and lack of WP:AGF in some edit summaries here and elsewhere, such as Abu Bakr. Examples: [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], and [224]. Smartyllama (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- See also an3-notice board, a report that I filed before I noticed this one. Sorry for that. - DVdm (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was correct that no other individual editor has more than three reverts. I'm the only one to make more than three edits to the page in the last 24 hours (other than the user being reported), but two of those five edits were simple formatting changes, removing unnecessarily bolded text and replacing it with quotation marks, which are not reverts and thus not counted towards the 3RR. So no editor other than anon being reported violated 3RR, at least for now, even if BLP weren't an issue. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- He did it again. I reverted it citing the BLP exemption to 3RR, and despite what he says, this is the first instance of any editor except him reverting more than three times. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like the page was semi-protected, which should stop him for now. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- More personal attacks Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It is with reluctance that I turn to this noticeboard, but I fear I have a situation that I am unable to handle on my own. After a content dispute that became vituperative, this editor has taken to following me about the Wikipedia, and tagging or reverting my edits.
The incident began when I challenged a deletion of Tony's at Johannes Brahms[225]. I quoted a number of sources on the talk page, and asked if he had sources supporting his view. After several days with no reply, I restored the deleted sentence. Tony immediately redeleted the sentence, and replied on the talk page. Although he did not provide any sources to support his position, it was clear from his reply that he took umbrage at my post Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Undue emphasis. Seeing that further discussion was not going to be productive, I started an RFC to get other editors' opinions Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?.
Rather than participate in the RFC, Tony chose to attack it as illegitimate ("The thread above presents an RFC that is not in accordance with WP:RFC. It should be disregarded or relaunched properly, according to the guideline"). He also declared his intention to stalk me on other pages I edited ("It looks as though I'll have to sort out what you've been doing to music articles more widely.") Since then, with a thoroughness that would be admirable in any other context, he has attached a {{fact}} tag on every sentence that I have edited that was not a direct quote. For example, here
I have tried to treat these tags by assuming good faith, and adding citations, even when it seemed slightly absurd. For example, he put a {{fact}} tag on a rhetorical question (in Grosse Fuge#Performance: "The first of these (issues) is: in what context to play the fugue? As the finale of Opus 130, as it was originally written, or as a separate piece?[citation needed]"). What kind of documentation did he expect for a question? Never mind. After adding citations in all the places he put a tag (adding additional sources to the ones already cited), in his most recent edit he deleted all the additional sources I had added, and restored the tags. So I am now at a loss on how to proceed.
I ask you here for the following assistance:
- that an uninvolved administrator read the talk page of Johannes Brahms and determine if the RFC is legitimate or not.
- that an uninvolved administrator review the
{{fact}}tags that Tony1 has added to Johannes Brahms and to Grosse Fuge, and, if the administrator deems them improper, remove them (of course, if the administrator feels the tags are justified, I will gladly supply additional documentation).
- ask Tony to refrain from marking up or editing edits that I make.
Thank you, Ravpapa (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- In Grosse Fuge, for example, your edits gave very substantial weight to the opinions of Robert S Kahn (an author of four books, saith Google, in minor presses, of which only two are on musical subjects). I cannot find any indication that his views are considered sufficiently authoritative to justify this focus, and I find the tags and reverts to be justified. I suggest you seek consensus on article talk pages before making edits of this kind. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are right. Judging from Tony1's comment below, perhaps his concern was really with the reliability of some of the cited sources. I have replaced the references to Kahn with some from more recognized authors. Let's hope this puts an end to this. If I misinterpreted Tony's edits as a form of stalking, I apologize. As for the RFC, perhaps there, too, he is right. But since the RFC is already up and running, perhaps he would like to participate in it, and quote some sources for his divergent view. Ravpapa (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Tony1[edit]
I'd never had contact with the editor. I occasionally put my cases strongly on WP, and here that arose from a concern that non-expert readers might draw the wrong conclusions from a technical proposition—I did even suggest at one point the addition of an epithet ("motivic counterpoint") to that end, which is used in more recent publications. But ... no engagement aside from an outraged one above the RFC. The instant combativeness and aggressiveness is disappointing. I've added nothing to the Brahms article but for fact-tags to a stream of propositions; these he had inserted unsourced (thus as WP's narrative) just two hours after starting a highly personalised RFC on exactly the same matter—not only unreferenced, but to me of insufficient logical or causal connection with the adjacent quotes. These were also post hoc changes that would appear to justify his desired outcome in the RFC. My fact tags there were a sign that I didn't want an edit war.
I'd have expected to engage more on the talkpage thread to resolve the original matter, rather than a sudden escalation to an RFC (and now here). The RFC is out of line with WP:RFC's requirements of neutrality and brevity, and I note that other avenues should be tried before such a strategy. I was then concerned that his addition of such strong, opinionated, unreferenced propositions at Brahms might be a broader pattern, and my first sampling from his contribs list yielded examples in Grosse Fuge. In a piece of reverse engineering, probably prompted by my adding fact tags there as well, he has hunted down references at Grosse Fuge that I've admittedly not checked for accuracy or reliability. But the concern is that performance-related opinions, even if published, might be better sequestered in a reading list at the bottom (even footnotes would have been better); this I suggested in my revert edit-summary.
The Brahms RFC, incidentally, announces in strong terms Ravpapa's credentials as a performer; that's admirable, and I'm sure he's skilled and clever at it; but it doesn't justify the recent insertion of opinions or propositions in at least two articles without reference—and when later referenced that might present issues of balance and encyclopedic tone. I find the anger a bit frightening. The insertions and escalations might be abnormal for the editor, whom I give the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather get on with him, since he no doubt shares much with me. Why can't it be so? Tony (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- The edits made since coming here retain opinion, and pose Ravpapa's questions to the readers in Wikipedia's narrative. The propositions are worded like an informal performance lesson, which sits oddly in an encyclopedic register. It's better that some of them finally have references, but an obvious issue, for example, is that they could apply to all musical performance, of any music: "Once mastering the technical difficulties, there are many interpretive issues to resolve." A reference has been dug up, but is unnecessary, because it's a no-brainer; the solution is to remove that proposition.
This is a most inappropriate place to have the discussion, but Ravpapa fails to engage on talkpages when challenged and prefers a battlefield environment. The edits need to be fixed (and regrettably contain several formatting errors). Tony (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
User:JJMC89 targeting an article for a week before AFDing it[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JJMC89 has been hampering progress I've been trying to make at the article Demetrios Alexatos for a week. Putting it up for AFD is one thing, an honest action users take all the time. This goes further, includes canvassing and borders on Wikihounding (normally that applies to more than one article, but in this case "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." has certainly been the case. [226] [227] [228] removing dates of birth and death [229] I've caught User:JJMC89 twice canvassing a single user-per Wikipedia:Canvassing "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." [230] [231]
I have twice asked this user for an explanation of their motives and intent as regards this article, as they block or undo any improvement to it. [232] [233]
From the start, there was no assumption of good faith, no sense of "you know what, it does sound like maybe there is some notability back there somewhere, I can try to help, or wait and see if this can be improved", and the timing of the AFD a mere week after the article's creation, I submit this plus the canvassing all smacks of foul play.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kintetsubuffalo - I understand that you're a bit frustrated, but let me give you my thoughts when looking at the diffs you provided. In regards to 1, 2, and 3 - I believe that he meant, in his edit summaries, that your edits don't "add value" because most of the lines in the info box are blank. Regarding the "canvassing" - he only asked one user, who nominated article for its previous AFD, for input 1, 2. This is not canvassing. I agree that infoboxes can contain blank information, and that he might have jumped the gun for removing those edits repeatedly... but I think you're taking this a little too over the top, here... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: I appreciate your weighing in on this, but I think you are too lightly dismissive of this, and I feel patronized. If it is okay, I'd like another admin to weigh in. If they agree with you, I'm
happywilling to let it drop, but as it stands the action-with-lack-of-interaction this last week has left one of the bitterest tastes in my mouth in 11 years here. We wonder why Wikipedia is not growing like gangbusters as it once was-experiences like this are why. I'm not some new editor writing about their best friend at school and I think this has been badly mishandled.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)- You first sourced biographical info to a blog, and have now sourced them to '2 guys in greece'. You have read WP:V right? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: I appreciate your weighing in on this, but I think you are too lightly dismissive of this, and I feel patronized. If it is okay, I'd like another admin to weigh in. If they agree with you, I'm
- This report is starting to stale out. Unless anyone has any additional comments or input, or objects otherwise, I'm prepared to close this and decline action. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead, User:Oshwah, I agree there is no case here: no "wikihounding", no canvassing. Actually, IMO user:JJMC89 showed considerable good faith, in that he gave the author a week to work on it before AfDing it; he could have immediately tagged it for WP:G4 since it had been AfD-deleted previously. Canvassing is not applicable, in fact it is good policy to contact previously involved editors - although actually he should have asked User:Spartaz, the admin who deleted the article in 2014, rather than Boleyn, the editor who nominated it for AfD; since Boleyn is not an admin she is not able to see the previous article to compare them. As for the other accusations: Repeatedly removing the infobox: deliver me from the infobox wars. Removing the birthdate: it was not reliably sourced. These were valid edits. My suggestion to Kintetsubuffalo is to drop it - and be happy that the AfD discussion is trending toward "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism Whole article redirects to external link[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone has placed a transparent image over the article about Christopher Walken that redirects all cliks in that article to an external site. This vandalism appears only when logged out from Wikipedia. I could not revert this in the edit history but the source code shows that the problem is linked to "div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;"><aTransparent flag.png", but I don't know how to fix it. Can someone else fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per84 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Same issue as the section just above this, please see that for details. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I think a page has been vandalised but can't tell how in the edits?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't really do much editing on here, but the page for Caitlin Jenner, if accessed as a not-logged in user, appears to have been vandalised. This is the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner
I have accessed it on two devices, and all of the links, when not logged in, point to this site:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/13-times-hillary-clinton-truly-nasty-woman/
But if you log in, the links are all fine?
I'm not sure what to do about this or who to report to, which is why I'm posting here, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinda (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- This was a piece of template vandalism which has since been fixed. If you bypass your cache on your browser (or, if that doesn't work, purge the article), the page should appear as normal. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, great, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinda (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hoaxing in user page after block[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PoohBearFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked about two weeks ago for creating hoax movie articles (and IIRC adding unreferenced hoaxy info to existing movie pages). At the time, I contacted the blocking administrator because the user's talk page contained more of the same (but got no answer).
I do not know how much leeway is allowed to add, let's say, reality-challenging information in personal pages, but the user seems to recently re-add everything that was deleted to their userpage. I request at the very least a strongly worded letter, if not outright revokal of TP access and blanking the page. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- User notified. Please ping me if needed be, I will not watch that page. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, There seems to be an issue with User:Luke de paul and creating sandboxes purely for navbox storage,
On the 25th September I had nominated their sandbox for deletion due to it having nothing but navboxes, it was deleted on the 5th October however come the 6th October Luke had recreated it twice[234] so I asked Yamla to redelete and salt[235] which they did,
In October Luke created another sandbox which again I nominated for deletion and it was subsequently deleted on the 23rd October .... but yet again today it's been recreated but this time Luke is repeatedly blanking it (I'm assuming to go undetected?) [236][237][238],
Between Sep - Oct they'd came to my talkpage telling me they wouldn't create this again and that the IP edits were them - I've tried to help and be lenient as possible however I think they're now using what they have left of their rope,
I have no issues with articles (or even navboxes) being improved or tested in sandboxes but this editor is simply storing navboxes despite being told not too (and it's also causing issues with the non-free images in the navboxes too), As they also seem to be editing using IPs I had also told them about WP:SOCK which seems to have been ignored,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to be impatient here but is no admin intervention needed then ? ...., If the editor has had one sandbox salted due to the disruption then surely something be done about it?, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what to do. I deleted sandbox3 since he blanked it, as a CSD. User:Luke de paul/sandbox2 doesn't seem to be violating policy, or am I missing something? I can't just say "don't do that" unless there is a tangible problem or policy violation. Using nonfree stuff, yes, if it is transcluded somewhere, yes. Maybe I'm just dense but I need more info on the violation itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis Brown, Ah I wasn't aware that was created but that sandbox isn't an issue, Basically all of the content that was at User:Luke de paul/sandbox ended up at User:Luke de paul/sandbox3 and sandbox3 (like the other sandbox) was deleted via MFD, What I'm trying to say is the editor is constantly recreating their sandboxes despite the MFD discussions and they're the same content as the previous versions and they don't seem to be improving any actual navboxes - They just store them all, The other issue was that they're editing their sandboxes under IPs instead of their normal account, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not much I can do about editing their own sandbox as IP, that really isn't "abuse of multiple accounts". I sometimes edit little things at work as an IP, just spelling or such. If there were editing articles as both, that is grey, and obviously if trying to deceive. If it was part of a MFD, then yes, I will go verify and delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I ended up giving him a short block for disruption. All the deception and such, we don't have time games. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis Brown, I know I've heard quite a few do it but with this editor it just seemed odd but perhaps I'm being abit OTT here, Anyway thank you for kindly dealing with it and I apologize if half of what I said made no sense - I was trying to be thorough & detailed as I could, Anyway thanks for your help it's much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive and tendentious editing Malleus Maleficarum[edit]
Asterixf2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit-warring and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems on a noticeboard, of all places. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
case related to the user Ryn78. This was preceded by lengthy discussions where I was trying to be considerate. Proper place for his controversies is an appropriate section (already exists) but he is insisting on pushing fringe pov in lead section and this is one of many problems. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- No evidence presented that this is anything but a content dispute and no (required) notification of the other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- To expand on Bbb23's point: For admin to get involved, there has to be a clear consensus (like an RFC or discussion on the talk page) and the editor has to be clearly violating that RFC/discussion. We can't decide the content itself, we can only enforce the will of the community, as expressed on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides the content dispute, there are behavioral problems such as deleting other editors comments about the content dispute, calling them vandalism.[240] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- This was unjustified redaction and revert was fully acceptable. Here is my reply: [241] I don't think you should be involved in any cases related to me given your fierce ad hominem statements directed at me some time ago. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive page moves and blanking[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Akashantony (talk · contribs) is causing problems with the articles Amar Prasad Ray and Amar Prasad Reddy. In short, they overwrote an article about Amar Prasad Ray (a malariologist) with a rather spammy article about Amar Prasad Reddy (a social worker). See this diff. Then they moved the page to reflect the new subject and put an incomplete AfD tag on the redirect ([242]; see also Amal ray). When this was discovered, the creator of the original article about Ray, Tachs, started a new article at Amar Prasad Ray (physician) (which I moved back to its original title). Both Tachs and I left warnings to Akashantony about pages moves but so far the user has failed to listen and has now started disrupting both articles: [243], [244], [245], etc. There seems to be a serious WP:CIR issue here, especially since they haven't responded to the warnings on their talk page. clpo13(talk) 22:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Appears to be currently editing logged-out as 117.216.37.239 and continuing the disruption, intentional or not. --Finngall talk 02:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- The IP is being obviously disruptive so I've hardblocked it for a week, which will hit Akashantony too if they are, as suspected, one and the same. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Akashantony responded to the block of his IP by filing an unblock request for his account (and claiming ignorance of the reasons), then proceeded to create a copyvio article under one of his article titles from yesterday before moving it to a correct title. Continuing to display some serious competency issues. --Finngall talk 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Either a serious CIR issue, or they're being
seriouslydeliberately disruptive. Their antics at Prompqade beacfh (sic) clinched the deal for me. Kleuske (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- The IP is being obviously disruptive so I've hardblocked it for a week, which will hit Akashantony too if they are, as suspected, one and the same. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
82.81.214.11 WP:NOTHERE[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
82.81.214.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Long-term spam for Pepperi company. It was blocked twice already. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
User:FreeKnowledgeCreator - abusive use of Twinkle to add image of his liking[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It says on the twinkle page: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
The user FreeKnowledgeCreator has used it to revert back my good-faith change of the image in the Wikipedia page of Pierre Bourdieu: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Bourdieu&action=history
When I revised it first, I added the following message: "Changed image"
FreeKnowledgeCreator undid this with the message: "rv - not an improvement at all" Which is a subjective opinion; mine is as well, but I believe the image I chose is aesthetically and functionally better as it is a professional picture of him rather than a cropped, grainy photo taken by a person at a conference meeting.
I changed it back once more, with the message: "Very much an improvement"
FreeKnowledgeCreator once again undid this, saying simply: "Nope (TW)". And this is an abusive use of twinkle, for my edit was a good-faith one, and his undoing of it was purely done out of personal preference. That is clearly against the guidelines for the use of twinkle, for "nope" is not "an appropriate edit summary" for its use to undo a good-faith revision.
Twinkle states further: "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked."
If FreeKnowledgeCreator persists in their use of it, action ought to be taken against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.46.195 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- A content dispute concerning two subpar photos? Really? See WP:DISPUTE. Kleuske (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- As long as the revert is done with a suitable edit summary, there's no problem - the next step after having had a change reverted is to seek consensus by discussion on the article talk page, not come running to ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive editing of William Grant Murray, Howardian High School and Écoles gratuites de dessin[edit]
User:DDupard has been adding disruptive tags, in breach of WP:DISRUPTPOINT. These edits are targeted at me (User:Verbcatcher).
DDupard and I recently had a dispute in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. When that dispute was concluded I made a related proposal at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students. DDupard disputed this proposal. DDupard then added tags to three other articles with which I had been involved. I interpreted these edits as attempts to make a point, and said so on the talk pages. Nevertheless, I discussed the issues raised by the tags. DDupard has since added a comment in Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière: "And my proposal there is pedagogical", which I read as confirming that the tagging of William Grant Murray was intended to teach me a lesson. I said so on the talk pages and reverted the tags in William Grant Murray and Howardian High School (but not in Écoles gratuites de dessin). DDupard has restored the tag in William Grant Murray.
Talk page sections:
- Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students
- Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students
- Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School (moved from User talk:DDupard)
- Talk:Écoles gratuites de dessin#Merge
- User talk:Verbcatcher#Lists of teachers and students
These edits are attempting to illustrate a point, and not to improve the articles. They may be intended as revenge for my interventions in the articles on the two French Académies. The "merge to" tag appears to be an attempt to get an article deleted. I have tried to discuss these issues in a calm and non-inflammatory manner. It is important that disputes are restricted to talk pages, and as far as possible do not disrupt the articles. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Response: no edit, just tagging unreferenced lists of alumni on William Grant Murray, and Howardian High School - Unsourced article Écoles gratuites de dessin with previous debate from 2014 on that specific question, + smear campaign on Talk:Howardian High School: "Unreferenced section tag to this article was intended to teach me a lesson", as well as right here, may be elsewhere, I don't know. + verbal threats "I am out to get you" . --DDupard (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- "I am out to get you" was a typo for which I apologise. I had intended "I am not out to get you", and I think that this is clear from the context. I made no smear campaign. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing says that postings here should focus on user conduct issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Response: no edit, just tagging unreferenced lists of alumni on William Grant Murray, and Howardian High School - Unsourced article Écoles gratuites de dessin with previous debate from 2014 on that specific question, + smear campaign on Talk:Howardian High School: "Unreferenced section tag to this article was intended to teach me a lesson", as well as right here, may be elsewhere, I don't know. + verbal threats "I am out to get you" . --DDupard (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Norden1990 - personal attacks, civility[edit]
Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Personal attack: "your contributions to the wiki project with unsourced claims and chauvinist-inspired fringe theories" diff
- Another one: "I understand your goal: you intends to hide the Hungarian past of the territory in order to delete contemporary Hungarian and Latin names. But I warn you, chauvinist editors had very short career here before you too" diff
- Insulting other nationalities: (declaring that my mother tongue did not exist in the past and was invented in the 19th century) "not mentioning the language (invented by Stúr)" diff
- False accusation (+ removal of the sourced text): "do not threat fellow editors with your anti-Hungarian remarks" diff Ditinili (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to recuse myself as an admin due to prior interactions, but I will bring to interested editors attention Norden1990's similar contributions at this TFA request, where they baselessly claimed "anti-Hungarian POV". It is a bit of a pattern, indicating Norden1990 may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as they relate to Hungary. Some sort of discouragement may be appropriate on the basis of a long-term trend rather than just the mild and recent incivilities mentioned here. This stuff is insidious and erodes good faith over time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- The "attacks" quoted above seem very weak, particularly when placed in their original context. (They're part of much longer comments that correctly invoke Wikipedia policies and guidelines to criticize the OP's editing.) If there's a larger pattern of Norden1990's "nationalism and bigotry", and if it's any different than the nationalism-based counteraccusations against him presented here, then please provide more and better examples. Otherwise, I don't think there's need for any action here, other than to remind all involved parties to keep cool heads. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that it's OK to call other users "anti-Hungarian", chauvinists, etc, whenever they do not agree with somebody. Also, statements like "language XYZ was invented in the 19th century" seem to be closer to far-right extremism than to WP standards (for me personally, it is highly offensive).
- "correctly invoke Wikipedia policies and guidelines" means in this case that the editor repeatedly removes properly sourced text diff, declaring that he allegedly read the publication and it does not contain such information diff what is obviously not true and it was also proven here. Also, none alleged "anti-Hungarian remarks" were documented. Ditinili (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comments: (1) There is an ongoing discussion on the relevant Talk page about the core of the above debate here: Talk:Nyitra County#Edit warring - names. The discussion was initiated by Ditinili ([246]) after I reminded him WP:3RR on his Talk page ([247]). (2) Just before Norden1990's above cited message, Ditinili made a remark of the "autochthonous" population of a territory when referring to the Slovaks [248]. An ethnic Hungarian editor with roots in Slovakia can easily regard the reference to the allegedly "authochtonous" Slovaks as a highly offensive statement because it implicitly makes a difference between the Slovaks and the Hungarians (although both peoples' ancestors are early medieval/medieval newcommers in the region). Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing offensive in the word "autochtonous". Ditinili (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did you refer to the local Hungarians or Germans when using the word? Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, I did not. Norden1990 for some reason removed the historic Slovak name of the historic administrative unit (by the way, on the territory of present-day Slovakia). When I asked why, he answered (letter for letter) "There is no "historic Slovak name"." Somebody said that "This users contributions have a pattern of nationalism and bigotry." This is nice example. Thereafter, I said: "I am really surprised that you believe that the autochthonous population living in some territory did not have a native name for the territory." Nothing more or less. This is "highly offensive statement"? Wow. --Ditinili (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is, "of course". It makes a distinction between peoples living in the territory side by side for more than a millenium. Taking into account that Germanic peoples had lived in the same territory for centuries before the arrival of the first Slavic-speaking groups, the expression is, let's say, a little bit biased, if we want to avoid to use the expression chauvinist. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry? User:Norden1990 removes Slovak names without any reason, he says that such names even do not exist (?!) and the language was invented only in the 19 century (?!) (by the way, all these Norden1990's arguments are myths popular among Hungarian extremists) and I allegedly offended him, because I did not mention Hungarians and Germans whose names were not disputed? --Ditinili (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is, "of course". It makes a distinction between peoples living in the territory side by side for more than a millenium. Taking into account that Germanic peoples had lived in the same territory for centuries before the arrival of the first Slavic-speaking groups, the expression is, let's say, a little bit biased, if we want to avoid to use the expression chauvinist. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, I did not. Norden1990 for some reason removed the historic Slovak name of the historic administrative unit (by the way, on the territory of present-day Slovakia). When I asked why, he answered (letter for letter) "There is no "historic Slovak name"." Somebody said that "This users contributions have a pattern of nationalism and bigotry." This is nice example. Thereafter, I said: "I am really surprised that you believe that the autochthonous population living in some territory did not have a native name for the territory." Nothing more or less. This is "highly offensive statement"? Wow. --Ditinili (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did you refer to the local Hungarians or Germans when using the word? Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing offensive in the word "autochtonous". Ditinili (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comments: (1) There is an ongoing discussion on the relevant Talk page about the core of the above debate here: Talk:Nyitra County#Edit warring - names. The discussion was initiated by Ditinili ([246]) after I reminded him WP:3RR on his Talk page ([247]). (2) Just before Norden1990's above cited message, Ditinili made a remark of the "autochthonous" population of a territory when referring to the Slovaks [248]. An ethnic Hungarian editor with roots in Slovakia can easily regard the reference to the allegedly "authochtonous" Slovaks as a highly offensive statement because it implicitly makes a difference between the Slovaks and the Hungarians (although both peoples' ancestors are early medieval/medieval newcommers in the region). Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Going over the page history, this looks like the edit (followed by this response and this), where things began to go wrong. Anyone who can, please correct me if I'm describing the languages incorrectly: I don't speak them.
- The first edit (by KIENGIR) removes Slovak names from some places where both Hungarian and Slovak were given, replaces other Slovak names with Hungarian names entirely, and then adds Hungarian names in parentheses to a few more. KIENGIR provides no edit summary.
- Norden reverts, restoring all Slovak names, but also deleting some of the added Hungarian names.
- After KIENGIR reverts, Ditinili repeats Norden's edit.
- Later, Ditinili adds some historical content but in the process removes some Hungarian names or shifts them to "last on the list." Norden reverts to remove many non-Hungarian names. Edit war ensues about whether Hungarian or Slovak names should appear first, second, or at all.
I can't really say anybody looks good coming out of this - it appears to be a straight up ethnic/liguistic/nationalist edit war where every party is wearing their partisanship on their sleeve. I find this kind of nationalist editing - which is worst in the EE area - to be poisonous. -Darouet (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Slovak names were removed diff
- Removed again diff
- Restored by me diff. Note that I did not remove any Hungarian name, I simply reverted a whole trial to remove Slovak names "en block" (maybe, this was a mistake).
- I fixed some inaccuracies diff
- Another trial to remove Slovak names diff
- I did not anything else only reverted it diff
- I added the modern name per WP:Geographic naming convention diff
- I added some content diff, diff
- Some Slovak names were removed again diff, other were Hungarian added (I am OK with HU names, I am only curious why they are systematically used on the first place even if Hungarian language had none special status in the region for most of history (90%) and the territory lies in present-day Slovakia. In the meantime, just a mention about Slovak names or using modern names on the first place instead of Hungarian led to this reaction diff, where Kiengir came with a false accusation that "Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted" theories about "clear anti-Hungarian aim", etc. Instead of fighting, I began to discuss.
- Norden1990 removed some content as alleged original research diff
- I restored the content because it is not OR and I proposed a discussion diff
- Norden1990 accused me of vandalism (???) and removed content again diff
- I restored the last version before the conflict and I opened a discussion instead of reverts diff
- From this moment, I did not change, revert or remove anything except minor improvement of sources diff.
- Instead of a rational discussion, attacks and uncivilities mentioned above followed.
- Note, that I did not remove any Hungarian name (except reverted commits when somebody tried to remove other than Hungarian names) and I also repeatedly declared that I am absolutely OK with them. Ditinili (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I could accept that you removed Hungarian names accidentally: I was wondering, when going through the diffs, to what extent everyone was even monitoring exactly what they were reverting. I would also note that, with the exception of those (possibly accidental) Hungarian name removals, your edits have intended to include more names - which is probably the solution to this dispute. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not want to respond Ditinili's baseless accusations (as he had no valid arguments in our debate, immediately turned to the administrators), everyone can check his harmful activity in Wikipedia through his talkpage: edit warrings, discretionary sanctions etc.
- @Amin:, still I don't understand your problem. I've just reverted your edit, when you put an obviously copyvio image to the infobox. Now it is clear, you are not aware of CC license system. If anyone, I know at my own expense, the avoidance of copyviolation is the most important fundamental pillar of Wikipedia.
- @Peacemaker67:, I was right, which proves that you had to significantly modify the blurb in accordance with my remarks. Then you did not understand that I had problem only with the one-sided blurb... and not the article itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- - I totally agree with Psychonaut's opinion. Well, the first two disputed lines better reffered to a considered pattern of activity, the third is better a historical matter of discussion than a directed personal attack, the last "accusation" was referring on the will to generate an incident, moreover the "removal of sourced text" is not belonging to the category of "WP:Civility or Personal attack", it's a content dispute regarding an ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page already made, in such case the version before the dispute is restored in order to avoid and escalate to a possible edit war. Definitely wee see the parties did not remain "cool" and better get "hot" and their discussion became a little bit emotional and harsh, but also regarding the guidelines of WP:Civility - Dealing with civility point 7. should have been applied possibly instead of an ANI incident, since despite Ditinili and Norden had a "hot chat" in the talk page their continous edits did not disrupt the article but improved on that matter, however for a longer time the stress cumulated apparently
- - Regarding the two comments before Psychonaut's opinion, I think they are a too early judgements without seeing the discussion and the happenings on the whole.
- - Regarding "historic Slovak names" we have to make a distinction if it is about the former administrative units of Hungary, or it's about a county that existed during the Czeshoslovak period and the article mentions or refers to it. As I saw, this was one of the main point of Ditinili's and Norden's dispute. Until it is not discussed that i.e. an own page should be created for the latter, we cannot solve this necessarily right now
- - Regarding Darouet's highlighted diffs, I have to add that I can assure "Hungarian nationalism" was not a motivation, all the details anyway can be read - though very long discussion -. Moreover, I and Norden had a previous misunderstanding instantly but also after some communcation this went away, so with Norden we did not necessarily reverted fully our edits, but after discussion we put a form with no dispute from our side. The main thing was that the historical counties have relevantly an official name relevant listed as neighbors, but regarding the cities, communes also Hungarian and modern-day names should be listed since the earlier mentioned does not have a modern name -> Only after this came later the discussion and the happenings with Ditinili -> again after a time, Ditinili's and Nordens dispute regarding an other case emerged, and this lead to continous edits again that in reality not affected the earlier discussion ongoing.
- - Regarding Ditinili's highlighted diff-history, he spares that the non-county affected modern(=Slovak) names was re-added by me after the misunderstanding with Norden, on the other hand in his presentation he just identifies his two reverts - by removing Hungarian names - as a normal act, although he could have solved it in a much more better way like i.e. by his following additions also put back the Hungarian names. However, his infobox or added history and Czechoslovak period was not mainly affected by me. Moreover, on the talk page more times I answered and demonstrated to him why in medieval times the administration should be confused with the modern-era's official language status, and also the consensus of naming conventions that is also allowing Hungarian names in the first place, since it is normal because the article's context is about Hungary that is such natural like other countries nation's articles in the relevant period, present-day status quo does not matter really regarding this.
- - I did not made any "false accusation", I wrote to an Administrator asking him to protect the article since I saw a possible escalating problem and also I told my concern that what patterns I am suspecting regarding earlier bad experiences. Btw. "Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted" was also a fact in that moment.
- - "Note, that I did not remove any Hungarian name (except reverted commits when somebody tried to remove other than Hungarian names) and I also repeatedly declared that I am absolutely OK with them" -> This argumentation we may accept because of the a posteriori happenings, however the second part of the sentence became considered valid or reinforced after a longer time of discussion, that anyway was filled with many misunderstandings.
- - Darouet, I personally gave more names and tried to fulfill all demands possible, even I offered gestures in some cases, just see how many names are now present, so this is not a problem
- - However, my suggestion is - since we have and Administrator who is continously watching the page that the two parties (Ditinili / Norden) should return to the discussion page, and if any case anything would arise that would be totally improper, the Administrator surely will intervene. None of involved parties consider the state of edit war regarding the Árva County article
- - I did not react on everything, mainly if I was mentioned or also involved or I considered something relevant, but I have the suggestion also that this discussion should remain mainly in it's frame and topic, I have no intention to generate here a longer discussion/conflict/stress with anyone.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC))
My view is that Norden should just be admonished to assume good faith, and maybe wait 24 hours before responding or reverting in what they consider a contentious issue. And all of you should tread very, very lightly when choosing to list place names for historical counties or jurisdictions that belong to a host of past and present ethno-linguistic groups. KIENGIR, Norden, if you find yourselves thinking "This is a Hungarian, not a Slovak place," etc., write both names out of caution. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Darouet, I tend to accept your approach. However, I would be glad if you explain what you mean when writing about "nationalist editing - which is worst in the EE area"? As an "East" European editor, living in a extremely poor and unhappy country, I possibly have not had a chance to realize that my homeland is situated in the most nationalistic area of the world. Sorry, but we can rarely use internet, because East German secret agents are watching us. We are forbidden to hear modern music (like Elvis Presley and the Beatles) and we have to wear uniforms. I am pretty sure that only government propaganda suggests us that there are areas in the world (including Europe) where people have been killing each other for decades because of their nationality. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm sorry @Borsoka: I'm not denigrating eastern Europe or its people, just stating that here on wikipedia, nationalist EE-related edit wars are notorious, e.g. WP:ARBEE. -Darouet (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would make sense to warn Norden about ARBEE if they haven't already been. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Darouet, however, I also indicated this before, Hungary is in Central-Europe, not Eastern-Europe, and also among other's I've made claims to make a distinction and unfotunately many articles are under "Wikiproject Eastern European countries", although it is geographically also totally wrong, has the same pattern like i.e. nowadays politicians mix the phrases "Central-Eastern-Europe" or "Eastern-Central-Europe" or they make this distinction regarding the former Iron Wall. Hungary now and then was always a Central-European country. I have to repeat again, that also Me or Norden added modern(=Slovak) names or even other versions, forms, where it is wisely applicable. This incident was generated not because of this anyway, but a clash on an other dispute of the two parties.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- It would make sense to warn Norden about ARBEE if they haven't already been. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm sorry @Borsoka: I'm not denigrating eastern Europe or its people, just stating that here on wikipedia, nationalist EE-related edit wars are notorious, e.g. WP:ARBEE. -Darouet (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely support mentioning both names. What name should be the first and why is a content dispute out of scope of this incident. However, what is unacceptable according to my opinion:
- - the opinion that just mentioning the second name is clear "anti-Hungarian aim", "proof of anti-Hungarian activities", labels like "chauvinist", "anti-Hungarian campaign", "dangerous behavior", labeling other opinions as "strange insanities or alternative history", "great wish of some with deep anti-Hungarian aims", "one of the greatest insanities ever invented or heard", etc, etc, etc diff
- - extreme nationalistic statements like my language did not exist until the 19th century and then it was invented by somebody, that none historic names in my language existed, etc. This should not have any place here and should be stopped immediately. Ditinili (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just react on those that you addressed to me on the diff. As I told also on the talk page, if I tell my opinion about a view it is not an attack, everyone has the right to tell an opinion about a theory, concept, approach, patterns of activity. You also. Anyway, this is again not the subject of the current incident.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- What did I allegedly "address to you"?
- Here are my descriptions:
- 14:31, 11 October 2016 WP:English (What is the "official" name? The administrative language was Latin, later DE, then HU and finally SK)
- 04:29, 12 October 2016 WP: Naming conventions (geographic names)
- Absolutely neutral, apolitical, unbiased and civil comments. Ditinili (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- We misunderstand each other again. I just spoke about the diff in your last comment.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- Ok, I understand. Anyway, you should stop calling other opinions "anti-Hungarian", "insane", etc, whenever you have a different opinion. Ditinili (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, it is not necessarily connected my person, i.e. there are some theories and concepts well-known or analyzed even by scholars or historians anyway, so in such cases any opinon is not necessarily a one-sided personal manifestation. There are theories that are considered very harshly unscientific or even ridicoulus because of lack of evidence or better contradictive counter-evidence. So long obscenity is not the matter, everyone may tell freely an opinion, censorship, or the freedom of evaluation and speech is not an option.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- Ok, I understand. Anyway, you should stop calling other opinions "anti-Hungarian", "insane", etc, whenever you have a different opinion. Ditinili (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- We misunderstand each other again. I just spoke about the diff in your last comment.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- I just react on those that you addressed to me on the diff. As I told also on the talk page, if I tell my opinion about a view it is not an attack, everyone has the right to tell an opinion about a theory, concept, approach, patterns of activity. You also. Anyway, this is again not the subject of the current incident.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
- Darouet, I tend to accept your approach. However, I would be glad if you explain what you mean when writing about "nationalist editing - which is worst in the EE area"? As an "East" European editor, living in a extremely poor and unhappy country, I possibly have not had a chance to realize that my homeland is situated in the most nationalistic area of the world. Sorry, but we can rarely use internet, because East German secret agents are watching us. We are forbidden to hear modern music (like Elvis Presley and the Beatles) and we have to wear uniforms. I am pretty sure that only government propaganda suggests us that there are areas in the world (including Europe) where people have been killing each other for decades because of their nationality. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Just for clarity, ARBEE relates to Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Which means Slovakia and Hungary topics are included, whether they are Central Eastern European, Eastern Central European or some other combination. Unless you are claiming these areas are in Western Europe? Many would claim Hungary is not in the Balkans, but many Hungary-related pages fall under ARBMAC. That is how "broadly construed" works. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Definetely not claiming Western-Europe, just you have to understand this broadly construed split of Europe that has also a very releavant heritage because of the Communism is disturbant as also the geographical reality, the latter as strictly being precise or accurate, thus personally I will always have a disturbance because of this. Cheers,(KIENGIR (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
- Such distinctions are less than obvious to the uninitiated, and are the subject of much attempted wikilawyering. Suffice to say, all those involved in this dispute need to be aware that ARBEE applies to them and their edits, and discretionary sanctions can be applied as a result of poor wikibehaviour on these pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Definetely not claiming Western-Europe, just you have to understand this broadly construed split of Europe that has also a very releavant heritage because of the Communism is disturbant as also the geographical reality, the latter as strictly being precise or accurate, thus personally I will always have a disturbance because of this. Cheers,(KIENGIR (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Certain content at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is disputed and under RfC. I won't get into the nature of the content dispute because this page is not for resolving content disputes (although I have no doubt that two editors will try to bring the content dispute here as some sort of defense or diversion).
The article is under cover of the U.S. politics ArbCom remedies, which specifies that disputed content stays out until talk page consensus is reached to include it. Previous attempts to resolve the content dispute failed to reach consensus.
Users Bastun and Soham321 are being disruptive on the article talk page in their claims that the RfC is not legitimate. Apparently, since there is no valid reason to dispute the content in their view, that means that the RfC should be killed. This shows a failure to understand and respect Wikipedia principles of decision-making, in particular WP:CONSENSUS. I started the RfC in good faith, and not unilaterally. Considering that the situation has been clearly explained to both of them, I think their claims point to a bad-faith attempt to end-run the ArbCom remedies.
At the end of my !vote in the RfC, I included my opinion that a "no consensus" close should mean no content in this situation.[249] I think I'm allowed to make such a suggestion—the closer is free to disregard it—but Bastun said it was part of an attempt to "poison the well".[250] WTF? This is part of a pattern of WP:AGF failure by both editors.
Bastun started a subsection in the RfC to challenge its legitimacy.[251] This is obviously highly visible, being in the table of contents, but there has been no support for the claim in about 36 hours. And yet they persist elsewhere on the page, apparently not understanding what "no support" means at Wikipedia.
I have repeatedly tried to address this situation using reason, and this approach has failed. Soham321's current position is effectively "Take me to ANI or shut up".[252] This leaves me little choice. ANI complaints should be last resorts, but I don't know what steps I have skipped here. I think I've done everything possible except beg.
We all have our political biases, but those biases do not make us assume bad faith, be disruptive, or attempt end-runs around established process. These two editors are the conspicuous exception at that article. I seek temporary blocks—or topic bans from U.S. politics—until after the November 8 election—for both editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have very little experience with this process. If there are other disruptions that fit with the heading, but are not related to the RfC, can they be added here as well?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: It would have to be pertinent to the noticeboard
firstalso I think, and under a level three sub-heading. (this would be my guess) - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)- Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: It would have to be pertinent to the noticeboard
- 1. WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here.
- 2. Mandruss has a history of trying to convert content disputes into conduct disputes and thereby try and get editors he disagrees with penalized. For more on this, please see him try and get another editor penalized with who he had a content dispute: NeilN Talk Page. Mandruss accuses me of battleground editing, and in my response i deny his allegation and refer to his habit of converting content disputes to conduct disputes by pointing to what he tried doing to Zigzig: diff1. Mandruss insists that Zigzig is guilty of disruptive editing, and claims Zigzig's modus operandi (m.o.) is the same as mine which is why i cannot recognize Zigzig's disruptive behavior. Mandruss claims he has received communication via email from "a senior editor" endorsing Mandruss's belief that Zigzig is guilty of disruptive editing: diff 2. Notice Zigzig's response in diff 2 and at NeilN's talk page confirming it was only a content dispute. Notice the language Mandruss uses when communicating with Zigzig at NeilN's talk page.
- 3.Mandruss is guilty of disruptive editing on a talk page of a sensitive WP article. Even though only Admins can place any WP article under ArbCom sanctioned discretionary sanctions, Mandruss placed the article under discretionary sanctions unilaterally without any consultation even though he is not an Admin. See diff 3. This issue only came to light when i made an edit on the talk page of the article pointing out that the main article seems to have been placed under discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#1RR_violations
- 4.Mandruss is guilty of disruptive behavior for obstinately insisting that The Guardian not be used as an RS in the main article. See Edit 1, and Edit 2 For several days there was a section in the main page of the disputed article describing a 13 year old "Jane Doe" who had claimed that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. The Guardian article had done a thorough job of debunking the allegation. So the fact that Mandruss would not let the Guardian be used as a reference reflects poorly on him. To be fair to him, the consensus on the talk page was with him (despite my protests), but now the consensus on the talk page has changed and it has been agreed that The Guardian is a reliable source as far as the main article is concerned. The change in consensus was instigated by my efforts as can be seen on the article talk page.
- 5. I have done a lot of constructive editing on the article's talk page, and the discussion about the article in the NPOV board which i initiated. My views have been endorsed by other editors including not just Bastun, but also BullRangifer.
- 6. The fact that i have been doing constructive editing is evident if one notices that even people who disagree with my views in certain respects have accepted some of the things i have said and accordingly they on their own have made modifications to the main article along the lines of what i have said. For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Donald_Trump.27s_response_.28NPOV_related_issues.29 with specific reference to point 2, where an editor in response to my post says "Good spot, I'll swap that for a different quote."
- 7. In short, i have been a constructive editor. Mandruss has also been a constructive editor, but he has also been guilty of disruptive conduct and behavior (for instance, obstinately insisting that The Guardian cannot be used as an RS, and unilaterally placing the article under discretionary sanctions even though he is not an Admin). Mandruss's history of trying to place a ban on Zigzig by complaining about Zigzig to NeilN after he had a content dispute with Zigzig suggests that here is a person who believes in converting content disputes into conduct disputes and thereby get rid of editors who are opposed to his views from editing pages he is interested in.
- 8.This is an endorsement of my conduct on the talk page of the article, and also endorsement of my decision to take a dispute about the article to the NPOV board: coffman diff.
- 9.Finally, i only gave the diff of a comment i had made in Mandruss's RfC since i thought editors participating in the RfC would find it pertinent. I have not commented on the the validity of Mandruss's RfC. This is the diff i had given: RfC diff Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see my name has been invoked under point five above. I'm not involved enough for my name to be used in this manner, either for or against. Please don't use my name in this manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies for invoking your name. However, nothing prevents me from copying the comments you have made endorsing my views from article talk page to here. In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#About_the_neutrality_banner of the article talk page you endorse my comment by writing: "Soham321, thanks for the ping. Yes, the content should be restored, regardless of whether it helps or hurts Trump. It is covered in RS, so it deserves mention." Also, in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Use_of_biased_sources_is_required_by_policy you confirm that the only reason you are posting on the article talk page is after you saw the NPOV discussion initiated by me in the NPOV board. Soham321 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- BullRangifer was a new arrival at the page, did not understand the context surrounding that content, and made an out-of-context statement. They confirmed that on their talk page, here. Considering you knew all of this, your claim of his support shows bad faith on your part. It shows that you are willing to distort the facts in order to defend yourself here (or simply can't see the facts very clearly). This should reflect on the credibility of the rest of your statements. I can counter each and every statement you have made, but (1) this page is not for resolving content disputes, and (2) that would make this complaint so long that few people would take the time to read all of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that Mandruss has been in communication with BullRangifer after my first comment in this discussion and before Bull's comment here. I would like it to be determined whether this violated WP:CANVASS. It does seem like canvassing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullRangifer#Jane_Doe_content_at_Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations Soham321 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Isaidnoway, Zigzig20s and Jack Upland (all three of these editors have edited on the concerned article talk page) if they wish to offer a comment here. Soham321 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Use of reliable sources[edit]
Comment - There are several reasons why it would be best to work this out without an ANI, part of it was discussed on the AN talk page - that there's a backlog and so this may not be worked for some time. It seems it's in all of our best interests to do this, but I can also see that this was opened and you have the right to defend yourself.
There is a request to try to work this out in a following subsection. I would like to leave this on top as a comment - in the hope that we can do that. If you say that we cannot, I will move it myself below and it will be part of the conversational thread. I apologize that it was upsetting to you when I attempted to closed it out. It is fine with me to leave it open right now, Soham321. Personally, if we can get productive conversation rolling, that would be HUGE. And, I would like to hear constructive feedback about how I can help make that happen.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There have been a number of conversations and claims that the article has POV issues and is not neutral due to a list of sources that was created during an examination of the sources used in the article. The list was initially prepared to investigate the claim that the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article had POV and reliable source issues, this is the archived discussion. The list was prepared using sources in the article. Input was then gathered from the RSN - and feedback on the article talk page about RSN input on reliable sources. It has also been used as a guide to show what have already been determined to be reliable sources and unreliable sources. The issue was resolved once sources—such as Politco, Huffington Post, the Independent—were replaced. If I had it to do over again, I would never have used the list after the resolution of that earlier claim.
Although this has been explained many times, both Soham321 and Bastun continue to bring up the conversation on the talk page. There has been no attempt to engage in discussion to clarify use of sources. What comes up the most are the following items, now with their own subsections: Guardian and the use of the list of sources (eight of its articles are currently used as sources in the article)—as well as Daily Beast and Jezebel.
It has been discussed in the article talk page in several sections and in the Issues at a Donald Trump page posting at NPOVN, which is not moving forward and seems to be a complaint about content that is not being added to the article, apparent disagreement with the resolution to a dispute opened up on the talk page by Soham321, about removal of content, and concern about the lack of neutrality, because of the Guardian, Daily Beast and Jezebel source discussions. Soham321 also flagged the article as having a neutrality issue. I don't have a problem and I support resolution of POV and neutrality or POV claims; we're stalled on that at the moment.
Regardless of the number of times the source issue is brought up and discussed, they keep bringing it back up. It's disruptive to the NPOVN discussion and the article talk page. It seems if they are not hearing what they want, they just keep restating their allegations over and over again - rather than working towards understanding and a resolution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- CaroleHenson has expressed her bias on multiple occasions and i would propose she be banned from editing the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page. Details of Carole violating WP:CANVASS may be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#My_user_page . Some relevant points from the link: in a Teahouse post she made, Carole wrote: "This DT article has seen pressure from what seem to be supporters to add content favorable to Trump." And in a ping to another editor (who had not done any editing on the Trump page) Carole wrote " I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and there is a push to get the article slanted in Trump's favor." The fact that i have been a constructive editor on the main article is revealed if one notices that i have explained the interpretation of what were conflicting sources related to the Trump divorce to Carole on my talk page, and the final edit she placed on the main article was after her discussion with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#The_Trump.27s_divorce Notice also that Carole and Mandruss have been posting numerous messages on each other's talk pages and sandbox pages about what the content in the Trump article should look like; i am not sure whether this is a good idea considering this is such a controversial article and it raises unnecessary suspicions. Soham321 02:47, October 25, 2016 (UTC)
it raises unnecessary suspicions
in your mind, perhaps. There is nothing improper in that, nothing is hidden (you found it all by yourself). The sandbox page was a collaboration on the RfC to make sure it was clear and neutral, and I think the results are that. Poorly formed or worded RfCs are wastes of time. I direct you yet again to WP:AGF and I encourage you to work on not seeing ill intent in everyone who disagrees with you as to content. This job is difficult enough without that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I have always assumed good faith as is clear by this edit of mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=745731678 I stand by my claim that in controversial articles like this one, its not a good idea to do any kind of tag teaming on talk pages and sandbox pages to determine the article content since it raises questions of bias. Soham321 (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Once again incorrect. At any article there will be editors who generally see eye-to-eye on things. To view that as "tag teaming" is yet another failure to AGF. I'm not going to avoid CaroleHenson in side collaborations or go out of my way to disagree with her in discussions (although I have done so multiple times, and can produce that evidence if some fair-minded editor asks me to do so), just to avoid your misguided accusations of complicity. Stop it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would be helpful, Soham321, if we could stay focused on the issues. If you want to open up an issue against me, do whatever you think is the right.
- What is of much more interest to me is: Can you respond the discussions? I haven't seen you respond on the talk pages to the points about the Guardian, Daily Beast, and Jezebel - or an issue that you had with someone updating the citation info for a reliable source and removing two sources that weren't needed. If it's possible for you to respond in the About the neutrality banner subsections, that would be really great. (I know I came on strong in several places today to try and herd the discussions, because I don't think people responding to the recent discussions know the history or that these things have already been brought up several times. I also question whether you realize that some content, like that from Daily Beast and Jezebel is still in the article, it just has improved sources.)
As an aside, I have also asked for your input on how to move the NPOVN forward, and had two suggestions. I recently posted it, so you may not have seen it yet - that could really help, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: This page is not for resolving content disputes, and they invariably distract and divert from the behavior complaint. As I predicted, Soham321 is attempting to do just that. There is nothing about the conduct dispute that would excuse the behavior, so it's irrelevant here. We can say that the user has been generally unresponsive, but then we have to prove it, in exhaustive detail, defending each and every point against attack by the defendant. There is no end to that, and I don't think we need to go there. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Soham321 Regarding tag teaming above, is that the link you meant to use? I don't see how that supports the tag-teaming claim. It's your comments - making a statement that is a denial of what you are saying here about me. Did you mean to use a different reference?
- I agree with Mandruss that we've often disagreed, there's even discussion about that on your talk page about that - because I know you've been watching me and it followed our canvassing discussion. I said that if you see a particular discussion, I was trying to get traction on resolving an issue that I disagreed with him about - but wanted to see if we could move it forward. So, I wasn't "canvassing", it wasn't a like-minded person on that issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: Anything having to do with sources is part of the irrelevant content dispute. Even if they were in the right as to the content, which will be decided by the RfC's closer, that would not excuse or justify ongoing disruption and disregard for process. I think most of your above comment is in that area. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let me back up, because I'm not understanding what you're saying. This heading is "Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc." I have had issues with talk page disruption and disrespect for the process regarding the reliable sources issue. Are you saying: 1) I should do whatever is the right step is to have this entire sub-section closed out, 2) make changes or a statement to disregard something that I've posted within this subsection or 3) something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: Well I don't know. If you can't talk about a behavior pattern without putting it into the context of a content dispute, I'd just leave it out. Note that I haven't said anything about any sources. Now that the RfC is active, there should not be any discussion of the Jane Doe content outside of the RfC's discussion section. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let me back up, because I'm not understanding what you're saying. This heading is "Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc." I have had issues with talk page disruption and disrespect for the process regarding the reliable sources issue. Are you saying: 1) I should do whatever is the right step is to have this entire sub-section closed out, 2) make changes or a statement to disregard something that I've posted within this subsection or 3) something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Ok, the lightbulb is starting to go on, but I'm not fully there yet. Yes, I could frame it in terms of a content dispute. First of all, there are statements that the entire article is in question because of a list of reliable and non-reliable sources was prepared. There are postings on the talk page that lead people to believe that content was excluded because of the a non-neutral view of what are reliable sources - and that it should be returned, without mentioning the real reasons why it was deleted. And, continuing to mention outrage that content from two sources were not used in the article - but not mentioning at all that that they were considered to be non-RS sources at RSN and that there had been content from those sources that was used, but the sources were improved. There is also intersection of the RS issue with the RfC issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Ohhhhh, or did I get confused by the number of nots in your reply?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Carole, for framing this in terms of a content dispute. The "outrage" was due to removal of content that used as reference an article from The Guardian. The content removal was justified on the ground that The Guardian is not an RS due to this reason: Edit 1. I had then pointed out that The Guardian article had been endorsed by The Daily Beast and corroborated by Jezebel, and this was the response: Edit 3 And i am not the only person on the talk page who had expressed objection to what was going on (although i may have been the first person to do so on the talk page). However, i was always polite and kept respecting consensus all throughout this episode, until the consensus turned in a different way and it was agreed that The Guardian was an RS for the main article.Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- And by the way, this was The Guardian article which Mandruss (supported by others--the consensus was with him) was not allowing to be used as a reference for the main article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow Soham321 (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- You might wonder why material from The Guardian article is not being used in the main article even now when it has been agreed through discussions on the article talk page and the NPOV board that The Guardian article is an RS for that WP page. It is because Mandruss has started an RfC with respect to material in The Guardian article. Bastun has argued that this is a frivolous and invalid RfC: diff and diff2 Soham321 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
In Mandruss's comment above (which were a response to CaroleHenson's comment), note the words "If you can't talk about a behavior pattern without putting into the context of a content dispute, I'd just leave it out." First, this only reveals Mandruss's fear that this be seen as a content dispute (which it is). Also, i object to Mandruss trying to coach Carole with respect to her comments here. He is basically telling her what to say and what not to say in his zeal to not let this appear to be a content dispute.Soham321 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
First, this only reveals Mandruss's fear that this be seen as a content dispute (which it is)
- Once again incorrect. That reveals nothing of the sort. This page is not for resolving content disputes, and I have more than adequately explained here why that is irrelevant to this complaint. Once again you suffer from severe WP:IDHT and WP:AGF failure. Here in the U.S. we call that, "Throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks." I think it's clear enough by now that you lack competence at this level and/or are not debating in good faith, so I'm going to stop responding to every inane thing you throw out. I'm going to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether i am penalized or not, i would like to express my thanks to Mandruss. I had initiated an ongoing discussion about the article on the NPOV board because i wanted more editors to participate in this very controversial and sensitive page since more editor participation was the best way to reduce or eliminate any bias in the article in my opinion. The fact that Mandruss has brought this issue to ANI will ensure that more editors will examine the article for any bias and this is something that makes me happy. I would encourage anyone looking at the article to not just look at the article talk page but also the discussion related to the article at the NPOV board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Issues_at_a_Donald_Trump_page Soham321 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Response by User:Bastun[edit]
Well, that's some wall of text to wake up to! It "keeps" on being said here that I "keep" disrupting the talk page and disrespecting process and that CaroleHenson and Mandruss "keep having to explain things" to me. I've participated in some discussions, and in response to my question about the RFC's validity, Mandruss replied "Jack Upland stated an argument in a !vote in an RfC. I don't think he meant to challenge the very legitimacy of the RfC. I have never seen anyone do that until now. It's called content dispute." - which I said I didn't understand. I got no further response "explanation."
- FWIW, bar two edits to the Donald Trump article (one to change a heading level, one to add a link to a section's "See also"), I've not actually edited any of the Trump articles, at least over my last 500 edits, going back to early August.
- I have participated in or raised, I think, three discussion on the talk pages of the main article and the sexual misconduct allegations article:
- I wondered why, on the Donald Trump article, it was more noticeable on the TOC that Trump had had some minor involvement in World Wrestling Entertainment some years ago, compared to the coverage of the Bush tape and sexual misconduct allegations, which aren't visible in the TOC. I changed the heading levels of the latter, it's since been reverted, seemingly on the grounds that the Bush tape and sexual misconduct allegations are only a subsection of the 2016 presidential campaign. I've left it alone since.
- Several days ago, I questioned how or why a small group of editors had come up with their own list of "approved" reliable sources (that - at least at one point - excluded The Guardian, an award-winning broadsheet!) and were then using the percentage of coverage from that "approved list" given to the child rape allegations to justify excluding them from Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:BALASP, as, in my opinion, WP:V applied and WP:RS was satisfied.
- When the RfC began, I participated, but then, thinking more on it, I began to wonder how an article on the "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" could stand over itself when it excludes the most serious of those allegations - the only one that I'm aware of that is actually due a court hearing!
- Apparently, there are three possible outcomes to the RFC: Mandruss can "lose", in which case WP covers the allegation. Or Mandruss can "win" and WP doesn't cover the allegation. Or Mandruss can "draw" and WP still doesn't cover the allegation.
- With regard to the RfC: As stated above, the most serious of the allegations against Trump is covered by multiple reliable sources - it satisifes WP:V and WP:RS. Excluding an allegation that Trump repeatedly raped a minor (sometimes in the company of a convicted paedophile) and that this allegation is due to be heard in court from the very article covering the allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump because of "no consensus" or even a majority of editors saying it should be excluded would be censorship - and last time I checked, WP is not censored.
- Bringing someone to AN/I to seek a block or a topic ban - say, an editor with over 10 years experience and a clean block log - because they've raised two valid concerns about what they believe to be an abuse of process? Really...? I would suggest Mandruss and CaroleHenson look at the sheer volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages, their "approved reliable sources" page - and then maybe read WP:OWN... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bastun, you're right that you don't have a long-standing presence on the page.
- I am not used to people who make accusations - don't respond to the feedback - and then make them again. Call me crazy, I call that disruptive. You were involved in three separate conversations about the same topic.
- In all fairness, you may not have seen the postings on the article talk page. I do see that part of the issue was that you were getting pulled into it by Soham321, which some might call canvassing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Diffs, please? You appear to not understand WP:CANVASS - I have had no contact from Soham321 whatsoever, except for when they let me know on my talk page that I'd got their username wrong (and they subsequently replied to Mandruss on my page, after this ANI was posted). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I posted a request subsection below this one to try to work out the issues, and so I prefer not to respond to this right now, and hopefully never. I will say that if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have added that because it's not language that furthers cooperation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- As I've said, that is not my RfC. It's a Wikipedia RfC. I can't "win", "lose", or "draw" that RfC. I simply have the same !vote that everyone else does. The fact that you see this as "Mandruss's RfC", simply because I did the edit that created it, may have a lot to do with your failure to understand the situation. You simply can't challenge an RfC because it, pending its resolution, keeps out content that you want in. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to you and Soham321, and yet you both keep claiming that the content should be re-added. Do you really not understand how RfCs and WP:CONSENSUS work, after some 10 years and 9,000+ edits? Do you not understand that the out-of-process "content should be re-added" argument is what is illegitmate, not the RfC? Where is this "abuse of process"? Are you claiming that I (we) abused the system by starting an RfC to resolve a content dispute after previous attempts had failed to resolve it? Because you strongly disagree with our content arguments? I am genuinely bewildered that you could actually be here defending your actions. Much of your statement has nothing at all to do with this complaint, so I'll ignore it. For whatever it's worth, I'll state that Soham321 has been the more disruptive of the two of you, but that doesn't make your position any more valid, and your support for their position didn't help in that regard. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, change "Mandruss's RfC" to "the RfC initiated by Mandruss" wherever it occurs - the meaning is the same and clearly what I meant. "You simply can't challenge an RfC because it, pending its resolution, keeps out content that you want in." Correct. That's not what I'm doing. I'm challenging an RfC because it's attempting to exclude content on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, despite it being covered by WP:V and cited by nultiple WP:RS, which is a breach of our WP:N policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd further point out that the use of an RfC to discuss whether or not to censor verified reliably sourced content would - if it's in order and if process were followed to the latter - result in no decision until after the U.S. presidential election. Nice filibuster. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- RfCs do not attempt to do anything, other than ask questions and solicit responses. If your assertion is correct, the closer will close in your favor. Again, you don't get to kill an RfC because you don't like the good-faith questions asked. If you disagree with that, please provide a pointer to the policy that supports you. I don't see that in WP:CONSENSUS or WP:RFC. You have criticized me incorrectly for making up my own rules, and you are doing exactly that. My position is supported by Wikipedia policy, yours is your opinion about how you think things should work. Who has the stronger position? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice filibuster.
As you well know, I tried to expedite that RfC to 4 days and I withdrew that after it met resistance from two experienced editors and got no support. Why did I do that, if my intent was to keep the content out until after the election? Can you answer that please? Like Soham321, your AGF failure is completely out of control, disruptive, and destructive. You are determined to believe I am acting in bad faith, and you are completely blind to anything that contradicts that belief. Confirmation bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest Mandruss and CaroleHenson look at the sheer volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages, their "approved reliable sources" page - and then maybe read WP:OWN.
Bloody incredible. Show me in WP:OWN where it has anything to do with the "volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages". There is no limit on contribution to an article. WP:OWN is about preventing others from contributing to an article, and you don't have to read any further than its nutshell for that. You appear to have memorized a bunch of shortcuts without reading and absorbing any of the material written there, devising your own personal system of Wikipedia p&g around those shortcuts. Sort of like when Soham321 claimed that NPOV means parity. Bad faith or Wikipedia:Competence is required, which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- This "completely out of control, disruptive, and destructive" (destructive - really?!) editor, with his 11 years and 9,000 edits of participation and zero blocks is done, and will happily wait for an admin to rule. Have a nice day. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Noted that you did not respond to any of my points. Destructive, yes. That repeated AGF failure greatly diminishes the productivity in article talk. It greatly worsens the hostile environment and reduces the ability for people to work together, and the article can't help but suffer as a result. Destructive. That is intuitively obvious to most. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Request[edit]
I posted a message on my talk page in an attempt to come to a peaceful solution. I am guessing that it's at least as difficult for you as it is for me, but I also see the passionate energy for a good article and I loved the box that possibly one of you posted on Neutrality, which is what gives me the greatest hope.
Right now, I agree with you Soham321, to not close the ANI on reliable sources, per your comments in the edit summary about the collapse box. I think my comments were removed in the process, I'll check that out and make an update, if I cannot find them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I was asked to take a look at this discussion. I am WP:INVOLVED at several other Trump-related pages. But I have not participated in the one being discussed here (Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations) and I have not been following it. And as far as I know I have had little or no interaction with the four parties discussing here. So maybe I can be permitted a comment: I don't see anything actionable here. I would suggest this report be closed, with a recommendation that the parties calm down, that they concentrate on the content of the article rather than each other's behavior, and that they try to work together to come up with some kind of wording that is acceptable to everyone. (User:CaroleHenson has made an admirable attempt on her talk page to start such a dialogue.) I would also suggest that everyone thank the deity of their choice that the election will be over in two weeks. MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN There are open issues on the article talk page regarding a {{Neutrality}} tag that Soham321 has applied to the article and getting movement on a NPOVN item she opened, but refuses to comment on the article at all - even on my talk page - until the ANI is closed. How do we go about making that happen?
- Soham321 posted a note on their page, but has been exceedingly clear that I should not talk on the user talk page - which seems to box me in - or do I mean out. A note there for me to read but not respond to, but then Bastun and Mandruss don't see her comment. It is forward movement, though, there was "a" response. Help, please. Really, this kind of behavior is ok? Any olive branch I've sent out, I've been clunked over the head with it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I posted a comment on their talk page[253] and they collapsed it referring to me as a "troll".[254] I have never trolled in my Wikipedia career. WP:BATTLEGROUND applies. That's a policy vio as you know. Word "troll" removed 26 minutes later,[255] and 21 minutes after I posted this initial comment.[256] User's behavior shows marked improvement when they are at risk of sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It was not, and is not, my intent to act as an administrator here - because of my involvement at other Trump articles. I will not be taking any admin actions here. I commented as a neutral observer, offering my evaluation for admins to take into account. My evaluation of this report was, and still is, that it is not so much an issue of Wikipedia behavior as it is a catfight over content, transferred and escalated from the article talk page to ANI. The result here is a wall of text that no admin, or even bystander, has so far wanted to wade into. The accusations being flung around by both sides - "disruptive", "obstinately insisting", "failure of AGF", "bad faith attempt to end-run the ArbCom remedies", "bias", "lack competence", "completely out of control" - are not helping. "Troll" was certainly an unwarranted escalation.
- Meanwhile I was amused - while you guys yell at each other and try to get each other topic-banned - to see the Washington Post describe that very talk page as a "somewhat orderly debate" where people can have "mostly sane, mostly productive conversations that mostly converge to a version of the truth."[257] Does that not shame any of you into trying to work this out - go back to the talk page and try to engage in good faith, maybe settle on some kind of compromise wording that would mention the disputed material in a way
you allmost of you could agree on? I actually do see Bastun and CaroleHenson doing a little of that today - having a cordial discussion, trying to understand the other person's point of view. That's what I recommend. The alternative is for ANI to just exclaim with Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses!" MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I made one revert on the talk page of the article (which involved removing Carole's collapse tag in which some important posts of Bastun were being collapsed) after more than 24 hours of not touching the article or the article talk page, leaving a detailed edit summary, and i was immediately accused of disruptive editing on my talk page by Mandruss. Note that i have not touched the article talk page after my revert was reverted by Carole. I did close Mandruss's comment on my TP using the words 'troll message' on the banner, but soon realized my error and removed the "troll" word from the banner on my own. This is not about me or Mandruss; it is about the elections and WP's responsibility not to let itself be used by editors who, consciously or unconsciously, indulge in propaganda when they remove verified content in RS pertaining to upcoming elections, by first declaring the RS is actually not RS and then start an RfC so that the RS cannot be used in the main article until after the elections are over. This is an important issue and it cannot be dismissed in a cavalier manner. My position is that unless The Guardian article (and other references which endorse or corroborate material in The Guardian article) is permitted to be used as a reference, the NPOV tag must remain in the article. Soham321 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Melanie, the essential point is that we tried for, I don't know exactly, some 8 or 9 days to reach a resolution on the question, without success. In my experience RfC is the only way out of such an impasse, so I started one. And I was accused of gaming the system by starting the RfC. Since, under ArbCom, that meant that the content stays out pending consensus, and since my suggestion to expedite the RfC was rejected, that obviously meant I was gaming in order to keep the Trump-negative content out until after the election. What other possible explanation could there be? </sarcasm> The fact that I have finally given in and stated unequivocally that I am a strong Trump opponent, therefore acting against my own bias, was meaningless to these people who see bad faith everywhere they turn when it goes against their bias. This is not a cat fight about content, it's a battle between respect for established process and disrespect for it. I would sincerely like to see an admin stand up for process here, and for WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- As for wall of text, I totally agree. First, there is zero chance of admin action without a thorough opening complaint. Then the defendant(s) are allowed to add as much as they want to the wall, about anything whether related to the complaint or not. They are allowed to bring the content dispute, adding more to the wall. They are allowed to make whatever boomerang claims they want, when that could be handled in a separate complaint against me. Should I not respond to their fallacious points? And then they are allowed to respond to mine, rinse, repeat. There is never anything like a moderator to keep things from spinning out of control here. Of course there's a wall of text! Please explain how these things should be resolved otherwise. Your statement would appear to say that ANI is a complete waste and should be scrapped. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Melanie, I think that for the most part it has been a good working arrangement on the talk page. I even posted a message called "Thankfulness" for the group. In the end, we've gotten to where we need to be. But it's not where Soham321 wants the article to be. She raised a dispute and wasn't happy that noone supported her and it has all be downhill from there. Is the rhetoric making the situation worse. Yes, I am sure it is. I really question whether you understand what has been happening here. I don't know that I've ever been this disheartened working on something at WP. The team as a whole does get along well, it gets through conversations with differing views, but this has become really difficult. And needlessly so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- wasn't happy that noone supported her If Soham is the ONLY person objecting, and everyone else has reached a consensus, that need not affect the article. Consensus has to be clear but it does not have to be unanimous. I have not studied the conversation in depth but I am of the impression that there were other people who agreed with Soham; is that not correct? One person cannot block a valid consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, MelanieN the dispute that I think really started the snowball - no one agreed with her - it's in the archives. Yes, people agree with her on the Jane Doe issue, which is chronicled in the RfC. I have no issue whatsoever with her position about the content. Not in the least, it actually fits my personal point of view.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- wasn't happy that noone supported her If Soham is the ONLY person objecting, and everyone else has reached a consensus, that need not affect the article. Consensus has to be clear but it does not have to be unanimous. I have not studied the conversation in depth but I am of the impression that there were other people who agreed with Soham; is that not correct? One person cannot block a valid consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Melanie, I think that for the most part it has been a good working arrangement on the talk page. I even posted a message called "Thankfulness" for the group. In the end, we've gotten to where we need to be. But it's not where Soham321 wants the article to be. She raised a dispute and wasn't happy that noone supported her and it has all be downhill from there. Is the rhetoric making the situation worse. Yes, I am sure it is. I really question whether you understand what has been happening here. I don't know that I've ever been this disheartened working on something at WP. The team as a whole does get along well, it gets through conversations with differing views, but this has become really difficult. And needlessly so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN, it is difficult to believe that Carol has reached consensus with Bastun considering she keeps collapsing his posts on the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Would it help you, MelanieN, if I gave you information about the conversations that have led to this place from the archives, NPOV page, and the current talk page. From your statements, it would lead me to conclude that it's ok to tag articles, open NPOV issues, and ping in people to repeat existing conversations -- but not work to resolve any of these issues. Instead, avoids discussions to try to remedy them. Is that an inappropriate conclusion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Carole and Mandruss, you are talking to the wrong person - except to the extent that what you say to me might be informative to the uninvolved admin(s) who will ultimately close this discussion. And no, for God's sake please don't upload the whole conversation. This report is already so dense that no uninvolved person has so far been willing to comment on it. If there are diffs that show unreasonable behavior and support the call for a topic ban, they are appropriate - but they should have been posted at the beginning of this report, not after thousands of words have already been expended. Or at least in the (so far unsupported) call below for a topic ban. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- And BTW Mandruss, I am not sure what you meant by this: "Soham321, apparently encouraged by the lack of action here, continues to disruptively disrespect the legitimacy of the RfC." How so? Soham has not posted at that talk page since the 24th. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Soham321 started a subsection below about "Gaming the system", meaning the RfC. How is that NOT disrespecting the legitimacy of the RfC? Since my content argument is invalid in their view, and I started the RfC, the RfC is therefore illegitimate. Is that consistent with policy or your experience? I certainly hope not. I followed dispute resolution as described in WP:DR, I respected the ArbCom remedies because I believe in respecting ArbCom remedies, and they don't like the result. Full stop. That is all this is about. The article is under DS and we don't need to endure this disruption for days before an admin gets around to looking into this, then giving up because of the wall of text and declaring it just another content squabble brought to ANI. This is truly maddening, Melanie. Truly. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I started the subsection below: inviting administrators and other uninvolved editors to a place where they can comment without becoming part of the walls of text. I think that's the only way this report will ever reach closure. It has already run on for days without outside input, partly because it appears so forbidding. I do hope the rest of you will respect the section heading and let them (hopefully more than one person will respond to the invitation) discuss the situation calmly among themselves, without getting "piled on" - as they can see has happened to the only uninvolved person who has so far dared to comment here. If you want to make a point to them, make it in this section and ping them. Let their discussion stay uncluttered. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Soham321 started a subsection below about "Gaming the system", meaning the RfC. How is that NOT disrespecting the legitimacy of the RfC? Since my content argument is invalid in their view, and I started the RfC, the RfC is therefore illegitimate. Is that consistent with policy or your experience? I certainly hope not. I followed dispute resolution as described in WP:DR, I respected the ArbCom remedies because I believe in respecting ArbCom remedies, and they don't like the result. Full stop. That is all this is about. The article is under DS and we don't need to endure this disruption for days before an admin gets around to looking into this, then giving up because of the wall of text and declaring it just another content squabble brought to ANI. This is truly maddening, Melanie. Truly. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Would it help you, MelanieN, if I gave you information about the conversations that have led to this place from the archives, NPOV page, and the current talk page. From your statements, it would lead me to conclude that it's ok to tag articles, open NPOV issues, and ping in people to repeat existing conversations -- but not work to resolve any of these issues. Instead, avoids discussions to try to remedy them. Is that an inappropriate conclusion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Propose ban or block for Soham321[edit]
Soham321's disruptive disrespect for the Jane Doe RfC continues after MelanieN's assessment of nothing actionable. Propose a topic ban on U.S. politics—or a temporary block—at least through the November 8 election—for Soham321. Collaborative editors at that article will appreciate it. I remind folks that this article is under discretionary sanctions. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR well evident in this complaint. Evidence ignored to date because there is too much of it.
- Support ban as proposer — as I think this is the less severe of the two sanctions. I see no reason this editor could not edit peacefully and constructively if the political element is removed. If the block is the less severe, I support it instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like uninvolved Admins and editors who have gone through this discussion to consider whether Mandruss is guilty of WP:SANCTIONGAME, specifically the first point of WP:SANCTIONGAME which says "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." Soham321 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Gaming the system[edit]
I would like to address a larger issue which goes beyond petty finger pointing.
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to three very important posts (in my opinion) of Bastun on the TP of the Trump page under consideration. (Two of these had been collapsed by Carole, the collapse tag removed by me, and then re-added by Carol.) The diffs of these posts are: diff 1 and diff2 and diff3. In diff1, Bastun writes:In diff3, Bastun writes:I would contend that the ability to remove any content one doesn't like, effectively forcing a debate for re-inclusion, even without opening an RfC, is a pretty potent tool for anyone who wants to keep material out of view in the run up to the election. I am not accusing you of this, I'm pointing out that it's possible. I'm not sure that's what Arbcom intended.
So, keep out verifiable content until after the election?
- This is a perfect example of misrepresentation of an issue by using a short sound-byte to make it appear that I am questioning why verifiable inforation is added to the article... and not providing the background in this conversation that followed it. I could go on.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is "gaming the system" whereby WP can consciously or unconsciously be used as a tool for political propaganda needs to be studied more carefully. I would support the placement of the "NPOV" tag in the main article until the November elections because of the fact that Mandruss has not allowed the usage of a Guardian article as reference (first by declaring it is not RS--diffs given by me in my earlier posts in this discussion); and subsequently by opening a questionable RfC (reasons for why it is a questionable RfC have been given by Bastun) pertaining to the contents of The Guardian article which means the Guardian article cannot be used as a reference until the RfC has been closed. And this is the Guardian article which Mandruss has not permitted to be used as a reference in the main article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thoroughly addressed. WP:IDHT. WP:AGF. Using RfC to resolve content dispute after failure to reach consensus in open discussion is not gaming. It is how Wikipedia works. WP:CONSENSUS. WP:RFC. Is there such a thing as counter-boomerang? Should be. For Soham321's information, I didn't invent the ArbCom restriction that disputed content stays out pending consensus to include it. I merely respect it. I suggest they learn the same respect for ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I am making a distinction between "deliberate gaming" and "inadvertent gaming". One might be gaming the system without realizing one is doing so. Soham321 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a new concept to me and, I suspect, to Wikipedia. One might consistently fail to AGF without realizing one is doing so. If one repeatedly misjudges things like CANVASS, they might well see bad faith. Hence, competence is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- More evidence of WP:SANCTIONGAME behavior from Mandruss. Also, note what Bastun has written earlier in this thread about Carole's lack of understanding of WP:CANVASS. Soham321 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much done responding to you. Admins can deal with this or not, I no longer GAF. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please describe a hypothetical content dispute, removing your favored content pending consensus to include, that would meet with your approval and be respected by you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- More evidence of WP:SANCTIONGAME behavior from Mandruss. Also, note what Bastun has written earlier in this thread about Carole's lack of understanding of WP:CANVASS. Soham321 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, since you are once again leveling accusations at me, has it ever been in your interest to solve a problem? You add a neutrality tag - and say it's because there are inconsistencies - but it's really about content that wasn't added and the dispute you raised on the talk page did not result in your desired outcome - and that there is a Jane Doe content dispute. There was also an attempt to connect that to the use of reliable sources, but when that has been explained - that it was originally prepared to use better sources to solve a POV and RS claim, NO response.
- So, you posed a NPOV issue - and I have not seen you do anything to work towards a resolution or respond to suggestions to ID a reviewer to resolve the issue.
- There's discussion about the neutrality banner - which for the life of me I don't understand - and do you engage in conversation when I try and break down the issue - because you haven't responded to other attempts. Do you respond? NO
- You seem to be very upset about the removal of the Jane Doe content, but don't keep your attention focused in that section - but bring it up elsewhere. Why not wait for the RfC issue to resolve, or keep your comments focused there? Why ping people to support your position when you are giving them half-truths and distorted information? My growing theory is its' because you don't want to solve problems, you want to MAKE problems.
- You say that you want me removed from the project, but even though I have tried to work constructively with you, I have seen VERY little of that in return. There is explanation of why certain changes are made per guidelines, and you ignore the feedback. You've ignored issues that you've created and said you didn't - when you were given very specific detail.
- You accuse, avoid, wait, accuse, avoid, wait - repeat.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy to go into the archives, talk page, NPOV page and back up my statements. It will take awhile, but if that will help further this discussion, I will do it. We so need to move on.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN, would it help if I drafted an executive summary, which Soham321 and Mandruss could edit - so that we get down to the essential issues? I'm not sure how Bastun is interested, but of course, he could weigh in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- It might. It would have helped even more to have had that at the beginning. Personally, before I make a report at AN or ANI, I spend hours, up to a full day, drawing up the "indictment", so it is clear and well organized, with details and diffs, and focused only on the behaviors I believe are clearly sanctionable - or at least problematic enough to require admin intervention. I don't see how Soham or Bastun could be involved in drawing it up; presumably this is your case for why Soham should be sanctioned, or why admin action of some kind is needed. (If you are not asking for admin action of some kind, why are you here at ANI?) You might want to draw it up somewhere else, perhaps in a sandbox, and then post it here as a clear and concise request for action. Such a clear and concise request has certainly been lacking up to now. If that is not your goal, it's still possible that a clear summary of the situation might help people to pick their way through to the essential issues - although again, if you aren't asking for admin action, you're in the wrong place. Don't try to write it here, that will only add to the walls of text. Agree on it somewhere else, and post it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Let me take your comments and draft a summary of the issues on a sandbox page. Can I have several hours, then, to reflect on your input and do it right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN and CaroleHenson: - All the evidence necessary is right here in this complaint.
- Repeated failure to AGF. Again and again, clearly evident here. Soham321 eventually wised up and said they were not accusing me of bad faith - in a section titled "Gaming the system". Hello? Anybody paying attention here?
- Repeated misunderstanding or misrepresenation of policy; e.g, a lot of commenting in article talk is WP:OWN behavior (not). I could list more, but it's all right there in the record.
- Assertion that two editors who often see eye-to-eye in opposition to these users, while sometimes disagreeing with each other, is "tag-teaming" (not).
- Implication that a side collaboration on the development of an RfC, in a sandbox, is somehow improper or evidence of bad faith (not).
- Took an out-of-context statement by user BullRangifer and presented it as support for their position here. BullRangifer denied such support on their user talk page and then in this complaint.
- Repeated failure to respond to counters to the spurious arguments.
- Persistent claims that an RfC is not legitimate because they don't like the content argument of the editor who started the RfC. A subsection created calling the RfC "Gaming the system".
How much more do we need, Melanie? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd challenge anyone to determine whether CaroleHenson supports or opposes Trump based on her edits. All I can determine is support for process. Mandruss as he admits argues here against his personal interest. I'd trust either of these editors explicitly in an article (and topic) plagued by partisan gamesmanship. Take that for what it's worth. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- James J. Lambden here you go: diff1 and diff2. Relevant extract from Carol's Teahouse post: "This DT article has seen pressure from what seem to be supporters to add content favorable to Trump." Relevant extract in her post on her TP when she pinged an uninvolved editor for "help": "I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and there is a push to get the article slanted in Trump's favor." Soham321 (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the comment I posted on your talk page:
- I see now why you are upset. I should have not worded the Teahouse posting that way and I had not remembered that I had. That was wrong. I wouldn't have considered it canvassing, but the way it's worded could surely have been taken that way. I apologize for that. My unfortunate wording might be the reason it was deleted before anyone could respond.
- The person that I was pinging is not an American - and has no horse in the race and I knew would not get involved in the discussion, that's why I chose them. I still do not believe this was canvassing.
- Regarding the Teahouse posting, you have helped me to ensure that any postings that I make in a public arena are as measured and objective as if I was posting to the article talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, there is more to this long story. I used unfortunate words, for what it's worth - if there had been someone trying to push a Gloria Aldred, Hillary Clinton, etc. position, I would have likely accidentally used those words, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Added a word and underlined it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the comment I posted on your talk page:
Comment: At some point of time, an Admin needs to explain WP:CANVASS to CaroleHenson; she is now indulging in this in the middle of an ANI discussion involving her: diff. Relevant quote of Carole posted on Mandruss's talk page: "If there's anything that I can do to support your points through the ANI process, let me know." Soham321 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I fully support the above. I invite any admin or other uninvolved to look at that, judge whether that is CANVASS, and judge whether or not the above claim supports or does not support my WP:CIR claim. Yes please. This user pretty much self-convicts, which is what makes this entire situation so disgusting or comical, depending on my varying mood. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have stopped "watching" this page, per discussions below, Soham321, but you pinged me in: 1) I see that you wrote this after the message that I posted on your talk page and about the same time I posted the message to Mandruss. 2) I disagree that it is inappropriate to not leave Mandruss 100% in the lurge - after I piggy backed on this ANI, 3) regarding canvassing, you may want to re-check your own talk page about canvassing claims. 4) I have never been accused of it before you - but then I have never been accused of a lot of things except by you, 5) I hadn't used the label "canvassing" but I certainly described your behavior of pinging people giving them partial and distorted information (see the lasted that I am aware of from an reaction by someone you had done that do on the article in the RfC section of this ANI). Based upon your inability to understand the spirit in which I posted the message on your page, I will no longer respond to your pings. I hope this clarifies for some the nature of the way that you operate and your complete inability to act in good faith, even when you got your publically stated wish when I summarized input from others and collapsed my outreach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- In his post above, Mandruss claims that i was the one who accused him of WP:OWN behavior. Mandruss is mistaken. It was Bastun who indicated this in the last sentence of his first post in this discussion. Soham321 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if the recent comments were sufficient or if I should still do the executive summary. It seems like the conversation is devolving, so I'll go ahead. It will likely take me several hours.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- This topic has totally exhausted and disheartened me and have had a flare up of my disability. I need more time to regroup and get this done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I think an interested admin could randomly choose two claims from each side and investigate them or ask for evidence on only those claims. Determine which claims of that small random sample are accurate and which are flimsy distortions of the reality. Use that information to inform your views of the editors involved and thus of the entire situation. For Soham321's claims, I would suggest their boomerang list. Admins MelanieN and Drmies already know the veracity of item 3 there—no investigation necessary.
Has anyone noticed the one uninvolved opinion?
I simply am not going to spend a couple of tedious and unpleasant days assembling the full-blown legal case that seems to be required here. If there is no action here, the disruption will probably continue and I will have two choices: (1) move on, leaving other reasonable editors to deal with the disruption, or (2) stick around and be transformed into the bad-faith editor I am accused of being, forced to fight fire with fire.
I don't know what CaroleHenson's plans are as to producing this evidence—I wish her luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Right now, I am so disheartened, working on the executive summary meant going back through the issues again and it has worn me out. I love doing a good job and the last day or so I have not been at my best. There IS a great team that has worked on this article, and I am still very thankful to have worked with them. This situation, though, is mind-numbingly frustrating. I have not experienced anything like it over the past five years.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ideally all election related articles would be locked until after the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- You must be joking. EEng 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno - maybe you're more optimistic than me, but are you expecting any marked improvement to the candidate pages? I'm expecting exactly this type of behavior to intensify. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I went off half-cocked when I said what I said. I now realize that by locked you mean full protection (i.e. only admins can edit), not a "complete freeze"; full protection is indeed a reasonable possibility, though I doubt a likely one, especially on a blanket basis in a large topic area. (You probably should stop saying "locked" because it's not really a term we use here on WP, and you risk confusing the slightly demented such as myself.) EEng 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes by locked I meant protected. That way proposed edits must go through the edit request process, gain consensus, and then be added by admin. I also doubt this scenario is likely, although it would greatly prevent the disruption that is sure to come the next few days. I chose the word locked because I picture that big lock icon on the top of protected pages, but I will be sure to say protected from now on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I went off half-cocked when I said what I said. I now realize that by locked you mean full protection (i.e. only admins can edit), not a "complete freeze"; full protection is indeed a reasonable possibility, though I doubt a likely one, especially on a blanket basis in a large topic area. (You probably should stop saying "locked" because it's not really a term we use here on WP, and you risk confusing the slightly demented such as myself.) EEng 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno - maybe you're more optimistic than me, but are you expecting any marked improvement to the candidate pages? I'm expecting exactly this type of behavior to intensify. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- You must be joking. EEng 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This section reserved for comments from administrators or other uninvolved parties only[edit]
- I am both an administrator and uninvolved, and I wish the next administrator or other uninvolved party good luck trying to read this. Have fun, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)