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.
original, hungarian language threat by Vicecity343
google translate
Halott vagy te szemét! Hogy merted azt mondani, hogy Marec2 és Kucsák Ábel a zoknibábjaim ??!!! ŐK NEM VOLTAK A ZOKNIBÁBJAIM!!! Te annyira faszkalap vagy, hogy az hihetetlen! Te és a faszopó társaid halottak vagytok, érted ??!!! HALOTTAK VAGYTOK MINDANNYIAN!!!!!! Te egy utolsó szemét faszopó patkány geci vagy, úgy mint Rlevente, Puskás Zoli, Burumbátor, Pagony és a többi faszopó Wikipédia geci!!!!!! Azt hittem hogy te normális vagy, de ez hazugság volt!!!!! Te is egy bolsevista geci vagy, sőt, te egy spicli hazudós majom vagy, mint a többi Wikipédiás!!!! Bárcsak megszűnne ez a szemét Wikipédia, amiért hazugságokat mondtál rólam és a többekről is!!! Remélem előbb meghalsz, mint a többi komcsi hazaáruló spicli bolsevista kutya!!!!! Menj a pokolba te faszopó hazudós majom kutya!!!!!! --ViceCity343 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You're dead, you bastard! How dare you say that Marec2 and Kucsák Abel Sock puppet ?? !!! THEY WERE NOT A Sock puppet !!! You're so shit or that incredible! You and your fellow tree sucker you are dead, you know ?? !!! ALL OF US ARE DEAD !!!!!! You're a sucker last garbage or wood rat motherfucker, such as Rlevente, Zoltan Puskas, Burumbátor, Pagony Wikipedia and other wood sucking cum !!!!!! I thought that you normally are, but it was a lie !!!!! You're a Bolshevik spunk, in fact, you're a lying rat or monkey, like other Wikipedia !!!! I wish it would stop his eyes Wikipedia for having told lies about me and more about it !!! I hope you die sooner than other Commie traitor rat Bolshevik dog !!!!! Go to hell you're lying suckling tree monkey dog !!!!!! - ViceCity343 ( talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, and sorry for my english. --Pallerti (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
additional explanation: user:Rlevente, user:Zoltan Puskas, user:Pagony are sysops on huwiki and user:Burumbátor is former sysop. --Pallerti (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Inventive use of the Hungarian language, but it doesn't look like a serious death threat though. More like a keyboard warrior who needs to go and lie down for a while. And be blocked.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ianmacm: Thanks for your help, you have right: I do not think that would be a serious. --Pallerti (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Lying suckling tree monkey dog -- I'll have to remember that one. EEng 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to know the etymology of "wood-sucking" as a curse. Something to do with termites? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: ...yeah, it is funny, it is a spelling error, faszopó meaning is wood-sucking (it is a non-existent compound word: fa=wood, szopó=sucker), faszszopó is another compound word, fasz meaning is – ...khmmm – gentleman sausage. :-) --Pallerti (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Well given that 'wood' is also a euphamism for 'excited gentleman sausage', I guess the meaning was clear! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked. Serious or not, we can do without this. --Rschen7754 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose so, but the heart-rending existential angst of !!! ALL OF US ARE DEAD !!!!!! should be preserved for the ages. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Blocked for reasons outlined below. No present need for further use of admin tools. Any unblock discussion is better commenced on their talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2017 (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.
Fanny46 (talk·contribs) is edit warring, reverting, threating people on talk pages (like here and here), not listening to everyone, he has been warned several times on his talk page about adding flags to the infoboxes on handball players articles where there should be no flags by consensus, he is replacing ndashes (–) with normal hyphens for years (he changed 2015–2016 to 2015-2016 etc.), he is adding unsourced additions to handball-related articles, like unsourced transfers of players, changing clubs even before the transfer is completed etc. like on Blaž Janc, Blaž Blagotinšek, Jure Dolenec, RK Celje and several other articles. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Snowflake91, altho the removal of this section by the reported user does not bode well for her, some specific evidence is required. Please provide diffs to show specifically where the reported infractions occured. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting Blaž Blagotinšek,Jure Dolenec,Blaž Janc and many others or things are going to get really BAD,think of this as a threat[1] Meh. I'm satisfied. TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Same here. Disruptive behaviour and continue doing so after being told by several editors. Examples: here, here and so on... They all look the same as described above. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User just left this message on my talk. Take this as you will, because I honestly don't know how to respond to it. JudgeRM(talk to me) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
He is not following any guidelines and consensus set, also Here, he added some "transfers" of the club, despite the fact that there are NO sources anywhere on the web that the player has transferred, Fanny even added "?" next to the player's name which basically confirms that the transfer is just a speculation and nothing official, yet he added it. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
He has done it again, this time he even removed references... Snowflake91 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteRegarding the edit on JudgeRM's talk page, there is basically only one way to respond to that, and I have done so per WP:URGENT. What will happen now is basically out of our hands. To be clear, the block is not in response to the overall issue discussed here but rather to that one specific edit and the mandated response to such postings. The user may be unblocked at some point, at which time this discussion can resume. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 help Ottawahitech? I'm tired of trying.[edit]
Blocked by Beeblebrox. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2017 (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:Ottawahitech has been on Wikipedia since 2007. They have made over 75,000 edits. I have absolutely no doubt that they contribute to Wikipedia with only the best intentions, but they seem to lack a basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Yesterday Ottawahitech restored a section to an article about a bank which was called "Ripping off the elderly" (which an admin had previously removed). Yes, they did add a source and change the section heading to "RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?", but that doesn't make it any better.
Today they created a new article which is ostensibly about Canadian dual citizenship, but is clearly just making a political point. It has no references at all. I would redirect the article to Multiple citizenship, but I know from past experience that it would only lead to an edit war and accusations of harrassment. Would anyone like to volunteer to help Ottawahitech? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: since you ignore your talk page, I'm letting you know about this discussion here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Since you've been on Wikipedia since October, I'll volunteer to help you find WP:DR. ―Mandruss☎ 23:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but there's no dispute to resolve. It's not personal, Ottawahitech is just a terrible editor. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I deleted that page, it was obviously created to make a point, which is not how it is supposed to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The more Ipoke around here the more I'm thinking it may be time for a block. Their userpage brags about how many pages they have created have been deleted, they've been here nearly a decade and are still creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion. This does not seem to be from a lack of understanding but rather a willful disregard for content policies. I'll hold off while awaiting a response from them here and further input from the community, but this does look like a genuine problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I looked at a few of Ottawahitech's creations. A number didn't seem pointy, just very lazy. In their speedily deleted versions of an article on [the actually encyclopedia-worthy] Rachel Maines, for example, they seem to be attempting no more than the bare minimum that might avoid summary deletion. (GB_fan deleted it anyway, and I don't criticize the deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
After also looking at their article creations, the high number of deleted articles is striking. Looking at some random articles that survived:
List of housing statutes, vastly incomplete list of statutes from apparently random jurisdictions
Senior’s Supplement, minor local government program of questionable notability
List of women inventors, seemingly just a conversion of the corresponding category, which is of very little benefit
Mary Bobinski, one-sentence substub with bad formatting
It seems that Ottawahitech is content with lazily adding quite a lot of low-quality content to Wikipedia, in addition to political editorializing as described above, and I think that a case can be made that this is not to the benefit of the project as a whole, warranting sanctions. Sandstein 11:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarifying note: the OP might lead one to believe that the heading correction was Ripping off the elderly → RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?, when it was → "RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?". Note the quotation marks that remove Wikipedia's voice. (Of course, restoring such an UNDUE paragraph, even if not vandalism, was not a bright idea.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
His userpage states that "932 pages (including 531 Categories and 96 articles) donated to Wikipedia by Ottawahitech have been deleted". There's clearly a massive CIR issue here. It looks like it's time for an enforced wikibreak or an outright CIR ban. It's too late for mentorship, and nothing appears to have improved despite ten years and 75,000 edits, and other people posting over a thousand posts on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. Personally, I do not believe this is an issue with competence. I believe this user is perfectly aware of our basic content policies and just doesn't care to follow them. They appear to be deliberately "playing dumb" a lot of the time, and that has probably what has helped them avoid real consequences for such a very long time, but enough is enough. I have suggested in my block notice that if they want to be unblocked dit will probably have to be with some sort of restriction on creating new pages. Let's leave this open for a bit and see how they respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know if it counts for anything but, Otta used to spend a bit on Wikipedia:Missing wikipedians and seemed to have his head screwed on there at least. this and this seemed like pretty 'on point' edits. I'm not saying I disagree with everyone else here, just that, from my perspective, there was at least one place that he did okay in. Credit where due, and such. (I've no problem with being proven wrong with this though) MM('"HURRRR?)(Hmmmmm.) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is his editing in article space, the most important and visible part of the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Inappropriate behaviour by editors User:Sitush and User:Bishonen (already tried RSN; no resolution achieved)[edit]
(non-admin closure) Filer blocked by Boing! said Zebedee. Also note that this IP clearly had an agenda (against Sitush? a returning caste or Hindutva warrior?) and might be a LTA or sock or block evader, etc. Keep an eye out accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2017 (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.
As stated in the original post in this section, which was removed due to the open discussion at the time (that I suspect will not garner further activity, as the original points continue to be ignored by edit User:Sitush).
Not to sound arrogant, but I surmised as much that the editor would not engage because of their inability to defend the conduct described on the RSN thread above.
Given that I have engaged and now provided four rigorous sources for the claims that Sitush originally did not contest (I bring readers' attention to User:Sitush's original deletion on December 2015 that did not touch the content he now claims is unreliable, which does not add up because of the massive deletion that took place at the time [deleting a little more wouldn't have hurt]), I am reviving this discussion as I feel it is not about the content, but something they don't want to explain.
I want to emphasise I have engaged in WP:goodfaith. I even went the extra mile and provided additional sources, where the other editor has neither invested the same time or effort in making his case, which I find disrespectful to the scholarly process he claims "Raj sources" do not adhere to.
He has also relied on User:Bishonen's administrative powers to keep his incorrect edits, and I feel the entire situation needs administrative intervention.
Here is the diff of that original conversation on ANI before closure; the text of the original exchange is given below to better facilitate the discussion, now that RSN has run its natural course without any appropriate remedy.
RSN text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. Best case, the IP needs a better understanding on what constitutes a reliable source. Worst case, they are being disruptive. Either way this is not about Sitush or Bishonen. Since the IP is blocked anyway ..... --regentspark (comment) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (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.
Note. I've reverted Callmemirela's close of this as a "content dispute" after a mere hour. Complaining about my admin action (semiprotecting a page) as the OP did is hardly a content dispute, and I feel there may be more comments here, even though the OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Comments by Sitush or some of the Indian admins, for instance. If not, I'll be fine with closing it in a few hours. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
Hello everyone,
I noticed that User:Sitush reverted my very important insertions, and administrator User:Bishonen claims the insertions were "disruptive".
I must note that both users seem to have been involved in the prior dispute mentioned on the Reliable sources discussion page, and are violating wikipedia ettiquette.
Further, I looked at the old discussion involving User:Sitush's previous disruptions, and while the opposing editor at that time definitely passionate, I can see why they were frustrated.
It seems Sitush is trying to use his own webpage to override a well-established protocol, which is that wikipedia sources are reliable. Here, Sitush claims they're unreliable and again (like before, from the previous dispute) refers users to his own page User:Sitush/CasteSources which seems to be overriden by the wikisource.
I am seeking action on this matter, as it cannot be refuted that if the reference used is a wikisource, then it is a reliable source. I don't know how or why the behaviour by Sitush has been allowed. I do not think adding page protection was reasonable here, either.
I would like my edits restored, and both User:Sitush and User:Bishonen reprimanded for violating ettiquette. I do not know why the latter is abusing their administrator privileges calling the insertions disruptive, either, when they are in line with wikipedia rules. I do not find Sitush's User:Sitush/CasteSources page as an acceptable argument to override rules (it seems this was also argued before, and upset the opposition as he kept doing this).
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.86.58 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit indicates a history to this dispute that we are so far unaware of. Surely, too, the two ANI 'notifications' the IP left were a trifle vitriolic to say the least? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not convinced item (3) on the What is wikisource? article means what you think it means. Wikisource contains Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, for example - this is a reliable source for what Darwin wrote; it is not necessarily a reliable source when discussing current evolutionary theory (and it is obviously not a reliable source for the current population of the People's Republic of China or the 2015 winner of the Best Actor at the Oscars!) It doesn't look at all to me like Sitush is using "his own webpage" to overrule consensus - it looks to me like he's summarised why otherwise reliable sources may not be reliable in all instances, based on previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm also a wee bit concerned that you don't seem to be assuming good faith with respect to these two editors. Also - why raise this at WP:RSNand here at ANI? Why not wait until editors at WP:RSN have replied? 80.229.60.197 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: It's utterly irrelevant to say that Sitush's subpage User:Sitush/CasteSources can't be used as a source. No, of course it can't! It has never been offered as a source, but as a page that explains about sourcing in the area of castes on Wikipedia, with a lot of diffs and links to show consensus regarding the points Sitush makes, as per 80.229.60.197 above. A good example is Sitush's explanation of the unreliability of historians from the British Raj period, and the necessity of using modern academic work. I would have thought this was obvious to anybody who read Sitush's page in good faith and with competence in reading the English language; I don't know which of the two this OP is short of. As for the notion that everything on Wikisource (a library of primary sources), however old, outdated, and/or biased, is a reliable source for any context, I'll just leave it to the reader to evaluate. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
The discussion above 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 few things: I did not know that Bishonen reopened the discussion after it was closed, as I took the discussion to RSN as was requested, and per process. I also find it disingenuous when User:Bishonen excludes my original response to some of these statements in the archived form, as it gives an incomplete picture of the discussion. Below is the text that was curiously exempted:
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 response to what Bishonen has said, if he was so confident about the s:Imperial Gazetteer of India being an invalid source, why did he not participate in the discussion instead of locking the thread and allowing Sitush to make edits? He asks why did I not wait, well, I am using a wikisource that is said to be a WP:RS, and you proceeded to protect the page to allow Sitush to make his own edits. It does not make any sense.
No one is using these sources to cite populations, which obviously do get old and require updated sources. However to state Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is not a reliable source on current evolutionary theory is pure bunkum. While the text is old, much of it is philosophical in nature and very much holds to this very day.
I do not thnk this example is worth discussing as it distracts from the main arguments.
Further, I find it sort of comical that Bishonen is suggesting I do not understand english, as this was the very thing that got the previous editor who opposed both him and Sitush banned.
The discussion above 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.
As was stated in previous posts that were tied to the original ANI post, this has nothing to do with caste and everything to do with demographics/geography. It seems the editors are unable to accept the fact that this tribe chose to ally itself with the "Raj" as early as the late 1700s, which would mean much of their history would have been given by the British.
Can we please get some action on this issue? I've spent many hours providing rigorous evidence that the other editors simply continue to ignore. I am hoping there will be some accountability for these blatant edits that are more deletions than anything else. 208.69.162.243 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
What exactly did you expect to happen at RSN? It sounds like you were expecting Sitush and Bishonen to argue "their case": that's really not what RSN is about. Other editors - Only in death, for example - offered their opinion on the sources you wanted to use. You disagreed with their opinion, too. You've been here at ANI before, and editors have attempted to explain to you that inclusion in Wikisource does not make a source automatically reliable (I was one such editor who attempted to explain this to you). You've been blocked already for assuming bad faith of Sitush and Bishonen, yet you're continuing to allege inappropriate behaviour where - frankly - there really is none. Honestly, my recommendation would be to accept that when many editors are telling you the same thing, it's time to move on. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Content dispute. Short story - OP wants to use sources that are generally unreliable for certain information (due to their age, historical bias and other issues) - Sitush disagrees, Bishonen disagrees, when it was brought to RSN I also disagreed. OP thinks there is some bigger issue here than 'People dont agree the sources I want to use are reliable'. So have it people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all User:80.229.609.197, you lost credibility when claimed Charles Darwin's work was not a proper source on evolution. I responded to that very clearly, and Bishonen did not include it in the archived post. I re-stated my response directly above your response, and yet you mention it as if I "pulled a User:Sitush" and did not answer you.
Did you consult the archived box to see that I included your response? If so, why do you provide a diff as if I've ignored your statement? I did not; and as I stated earlier: getting into how Darwin's work is still philosophically very relevant to the theory of evolution distracts from the main argument concerning the content in this dispute.
The entire tone of your response is "he isn't listening to what we say, and we're right" when I've clearly brought up issues with the blanket claim "Raj sources are unreliable". I am responding to each point that is brought up and have done so with proper reason.
In order to address this distracting point re: philosophical pertinence of Darwin's Origins, academic and scholarly credentials must be given to establish the merit of those who make such critiques. I, of course, would have no problem doing that. I suspect, however, you would not be willing to do that, and that is okay. However, the choice of Darwin's Origins as something that is WP:RS, yet presently invalid as a source on evolution (in your opinion) was a very poor example.
You state there is no inappropriate behaviour, which I disagree with. If User:Sitush truly believed these sources were unreliable for the content being cited, then why did he not show how these sources are flawed instead of making blanket statements without any sources?
If Sitush was so sure the citations did not support the content, thereby making them unreliable, why did he not give a proper answer when asked byUser:SageRad as to how? One cannot make blanket statements and expect them to hold in light of multiple sources I went through the effort to find additional sources that substantiated the WP:RSs:Imperial Gazetteer of India and another that caused Sitush to delete the entire page--giving a total of four
Secondly, I feel your tone projects the notion that User:Only in death, User:Bishonen and User:Sitush have given a rigorous justification as to how these sources are unreliable in the context of the content they are being used to cite (important) when they have not, and that I am blindly disputing something without evidence, which I disagree with.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on James Mill, and deeming it as a CasteSource is borderline at best, as he critiques the flaws of the Brahmins (who are the at the 'top' of the foodchain in Hinduism) and exploit their role in this power structure. Even if we accept Mill's A History of British India as a "CasteSource", none of the citations used for this specific content pertain to caste. Rather, they are more focused on demographics and information that helped document the various aspects of the territory (people, climate, etc).
But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803,
intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES;
and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being
one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control. [1]
Why is the alliance between the Phulkians and British ignored when assessing the reliability of sources? I have mentioned this many times and it seems to clearly demonstrate as to why the "Raj sources" have accurate information for this specific tribe.
Clearly this alliance would mean that most of the Phulkians' history would be documented by the Raj.
Lastly: I never hid the fact that I was blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee for 48 hours. If I had wanted to circumvent that ban, I could have done so with much ease. Bringing that up is not helpful here.
I feel that I have engaged in good faith, have provided sufficient sources, and while my arguments may have some element of passion, it can't be disputed that I've spent the time and effort to properly substantiate my claims regarding the unreasonable deletions of valid content (again, three of which substantiate a WP:RSs:The Imperial Gazetteer of India).
I've collapsed the text copied from RSN. ansh666 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
So... IP editor, you got banned, shot down, and in every way told no, and your idea of trying to fix this was to evade your ban and try again? Good luck with that, and enjoy your next ban. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As I've now pointed out with more detail at RSN, your claim that everything on wikisource is a reliable source is fundamentally flawed. I have no comment on the reliability of the particularly source, but when you make such a nonsense claim I have no real reason to believe you have any real idea what you're talking about so don't see much point looking into the reliability of the source, or any of your other complaints. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to be avoid making such fundamental errors. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I'm glad you took the time to state something that is half-true. I implied that the s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India's claims are valid as WP:RS because they substantiate claims that were previously argued to be "unreliable" by User:Sitush who did not provide any evidence to support that statement. The original source was from The Calcutta Review, and upon gleaning the content in (3) Wikipedia:Wikisource#What is Wikisource?, I felt that the citation of a WP:RS alone should have been sufficient, as it corroborated information from an earlier source.
Further, I provided two additional sources that again make the same claims that were contained in the WP:RS. It is pretty clear that, even if you wanted to try and remove the citation on the basis that "not everything in Wikisource is WP:RS", that this specific content *is*, since the dispute predates the use of s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India.
Secondly, you are free to disparage my abilities as much as you want. I feel my explanation and sources speak for themselves.
It is completely fair to demand a rigorously-justified explanation as to how the cited content removed by Sitush was unreliable, as the WP:RSs:The Imperial Gazetteer of India substantiates information used in the earlier source he egregiously deemed unreliable. When this is taken in conjunction with the additional two sources, it becomes clear that it is not the content that is unreliable, but the editor. 137.118.142.148 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked this IP for repeated personal attacks and for forum shopping way beyond all the feedback they have received at other venues. I don't know if any range blocks might be feasible, but I'll leave that for someone with the appropriate expertise to perhaps determine. As an aside, right from the start this one had it in for Sitush, so I suspect it's a returning caste or Hindutva warrior. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Fixed by Boing! Said Zebedee. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2017 (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.
Ah, the usual move, rewrite and redirect routine. I'm dealing with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved back, ad/spam rev-deleted under WP:RD3, and the perp indef blocked. Thanks for your alertness, Jim1138. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
IP blocked for 1 year by RickinBaltimore. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2017 (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.
An IP is really going after this article. I've now given two warnings. Hope someone can protect the article or block the IP. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for a year, IP has been blocked in the past for 6 months, and 273 days as well. In the future you can also scoot on down to WP:AIV for all your vandal reporting needs. (Open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
IP was blocked for 5 years by JamesBWatson. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (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 IP was rangeblocked last week, until 2022. How's that for harsh? -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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.
Yeah, I deleted the articles and blocked the user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Situation handled. Well done to Jusdafax for promptly reporting this here. ANI has an unfortunate reputation as a drama board but this is the sort of thing that belongs here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2017 (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.
Came across this just now, and feel it needs admin attention. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Ad Orientem, blocked by me, emergency notified. Sam Walton (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have deleted this as a G10 attack page but the rambling and violent fantasies are indeed disturbing. I am thinking this may fall under WP:VIOLENCE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like Sam has handled that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I came across this but just ignored it! I must be going mad. Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In your defense, I almost did as well. I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. My thanks to Sam and Ad, I appreciate the actions. Suggest we close. Jusdafax 02:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw something about it being a test or something, and I think there were blank revisions? So I just left it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
File has been deleted --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 3 February 2017 (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 reduce the size of File:Kmayburysnp.jpg ? I think it might be too big Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 The Quixotic Potato has claimed to have evidence that users at 8chan, archive.org, archive.is and webcitation.org and 4chan have conspired to edit the SPLC page (I am not sure to what end, it just seems they were talking about it but he says the page need to be protected) [2], [3].
If this is true it need looking into, it is (I think) a serious allegation (if he is claiming that there was a conspiracy to vandalize or alter the POV of a page, the user has not actually said that, in fact I am not sure what accusation they are making).
I have asked them to explain, but they have already said they are going to ignore me [4].
Slatersteven, I genuinely think this does not require admin attention. First, this is about an incident that happened two and a bit months ago. Second, the allegation is that off-wiki collaboration occurred and does not include accusations geared towards any user. Third, the page protect was required in December, not now. I replied on my talk page as well. I was not aware of this filing at the time of writing my comment. I don't know. At most you can ask Quix to post evidence of this, and they may well choose not to. I don't see what admin action can genuinely be taken here, even if Quix is not forthcoming what precisely is policy violation and what exactly is an admin meant to do? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was not sure if he had raised this before (I cannot see any evidence he had). I would have assumed that admins would look at the page and see if any accounts has acted in a way that implied part of a meat puppetry campaign (for example) and block them. As to it happening a few months ago, true but the accounts may still be active and acting in accordance with any plan that may (or may not, as I said, and you did, no direct accusations have been made). But if no action is deemed needed fine, I just disliked the idea an allegation that implied a need for page protection from a cabal of users had gone unreported. Now a report is on record and can be referenced should any such campaign materialize.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A page protect was placed on SPLC on Dec 7 [5]. On Dec 21 that protection was upped to administrator access [6] and removed on Jan 4th. Now, it would take me hours to look through WP:RfPP to find out who exactly requested these page protects, and indeed, if they were requested at RfPP at all. All I know is that page protect was applied. Who, when and where I don't know beyond the diffs I presented. Quix states they requested the pp, I AGF and assume that they did. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
What is that for?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
For stirring up drama? I read your initial post and looked at some of the background. It's completely unclear to me what you want done. --NeilNtalk to me 17:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Time for a boomerang. Yet another straw man argument. Yet another false accusation. People love typing but they hate reading. Pretty much everything in the original post is incorrect. Three months ago some people from 8chan were talking about the SPLC article on an old 4chan raid channel. At the time I was using an IRC bouncer to monitor what they were up to. I requested protection. The article was protected for a while. I mentioned Archive.org and archive.is and webcitation.org on Rnddude's talkpage because I used their services to archive evidence. I have asked to OP to stop posting on my talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Slatersteven please stop annoying me. Leave me alone. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw this as clearly it is not significant. All I will say is that an accusation had been made, and I felt it needed looking into if the implications (I saw) were true. Clearly I misread what the user was claiming had happened.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As I have said I clearly misread the situation and so am withdrawing this, no need for further comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
TrayWittheMac11 indefinitely blocked by Jayron32. Legal threat has been revdel'd. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2017 (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.
Blocked. Seems like a he crossed the bright line there. If he rescinds and agrees to play nice, will unblock. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? He cannot write an understandable sentence. How is anyone who writes like that ever going to benefit the encyclopedia? John from Idegon (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 been making disruptive and unsourced edits on numerous Mithila related pages like Mithila (region), Janaka, Videha, Mithila, Nepal. All his edits have been unsourced and I suspect he's pushing a nationalist POV. I have made attempts to discuss with him on his talk page but he ignores it. He has received a warning for removing sourced content and today he received a warning for using sock IP's. Even after receiving the warning he used an IP to make the exact same edit was was reverted. I have the asked attending administrator to reopen his sock case but I would also like the issue to be sorted out once and for all. Diffs can also be provided as well. Damien2016 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This may be connected to a long-term sock for Nepal/Mithila matters - Poudar (talk·contribs) or someone like that. @Ponyo: may remember the master. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: re-pinging. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There were two sockmasters involved in the same disputes, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poojjan ccresta and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal. At one point we thought they may be the same individual, but it was never determined. The behavioural overlap with the Poojjan ccresta accounts is strong, and there is technical evidence that ties The China Room to this master. I've blocked the account as a suspected sock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
College project that's introducing copyvios, plagiarism, OR and Non-NPOV content to wide variety of Indian history articles[edit]
There's a huge group of college students working on some coursework related to historical kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. They've been copying content from elsewhere on to these articles, some of them from out of copyright works and some from copyrighted works. Utcursch, Chewings72 and I have attempted to engage with a few of them, but except for one of them confirming to Utcursch that this is a college project and they aren't sock accounts, we haven't any response from anyone. Our request to have the instructor read the guidelines for educators and get involved hasn't had any impact either. I'm sure there are more people involved in cleaning up this area, I just don't know who all are involved yet (Doug Weller suggested I bring this here, after a conversation on my talk page). I'll list all accounts I'm aware of here:
I've provided most (if not all) of the accounts with student-welcome template and have tried to engage with a couple of them but there's been no response. I'm not exactly sure what to do here as we don't even know who the instructor is (his name is Prof Srinivas Reddy) or if this is an outreach effort or any background information. We had a similar group from a college in Pune in 2015 that was working on Kumbh Mela related stuff but I was able to work with them back then, unlike in this case. If someone can actually get through to them and get them to stop the copyvios etc and work in a structured manner, it'd be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
:PS, with so many people to notify, it's going to take me a while to do the rounds. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All these accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed for copyvios, optimally by a Wikipedian with significant expertise in this area. Anyone who joins in, please don't just revert copyvios, but flag them for revdel using {{copyvio-revdel}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
By following the instructions in the template documentation... BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Not all of the additions involve copyright violations. Sometimes they have tried to use their own words, but their English language skills are not up to it. The one you are referring to that I reverted seemed to me to be more about "Original Research" rather than a copyright violation. I will follow BethNaught's advice if I see any more copyvios.--Chewings72 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear this. I hope that when the students who haven't edited yet start contributing they do better. I've dealt with one. Doug Wellertalk 17:53, 29 January 2017 (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 is running amok, continued disruption, trollish behaviour, persistent edit warring. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Look how childish this user is being just because he's not getting his way. He is threatening with blocks (even though it's already been established I won't be blocked because other admins already agreed with my edits) and trying to turn other users against simply because I post correct information that he doesn't want to be there despite it being FACT. Grow up. SuddenDeth (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A look through your 'tribs plainly show you are NOT HERE to build an Encyclopedia, but to push your agenda of personal opinions. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@SuddenDeth: your lack of talk page participation is quite telling. You should be discussing edits on article talk pages and working towards consensus, not simply edit warring. A quick look at your talk page shows that there are a number of editors who take issue with your behavior. clpo13(talk) 16:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin could look into this editor's pattern of behavior. Opening discussions on article talk pages is ineffective because SuddenDeth will not participate. He will edit war to push his opinions into the article, even when challenged by multiple editors, and prefers to argue through edit summaries over getting consensus. He's already been blocked for edit warring at Nine Inch Nails and you can see that he refused to discuss his issues. He's now continuing the same pattern in Metallica articles. --Laser brain(talk) 16:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
So Jason Newsted playing bass guitar on 1989 (a year he was a member of the band) live tracks is opinion not fact? SuddenDeth (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about your behavior. You should be addressing the concerns above regarding lack of discussion and edit warring. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless User:SuddenDeth will agree to change their approach in the future I think an indefinite block should be considered. They appear to be certain they are right and have no interest in any negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
SuddenDeth blocked for three days for continuing to edit war on other articles. --NeilNtalk to me 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Blocked by Cyp. Regrettably, IP vandalism is often a tiring "whack-a-mole" activity, so thanks CWJakarta for raising this here. Please re-report if the vandalism resumes, either here or on my or any other admin's talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2017 (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 have asked the admin to investigate this IP a week ago as he was harassing other users. But it seems that the investigation has been discontinued, as after seeing this:[7], the user has yet insulted another user with the slur word "puki", which according to this website:[8] means "vagina". This has gone too far. I have reported many anonymous user in this noticeboard for the last few months but it appears that they do not stop harassing other users. I need the admin to something about this, as I cannot report this incident every time. By the way, it seems that other user has warned the IP, but he doesn't seems to care and just remove his talk page. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Slightly-more-involved-than-I-was-last-time-comment. They've been blocked (72 hours) by Cyp. This editor has been discussed at ANI several times before most recently here. Last time Hoary made the point that there's a great deal of uncited editing and reverting occurring on various Airport articles; I've started going through them adding {{Refimprove}} tags, but these articles do seem to be a magnet for (a) no edit summaries (or vulgar edit summaries in Batak), (b) limited or zero referencing, and (c) slow-motion edit warring. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 failed the Wikipedia test. Talk page privileges revoked. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2017 (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 blocked user I Love Failing Exams needs their talk page access removed, as they are being disruptive. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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:Highstakes00 sock? Hijacking existing pages to sneak promotional/paid articles past new page patrol, moving the pages several times, and creating redirects so the moves can't be easily reversed is their MO, isn't it? --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it and blocked the user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've rev-deleted the intermediate nonsense, which I think can fit under WP:RD3 - it's disruptive for anyone trying to understand the real history of the genuine article (and it adds a bit of WP:DENY into the mix). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 have revoked this account's and its related sockpuppets' talk page access. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 was appropriate to remove this as an example of block evasion, and also not a matter for this noticeboard. On balance am leaving it here this time with the noted outcome that the IP OP has been blocked; so when/if it gets reposted there's this section to refer to. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2017 (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.
Several users have previously suggested this semi-protected edit on IKA's page but they've been collectively branded as vandals by Yamla and their suggestion ignored despite the incontrovertible citation provided.
So I just decided to not go down that path and bring this issue into attention right on here. Can someone assist me please?
{{Ping|Serentupitty1980}} as the most recent sockpuppet. {{Ping|MilborneOne}} as the original blocking admin and {{Ping|Boing!_said_Zebedee}} as the admin who revoked access from the user. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This was previously removed by Nil Einne (talk·contribs) in this edit with the edit summary, "Socking evidentally". I'll leave it to another admin to remove it here and to indicate whether it would generally be appropriate for me to have removed it myself, given the evident block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict). Sorry about the ec with the close, but we should note that I've indef blocked Serentupitty1980 as an obvious sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Addendum: Three IP sockpuppets blocked so far for tampering with the report above. Page semi-protected. Acroterion(talk) 12:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a checkuser in the house? The last two three disruptive accounts were sleeper accounts old enough to be autoconfirmed once they'd made ten edits to userspace, all created January 18 so far. Acroterion(talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say there's not much available from a CU perspective - he's proxying all over the place, making it impossible to say whether there are any other accounts. Seems easy to spot, though - my advice is to revert and block on sight, and maybe protect this page for a bit if he doesn't get bored soon. Yunshui雲水 13:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Any chance an edit filter can be applied for this? Just to add I've just protected the page again, third protection today for this vandal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, filter 836, but it may need adjustment if they come back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This may be a blocked user, however, the request here is fully legitimate, as it is a sourced change that should be performed. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Please don't feed the trolls. Acroterion(talk) 00:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
College project that's introducing copyvios, plagiarism, OR and Non-NPOV content to wide variety of Indian history articles[edit]
There's a huge group of college students working on some coursework related to historical kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. They've been copying content from elsewhere on to these articles, some of them from out of copyright works and some from copyrighted works. Utcursch, Chewings72 and I have attempted to engage with a few of them, but except for one of them confirming to Utcursch that this is a college project and they aren't sock accounts, we haven't any response from anyone. Our request to have the instructor read the guidelines for educators and get involved hasn't had any impact either. I'm sure there are more people involved in cleaning up this area, I just don't know who all are involved yet (Doug Weller suggested I bring this here, after a conversation on my talk page). I'll list all accounts I'm aware of here:
I've provided most (if not all) of the accounts with student-welcome template and have tried to engage with a couple of them but there's been no response. I'm not exactly sure what to do here as we don't even know who the instructor is (his name is Prof Srinivas Reddy) or if this is an outreach effort or any background information. We had a similar group from a college in Pune in 2015 that was working on Kumbh Mela related stuff but I was able to work with them back then, unlike in this case. If someone can actually get through to them and get them to stop the copyvios etc and work in a structured manner, it'd be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
:PS, with so many people to notify, it's going to take me a while to do the rounds. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All these accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed for copyvios, optimally by a Wikipedian with significant expertise in this area. Anyone who joins in, please don't just revert copyvios, but flag them for revdel using {{copyvio-revdel}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
By following the instructions in the template documentation... BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Not all of the additions involve copyright violations. Sometimes they have tried to use their own words, but their English language skills are not up to it. The one you are referring to that I reverted seemed to me to be more about "Original Research" rather than a copyright violation. I will follow BethNaught's advice if I see any more copyvios.--Chewings72 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear this. I hope that when the students who haven't edited yet start contributing they do better. I've dealt with one. Doug Wellertalk 17:53, 29 January 2017 (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 is running amok, continued disruption, trollish behaviour, persistent edit warring. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Look how childish this user is being just because he's not getting his way. He is threatening with blocks (even though it's already been established I won't be blocked because other admins already agreed with my edits) and trying to turn other users against simply because I post correct information that he doesn't want to be there despite it being FACT. Grow up. SuddenDeth (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A look through your 'tribs plainly show you are NOT HERE to build an Encyclopedia, but to push your agenda of personal opinions. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@SuddenDeth: your lack of talk page participation is quite telling. You should be discussing edits on article talk pages and working towards consensus, not simply edit warring. A quick look at your talk page shows that there are a number of editors who take issue with your behavior. clpo13(talk) 16:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin could look into this editor's pattern of behavior. Opening discussions on article talk pages is ineffective because SuddenDeth will not participate. He will edit war to push his opinions into the article, even when challenged by multiple editors, and prefers to argue through edit summaries over getting consensus. He's already been blocked for edit warring at Nine Inch Nails and you can see that he refused to discuss his issues. He's now continuing the same pattern in Metallica articles. --Laser brain(talk) 16:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
So Jason Newsted playing bass guitar on 1989 (a year he was a member of the band) live tracks is opinion not fact? SuddenDeth (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about your behavior. You should be addressing the concerns above regarding lack of discussion and edit warring. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless User:SuddenDeth will agree to change their approach in the future I think an indefinite block should be considered. They appear to be certain they are right and have no interest in any negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
SuddenDeth blocked for three days for continuing to edit war on other articles. --NeilNtalk to me 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Blocked by Cyp. Regrettably, IP vandalism is often a tiring "whack-a-mole" activity, so thanks CWJakarta for raising this here. Please re-report if the vandalism resumes, either here or on my or any other admin's talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2017 (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 have asked the admin to investigate this IP a week ago as he was harassing other users. But it seems that the investigation has been discontinued, as after seeing this:[9], the user has yet insulted another user with the slur word "puki", which according to this website:[10] means "vagina". This has gone too far. I have reported many anonymous user in this noticeboard for the last few months but it appears that they do not stop harassing other users. I need the admin to something about this, as I cannot report this incident every time. By the way, it seems that other user has warned the IP, but he doesn't seems to care and just remove his talk page. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Slightly-more-involved-than-I-was-last-time-comment. They've been blocked (72 hours) by Cyp. This editor has been discussed at ANI several times before most recently here. Last time Hoary made the point that there's a great deal of uncited editing and reverting occurring on various Airport articles; I've started going through them adding {{Refimprove}} tags, but these articles do seem to be a magnet for (a) no edit summaries (or vulgar edit summaries in Batak), (b) limited or zero referencing, and (c) slow-motion edit warring. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 really confused as to what the hell is going on with the accounts listed above, all created today within about a 30m span of each other. I'm thinking it's a collegiate communications class. Most of their edits (collectively) have been vandalism. I'll notify them as soon as I'm done unloading some laundry, but some eyes on this and maybe contacting them to see what the deal is would be needed. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone supervising these kids? Did they receive any instruction at all about how Wikipedia works, and what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia? I haven't looked through all of their contributions, but the ones I've scanned are full of unsourced opinions (presumably the editor's own), unencyclopedic writing, and unimportant trivia. Yes, some editors are being too ruthless in removing their edits, instead of tagging them with "citation needed", but -- at least as far as I've see -- their first forays into editing have not been very successful. Have the Education people been successful in contacting the professor or instructor in charge of this group (who I assume is probably User:COMM112), because if some improvement is not seen, we're going to have a situation where nuking all the edits is the best way to go about fixing the problem, and I don't think anyone wants that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not "supervising" them, as in their professor, etc. But I am watching all of their edits on an individual basis. Some appear to be causing disruption (AGF applies of course), while others seem to be making legitimate contributions. It looks like the articles being edited the most by these users are Minnesota Wild and Minnesota Twins - these users seem to be making edits in the manner and on the articles that I'd expect school IPs and users to be making. I'd be surprised if this was one person playing multiple hands... I think the best thing to do is take issues on a user-by-user basis. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you or me or anyone from the WMF should be supervising them, that's the professor/instructor's job, of course. (And I agree that it's clearly a class and not an instance of multi-socking.) I was just wondering if anyone had had contact with that person to find out how they are handling the class: did they get any instruction on the policy basics (V,RS,OR etc.) or not. As a group, they don't seem to know about referencing (and the one I saw that used a reference did it as an in-line EL in a section title), or about not inserting their opinions. Some of their edits which other editors reverted I think were legit, and simply needed a ref from an RS, so they should be brought up to speed on that (not necessarily by you or I, but by the leader of the class). We all know that 15 years or so from its founding, Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, and these kids could use some help getting on top of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This is also being discussed next door. —DoRD (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I've added a {{Please see}} for this discussion to WP:ENB. Something similar to this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 16#Articles being created as class projects so perhaps editors who regularly participate in WP:ENB can provide suggestions on how to best resolve this. FWIW, I think students such as these may need to be reminded that editing for a class project and editing for Wikipedia are not always one and the same, and it is the latter that they should be encouraged to do. Maybe they should be advised to take a look at Wikipedia:Student assignments and take Wikipedia:Training/For students to better familiarize themselves with how Wikipedia works. There is also Template:Welcome student which could be added to their user talk pages. Other than that, I don't think they should be receive special treatment if their edits are not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If they make a mistake, then assuming good faith and a level 1 warning should probably be used. If, however, they continue to repeat the same mistakes/behavior despite being warned, then stronger action should be then considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Jéské Couriano put an AN/I notice on each of the above accounts, and I also put specific links to this discussion and the one on AN on all of them, so perhaps at the next session of this class the message may get to the instructor (via the students) that all is not well in COM112's Wikipedia project. Add o that the fact that one of the account was username blocked.I really think that the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" slogan is responsible in some ways for this, as it creates the impression that one can open up the site and start editing immediately. Unless, of course, this is the instructor's way of demonstrating to the students that it's a bit more complex then that, in which case... Well, it's a good teaching strategy, but it obviously sucks from our point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Mwest55 is topic banned from any and all articles or talk page discussions relating to wind energy, broadly construed. --NeilNtalk to me 14:09, 4 February 2017 (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.
Mwest55 (talk·contribs) has, since creating his account last summer, done nothing but advocate for a rewriting of Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from it's current WP:MEDRS compliant form, to one based on anecdotes and news reports. In that time, Mwest55 has engaged in both article edits and talk page edits, always pushing the exact same thing. He has put his personal opinions right into the article [11], suggested compelling anecdotes as a reason to change the article [12], and accused his opponents of being shills for Big Wind [13]. It died down for some months after an initial spurt of edits, but on his return the edits are exactly the same. Mwest55 appears to be utterly impervious to reason, and incapable of comprehending Wikipedia policy. I propose that he be banned (either a community ban or just unilaterally banned by any uninvolved administrator) as clearly being not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to right great wrongs and be disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted this user's last edit here to the article for obvious NPOV issues, and left a warning for edit warring on the user's talk page. If this user continues editing the article without engaging in discussion or proper dispute resolution, he will be blocked for edit warring. I'll also note that this issue is not related to the report here, and/or any action that other administrators or the community decides as a result of this ANI. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support community ban per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: a single admin can't ban a user off their own bat unless the pages in question are under discretionary sanctions; it would have to be by community consensus. Since the user is so unresponsive (not sure they know they have a user talkpage), I've blocked for 72 hours to stem the disruption. That might have the added benefit of helping them locate their own talkpage. I see no reason to close this discussion, though — I suggest it be kept open to discuss a possible community topic ban or NOTHERE indef block.Bishonen | talk 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
WP:FRINGE covers this. TBAN please. Can't do it myself as I am involved. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support community ban - this is pretty clear WP:RGW editing incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Part of being so thoroughly indoctrinated in alt-fact conspiracy theories of this sort is believing that nobody could possibly disagree without being an agent of the bad actors on the other side (in this case, people being paid off with gag orders from the Wind Company) and trying to explain our guidelines to such a user just reinforces their belief in the depth of the conspiracy. We can't possibly rehabilitate such an editor; WP:CIR covers this nicely. (my wrist is sore from endorsing all these Big Cheques from Big Wind) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Just noting I was aware the user was blocked when I made this comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support community TBAN. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
Support topic ban per arguments above, as the first effective method of dealing with the alt-fact universe. Miniapolis 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support broadly construed topic ban from all subjects related to renewable energy and/or medical conditionsTwitbookspacetube (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support TBAN, leaning towards community ban. At a minimum, this user needs to be removed from this topic area, but the fact that they are an SPA on an personal mission, having shown no intentional to comply with (or even minimally attempt to understand) our editorial policies, leaves me highly skeptical that they will respect the terms of the ban. Community bans should be reserved for really the worst-case disruptors who have proven they are unable to reform their behaviour to contribute productively, and yet I have to guess that in this instance, we are only creating a bureaucratic extra step, since this user will almost certainly resume inserting similar material eventually (if not immediately). We could close the discussion with the caveat than any violation the ban should be met with an immediate indef, but then there is no guarantee the responding admin will feel comfortable with that, not knowing the full context. It may be the best call to simply ban the user now. Snowlet's rap 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support community ban This editor basically only edits this article and is a literal WP:SPA. A topic ban is in effect the same as a community ban. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban It can be expanded if the editor violates the t-ban or begins editing tendentiously in another area. We should aim for the least restrictive ban that fits the offense. (I'm not really convinced this editor can be steered into being constructive, but it's worth a try.) David in DC (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban with a very strong encouragement of the editor to seek some sort of constructive mentoring of some sort. If he winds up being inactive because he can't edit the topic, fine - no loss. If he can, maybe, be constructively involved elsewhere, he might be a slight benefit to the community. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban - No new reason(s), those expressed above are sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
IP blocked for 60 hours and edits RevDel'd by Acroterion. Paul August☎ 21:47, 3 February 2017 (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 last 3 edits of 103.12.8.13(talk·contribs·WHOIS) are pretty clear BLP vios, please do as you wish with them (and the IP, I guess). Thanks, ansh666 05:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked and revdel'd, thanks for the note. Doesn't anybody remove BLP violations anymore? The violations persisted through ten diffs. Acroterion(talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess not, though the first people to get there expected the page to be deleted entirely. ansh666 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Then there are those of us, myself included, who are attempting to keep a hold on their sanity by paying as little attention as possible to the activities of the Trump Administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Normally I would too, but apparently there's an executive order being drafted that could lead to an elderly family member of mine being deported...so so much for my sanity. But oh well, such is life, sadly. ansh666 08:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that. Believe me, I know other people in the same situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 72.21.198.65, 72.21.196.66 keeps reverting removal of original research[edit]
User 72.21.198.65 keeps reverting removal of original research citing "censorship", even when told not to do so on the following pages:
Additionally, this user reverted my changes to the unrelated page — * NSA Suite B Cryptography, I suspect the user went through my edit history looking for "censorship".
User:Jesserealfan is edit warring to add links and content related to the subject's thoroughly non-noteworthy tooth whitening business, sourced only to her own promotional efforts. They're so annoyed about being reverted that they're now inserting multiple copies of the spam into the article. They're also violating BLP on this porn performer bio, adding unsourced and unreliably sourced claims, and using at least one clearly abusive edit summary.[14] The editor involved has made similar/identical edits as User:Jessesfan and using IPs. Blcoks and semiprotection are called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Add - this user has also been reported to AIV for the personal attacks listed above. Garchy (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Left them a message on their talkpage, but it was prior to checking out the obvious link to previous accounts. Have blocked their account, given they've been spamming this tooth-whitening thing for some months. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit summary revdelled as requested. No further admin action required Mr rnddude (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2017 (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 delete this vandal's edit summary (here)? It's pretty much only there to provoke. DarkKnight2149 23:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the edit summary. Paul August☎ 00:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Tautological section heading is tautological. EEng 11:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Tautological spelling is "tautological". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Tautological existence is. EEng 22:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, the tautological heading involves me saying the same thing twice. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You can say that again! EEng 00:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Bbb23 picked up the pager and mopped up -- Samtartalk · contribs 22:37, 4 February 2017 (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.
There are multiple sock accounts being made by someone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination). Someone is trying to frame me as a sockpuppeteer and I currently have an SPI case against me. I was accused by John From Idegon of double posting and my Keep vote was struck for some reason. It also appears that more socks have been piled for a delete vote on this AfD which is compromising the entire AfD. CatcherStormtalk 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Those are sockpuppets of long-term vandal Nsmutte - creating malicious SPIs is one of his favourite forms of trolling. All the sock votes need to be stricken per WP:DENY, and the SPI should be deleted as an attack (as many previous SPIs created by Nsmutte's socks have been). --bonadeacontributionstalk 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Blocked for legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2017 (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.
While they are indubitably pissed with me, I think a lot of it is down to English language comprehension, a desire to right great wrongs and an understandable lack of understanding regarding WP in-jokes etc. Let's just see what happens for now - they are highly unlikely to get anywhere if they were to sue. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Sitush, that is true and irrelevant. The question here is not whether they have a right to sue, or to threaten to sue, but whether they have the privilege of editing Wikipedia (which is a privilege, not a right, but is granted to almost anyone, with exceptions), while threatening to sue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we all know the answer to that: he does not. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The statements are certainly peculiar. I can't tell if the reference to "legal" principles are meant to be to refer to (supposed) legal concepts or (supposed) Wikipedia policies. Neither interpretation makes those assertions make much sense. But in any event, there does seem to be a basic WP:Competency issue here, between the substantial language barrier, the tenuous grasp of en.Wikipedia policy and the generally combative/WP:RGW attitude. Snowlet's rap 10:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Legal threats/personal attacks or whatever, indef blocked. Let's not waste any more time here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 User:22nd Century and Beyond appears to have the sole purpose of creating pages that violate WP:NOTFUTURE. Several of his pages have been tagged for deletion and I believe some administrator should take a look on his contributions ( [15] ) and take appropriate action. Fbergo (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we get a temporary ban? This user isn't responding to anyone and the continual creation of these articles is concerning. Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I appear to have established contact, though it took an impending block warning to do so. They say they're stopping for a "few hours." Acroterion(talk) 01:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Brookerbs' "contributions" have been bizarre (or perhaps just stupid). -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Brookersb has been moving material from 22C&B's userspace into talkpages of unregistered accounts. NeilN has blocked Brookersb and I've deleted the mess they created. 22C&B is clearly related. Acroterion(talk) 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
They've admitted to using both accounts. Both have been blocked and the articles they have created have been mass-deleted. Acroterion(talk) 02:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well done. Incidentally, the admission is here. (And I wonder how this person understands the concept of encyclopedic "information".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC) ... tweaked Hoary (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably inadvertent socking. I've left the door open for an unblock if they agree to stick to one account and change the way they've been editing. --NeilNtalk to me 02:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I think they were editing in good faith and didn't really plan things very well. I have no trouble with unblocking now that we've sorted out what was going on and have started some interaction. Acroterion(talk) 03:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If the editing was in good faith, then it shows a stunning unawareness or incompetence or something. In view of this, I'd ask what the editor proposed to edit next and how they proposed to edit it. The response to this needn't be flawless or expert but it should be pretty good. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender's suggestion below seems good; I retract my own in favour of it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Before any unblock, I think there should be explicit agreement from him: (1) Not to create any more year articles; (2) To go through WP:AFC for any and all future article creations; (3) If a year he wants to write about does not already have a Wikipedia article, he will just have to accept that and move on. This isn't a sci-fi fansite. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially the conversation I'm having now. I think they;'re confusing Wikipedia with an almanac and are having a little trouble with the limits of an encyclopedia. I'm guessing that they're young and/or a bit single-minded, but not malicious. I'll incorporate the AfC suggestion. Acroterion(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The conversation is here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I was supportive of the creation of some of the articles because they contained astronomical predictions, and astronomical events are the only events that can be predicted with accuracy hundreds of years in advance. However, I support the block because of the sockpuppetry, and am not inclined to excuse sockpuppetry on account of newness or inexperience. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Competence is required, and competence is not yet evident. See the "conversation", which is hardly a conversation. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the slightest bit of competence from either account, nor any indication that there will ever possibly be any competence. Every single edit he has ever made from either account has been reverted or deleted. He just keeps doing the same idiotic thing, over and over and over and over, despite being reverted or deleted, and he often edit wars, sometimes three times, and sometimes with the sock account, to retain the material he adds. I think it's high time we call it quits. It's obvious from his talk page that he is unable to listen or to understand. His enthusiasm is amusing but it does not belong here. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we've done our due diligence and beyond with this editor, and I see no possibility that they can be unblocked given the responses to attempts to engage by Soflavender, Hoary and myself on their talkpage. Acroterion(talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The matter continues on User talk:Brookerbs. Jbh has been extraordinarily patient there, and perhaps successfully so. What worries me is that although Brookerbs promises not to write about years and closely related stuff, they've so far shown no interest in writing about anything else. Some other admin can decide what to do about the latest request for unblocking. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that the editor is likely both very young and ermmm... prone to be excessively and pedantically focused on any area they may take interest in. It just happened that the first thing they became interested in was something which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Neither of these characteristics are inherently bad but they will likely need guidance if they are unblocked. I think a bit of WP:ROPE is in order. They got off to a bad start but I do not think they are malicious. Maybe the CIR issues will get them in the end and they will run amok again but maybe they will settle in and find a productive interest. JbhTalk 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 06:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm of two minds here. It seems as if all the reverted and deleted edits occurred over only one or two days, so perhaps he did not notice in time that they were all getting deleted and that they were all disruptive. So perhaps he should be given a new chance at being a productive editor. That said, he exhibits such a youthful self-involvement and inability to heed that I'm afraid his lack of competence or awareness is going to probably catch up with him again fairly shortly. The question is, do we really have the time and manpower to babysit such an editor? Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep changing the things that are based on evidences[edit]
This user keep changing stuff that we (some of the users) back to his format, thinking that he is correct. I am not sure if the user knows how wikipedia works But its getting annoying and that user is also annoymous so i can't talk to that user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveKVariety (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain what the issue is with diffs of this issue, who the user is, and did you inform the user of this conversation on their talk page? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at edit histories, the article is Kim Jong-kook (singer), the other user is an ipv6 in the 2404:e800:e610:1d5: range, and I have now notified the latest incarnation to come here. No opinion on the merits of the complaints. ansh666 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It strikes me that neither party needs to come here. This looks like a WP:Content dispute so there should be no need for ANI assistance. While it may be hard to notify a frequently changing IP, there is should ideally be no need to anyway. Any discussion should be held in the article talk page, whether it's an IP or an established registered editor. It can be helpful to remind editors to participate in discussion on the article talk page, but ideally it shouldn't be required. Since there's no real discussion (a single comment on an old issue by the IPv6 IP) on the article talk page, I'd have to say both editors are at fault for the lack of discussion. It's rarely productive to argue over who should have initiated discussion, just do it yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have enough of this user. He change a lot of things on one of a celebrity wikipedia page and it makes it more confusing. I change it back and he revert back. Even CNbot thought he was vandalising the page and revert back but he does not stop. The thing is he does not own a wikipedia account so i cannot talk about this situation to him that he is being a annoying user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveKVariety (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: us IP editors might not have Wikipedia accounts, but you can certainly talk to us, either on our talk pages (I've edited the template above so you should now see a link to their talk page) or on article talk pages, which you can link to or mention in your edit summaries. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As I've now mentioned above, this seems to be a content dispute so there should be no need for ANI. The claim you can't talk to the editor because they lack an account is incorrect. Since this concerns disputes over an article's content, discussion needs to be held on the article talk page anyway, not on the editors talk page. As there has been no real attempt at discussion by either party on the article talk page about the major issues and the only recent comment there is from the IP, both parties can be said to be at fault for the lack of discussion. In other words, you IloveKVariety need to attempt to initiate discussion on the article talk page. If the IP does not respond only is there reason to come to ANI. If you don't do that, then you don't have a legitimate complaint because you're aloso at fault for failing to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The proper parties have been notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2017 (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.
Perhaps it is nothing, and there should be a better place to raise this but I can't find it, and all advice appreciated.
But do not log on to the site whose URL is linked below until its status is clarified. Admins in particular. Look at it, but don't give it your password no matter how convincingly it asks. Be VERY careful.
I'm very concerned about
[REDACTED - Oshwah]
which I stumbled upon by accident.
It appears to me that it MAY be a very sophisticated sham site, possibly mimicking Wikipedia for the purpose of capturing user passwords.
Am I missing something? Is it a legitimate alias or mirror?
email me or comment below or on my talk page. TIA Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
That links not working for me, says the server cannot be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. Here is the whois. I imagine someone should contact the Foundation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Or set up a new account here and then log in on that other site and then see what happens to your account :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I clicked on Create an account for the hell of it. It said I was editing from a proxy that had been blocked by a particular steward. However, if it hadn't, I wouldn't have actually created the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No, what Count I means is create a new acct here on the authentic WP, then go over to the fake and try login in to that account there, and see what happens. While that sounds safe, I certainly wouldn't try it. Since these guys are obviously up to no good, who knows what malware lurks? EEng 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it wasn't working for me because I was on a mobile device, works with my computer. This is very weird, it appear to be a complete clone of WP, histories, user pages and all, but no images. I'm going to contact the back office. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 noteI'm not sure this is as nefarious as we are thinking, it may be a benign mirror actually hosted by the WMF. Pinging @Mdennis (WMF): just so she can see this discussion and comment if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Why does that somehow not surprise me? EEng 05:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll respond for Maggie :), We've made sure the proper folks within the WMF are aware and can look at it/the owners. I can confirm that we do not own the site and you should definitely not input your login information into their login page. Besides not working it (nor being a secure page) you are definitely giving the owners of the site the chance to capture your password. Jalexander--WMF 06:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Just an observation that it seems to be dynamic - I just made some edits here, and then looked at Wykipedia and there they are already. I don't think this is actually a copy/clone, I suspect Wykipedia is just routing URLs and responses to and from Wikipedia and changing Wykipedia <-> Wikipedia in each direction. And the reason account creation won't work there is possibly because it appears (to Wikipedia) to be coming from the Wykipedia IP and not your own. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. And that is exactly the way many spoof sites capture financial institution passwords. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@EEng, Andrewa, and Beeblebrox: Just a note, I created an account called BigLife228 here, went over to Wykipedia, and it said "You are centrally logged in. Reload the page..." (You know what it says.) I refreshed the page, and it redirected me to the Main Page of here (the secure and actual WP). I don't know what the [censored] is going on. This is confusing me enough. Email me if you need more details. Yoshi24517ChatOnline 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
User with ownership behavior and uncivil attitude[edit]
WIthdrawn after a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2017 (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.
For example he reverted Dr. K's additions to the page on the grounds that the cited sources were... "Trivial truism" [16] which is not true and I have explained that to him here: [17] where I even provided more sources myself to soothe Future Perfect's unreasonable concerns.
Later, I have tried adding new content: [18] about the official statement by the Italian government (which was released in response to Turkey disputing international treaties), but Future Perfect stepped in and rightfully added the term [sic] to it, [19] which I didn't mind. However, shortly after that minor edit, he apparently decided that he didn't liked the phrase and paraphrased it as whole, even the quotations with the keywords in it, and thus, effectively undoing the meaning of the statement in the first place. I wish Future Perfect consulted with me on the article's talk page first before doing that, but he did not. I tried to recover the lost sentence but any of my subsequent attempts were followed by more of his reverts. The tensions between me and him at this point escalated further.
The fact that he arguments he used for reverting my work, were not convincing and insisted in his positions. For example he revert my revert to him, on the grounds that the Italian government's statement is... "pompous and cumbersome" [20], which took me by surprise given how the sentence BARELY is more than 2 text lines!
When I asked him for explanation for his actions, he responded to me [21] that "The only effect [...] would be to give the (Italian Government's) statement extra loudness – which may seem attractive to you, because you evidently like to trumpet things out to the reader at maximum volume if they are sympathetic to your POV, but that's not the way serious encyclopedia authors write.", and thus telling me with simple words that a quotation from source serves as... "extra loudness", and that the official statement by the Italian government regarding the 1932 treaty is POV! His response baffled me.
His arguments were poor and not convincing - I fail to understand how the technical term "continuously valid" (which the Italian Government uses to refer to the nature of the agreement in question as being has being continuously in effect since 1930s and means that no parties could 60 years later, in 1990s, unilaterally declare them invalid), can be POV, since it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV Policy at all, since the text in question is quoted while the rest is attributed neutrally by us editors. But his refusal to be reasoned, gave me the impression that Future Perfect is rather trying maintain a certain POV in the article by WP:CENSORing the information (or have it paraphrased in an way to have its original meaning from the source obscured or altered), just because he doesn't like it.
Tried to explain to him that while information from sources can be paraphrased with our own words, this should be done as per WP:INTEXT and not at the expense of original word choices, and not in an way that the original meaning of the attributed text is censored or altered. [22]. Even made a compromise to soothe Fut.Perf.'s concerns that the information is "too cumbersome", by reducing the text on the article, without removing the quoted sentence and maintaining Italy's original wording in quotations [23]. I thought this could keep both of us statisfied but apparently I was wrong, because he reverted -again- the compromised version back to his own version and gave me a cold response with insults: [24].
To me it appears that Future Perfect at Sunrise insists on his faulty positions and doesn't seem to be interested for working towards reaching a consensus. He rather became impolite and uncivil while he clearly knows that by being uncivil with others, reduces like-hood for reaching a consensus. He called me an "incompetent" [25] just because I do not agree with him imposing a very EXACT re-wording to me and furthermore he asked me to leave the article alone [26], a clear case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
I asked him to be more WP:CIVIL and strike/remove the insults [27], but he refused [28] and responded back [29] with even more insults: "I have no patience left to try to "work with you", and I will refuse to treat you as a bona fide contributor to be taken seriously in discussion from now on. I have reverted your edit again, as it was reintroducing a (likely) factual falsehood about the wording of the quotation". -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So it's ok to have a (likely) factual falsehood about the wording of the quotation, but an uncivil outburst needs admin attention? Skimming the talk page shows there is a very clear explanation about the points mentioned above with a likely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. By the way, WP:CENSOR has nothing to do with this topic—please don't add stuff just to make the report look more impressive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Having read through that talkpage, while Fut.Perf's wording is more brusque than any I would use, his actions are very clearly not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you assertion of this would seem to back up his view that you are not engaging properly in the discussion. Particularly revealing in that respect was near the start of the talkpage discussion where he broke down his opposition into detail per source, and your reply was "You are dismissing sources just because -in your opinion- the "EU Parliament was an institution of even less actual power back in the 1990s" and "Commission, Council, and Council of Ministers were much more reluctant to take sides"?", which ignored the huge bulk of his response to focus on the last paragraph. Fut.Perf's frustration is clearly due to the lack of engagement shown in responses like that. CMD (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Your opinions are very welcomed. If it is my failure to understand his arguments, - and you believe that his arguments are valid - then I will no longer object to him on this matter. I will just step back and just let it go. If his frustration is stemming from my inability to understand what he means, then I owe him an apology. And if I may ask here, you mentioned the term Factual Falsehood. May I ask for the definition? Sorry for this but English is not my native language. Search engine seems to give any results about the words as separate, but no definition of the term as whole. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
In light of the above opinions, I have stopped objecting to Future Perfect's edits on the article and let them stay. I trust in you that there is nothing wrong with him paraphrasing the sentence and that there is no censorship attempt and everyone has my apologies for my failure in understanding/adopting his arguments. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
IP blocked, discussion opened at Spam-blacklist. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2017 (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.
Continued spamming after warning. Would a limited-time school block be appropriate here? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Fpgatutorials (talk·contribs) is adding the same external links. Digging a little deeper, I find that Fpga4student (talk·contribs) was also making these edits and got blocked by Materialscientist for spamming. I'll block both the IP editor and the registered editor, but it looks like other Singaporean IP editors have been adding these links for the past two weeks or so. It might worth raising the issue at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Edit revision deleted and emergency contacted. If in doubt please report it. -- Samtartalk · contribs 09:39, 6 February 2017 (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.
Does this seem like a threat of some sort? I reverted it, but it possibly needs RevDel. Let me know what you think. Yoshi24517ChatOnline 04:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: I am not notifying the editor, he is already blocked. Yoshi24517ChatOnline 04:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really think that rises to the level of RevDel, it's not really aimed at anyone in particular and is virtually certain to be just childish vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I requested rev'del on IRC and I also emailed emergency. --Cameron11598(Talk) 9:39 pm, Today (UTC−8)
The discussion above 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.
Greek nationalists trying to hide the Aromanian ancestry of Dimitri Nanopoulos[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.
Greek nationalists try to hide the Aromanian ancestry of Dimitri Nanopoulos: [30]. Please guard the article to ensure that the information about his Aromanian ancestry is not deleted. Dimitri Nanopoulos revealed his Aromanian ancestry in his interview but the Greek nationalists try to censor this information from Wikipedia. Жиенду (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Жиенду: This is a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI. Moreover, the diff you provide is of one editor with only four edits (not "Greek nationalists") removing text that is extremely poorly-written and out-of-place. What is "his interview"? It isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. If you want to make a claim that someone is pushing a POV, you first need to make sure that there isn't a perfectly reasonable excuse for making the edit they did, and allow them to make more than four edits, and make some effort to discuss with them. You didn't even inform them that you had opened an ANI discussion of them, something that you are required to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Greek nationalists have infiltrated Wikipedia and push their POVs everywhere. His interview is the interview in the reference link that the Greek nationalists removed. They remove valid reputable sources. Жиенду (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Nationalists of all shapes and sizes are all over Wikipedia and have been for a long time. Honestly, given the behaviour demonstrated on the talk page of that article and in your edit summaries, it looks far more like you are the nationalist editor, and you are showing significant signs of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Your first edit was nine minutes before your coming here, and the article in question has not seen any edit-warring or tendentious behaviour before. Additionally, your claim that [t]hey remove valid reputable sources is demonstrably bogus; you added a new citation to the lead of the article that had never appeared there before, and you had copy-pasted it from an earlier version of the body of the article, where it still appeared, properly formatted, when you claimed it had been "removed".[31]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Close I was assuming good faith until now, but I really should have NACced this thread as soon as I saw it. The OP is an obvious sock-puppet of the indeffed user who originally added the material nine days earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
NeilN spilt some characters and then dealt with the issue -- Samtartalk · contribs 12:44, 6 February 2017 (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.
See this page for a list of similar page hijackings.
The dab page and its history need to be restored. Thank you.
Maybe I should make myself a template... — Gorthian (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
%$@?!%!!. Dealt with. --NeilNtalk to me 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, NeilN. These are rather frustrating.— Gorthian (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 yet ripe for AN or ANI---S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (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 place to talk about this content dispute is on the article talk page, not on ANI - while there is some discussion on this matter there needs to be more, and if this does not resolve the issue there are other means of dispute resolution.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 Vyvek threatening with his other admin account[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.
Somewhat unlikely - either way, I've tried flagging a checkuser on IRC and I'll pop {{checkuser needed}} here. I'm not entirely sure if there's a sufficient enough reason to check though -- Samtartalk · contribs 12:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
If this is actually an admin, I will be very surprised - it sounds like a kid. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh it's almost 100% not, but with the above quacking edit I think a check should be done. If an admin gets blocked as related then I'll eat my mop -- Samtartalk · contribs 12:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Good guess, but based on geolocation, that identification is highly unlikely. —DoRD (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The technical data is not useful. I've blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
OP blocked as a sock of Kumasojin 熊襲 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2017 (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:Florian Blaschke is vanalizing different pages, deleting source and inforamtions and behaves unecyclopedic.
Please can someone check him and stop him from vandalitzing wikipedia. Thanks일성강 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You did not notify the user, as it clearly states at the top of window when you edit this page. Additionally, reviewing your edits I would suggest you may want to duck the WP:BOOMERANG heading in your direction, because I do detect a great deal of edit warring, and refusal to seek consensus for edits made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Deleted, salted and blocked – sounds completed---S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 6 February 2017 (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.
NEwly recreated page has been deleted and salted, and I have indef'd the editor for repeatedly spamming this movie over and over. There was no attempt to discuss from this editor, all the multiple warnings went unheeded. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 update is in order: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meer Refat Ahmed. At least one sockpuppet account has continued the creation of the articles and has been blocked. Thanks to the admins who are dealing with this abusive user. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
When the movie is released, someone can write a real article about it via AFC, and, when a reviewer agrees that it is notable, an admin can be requested to move the title past the salt mine. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
When the movie is released, if that ever happens, than once notability is agreed upon by a consensus discussion (assuming it is agreed that the movie has turned out to be notable, not a total box-office flop which almost nobody notices or reviews in a reliable source), shouldn't the "salting" be removed so that an article can be created, rather than having to first write an article elsewhere and then move it? Is there something I'm missing? (For the moment, I agree the salting should stay, I just think once it's agreed that the notability threshold has been crossed, it should be removed - in theory, even if it has yet to be released? There have been occasions where the build-up to a release of a movie or book has been notable even pre actual release, such as the frenzy leading up to the Harry Potter book releases, many years ago, which was covered in many reliable sources. Not that I'm suggesting that to be the case here, I have no idea about this movie at all, never heard of it). Given that there are clearly individuals interested in using spamming to promote this movie, any article (assuming one eventuates) would probably need to be heavily policed to keep the spammers out. Eliyohub (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
*Darkhawk is warned to cease their disruptive editing, and to have regard for content guidelines like WP:SPOILER.
There is insufficient evidence in this thread to support the allegation of sockpuppetry; if more evidence is compiled it should be lodged at WP:SPI.
Darkhawk hasn't edited since the warning, and conversation seems to have ceased in this thread. However please re-report either here or on my talkpage if problems recur. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2017 (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 think Darkhawk is editing in good faith. Their user page currently reads "your mom" ([38]), the user seems to be going through articles and removing spoilers (a direct violation of WP:SPOILER) despite multiple reverts and edit warring at Unbreakable (film), and the user was making suspicious edits regarding the removal of sales data and proclaimed "advertisement" (which can be seen on their contributions and Talk Page). The user also vandalisedDC Extended Universe, before neglecting to explain why, when asked. Given the removal of spoilers and this response on their Talk Page, it would seem that they may WP:NOTHERE. Going by how long this account has been around, I wonder if this might be a compromised account. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This user removed a spoiler from Unbreakable (film) on February 4,[39] and he did the same on January 23.[40] We have seen a lot of IPs, including both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, do the same recently. It might be worthwhile to check if Darkhawk is related to any of them. Especially since his post today on the talkpage[41] echoes the post of an IPv6 editor a few days ago.[42]Debresser (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Given this edit here, we may have a sock puppet situation on our hands. It's an amazing coincidence that this vandalism-only account was created and came out-of-nowhere almost immediately after I filed this report. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Then again, all of the pages that EdwardMorris has vandalised (except for this discussion) have been related to users that reverted him at the Irvine, California article (which Darkhawk has never edited, according to an edit history search). DarkKnight2149 23:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
All due respect, but what the heck is wrong with you people? Someone keeps sticking a spoiler into the intro for Unbreakable, and I keep having to go back in there to remove it. I'm doing Wiki's work, here, and I don't understand why there's a massive discussion by a bunch of strangers about whether I'm acting in bad faith? - Darkhawk
You have been pointed to WP:SPOILER repeatedly now. And if you aren't editing in bad faith (I hope this is a misunderstanding), could you please explain the other questionable edits mentioned? DarkKnight2149 23:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't you people have better things to do? I'm an infrequent Wiki editor who tried to make one good-faith change on the stupidly spoilery Unbreakable (movie) article. Why are multiple talking about me like (a) I don't exist, and (b) like I did something terrible? (Also: when are you going to remove the spoiler from the intro to Split. I know you don't remove spoilers from Plot Summaries, but you should for introductory paragraphs. How many people do you think are currently looking up the movie Unbreakable because Shyamalan is hot again?) - Darkhawk
EdwardMorris just looks like a run-of-the-mill vandal to me. There are so many that I don't see much reason for him to be a sock of anyone in particular. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought he was a sock at first, but now I'm on the fence for the reason I mentioned above. Still not sure why they commented on this discussion, though. DarkKnight2149 05:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the discussion closure mentioned the spoiler removals and possible sock, but absolutely nothing else. The admin missed the entire point of the report. Darkhawk still hasn't attempted to explain their highly questionable behaviour. DarkKnight2149 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to wait and see what occurs in the future? DarkKnight2149 17:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what a faith user is, but this does sound like a bad one. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I've reopened the thread as there's interest in continuing to discuss it. For reference the previous close message is here. Have left Darkhawk a warning re both spoilers and their history of disruptive editing and let them know any continuation will result in a block. Others might have blocked them already, and if anyone feels that's necessary they can be my guest. Otherwise, suggest we see how they respond to the above and if they amend their approach. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
With the warning in mind, I think that's probably the best approach (though, given that this has been collecting dust on their Talk Page for several months, I wonder if they'll even try to defend themselves at this report; I guess we'll see). DarkKnight2149 01:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 has gone on past the point of productive discussion, and no direct administrative action seems forthcoming. May users have suggested that the involved users back off/avoid each other, but if that's not to your taste you can always try WP:ARBCOM. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2017 (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.
More, uninvolved eyes on these pages would be welcome, also to get more input on the actual discussions.
No admin action in the sense of blocks or the like is requested, just some pre-emptive cooler heads who can lead discussions into calmer waters. I have not informed others of this discussion, if you start discussing individual editors here then please inform them where needed. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You can add John S. Duncan to the list of problem articles as well. Fram (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, too late, User:RexxS is going off the rails at the moment. You can see the events at User talk:Fram, User talk:RexxS, John S. Duncan and Talk:John S. Duncan. Basically, he has reverted the article four times now in a few days time (if I count correctly), meanwhile repeatedly removing information from the infobox (superficially because it is unsourced, but in reality only things I added, and not the unsourced stuff added by others), causing the appearance of a duplicate website in the infobox for a while, all without adding any actual information to the article. Meanwhile, I have corrected information, added sources (despite his claim that the information was unverifiable), generally improved enwiki. It is quite annoying to get these efforts reverted time and again by someone whose only two interests at the moment are "keep the Wikidata infobox in the article at all costs" and "revert Fram at all costs". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Fram is edit-warring on John S. Duncan to restore his personal preference of an infobox that does not draw data from Wikidata:
That's four reverts of {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{Infobox person}} in two days, three of them in the last four hours. Is that a crossing of the "bright line" at WP:3RR? There's also the personal attack of calling my edit 'vandalism'. From WP:Vandal: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism ... Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful"
Actually, I don't want to see him sanctioned, I just want him to stop destroying the development work that Mike Peel has been doing. The Wikidata-aware infobox was added by Mike Peel, who is working to improve the functionality of infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. That is specifically permitted by a decisive RfC that Fram disagrees with, and he's been spending much of his time in attempting to prevent any implementation of that RfC.
Fram complains of issues with the use of Wikidata-aware infoboxes, and it's true that there will be teething problems when something new is introduced, but he does not accept that any issues that have arisen have been fixed promptly. He seems fixated on rolling back any progress in data-aware infoboxes. I'm more than happy to work with anyone to constructively improve the functionality of infoboxes, but Fram's attitude of "no change, no matter what" is becoming disruptive to good faith efforts of editors like Mike Peel to improve Wikipedia by making use of the resource at Wikidata. I would like to see Fram warned to calm down and discuss the problems he sees – I have proven time and again that I'm willing to address issues that are brought to my attention constructively. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Your first link is not a revert, it's an edit. I added the alma mater and his age. The version before your edits[43] was quite different. So that makes three reverts in two days, not four.
then you reverted me with the false edit summary "expanded infobox even further" when the only result was the removal of the alma mater field, and a duplication of the website due to an earlier error in the infobox Wikidata, which you would have seen had you checked your edit.
After I undid this edit of yours which clearly made the infobox a lot worse, you did a third revert, claiming "My edit did not duplicate the website and "Alma mater" is unsourced. Please stop adding unsourced content to this article". Too bad that 14 minutes earlier you had already made an edit which said [44] "sorry Mike that duplicates the website when a local value is present - see Talk:John S. Duncan". So you were very well aware that your edit duplicated the website, but decided to lie about it.
I then [45] readded the alma mater to the infobox, while also adding sources for it in the article. Yet, you once again reverted the infobox to remove the alma mater field.
Basically, over this edit war, I have constantly improved the article, while all RexxS has done is reverting back to older, less complete versions only because they had his precious Wikidata infobox, and because apparently anything unsourced I had touched needed removal (but anything unsourced added by anyone else could remain). meanwhile making it worse by spreading alternative facts in edit summaries and on the talk page ("That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part.", even though he removed the field from the infobox three times).
Can someone please explain to RexxS that we are here to make our articles better, not worse? Fram (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Peel changed the infobox from {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} on 22:16, 20 January 2017 - your first edit to the article reverted the wikidata version back to the original version. So yes, it was a revert. The fact that you also added an unsourced piece of information (alma mater was not sourced until today) to the infobox at the same time does not excuse you from edit-warring. You still seem to be intent on defending your behaviour by wiki-lawyering. You reverted to the previous version of that infobox four times in two days and three times in four hours. If that's not edit-warring, I'd like to know what is. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I was edit-warring to keep an improved version of the article. You were edit warring to... to do what exactly? To remove all progress if it was made by me on flimsy grounds? If you were worried about unsourced info in the infobox, you would have simply removed the infobox, since nothing in it was sourced. But that was never your intention or interest, obviously. I have repeatedly improved the article and the infobox; you have not made a single improvement to the article. Fram (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been significantly put off editing as a result of this campaign by Fram against the work I was doing with this infobox. It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted, and my attempts to improve things and listen to feedback are sidelined by further criticism from Fram with a very anti-Wikidata agenda. Unfortunately I also have other issues at the moment in real life that need more urgent attention, so I haven't been able to keep up with Fram's verbosity.
I should add that I haven't added {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to *any* articles that weren't already using it while this has been going on, I've just been working to improve the infobox so that it supports more options and data. A lot of my edits (such as the one RexxS links to above) were just due to me changing the infobox template from opt-out to opt-in, and updating the calls to it in articles so that they kept their opt-in status, nothing more. Most of the calls to this template were added by other users already working on the articles. Some of the articles that Fram has been edit-warring over have now had *more* edits about the infobox than about the article content! Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain how my edits have hampered your attempts to improve things. Shouldn't I have made edits like this one? Then please explain why not. Is this not a serious improvement of the article? There are more than 300 instances of the infobox left, you can experiment with it as much as you like (assuming that even has to be done in the mainspace in the first place). I have not pinged you, not bothered you with questions. Am I not allowed to improve these articles simply because you have edited them? I have not done any raw reverts of your additions, all I have done is (often significantly) improve a few articles. Like you said, you didn't even add these infoboxes in the first place, you only did a minor change on then, so why are you so bothered when a few get removed by me while I improve the article (e.g. by switching to a different, better suited infobox which doesn't have the /Wikidata version). Fram (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I would think that nominating the template for deletion that Mike's currently working on counts as having "hampered your attempts to improve things". No? I really hope we don't lose a editor of Mike's calibre over this crusade of Fram's. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I was going with his "It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted " comment. And we can hardly not nominate a template for deletion because it might cause us to lose an editor. Everything you do here can be edited, reverted, removed, deleted... That's part of the deal of editing Wikipedia. Some people want to keep the template, some agree with deleting it, so it at least isn't uncontroversial or just me who has a problem with it (and neither is it only you or Mike Peel who defends it). That's why we have things like TfD. Fram (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to edits like this one - where Infobox Person/Wikidata is unnecessarily converted to the non-Wikidata one. Of which there were a number, and you are still doing this kind of edit. The ones you've linked to here look good to me, as they're switching to a more appropriate infobox than Infobox Person. The others were just POINTy. Add that to the discussion you started about the template and one of my edits (without even bothering to ping me), followed quickly by nominating the template for deletion, in both cases. This has felt like a systematic attack, without respite to work through with the (sometimes valid) issues you were raising. I'm grateful to RexxS and others for having much higher capacity to deal with these than I have right now. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
But what is actually made worse or impossible by edits like [46] or [47]? The Wikidata infobox is still active on hundreds of articles, so any test you want to do can proceed. On the other hand, both articles were improved with my edit. On the first one, the Wikidata infobox has been reinstated, with the loss of many information as result (the only field that is fetched from Wikidata is one that was first sourced, by me, on enwiki when I was improving the article). The Margaret Fell article has in the Wikidata version of the infobox a link to the Wikidata item "theologian", because according to the template enwiki doesn't have an article theologian. My version had more information in the infobox, and internal links to an article instead of a link to a Wikidata item. Fram (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that you are continuing to remove the Wikidata-enabled version of the infobox from articles, I'm assuming that you won't stop until there are no more articles using the infobox. The Wikidata version only has added functionality compared to the main one, so you could easily have made the changes you have without changing the template used - but you've been pointedly not doing that. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
At the speed I am removing these, it will take a few months before even the current ones would be gone, never mind any that may have been added since then. "The Wikidata version only has added functionality"? No, it also has visual clutter, and links to Wikidata items where we have our own articles which don't get recognised by Wikidata, and so on. It also is a template which get changed often, resulting in errors like your duplicate website yesterday. Having such experimental templates on too many articles isn't a good idea. And the current version, where unsourced entries don't get copied, may seem better, but the quality of the sourcing at Wikidata is not good enough to trust these (e.g. the birth date of José Eduardo Agualusa is taken from Wikidata, and has a source there; but Wikidata has a full date, while the source only has the year). Coupled with the fact that most editors don't watch Wikidata changes (so don't know when the values in the infobox on their articles may be changed), that Wikidata changes are rather hard to interpret in the watchlist anyway, that the sources on Wikidata don't get shown here, and that using the Wikidata infobox we may easily get entries in the infobox which don't match the text of the article, which is not what infoboxes are for, and I think there are enough reasons to not have this on too many articles (if any) and the claim that it only adds functionality seems a bit optimistic. Fram (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You have good points here. *Please* raise them individually on the talk page for the template, and we can work through them. Things like visual clutter can easily be dealt with, if discussed sensibly rather than edit-warring. I agree that experimental templates on too many articles isn't good, but you could have raised that point to start with so we could figure out how to minimize any interim disruption while testing (e.g., through the sandbox that has now been set up). I'm making more mistakes than usual at the moment because of the disruptive way this discussion has been going. "most editors don't watch Wikidata changes" needs a citation. I'm happy to help with problems with specific articles, just ping me to let me know of the problem and I'll have a look. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: Please have a look at José Eduardo Agualusa again - it should look better now. Let me know if you spot any similar issues and I'll look into them. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about pro- or antiwikidata, this is about editor behaviour. Fram (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you could moderate your behaviour, it would be much appreciated. —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
So I should stop improving these articles because it puts Mike Peel off and because RexxS is going to revert back anyway? And meanwhile RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries? Your comments seem to be a bit one-sided (but then again, you wanted to keep the template because it is "worth it for raising awareness of Wikidata", so I shouldn't be surprised that that bias comes through here as well). Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries". Fram, you need to keep it civil here. I'm prepared to put up with your smears, insults and personal attacks only for so long, before I have to conclude that sanctioning you is the only way to get some respite from your personal animosity. As an admin, you should be setting an example, not trying to drag the discussion down to the level of the gutter. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want criticism of e.g. your edit summaries or your many mistakes in describing what happened, then don't make so many errors. Claims like [48] "Claims from Wikidata are not automatically imported by this infobox, but filtered to remove any unsourced information.", which wasn't true at the time you made it (and which is a basic asspect of the infobox), should not need correcting by me. Can I also point out that you said at the TfD "Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs is nothing but a collection scare-mongering and outright untruths, initiated by the nominator of this AfD, as part of his campaign against Wikidata." If you want a civilized, ault discussion, it might help if you don't dismiss the concerns of others, many illustrated with examples, in such an extremely dismissive way. Accepting that both sides have good reasons for their position is the first step in understanding each other. Dismissing everything the other said in such negative terms is unlikely to get any results. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You're still defending that attack page you created at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs. I commented there in good faith, thinking it was a genuine effort to gather neutral, accurate information, giving both pros and cons as I saw them, until you removed my positive comments and allowed complete untruths like "Wikidata edits violate WP:V and WP:BLP" to stand and gather traction. If you want a civilised, adult discussion, you're going to have to stop your mud-slinging campaign to denigrate the use of Wikidata in Wikipedia. Similarly, I'll ask you to consider how your comment applies to yourself, because you've been dismissing everything said by the people you perceive as the other side. I've bent over backwards to accommodate concerns raised and I've solved every single one over the last several days. You've never once acknowledged the efforts I've put in to make sure that a work in progress is able to meet your highly-demanding standards. I understand you perfectly well. I'm always open to constructive suggestions, but your only aim is to completely destroy the work that has been done in making use of the resources at Wikidata. Change your tack and look for common ground if you want to get any results, because I'll oppose you all the way if you persist in trying to roll back the clock to 2012. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Fram, I have a lot of respect for you (no, seriously I do, you do a lot of good work around here in protecting the encyclopedia's integrity and factual accuracy and to deny that would be batshit insane), but the only reason I am not blocking you for edit-warring and personal attacks is because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and must recuse myself from any administrative actions involving you, except to say (to both you and RexxS) - stop this, now, or it will end in tears. Or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And the fact that I edit warred while improving articles, and the other side in the edit war reverted while making the articles worse, plays no role in your position? That's a bit disappointing. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And here I thought you can't edit war, even while right. I guess being an admin does have its privileges. As for your being disappointed, I'm not sure why. Ritchie never said the other side wasn't edit warring, he merely pointed out your edit warring and personal attacks. I'd take his advice and ease up. Sir Joseph(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, he said I would get blocked, and RexxS not, even though I improved articles and he didn't (and he didn't refrain from personal attacks either). Anyway, it is rather clear that asking here for some extra eyes before things escalate is fruitless. Fram (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
That's another unpleasant calumny. I've been improving articles at the same rate as you have, although in many cases, I've been adding information and references to Wikidata, so that the improvements can be shared by all the other language Wikipedias as well here on the English Wikipedia. I've also been responding to the technical issues brought to me, like making the source filter on by default, updating the documentation, and improving the capitalisation in infobox fields like "occupation" - see Paul Sabatier (theologian) and my complementary edits on Wikidata as an example from tonight. It's not appropriate to dismiss other editors' work simply because they choose to contribute in a different way from you. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Allright, I looked at Paul Sabatier. You added sources (on Wikidata) for his date of birth and death. The problems are manifold though. You couldn't find a reference for his post as professor in Strasbourg: this can easily be sourced to [49]. Hmm, that source gives different dates than your source, what's up? On Wikidata, you made a lot of changes[50], but I have no idea how you actually verified them. You added the place and date of death from Britannica, which is of course a very good source. But you sourced a 1928 date of death to the 1911 Britannica. You used the same source for his citizenship (not really stated in the article, but probably correct), and his alma mater. You claim it is the University of Paris, while in reality it was the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Paris. And in your idal world, these errors would have spread to 7 (current versions of the article) or 300 languages at once. I wouldn't call your changes to the Sabatier article "improvements". Fram (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the source for Paul Sabatier's professorship - I've been able to give a decent reference for university teacher (Q1622272) in his entry. However, the dates of birth and death in BnF seem a little off: 9 August 1858 – 5 March 1928, whereas my 1989 Britannica gives 3 August 1858 – 4 March 1928. It's not enough to worry about, but it shows one of those sources is inaccurate. Anyway, I'm also grateful for spotting my faux pas with the 11th edition. I had fully intended to check in my 15th edition, but it was clearly too late at night to be trying to remember. I've tidied up Paul Sabatier (Q885424) and added the Britannica source to the article, because I don't think the place of death was sourced in any of the other references. I'm fairly certain that a source that states that his brother Auguste Sabatier was French is sufficient to imply Paul Sabatier was was also a French citizen, would you agree? The "educated at University of Paris" was already in Wikidata ("imported from English Wikipedia") when I arrived at the entry, so it's simply untrue to state that it was my claim. I was able, however, to correct that error today in the Wikidata entry and I'm pleased you corrected our article here. The error I made, referencing the 11th edition instead of the 15th edition lasted less than 24 hours and is unlikely to have broken 300 other projects in the meantime. Sadly the University of Paris mistake has been around for much longer, and does give weight to the argument that more editors are needed to comb through Wikidata for these sort of problems. It's comforting to realise that had Mike's infobox project not taken place, both Paul Sabatier (theologian) and Paul Sabatier (Q885424) would not have had such much-needed attention. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"it's simply untrue to state that it was my claim." You "sourced" it, giving it validity and visibility. So yes, it is your claim. "Citizenship" should only be used in an infobox when it is somehow surprising or disputed, not here. Sabatier's place of death was sourced by me in the article, no idea why you claimed otherwise. Your "source" for his corrected alma mater is "Encyclopedia Britannica", no edition or anything added. Right... Without this infobox, we could have spent time correcting articles on one site (enwiki) without multiple reverts, errors in infoboxes, and a general waste of much time. All this project has shown is that instead of simplifying things, it makes editing necessary on both sides, duplicating most of the effort, and with some editors more intent on protecting their project than improving enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I merely added a reference to an already existing claim, so no, it's not my claim. Don't you recognise the difference between adding content and adding a reference? You're prepared to wikilawyer just to try to sling mud at me. That has to stop. "Citizenship" should only be used in an infobox when it is somehow surprising or disputed, not here. That's a distortion of our current practice. The documentation says "Should only be used if citizenship cannot be inferred from the birthplace; note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders." Most readers would have to look up that Saint-Michel-de-Chabrillanoux is in France, and not in Switzerland or St Lucia, etc. This infobox offers the citizenship as a field, and an editor who gains consensus that it is not needed can easily suppress it |suppressfields=citizenship. In those cases, it has the advantage that the consensus is clear and removes the possibility that someone will add it locally, thinking that it has been forgotten. In this edit you added 'place of death' as Strasbourg without any way to verify it. It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V. My goal in this throughout has been to foster the development of new facilities derived from the new resource at Wikidata in a responsive and collaborative manner. Contrast that with your blatant intent to simply protect the status quo at all costs and without consideration. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"Don't you recognise the difference between adding content and adding a reference?" Yes. Adding a "reference" to a claim gives the impression that you have confirmed that claim in that reference. If the reference doesn't confirm the claim, your action is a lot worse than adding an unreferenced claim in itself. That's not mudslinging, that's highlighting problematic editing, and (which you did just know) exposing the twisted reasoning behind it. You claim that in this edit I added the place of death "without any way to verify it". Strange, I added as reference an encyclopedia[51] which has a lemma about Paul Sabatier, including year and place of death. From Template:Infobox person: "ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself." The info was added and sourced by me in the article, as preferred at infobox person. "It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V." is thus not true at all, and my source has the advantage of being available online (which is not a requirement, but beneficial for readers and editors alike). Please, if you want to complain about mudslinging, at least make sure that your efforts actually have any basis in reality. Fram (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata really needs to find a better way to link to our redirects than temporarily changing them on enwiki into "articles" just to be able to make an item on Wikidata (and how stupid is it that you can't make an item for a current redirect, but everything works fine if the item points to something that is then turned into a redirect?) See e.g. this.
And I hope I am allowed to replace or remove infoboxes which give the poor result we currently get at e.g. Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício? See the image on the right to see what the infobox (without any local parameters) now looks like (I have not edited the page, so this is not some effort to produce poor results, but actual reality). Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You get the exact same result as shown on the right on other pages as well, e.g. Simos Menardos, Gloria Cuesta or Suzanne Bernard. Aubrey Feist has a box with only her name. Rudolf Schleiden has his picture, and "died" (same for many others). Edward Bergh has his picture, "died", and citizenship. Citizenship is a parameter which rarely if ever should be used (according to the infobox person documentation only when it differs from what can be expected and is really worth mentioning separately), but is included in many of the Wikidata infoboxes. Fram (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is a consequence of the switch to only showing sourced information - there is more info already on Wikidata, it just needs references adding. I've partially done this for Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício and, if you give me time, I'll continue working through the rest of the articles too. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the template needs changing (or deleting) to solve this. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not need deleting. Just give us time to work on it. And AN/I is *not* the place to discuss template changes - the template talk page is. Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
But you don't need 300+ mainspace articles to work on it surely? No deadline is no excuse for "we put our dodgy software with a new problem every day into the mainspace wherever we want to". Fram (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I solved it for you (on the template level), feel free to revert if you get unwanted side effects. Fram (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You did indeed solve it, Fram. I'm sincerely grateful to you spotting the problem and fixing it so rapidly. I do agree that we'll still need a awful lot more referencing on Wikidata before the template becomes a serious candidate to replace {infobox person}. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
And still we have articles claiming someone who died over 30 years ago is alive and 107 years old, or RexxS "fixing" redirects on enwiki to get Wikidata to work ([52], [53], [54]), and so on and on and on. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Fram, the infobox displayed this because there wasn't a death date on Wikidata. If there isn't a death date, one would assume that the person is alive. This was immediately fixed after I added a death date on Wikidata. Laurdecltalk 09:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the infobox displayed this because you (plural) are trying to automate things which need manual intervention in way too many cases. You really don't believe that this is the only article among the 300 or so with this infobox with this problem, do you? Fram (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Getting worse and worse, sourcing BLPs to porn sites[edit]
User:Laurdecl has been pushing this infobox as well, but I wonder about motives and/or competence. This user decided that this BLP didn't only need sourced elements in the Wikidata infobox, and that Wikidata values were better than local ones. At the same time, they "sourced" the article at Wikidata.[55]. The source they used is this NSFW link [ http://kompleks7215.pl/David_Abiker.html (this link generates random results, often porn sites, so don't use it if you can get into trouble!). I have removed the infobox from the article (of course), but I can't take action against the editor as I am involved. Both the editor and the infobox need some solution rather urgently I think. Fram (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the correct link:http://www.premiere.fr/Star/David-Abiker. I was deceived by the Google text preview, which appeared to be a biography of him, and the title, which was "David Abiker Biography". Laurdecltalk 20:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe I copied the wrong link from Google search (whoops!) when I was looking for a source. I haven't added this infobox to a single article, how am I pushing anything? Why did you post this at AN/I..... Laurdecltalk 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, yes, you did add this infobox to articles?! [56]Fut.Perf.☼ 09:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Reaction from the editor at his talk page: "lol"[57]. Do we really need editors who don't take such situations seriously? We can't do anything about their Wikidata editing, but someone who takes his own mistakes (if that is what is was of course), introducing porn sites to BLP articles, as some kind of juvenile joke is hardly someone I want to see editing articles here... Fram (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Cry me a river. You attack me on another user's talk page, claiming that I have some kind of pro-Wikidata agenda, after I tried to add "(aged x)" after the birth date in the infobox. You then look through my contributions, ignoring all the dates I have sourced correctly, and take an honest mistake where I copied the wrong link from Google. You then try to out me on AN/I (or whatever you're doing here) because of your vendetta against Wikidata (also claiming that I "push" this template, which is patently false). In your attack above, you call me incompetent and make a thinly veiled request for another administrator to block me, because you don't like me trying to contribute to this template, as a worse template means your ridiculous TfD is more likely to succeed. If you hate this template, take it to ArbCom instead of attacking editors who disagree with you. Laurdecltalk 10:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In what way did I try to out you? Anyway, looking at your other "dates I have sourced correctly), I notice from the few you did the last days, Ludwig van Beethoven, where you added a source to his birthdate on Wikidata. Too bad that your source, Britannica, doesn't have your date in it.
Your kind of "improvements" are more likely to get the template deleted and Wikidata use more restricted on enwiki, than that they are improving the chances of survival of this template. Let's see, Rita Maiburg. You sourced her date of birth and death on Wikidata[58], thereby making sure that they appeared in the infobox. Nice work. But you sourced these to [59] which supports neither her date of birth nor her date of death, all it has is the info that she died in 1977, aged 25. Perhaps you just copied the wrong link again and wanted to include something like [60]? Perhaps, but that's now three incorrect (and in one case actually harmful) sourcing attempts, from the 8 you did yesterday. If that isn't a lack of competence, then what is? The template is at TfD, no need for ArbCom here. Fram (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree that adding fake sources to Wikidata in a series of several instances is a rather serious pattern of misconduct. Larudecl, please take this as a warning that you may be blocked even here on en-wp for disruptive edits made at Wikidata, if they are made with the intent and with the effect of affecting articles content here. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
What's this? More threats from the anti-Wikidata inquisition? After adding one incorrect source by accident and a source that is only accurate to the year, I get block threats for disruptive editing. I understand both of you hate Wikidata (actually I don't really understand, but), and I don't want to get caught up in whatever this is. All I tried to do was fix things that Fram had said in his TfD were broken, and I'm being threatened for it? Why? Because an improvement to this infobox means it's less likely to be deleted? Laurdecltalk 20:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Not "one" incorrect source. Fram just cited two cases (Beethoven and Rita Maiburg). I just found two more, among the three or four latest pages you edited on Wikidata: Charles Conrad Abbott (where there was an unsourced death date and you added a source that, again, supports only the year but not the exact date), and Helen Mackay (where there was an unsourced death date and you added a source that actually gave a different date [61]). You seem completely oblivious to the fact that such edits are detrimental. They are; stop doing that. If you add a source to something, it has to support exactly what it is claimed to support; everything else is disruptive and deeply irresponsible, no matter if it's here or on Wikidata. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding references that don't support the facts being referenced is definitely not OK, neither here or on Wikidata. WP:AGF, though - at least in the case of Helen Mackay this looks like it's an easy mistake to make (15-7 vs. 17-7, easy to misread, particularly given that the typo is already present in the article). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
With Charles Conrad Abbott, the death date was correct, and I've now added a new reference for that date. The reference added by Laurdecl was useful for referencing a number of the other statements. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I accept that I used inadequate references at least twice on Wikidata, that only support the death/birth year instead of the full date. At the time I was rushing to add references to stop Fram from removing the template because of seemingly incorrect dates. I apologise for that, and I will take more care in the future when referencing on Wikidata. A simple note on my talk page would have sufficed. However, Fram makes a thread on AN/I about me (while declaring he has ""obviously"" removed the infobox from the article) and makes a thinly veiled request for another administrator to block me. What's up with this? I have no ill feelings toward Fram, but his first impression of me is that I'm some idiotic Wikidata crusader who doesn't take criticism and ruins articles (his own words) [62]. Fram then says here: "I have seen your true colours... Bye". What true colours, am I the Antichrist or something? What kind of hostile behaviour is this, especially from an administrator? Laurdecltalk 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
And what is so incredibly terrible about "removing the template" (usually replacing the /Wikidata version with the standard version) that you need to rush to make incorrect changes just to prevent this from happening? You have shown that you believe it to be more important to keep this template in an article than to get correct (or even acceptable) references in enwiki or Wikidata. That are your true colours. Not the Antichrist, you are rather keen on hyperbole it seems, but someone who doesn't haev the right perspective and lacks the right set of priorities (just like RexxS and a few others who are more worried about pushing Wikidata than about getting it right apparently). What did you expect, a hug? Yes, "obviously" I removed the infobox, sending readers to a site which "references" that BLP from a pornsite (not even a pornsite about that subject, just a totally unconnected site) should be prevented asap. You seem to question the obviousness of that removal even after all this? Fram (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Fram, you know you're not actually allowed to randomly remove this infobox from articles when their authors have opted in, this was the outcome of the 2013 RfC... Why didn't you remove the source on Wikidata, instead of the entire template? I get that you don't like the consensus that supports this template, but edit warring, personal attacks and forum-shopping is not the right way to change things. Also, please don't insult RexxS, I'm sure his editing is of a far higher caliber than mine (which isn't hard). And yes, I would like a hug, if you're offering. Please calm down, this AN/I and the TfD are the size of a small novel. Laurdecltalk 08:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me on which articles I have removed the infobox when the authors of the article have opted in? In most (probably all) cases the infobox was added by other editors, usually as their only edit to the article. No RfC has decided "if anyone adds a Wikidata template to an article, no one is ever allowed to change it to a non-Wikidata infobox ever again, not even to improve the infobox or to get rid of problems the Wikidata infobox may cause". Please don't lecture people on what they are "allowed" to do if you don't know what you are talking about. I hope your position is your own mistake and not the standard mindset of the people supporting this /wikidata infobox. 09:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmm.......I'm not lecturing you Fram, and I consider "you don't know what you are talking about" a personal attack. Multiple independent editors who aren't involved with Wikidata or this template have added it to pages. The distinction between them and you is that you are mass removing this template because you don't like it. That is what this is about, nothing else, not about me being an idiot as you have insinuated. You don't like the template and you want it gone. End of story. Don't deny it. Laurdecltalk 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so "you know you're not actually allowed to randomly remove this infobox from articles when their authors have opted in," when I have never (AFAIK) removed the infobox from any pages where the authors have opted in is not "lecturing" me. Fine, then it is a nice example of a strawman argument. If you did know what you were talking about, you were deliberately using a strawman argument to give the impression that I have gone against the wishes of article creators or major contributors. If I were you, I'ld prefer the "personal attack" and accept that you didn't know what you were talking about, instead of claiming that you deliberately told nonsensical lines to give the impression that I was doing things that aren't allowed.
As for the distinction between the people who have added the infobox, and me: they have in most cases just added it and left it to produce whatever results happened, whether these were good or bad, whether it produced empty infoboxes or infoboxes with some results (like only a date of birth), ... I have changed these in most cases to much more complete infoboxes, filled with information from the article, sometimes with added (correct!) sources, sometimes with a more precise infobox (like infobox scientist instead of infobox person)... While some of my comments have been too heated, I'm not ashamed of any article edit I made in this whole saga. Can you say the same? Fram (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I'm not getting that hug then. I don't like arguing and frankly, I'm not sure why I'm here. I added an incorrect source by accident, due to its deceiving title and Google description and I apologised for this above. I advise you to drop the stick, Fram, many of the issues you raise are real and need fixing, but AN/I is not the place for this. Making long threads about editors, who you've put in in your category of incompetents and idiots, isn't going to help get this template fixed, or get it removed if that's what you want. I made a useful addition to this template by adding "aged x" functionality for the birth/death date field and I'm now being harassed for it. Please stop wasting my time. Bye. Laurdecltalk 06:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I called anyone an idiot. Someone sourcing some dates in 8 articles and getting it wrong 5 times out of 8 is a serious problem, which you don't seem to recognise. Your "useful addition" was incorrect as well on multiple levels, as has been demonstrated. Getting criticism for the many errors you made is not "harassment" though. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Please. "I wonder about competence... this editor needs a solution rather urgently... I have seen your true colours... you don't know what you're talking about...". I copied the wrong link from Google, which, while appearing to be a bio site, was some kind of random link generator. My useful addition (minus the scare quotes) is only incorrect when the author is too lazy to add in a death date. The worst thing I am guilty of is using sources that support dates only to the year. You appear to ignore what I have written about this thread being fruitless for you. Hopefully this is my last post on this pointless thread. Stop wasting my time, and your own. Laurdecltalk 09:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You should never copy a link from Google without actually looking at the source, if only to determine whether the source is reliable and not e.g. a wikipedia mirror. Even without the porn results, this is very poor practice. You should e.g. also never use Geni.com as a source, which you did (here and on Wikidata) for Edward Dean Adams. Fram (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You're correct in what you say Fram, and I apologise for not taking more care. There was no need to take this to AN/I, nor was there a need to make (very) long threads with veiled insults against other editors and myself. Me using inadequate sources on occasion is not what this thread is about and is not a matter for AN/I. If you don't like Wikidata on Wikipedia then you need to start another RfC, not TfDs where you state problems that are easily solved or AN/I posts which result in nothing but hostility and bad will. I'm done here. Thanks, Laurdecltalk 06:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"just like RexxS and a few others who are more worried about pushing Wikidata than about getting it right apparently" Another unsubstantiated personal attack, Fram. This has to stop. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing unsubstantiated about it, anyone uninvolved can e.g. read the subsection here below and the multiple discussions we had. Have you already forgotten your sourcing of a 1928 year of death to a 1911 source? Have you forgotten that you "sourced" at Wikipedia the "fact" that Sabatier was "educated at University of Paris", even though that "fact" was incorrect and not in the source you used? Couple that with your false claims (many in the TfD discussion, but also in the section below, or above with the "In this edit you added 'place of death' as Strasbourg without any way to verify it. It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V."), and you are quite brave to call the attention of uninvolved admins here.
Of course, this doesn't even include your PA's in the last few days at User talk:RexxS: "Stop trolling", "your paranoia", "Stop whining", "If you were capable of reading what I wrote instead of just spouting away without thinking,", "it's time to get back under your bridge.". Fram (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Your attack is utterly unsubstantiated, and it's a disgrace that you're allowed to repeat it. I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox in this edit. A reader who wishes to verify that using the page as you left it, soon finds how deceptive your edit was. So no, my claim was not false, and I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you.
As for PA's, I'm more than happy for an uninvolved admin to look at [my talk page and see whether your vandalism template was justified or harassment; whether your demands in making the section Please stop with the "fixes" and improve Wikidat instead, were justifiable or rose to the level of trolling after being asked multiple times to state the policy that you claim I breached. They might also comment on whether my frustration at your behaviour on my talk page justifies the epithets I applied to it. Now, at what point are you going to stop wasting everybody's time both here and on my talk page on your unfounded calumnies? --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Your first question, about WP:V, has been answered in a separate section. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
And my other questions, along with your personal attacks remain outstanding. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:RexxS hass taken up the habit of circumventing restrictions at Wikidata by messing with enwiki. In this, this and this edit he momentarily changes a valid enwiki redirect into a nonsense article, only to change it back the next minute? Why? Wikidata doesn't allow the addition of redirects to Wikidata items, only real articles can be used (to avoid the messing up of interwikilinks presumably). But RexxS needs these redirects as Wikidata items anyway to get his /Wikidata template to work properly. So he changes enwiki in ways not allowed, to add things to Wikidata which Wikidata doesn't allow, to defend a template with enough problems as it stands already. I raised this at User talk:RexxS#Please stop with the "fixes" and improve Wikidat instead, only to be greeted with "your paranoia" and similar nice comments about me. So here we are. Fram (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
What Fram calls "messing with enwiki" comprises a momentary change of a redirect into a non-redirect and then restoring it, as he admits. During that brief moment I make the link on Wikidata to the 'redirect'. It allows the separate entries at Wikidata for "Theology" and "Theologian" to both point to our article called Theology that covers both. That is a one-off job done and causes no harm whatsoever. Fram does not adduce any evidence, or even suggest ways in which these edits could be problematical on enwiki, yet he claims to be the judge of "what is allowed", without citing a single policy that my edits might have violated. Fram is merely annoyed that I'm steadily fixing issues that he wants to complain about and use as ammunition in his campaign against Wikidata. This really is becoming harassment and I'd like to see Fram warned to disengage from posting demands on my talk page, which he seems to be doing in an attempt to just get a response. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
On the section heading, I believe that Wikidata routinely treats the "academic field" as being a separate thing from a "profession". Therefore, it's hard to see how setting up separate links to the academic field and the profession is "corrupting Wikidata".
I'm struggling to see any reason for any of this dispute to be here at ANI. Perhaps it should be closed, and the complainants directed to a non-admin page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata should only link only to enwiki articles, not enwiki redirects. The end result is that Wikidata now has two items pointing to one Wikipedia artiucle, and that infoboxes on enwiki now have an "article" on enwiki which doesn't exist but which RexxS feels should be there anyway. Fram (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Fram, you don't get to decide what Wikidata should or shouldn't link to. Wikidata often has two separate entries for related but different topics, like theology (Q34178) and theologian (Q1234713), while here we just have one article, Theology, and a redirect, Theologian. Following my edit, each Wikidata item now has the correct link to the corresponding entity on Wikipedia, as anyone can check by going to the article or the redirect and following the [Wikidata item] link on the left 'tools' menu. Anyone following the Wikidata link to enwiki's Theologian will naturally still arrive at Theology, where the occupation is discussed here. You complained that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is no enwiki article for that topic, now you are complaining that that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is an enwiki article for that topic. You need to make your mind up. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"You complained that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is no enwiki article for that topic, now you are complaining that that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is an enwiki article for that topic. " No. I complained (and complain) that the infobox links to Wikidata while there is an enwiki article for the topic. An enwiki redirect is an obvious sign that we have an article on the topic, but it was a sign that the infobox is unable to understand. You tried to fix this, but this results in the infobox on Paul Sabatier listing University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) which through a redirect at Universität Straßburg links to University of Strasbourg. This is a rather ridiculous situation, caused by the fact that you refuse to simply link to his employer, the University of Strasbourg, and instead insist on using the title of the Wikidata item, even though no Wikipedia article exists for it in any language. Wikidata now claims that the enwiki article for University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) is located at Universität Straßburg, which is a fantasy you deliberately and knowingly introduced to push through your preference. Which is, like this section title claims, corrupting Wikidata by messing with enwiki.Fram (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Paul Sabatier died in 1928 and was employed by the University of Strasbourg that existed from 1538 to 1970. That was originally a German-speaking institution whose title was Universität Straßburg. That is fact. Why are you complaining that the infobox at Paul Sabatier should link to that? Anyone following the link will still arrive on our article that covers both the medieval university and its modern counterpart. Of course an article on the medieval institution exists on enwiki (and many other language wikis) - it's the same article that covers the present university which shares its name. So I ask again: what's the problem you're complaining about? --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Because Paul Sabatier never worked at the Universität Straßburg but only at the Université de Strasbourg (and that the 1538 institution wasn't called Universität Straßburg either, if you want to be pedantic). And because sending people through an unnecessary and misleading redirect, and showing them an "article title" which doesn't exist on enwiki (or frwiki or dewiki, which all agree to treat the institution as one with a history from 1538 until now) is misleading: and editing enwiki and Wikidata to give the impression on Wikidata that enwiki has an article on the 1538-1970 item, and that it is called Universität Straßburg, is plain nonsense. Your wikilawyering is not convincing. Fram (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
But Paul Sabatier did work at the university that was originally titled Universität Straßburg, exactly as I claimed. The 1538 institution was not a university until 1621 when it became Universität Straßburg, if you want to be precise. No reader ever notices a redirect and using Universität Straßburg for the 1538–1970 institution is perfectly apt as that was its title for most of its existence, and in no way misleading. The article title that the reader arrives at is University of Strasbourg. If a wikidata-aware infobox were used at Paul Sabatier (theologian), this is what the reader would see: Faculté de théologie protestante de Strasbourg . Anyone can click on that to see that what I'm saying is true. You're the one playing with words to create a misleading impression. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You changed Universität Straßburg to an article so that you could create a link to it in this Wikidata entry, a Wikidata item otherwise without any matching wikipedia article in any language, and with an incorrect website (hint: most universities which disappeared in 1970 don't have an official website). This had the effect that this infobox could link to University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) instead of University of Strasbourg in the infobox. This is messing with enwiki and messing with wikidata just to get your result, no matter what is useful for the reader. Fram (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
But at Talk:Paul Sabatier (theologian), in the context of the difference between Universität Straßburg and University of Strasbourg, you claimed that "everyone who wrote these articles and even the University itself think they are so much of a continuation that they can and should be treated as one" Those are your exact words. So according to you, they are the same university, so of course they have an official website now (hint: Universität Straßburg is also the German name for the present university known in France as UDS). You see, Fram, you don't have any consistency in argument, you take one line when it suits you in order to contradict me in one place, and then take the opposite line here, where you're merely trying to harass me out of opposing your crusade against Wikidata. You're the one who will go to any lengths to get your result, "no matter what is useful for the reader" --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is apparent that there is no argument here, these two names refer to the same university. Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. The discussion was about the difference between University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) and University of Strasbourg, not about "Universität Straßburg]] and University of Strasbourg", so you start incorrectly straight away. You claim that they are two entities, one which has stopped in 1970 (but which has according to Wikidata a website anyway, even though the one listed there doesn't mention anything about this historical entity). I claim that there is one entity, the current University of Strasbourg, which of course has a website (which is correctly listed at our article). Just reread the talk page you link to, you started that section with the question "There are two different entries on Wikidata: University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) (Q20808141) and University of Strasbourg (Q157575)." Framing this as if I don't know that Universität Straßburg is the German for the university of Strasbourg is disingenious and a rather terrible strawman argument. Fram (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The actual title of what you call University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) (note the redlink) was Universität Straßburg. So, you're wrong again: I started absolutely correctly. It's not my claim. It's a verifiable fact that the original university, originally part of the German education system and founded in 1538, was dissolved in 1970 by the French government and replaced by three separate institutions. The French government later replaced those three institutions in 2009 by a new university whose title is Université de Strasbourg, commonly called UDS. I say that the original university and the modern university are two different institutions and the Paul Sabatier was employed by the former, not the latter, and that it is appropriate that our infobox should link to the former (even though the redirect takes a reader to the joint article on enwiki). Fram doesn't want this to happen simply because it fits with the way wikidata organises the topics. Fram believes that anything that might show Wikidata in a good light is anathema, and he needs to keep generating these spurious ANI complaints to remove opposition to his crusade against Wikidata. This has to stop. --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
So you now claim that the actual title of the institution Paul Sabatier worked at was Universität Straßburg? Really? I rest my case... Fram (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It became a German-speaking university in 1621 as Universität Straßburg - are you denying that? I accept that in 1872 it was renamed Kaiser-Wilhelm-Universität and that in 1919 when Sabatier went to work there, its actual title is unclear. However, its title was never "University of Strasbourg" as you continually insist. Of that there is no doubt at all. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Duh, seriously? Of course its name was never "University of Strasbourg", that's the English translation of its name. On enwiki, we use the local name or the common English name. In 1919, that local name wasn't "Universität Straßburg". In late 1918, the University again became French (like it had been for long strectches of its history) and even banned German students. Do you really think that they would give it a German name then? I'll make it clear one last time: in 1919, Paul Sabatier started to work for the "Université de Strasbourg", which is in English known as the "University of Strasbourg". No "Universität Strassburg" comes into play here. None. Remember that in 1889 he was expelled because he refused to become a German... Fram (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As for me "continually insisting" that he worked at an English titled university, you perhaps missed my 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC) in this very section? The one that starts "Because Paul Sabatier never worked at the Universität Straßburg but only at the Université de Strasbourg"... Next time, try to accuse me of something that isn't so easily refuted please. Fram (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes seriously. The university was titled Universität Straßburg for at least as long as it was titled Université de Strasbourg, and what's more you have no evidence of a change of its name in 1918, just speculation. You're simply harping on my use of one of the possible actual titles as a redirect, yet you're fixated with a title that the university never had. Of course, you actually know that he was expelled from being vicar of St Nicolas in 1889, not from the university, right? --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
What admin intervention is being asked for here? If none, I suggest the whole section be closed and discussion moved to a more appropriate talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are serious issues raised here (linking WP to porn sites? getting something as basic as Beethoven's dob wrong on a site the whole purpose of which is to spread information around as widely as possible?) but I hesitate to comment here as that is not the purpose of this page. These issues should be raised on a community-wide RfC or something.Smeat75 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I am wondering what the proposed solutions might be? I do personally sense that the Wikidata crowd have been getting disruptive and have seemed to have overstepped their remit on en.wiki. What are the proposed solutions? For example, that RexxS be temporarily topic-banned from adding wikidata-related edits to en.wiki? Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Having raised most of the issues, I don't think I am the right person to suggest solutions (not that you were asking me specifically, just a reply in case you wonder why I raise a fuss and then don't suggest any solutions). Perhaps making it clear that if people object to the /wikidata infobox on an article and replace it with a standard infobox (usuallu with more or better information), this probably should be respected. Perhaps some indication as well that editors making edits on Wikidata which impact enwiki, will be treated the same way as editors doing such edits directly on enwiki (even though at the moment we can't stop them from editing Wikidata itself)? Fram (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As for myself, I've already gone on record (at the last such discussion) that the wikidata infoboxes are poor and unhelpful, and worse than no infobox at all. As for your second suggestion, I'm not informed enough to comment (although if I had read all of the minutae of this long thread I might be). Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps caveat that with saying that people shouldn't systematically remove the template, or cause unnecessary drama at the same time? On 'wikidata infoboxes are poor and unhelpful' - have a look at the wikidata-driven infobox at South Pole Telescope, that's what the long-term aim here for this infobox is, we just need a bit more time to work on it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The infobox on South Pole Telescope was added 12 June 2015 [63], when the wikidata contained only this: [64], which (with only an image and two bits of data) is very poor and worse than no infobox at all in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding it quite a bit since then, though, and it doesn't look the same now as it did in 2015. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is it should never have been added to the article, at least not at that time, and that addition is exemplary of the problematic wikidata IBoxes that have been added all over the place. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure when you might have checked, but that category was only created 26 January and AFAIK has never been over 400. The WhatLinksHere count is higher but includes non-articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
On 20-21 January I made edits to 417 different articles to changing the infobox settings to specify 'fetchwikidata=ALL'. That may be accurate to ~5% due to the infobox being added to more articles with that parameter already being specified, and any duplications in my counting. I don't think it's been as high as 550, although my memory was circa 450 transclusions. There are now 339 transclusions, and 331 articles in Category:Articles using Template Infobox person Wikidata - circa 90 less than before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin asked to please please look at this one element of the dispute. Please?[edit]
(copied from above by Fram)
I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox in this edit. A reader who wishes to verify that using the page as you left it, soon finds how deceptive your edit was. So no, my claim was not false, and I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
(end of copied relevant part of the statement)
From Template:infobox person: "[...]ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself." The contested information (place of death) is added in the infobox and in the last line of the same diff in the body of the article, sourced to Hillerbrands "Encyclopedia of Protestantism", a 2004 Routledge publication (so an impeccable source). The relevant lemma is listed in the source (Sabatier, Paul (1858-1928)) and a link to the Google book is added (which isn't necessary, but nice to have). A direct link to the lemma would also be possible ([65]) but is not required.
Can some uninvolved admin please check this stupid dispute and indicate whether my edit was deceptive and I need to have WP:V explained to me, or whether RexxS is mistaken here? Please please please? Fram (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay - little daunting given the fact that I have not read the entirety of this thread and am only giving an opinion on this one element, but here goes.. This section of the template documentation clearly states "ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself". In this edit Fram added both the parameter and a sourced claim to the place of death - "He died in Strasbourg in 1928.<ref name="Hillerbrand"/>". Therefore, I do not believe this was deceptive and I respectfully suggest that RexxS was mistaken in this one element -- Samtartalk · contribs 16:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Samtar: Given that WP:V requires the editor adding the text to indicate where they found the information in such a way that some other editor could verify that, I did not believe at the time, nor do I now, that naming a 594 page reference book, which comes in four volumes, without any indication of the volume or page number was sufficient to meet WP:V. Do you still believe that I am mistaken in that? I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time, otherwise why would he omit the volume and page? --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The articles in that work are in alphabetical order so it is trivial to look up an entry. JbhTalk 18:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time, otherwise why would he omit the volume and page?" No, you're right, I just happened to get lucky that that source really had that information. And how lucky I was to source it to "Sabatier, Paul (1858-1928)" when that just happens to be the title of the lemma about him. I must be a clairvoyant to add such details without reading the source! Of course, the fact that the same edit[66] also sourced a few other elements to the same source only strengthens your argument.
Why didn't I add a page number. Because the bloody online source doesn't have page numbers at the entries, as you might have noticed if you had actually spend some time researching this instead of just spouting ridiculous accusations. Why no volume number? Because the link I gave is a one-volume "reprint" or edition of the 4 volume set. I have now, to please you, looked at the end of the online source, and in the index the page number in your 594 page reference book is 1634. Would it have helped you to find the right article in the alphabetical list? I doubt it.
But I promise that next time I will follow your example of giving very precise sources, like you did here at Wikidata[67]. You just don't know when to shut up, do you? Fram (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
As it happens, I did spend some time researching it. Let's face it, Fram, you simply used the the Google books snippet for your source. I know very well that you didn't add the page and volume since the online source doesn't show page numbers as you admit, because the online source was your source, not the book as you claimed. Anyone could have told you that the page was 1634 as that's visible in the Google snippet containing the Volume key: Volume 4, pages 1633-2195. It's also worth noting that your edit gave this link for the work: https://books.google.be/books?id=4tbFBQAAQBAJ&dq=sabatier+chabrillanoux&source=gbs_navlinks_s - that's the 4-volume set, not a one volume reprint, as you're trying to make out. Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read. Next time that Google is your source, use {{cite web}}, as that doesn't misrepresent where you found it. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
RexxS, this is the last time I will respond to your ABF claims here with an umpteenth explanation, if you continue like this regardless I will ask for a block. Can you just tell me, can you a) open this link[68] and b) click on "page" and read the whole page? Or do you get at either point stopped through a paywall or another "not available" message? Because for me, at the time I used the reference, at the time I replied above, and now, I can access and read the whole page and most (or all) other pages in that source. It may be that you, living in England, can't access the source, Google accessability rules for books sometimes differ from country to country.
In any case, what you "know very well" is utterly wrong here. I read the complete entry, not just the Google snippet view; and the online (full- version doesn't have page numbers. The online version is a one-volume version, with one index and one table of contents, just putting all 4 printed volumes together. They can easily do that online, you know? "Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read." Apparently not then. "Next time that Google is your source, use {{cite web}}, as that doesn't misrepresent where you found it." Again, no. Reading a book through Google books is best cited with cite book, not cite web. I don't know why you are so insistent about this side issue, but it is time that you admit that you were wrong about this one thing and stop with the baseless accusations. (Oh, and you haven't addressed your use of "Britannica, 15th edition" as a source; please explain how that is compatible with your position here). Fram (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pleased that it was your last response. I followed that link originally and I know what it states. Nevertheless, if you took Google Books with its single volume as your source, why did you add the ISBN of a four-volume printed edition that you've never seen? How does that square with our policy requirement: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)"? As for my use of Britannica 15th edition as the source, you'll find that when I added it to the article, I gave |date=1989 |edition=15th |volume=10 |page=279. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. You could all along access the source, you could see that it has no page numbers, you could have used "about this book" and see the title, publisher, and ISBN given there[69]. But still you insisted that everything I did was wrong, I could not have read the book, made false claims, and so on, just for fun? I'm glad to see though that when you added Britannica to the wrong place in our article, you gave a more complete source than the very brief one you provided at Wikidata. Tell me again why we should then use Wikidata instead? Fram (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: As a completely uninvolved editor who has only read through (and checked the links provided in) this subsection, I have to say that your most recent comment here reads as "You didn't do everything perfectly, which proves you are a liar!" and does more to damage your credibility than to evince any misdeeds on the part of the other party.
Furthermore, WP:PAYWALL makes it quite clear than the accessibility of a source is immaterial to the question of verifiability. And there is no policy which explicitly states that an editor must own a copy of a book to use it as a source, or that an editor cite only print copies, or that an editor read a work in it's entirety. What matters is that the information was actually in the source given, not whether or not another editor can induce that the editor in question had used google to find the reference, rather than painstakingly tracking it down in their local library.
That being said, I have no opinion on (or indeed, knowledge of) any issues not mentioned in this citation question subsection. But if I were to delve into it, I would now start with the impression that you were wikilawyering and making bad faith accusations, which would certainly color my perception of what I read there. I suggest you strike your above comment in its entirety (which would go a long way to demonstrating good faith on your part) and replace it with an acknowledgement that this particular event was not obviously deceptive. You may take or leave my advice at your discretion of course, but I thought a truly objective opinion might help you understand what samtar was saying. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 15:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPants at work: This section was instigated by Fram, not by me. I'd have been happy to let the issue drop, but he insists. This was precipitated by Fram pointing out multiple times that I supplied the wrong edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (11th instead of 15th) as the source on Wikidata for Sabatier's place of death. I have merely rejoined that he was equally lax when he supplied the same information here on Wikipedia, but instead of admitting it, he thinks he can criticise my mistake while doing just the same sort of thing himself. By the way, there is a requirement that editors have to have read the source they claim: if they read the book, they source to that; if they only read the source online, then that is what they must cite. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS:I'd have been happy to let the issue drop, but he insists. Because you keep pushing the same narrative; a narrative which -to me and others- looks highly unbelievable and reeks of a personal attack. It may be that in the overall issue you are (mostly) entirely in the right and Fram in the wrong, but in this particular issue it is quite apparent to me (and to at least two others) than the opposite is true. Showing that you are willing to admit and accept being wrong is a laudable thing; refusing to admit or accept being wrong is a highly negative thing. This is one of those cases where there's really no 'neutral' in between ground.
Just as you would continue to defend yourself tirelessly against false accusations, Fram is doing the same thing, here.
I have merely rejoined that he was equally lax... Ask yourself, which is more demonstrative of competence, confidence and the moral high ground, engaging in a tit-for-tat war of pointless accusations, or ignoring pointless accusations made against you and focusing on where the real problems are?
By the way, there is a requirement that editors have to have read the source they claim: if they read the book, they source to that; if they only read the source online, then that is what they must cite. Please quote that section of policy as I have never heard of it before and find the notion, frankly to be beyond ridiculous. How could any editor prove they have read a source, and how could any other prove they had not? It's just untenable. If such a requirement exists, I plan to launch an immediate attempt to have it excised from policy. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Editors don't have to prove they saw or read any particular source; we take their word for it unless it is patently false. But the problem here is that the online source that Fram used omits the page information that should be supplied if a book were indeed the source. See WP:UNSOURCED (part of the verifiability policy): "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". We should cite the source precisely and provide the details that would make the job of verification simple. That's what I've always understood our policy to require and that's why I quoted edition, volume and page when I added the Encyclopedia Britannica source for Sabatier's place of death. Fram wants to hold me to the highest standards, yet fails to hold himself to the same. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Have you read your own quote? And have you read the replies you already got from uninvolved admins here? "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" For an encyclopedia with alphabetical lemmae, citing the actual lemma is citing "such divisions as may be appropriate". By the way, I just looked again at the diff you provided to show how it should be done[70] "for Sabatier's place of death." (like you say here and in the edit summary, "to source place of death"). Why did you add this in the middle of a sentence in a paragraph which doesn't even mention his place of death? Anyway, you haven't replied to my explanation above, but insist here that "the online source that Fram used omits the page information that should be supplied if a book were indeed the source." You have never seen books without page numbers? Or you don't believe that an online full version of a book can omit the page numbers that the printed version has? Or you simply don't believe anything I say? What is your problem actually? Fram (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Really, both of you, with all respect, you should stop this exchange. There's nothing either of you has to gain from continuing it, and it's really getting unseemly. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't whoever is making changes in mainspace to perfect some template really try to do all that in userspace until we're ready for primetime? I think that would prevent lots of drama: in userspace, you can have bogus redirects, link to porn sites, change names from French to English to German, and no one will bother you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly not going to happen. Suggest the dropping of sticks and finding something else to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2017 (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 read the above section "Uninvolved admin asked to please please look at this one element of the dispute. Please? ". I repeatedly explained my use of the source to RexxS, different uninvolved editors agreed with me and advised him to drop it, but the relentless bad faith assumptions continued. It now turns out that RexxS could see the source all along but just made my explain myself ad nauseam for fun.
"I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox [...] how deceptive your edit was. [...]I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you
"I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time"
"Let's face it, Fram, you simply used the the Google books snippet for your source."
"Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read."
MPants summarized his impression of RexxS posts as accusing me of "You didn't do everything perfectly, which proves you are a liar!", but RexxS continued just the same, although I have trouble understanding what his remaining objection is, apart from the fact that I lied, deceived, and did everything wrong.
This has been going of for long enough and needs to stop. Since requests from uninvolved editors to stop haven't helped, I feel that it is time for other measures. Fram (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose unless BOTH parties are blocked, as it takes two to continue a dispute. The admin appears to want to solve everything by blocking someone. He blocked Cassianto for a month for re-adding a PA someone else was responsible for. Cassianto received no warning as others involved did--just the block; the admin is also not amenable to unblocking him. Maybe it would be good for him to be on the receiving end of a block, as it might make him less willing to use the block button as a solution. We hope (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with the first sentence of We hope's comment, but not blocking either would be much better (and I'm disappointed that Fram has made this request in the first place). Also +1 to Fut.Perf.'s comment above ("There's nothing either of you has to gain from continuing it"). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose we probably should have a WP:LAME block criteria but we do not. Both editors should just let it drop. Neither is exactly covering themselves in glory here. Jbh Talk 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Fram, you may not be acting in an official admin capacity here, but you are still an admin. It just doesn't look right for you to propose a block against RexxS when you are deeply involved in a protracted dispute with him. Indeed, Ritchie333 indicated a week earlier in this thread, which has dragged on for far too long, that he felt your conduct was block-worthy. You're a fine editor, but it's not a good look for you to try to get an opponent blocked. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a degree of disruption going on. I still Support an at-least temporary topic ban on any enwiki edits that involve or relate to wikidata. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment- I'm not sure what RexxS is playing at here, but on this issue it is clear that Fram is right. I'm not sure a block is really called for quite yet, but I'll quickly change my mind if RexxS does not drop the silly games, ABF, and circuitous wikilawyering immediately. ReykYO! 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Time for Fram to drop the stick, and be grateful he has escaped a boomerang. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose No Fram. You are accusing someone of misbehaviour when your own behaviour is antagonistic and looks to me like someone who wants a certain outcome in discussions and doesn't like what he's hearing. You were told above to drop it but you haven't and didn't. Please do.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC))
The discussion above 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 is clearly not going to happen either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2017 (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.
Regardless of whether Fram's points are valid or not, his repeated violations of 3RR, NPA, and refusal to drop the stick after he has been requested to by multiple admins is unacceptable. Fram has removed this template from (literally) hundreds of articles and both this thread and his disruptive novel sized TfD are clear cut examples of blockworthy behaviour. His attempts to subvert the consensus of the 2013 RfC through blocks and harassment of other editors (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is inappropriate for any editor, not to mention an administrator. Fram's ability to act appropriately is obviously hampered wherever Wikidata is involved (see his block proposal above). I propose a temporary TBAN from Wikidata and articles using this template to stop this disruptive editing, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and these attacks on other editors (i.e. RexxS; Mike Peel). Laurdecltalk 00:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The whole section above suggests that Fram "does not like" errors in articles and may not be happy about having hard-to-see vandalism introduced into articles (a large watchlist which includes Wikidata changes is very cumbersome). Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose pretty much for the same reasons I opposed the sanction above. That said all parties really need to chill out. Personally, simply from reading through what the parties have had to say about the new Wikidata-person template, it should not be deployed in more than a handful of test articles until the bugs re policing the wiki data data, attribution/sourcing etc are worked out. Jbh Talk 01:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If nothing is going to be done on either side here, can we get this thread closed? Laurdecltalk 01:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO this situation is getting awfully close to something for ArbCom to handle. --Rschen7754 01:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose- per Johnuniq. ReykYO! 10:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Laurdecl, either provide evidence of me repeatedly violating 3RR and that I have "removed this template from (literally) hundreds of articles", or withdraw this section and preferably apologise for your "mistakes" in this filing. I guess, without counting, that I have removed this template from perhaps 30 articles, not "hundreds of articles" by a very wide margin. (I didn't really remove it in most cases, I replaced it with a better, more complete and correct template, but let's ignore that part for now). ACcusing people of "blockworthy behaviour" should be based on reality. Accusing people of things they haven't done is a personal attack. Beware the boomerang. Fram (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The very first post here was about your edit warring and 3RR violations. Perhaps you did not remove this templates hundreds of times, but the tracking category has gone down at least 100 articles. You would know about personal attacks though, wouldn't you? You can hardly talk to me about boomerangs after your block proposal above. Laurdecltalk 11:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The first post was about one supposhas ed 3RR violation which didn't violate 3RR anyway, so not "repeated" violations in any case. You claimed I had "literally" removed "hundreds" of templates, but apparently "literally" has another meaning for you? Newsflash: other people have removed the template as well (and in more cases than I did), as I am not the only one opposed to it. Which leaves you with "personal attacks". Ritchie333 clearly warned me about those a week ago or so, and since then I have seriously toned down my comments. But whether they were sometimes still too aggressive or not, they at least remained fact based. I asked for a block based on facts, most people felt the facts didn't warrant a block, fine, but they didn't dispute the facts. On the other hand, you ask for a sanction as well, but two out of the three arguments you present are completely wrong and the third one is outdated, not an ongoing problem. So yes, I can perfectly warn you to be aware of the risk of a boomerang sanction. Falsely accusing people in the hope that they will get sanctioned that way is about the worst thing you can do in this environment. Fram (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per JBH. But... folks, both "sides" need to take a step back and try to de-escalate the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it is a bit hard to take a step back when you have one editor who insists on continuing with nonsense accusations over the application of WP:V after uninvolved admins have ruled on it, and when you have another editor who then tries to gets you sanctioned based on utterly false accusations. I hope that this doesn't get to ArbCom, but it is looking more and more like it sadly. I shouldn't have used personal attacks near the start of this dispute, but I never told lies to get someone else sanctioned. No collaboration is possible with someone who is willing to go so low to "win". Fram (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you're talking about me (I'm not even involved in the original dispute, so I don't know what I would "win") but I've never lied to get you sanctioned. You have violated 3RR, made personal attacks, and systematically removed this template from many pages and in some cases edit warring to keep your preferred template. All you are doing here is wasting the time of people who could improve this template. What I am looking for is an end to this situation, which is disruptive and unnecessary, and you are clearly the one who won't drop the stick. I wasn't going to propose anything until you made your ridiculous block proposal above and my suggestion of a (temporary) topic ban is much more mature than whatever you were asking for above. Laurdecltalk 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - as asinine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 is clearly going nowhere. Each 'side' has had their say and are not going to change their minds based on something said here. Either they can work it out amongst themselves (in my opinion unlikely) or they can take it to ArbCom. The only thing likely to come of keeping this open is to piss of good editors (which we must all remember both 'sides' are composed off, we are not talking your typical ANI bait here) until they make some dumb move out of frustration and then we risk losing someone. Please close this. Jbh Talk 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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.
Even so, it looks like a troll-only account. I'll move it to that noticeboard anyway. JAGUAR 23:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a silly troll but no sense feeding it with more reverts, an admin will get around to blocking soon enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not nice. Blocked for 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC).
The discussion above 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.
Incivility and personal attacks by User:Stemoc[edit]
Hi, I'd first like to emphasise that this issue about incivility and personal attacks has already been discussed with Stemoc (talk·contribs) at length (by myself and others before me) -- yet, unfortunately, the penny has clearly not dropped.
Stemoc has a history of battleground behaviour -- from edit warring against consensus (specifically, WP:EDITCONSENSUS), to blatant name-calling of fellow editors —and BLP subjects—, in spite of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Here are some examples from recent history:
"Now where the F is this "consensus" that you people keep talking about??? Last i checked, consensus is not the views of ONE PERSON ONLY...and even that person changed his mind when a new option was provided. Pathetic trolls" —— Towards Timeshift9 (talk·contribs) and presumably myself.
In a post within this ANI discussion – he blatantly ignores WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS – by referring to myself and Timeshift as "vandals" – despite providing no proof of the claim.
In summary: labelling editors he disagrees with "idiots", "stupid", and going a step further and denigrating BLPs we write articles on -- I'm not at all seeing how their conduct is in any way acceptable. As I had discussed with him before: consensus on the talk page and/or WP:EDITCONSENSUS for disputed content solves things, not edit warring or attacking editors. They have ignored this time and time again.
I think they have the right intentions – but they are going about things the wrong way. I also think it's about time they consider what they say to people. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL, sadly that is one way to explain all of this, first we have editors who are intentionally WP:OWNING certain article on which they mass edit on, lets start with the Malcolm Turnbull article first, Everytime i "fix" the image with a much better image, I get reverted by a nonsense comment saying that that image has no consensus and if you look at the talk page of Malcolm Turnbull under "Which photo from these two?", there is infact "NO CONSENSUS", so where do they keep coming up with this stupid notion that a picture which makes the Prime Minister look really really funny is the one chosen by "many" (yes many), infact only ONE person agreed to it. The user which has the most issue with this is Timeshift9 who as you can see in Malcolm Turnubull's article has made 225 edits to that article alone, 4 times more than the nearest page editor, In my opinion, we call people who does that violating WP:OWN and if you look in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and quote "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.". Timeshift9 has a habit of thinking he owns all article related to Australian politics and refuses changes on them, same would apply to MelbourneStar. First they come up with a "consensus" that does not exist and then they have the guts to warn me to not violate it on my user talkpage which is why i reverted it as "vandalism" because that is what it was, there was never any consensus, what we have here is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing whereby editors are intentionally ensuring that an article is up to their standards and do not care about improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Funny how MelbourneStar tries to go through my edits to post stuff which are infact misconstrued. I'm a Licence Reviewer and uploader on commons so when i come across a good image, I try to get it added to articles and then we have people who OWN articles that try to get it removed because they want their "own" version of the article, they do not care about the project. The image these people keep trying to add to that article is one of the worst quality i have seen. This is the full version of the image and as you can see, the image was taken poorly thus giving the image a form of a mirror/concave look on the edges which when cropped, make the Prime Minister look like someone with a HUGE FOREHEAD and yet somehow, I'm the one that is being disruptive. I have added thousands of images to commons which are used in 100's of articles across wikimedia and I even went to a few flickr users and got some images of Malcolm Turnbull released on a free licence just so that we can replace that poor quality with with 2 good ones suck as IMAGE A / IMAGE B and yet people like Timeshift/Melbourne are intentionally trying to stop me from "fixing" the article but coming up with a bullshit excuse which as you can see in my first post "does not exist". This is not the fist time someone with their own Personal Agenda has brought me to ANI and honestly, its pretty tiring. If we are going to allow people to WP:OWN articles than why not make it a NEW POLICY? and then try to use this "fake and non-existing consensus" on other related pages. MelbourneStar and Timeshift9 are infact not only in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR but also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and they both should be taken to task for it. Don't believe me? just go see the related pages and see how many times those two have intentionally removed any valid edits because they themselves do not see it fit.--Stemoc 12:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There we go again: more aspersions -- no proof, just accusations. Very poor form, considering I took the liberty of proving where you have attacked editors/subjects of BLP.
You need to have a good read of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which happens to be another path of establishing consensus, which in this case established consensus for the Malcolm Turnbull image that you have so labelled him looking like "Megamind". Hence: It is the status-quo image on the Malcolm Turnbull article. If you want consensus to change, discuss it thoroughly on article's talk page, gain support for the change, have the discussion closed: and there you go.
Instead, you have resorted to name-calling, edit warring, accusations without providing any proof.
If I have engaged in vandalism which is one of the most serious (and insulting) things to accuse a long-standing editor: prove it. Where are the diffs that show that I "intentionally made abusive edits to disrupt Wikipedia"? hint: there are none.
Furthermore, let me remind you: Timeshift didn't call X editor "idiot". You did. Timeshift didn't tell another editor to stop editing an article (sounds like WP:OWN to me... mirror?). You did. Timeshift didn't call the subject of one of our BLPs "retarded" or another "drunk". You did.
Instead of taking responsibility, instead of apologising, or instead of at least trying to explain yourself: you deflect. Well done. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've barely been on wikipedia lately, often taking lengthy breaks, but somehow i've found myself part of an ANI... sigh... really? See the 'file usage on other wikis' section at the default Turnbull image... literally dozens and dozens of concurrent uses across en wiki and in several other wikis, and for very long periods of time. One simply cannot argue that the image does not have mass consensus across wikipedia as Turnbull's image. I don't want to assume bad faith, but when I read their various incendiary comments, I simply cannot escape the feeling that the user feeds on discord, and additionally that this ANI may be counter-productive. I've said what I have to say on the matter and will not be contributing to it further, at least in its present incarnation. Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So sorry to drag you into this, I only posted on your talk page re this discussion because you had been mentioned. Nevertheless, you make a very good argument re consensus across Wikipedia(s). I hope this is just as evident to Stemoc, as it is to those reading this discussion. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If more of the "stupid idiot" type comments were taking place now, I'd certainly have no reservations in supporting a block; this kind of vitriolic language and textbook incivility seriously calls into question the editor's competence to collaborate productively on the project. That said, all of that conduct is stale; most of the diffs regarding that behavior are months old and one dates to 2015. Only one took place in the last month. So while I certainly accept it as evidence that this editor has displayed a combative and hostile mindset, I can't say as I would support a block as useful at this moment, based on those comments alone. I also think that MelbourneStar is doing their argument a disservice by trying to twist the "retarded", "drunk" and "Megamind" comments into attacks on the subjects of BLPs, when Stemoc is using those terms not to say that said persons are like those things, but rather to illustrate his opposition to the images (though I would advise Stemoc that "retard/retarded" is considered a slur by any today, if utilized outside of certain niche clinical contexts, and it should probably be avoided, as he is using it, altogether).
All of that said, if those diffs and Stemoc's response above are indicative of his approach to content disputes and conflict on this project broadly, I would say there is a problem here. WP:Civility is not an option on this project, even when one is certain that they have the right end of the stick with regard to policy on the content issue. The fact that Stemoc raises the fact that they have been brought repeatedly to ANI by different parties, but does not seem to contemplate the possibility that their own approach may have contributed to this being a recurrent issue also feels like a red flag to me. Still, I don't see a sanction here at present and it is hard for me to see what outcome MelbourneStar is hoping for here. If they had evidence of edit warring, particularly in conflict with clear consensus, that would be one thing, but that does not seem to be the argument they are making. Rather they are alleging that Stemoc should be sanctioned for civility/AGF/NPA issues, and while Stemoc seems to be no stranger to these attitudes, they are not on display in the recent diffs, at least not to the level where I feel a block is warranted. Characterizing another editor's actions as "vandalism" when they were clearly conducted in good faith (and you just happen to disagree with them) is problematic and Stemoc should be advised to stop that immediately. But again, it's short of blockable offense, imo, and I feel (from following up on those diffs and discussions) that MelbourneStar is not showing a healthy amount of perspective here either and is playing a role in keeping the tension ratcheted up here too. Snowlet's rap 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I encouraged positive avenues, through further discussion on talk, through building consensus; I warned of bad behaviour. I did my job – Stemoc isn't exactly a new user, he happens to have been here a tad longer than me. "MelbourneStar is not showing a healthy amount of perspective here either and is playing a role in keeping the tension ratcheted up here too" — is this not an example of victim blaming? because I certainly don't appreciate being accused of vandalism (as a diff from yesterday shows) without any proof whatsoever, and in response to this ANI, be further accused of vandalism and disruptive editing by the same user --- again, with no proof.
Edit–warring: User_talk:Stemoc/archive you'll see that the examples just jump out to you. Might I add, he has been blocked before for edit-warring.
Re the BLP comments: I completely disagree with your characterisation that Stemoc's comments were no problem at all BLP-wise, considering the fact that he didn't say the photo's are "retarded" (etc.) – the people in those photos were: we have WP:LIBEL which discourages those types of comments, and I felt as though he was dancing right on that line. Are we supposed to be thankful that at least he didn't publish those comments on a talk page? Of course not. They are inappropriate, and what message does it send to new users? Some aspects of Wikipedia are considered sacrosanct – I assume the treatment of BLP subjects are one of them. If he has a problem with an image, he takes it to the talk page – he doesn't abuse the subject, abuse another editor while doing so, and also abuse the edit summary feature while he's at it.
Finally, re name-calling: I only added the older diffs as to show a clear pattern. A pattern that actually still exists. He referred to Timeshift and myself as "pathetic trolls" yesterday — if upholding consensus, asking they discuss their edits, being courteous, makes me a "pathetic troll" — this is certainly not the project I or anyone else with a degree of self-respect would wish to take part in. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Melbournestar is just trying to hide that fact that he along with Timeshift9 have been for a long time using the project for their own personal agendas through disruptive editing and Owning behaviour by trying to portray me as the 'bad guy'. Yes i'm rude to people who i deem negative to the project and none of my edits he linked above are wrong or bad. Sometimes you have to slap your kids if they get too spoiled and i'm willing to do just that. If you look at the Global file usage of the image they are trying to enforce on all articles related to Malcolm Turnbull on Enwiki through its history, they were all added by either MelbourneStar OR Timeshift9 and then they came up with their non-existing policy claiming that "NO ONE" can change those images on any of those articles because they have no consensus. Consensus is limited to ONE ARTICLE when enforced unless voted upon and as of now, there is NO CONSENSUS for the use of that image ANYWHERE and yet when anyone tries to change it, they change it back citing consensus. I'm not the first one that tried to change that image, see the page history for any of those pages where that images was enforced by those two. This is a CLEAR case of OWNBEHAVIOUR so isntead of falling for their silly ruse why not try to see the many times people have tried to change the image only to be bullied off by those two "vandals". Anyone that tries to cheat their way and try to violate the policies is a vandal and thus i called him such. Here are a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4 and others you can see between 20th October to 25th October 2016. Timeshift9 claims its used on dozens on enwiki pages but what he doesn't say is that it was enforced/changed by him without any discussions and now they refuse to remove it citing that we need consensus to replace a "poor image" when the fact is, that we do not need a consensus to remove or replace a poor image, EVER. Instead of targeting me @Snow Rise: compare the images linked in my post above and tell me if you think the image they are trying to "enforce" on all Malcolm Turnbull articles is a good image (not only in quality, but angle and image standard) and then compare with the ones that i was trying to replace them with and tell me what you think...--Stemoc 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, no proof whatsoever of vandalism, disruptive editing or even using the project for personal gain. This user is drawing WP:ASPERSIONS of myself, without any proof – how is this not in bad-faith? —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@MelbourneStar: The problem is that you have not, at least in my opinion, really met your burden with regard to the present dispute for showing that the community should impose a sanction (though I do admit I failed to notice that the "pathetic trolls" comment was directed at you and it changes my perspective at least a little as to the extent that this can be considered a current issue), nor have you suggested another community action to resolve the matter.
You're also mixing strong arguments about matters you are well-justified to be bothered by and to bring to the community's attention with other arguments that are reaching to say the least, and which make you look like you are having just as much trouble with AGF as Stemoc is. When Stemoc says "I oppose this photo; it makes the subject look drunk" they are clearly saying that the picture is inappropriate because (in their opinion) it is a poor representation of the subject. They are clearly not saying "This person is a drunk." And your attempt to present the situation otherwise makes it look like you have a confirmation bias with regard to Stemoc which makes you see all of his contributions in the worst possible light--or, alternatively, you know what he really means but are willing to throw anything at the wall to see what will stick, which would be worse. These attenuated, nonsensical arguments which run counter to Stemoc's express goals do not bolster your core argument--they weaken it and give cause to question your own perspective on this dispute, in which you have clearly lobbed just as many broadsides as Stemoc (albeit with less recourse to WP:PA's than he has demonstrated). You have legitimate grievances here with regard to Stemoc's civility, so don't muddy the waters with these ancillary, dubious assertions that he is out to smear BLPs when the problem is actually that he is too zealously trying to protect the images of those persons and losing sight of proper behaviour in doing so.
@Stemoc:"Yes i'm rude to people who i deem negative to the project and none of my edits he linked above are wrong or bad. Sometimes you have to slap your kids if they get too spoiled and i'm willing to do just that."
No, that is absolutely unacceptable on this project. You don't get to choose when WP:Civility does or does not apply to you based on your personal assessment of the net worth of the person you are in dispute with. That's not how things work here and you've been around long enough that you should certainly know that by now. WP:C applies to every interaction you have within this community, no matter what your private assessments of your co-contributors (which need to be kept to yourself insofar as you consider them "idiots") and no matter how tense the nature of the discussion or how wrong you think the other party is. You are certainly not empowered to "slap" them to correct what you perceive as deficiencies of their character. If you continue to voice perspectives like that, or act in a fashion that continues to suggest that you think that is a permissible approach to interaction on this project, I'll propose a block of you myself, not withstanding my initial defense of the severity of your conduct above. Also, as a side point not particularly relevant to Wikipedia or the issue at hand, but important enough that it needs to be said anyway: it is really not acceptable to slap your child, and I'd appreciate it if you not bring child abuse as a model for proper behaviour into discussions here, especially as your go-to metaphor on how you intend to interact with others. Frankly, my reservations about MelbourneStar's approach to this thread not withstanding, I'm quickly losing any inclination to give him pushback on whether you should be sanctioned. Snowlet's rap 03:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"This image makes x look retarded" –as opposed to– "This image makes the subject look unflattering". Please do excuse me if I see that as problematic. Nevertheless, I do see where you are coming from. My intention is certainly not to muddy the waters – I specifically added the comments re BLPs and their images, to highlight the overall pattern: he is not assuming good faith, not being civil, and is instead resorting to personal attacks and accusations. I have gone out of my way to provide diffs and evidence of this, yet he has not. My approach may be questionable, but at least I'm trying to prove my argument, yet they have not.
By his standard (from the past 24 hours, mind you), @Snow Rise: I could accuse you of "vandalism", being a "vandal" and being a "pathetic troll" –– and not even provide evidence of such claims. How is that in any way not actionable? It is in no way fair to you, and it blatantly ignores key behavioural policies. —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've already cautioned him in the strongest terms I could voice as to the inappropriateness of his outlook on how to treat another editor he is in dispute with. I'm willing to give him WP:ROPE to see where he goes from here (though I admit his most recent post gives me pause as to the likelihood he is going to internalize what is being said). You may have more luck in convincing other editors here that he has already crossed the threshold into blockable behaviour, but I've provided my assessment, under the present facts. And you can bet I'm on the cusp of changing my mind if he doesn't get a healthier respect for WP:C fast, but I'm not quite there yet. Snowlet's rap 03:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That isn't the point here, this is not the first time i was reverted by either Timeshift9 or Melbourne when i tried to replace the image, they are claiming a consensus that does not exist an they are now only pushing their own agenda and owning behavior, they are being rude about it as well, both of them. Infact the first time a few days back when i tried to replace the image, Timeshift9 did revert me citing the same "non-existing" consensus and if you look at his edits after that here, he changed the image on 3 other articles to the one he "likes" and again, there is no consensus on that image ANYWHERE. I'm uncivil to those that treat the project like shit and force their own agenda. If you have an issue with that then its your opinion. Saying that i should be blocked for upholding Wikipedia policies does make me wonder if you respect or follow the policies your self, again IGNORE all the nonsense Melbournestar posted above, he is trying to "deflect" the issue or as you pointed out, has a cognitive bias and to a degree, derail the issue because as it is with other trolls, by "derailing" the issue, you can paint someone else as a bad guy which is what they are doing right now so that people no longer focus on the real issue here and that issue is that the both of them are trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal wikipedia and they wanted it to be seen form their own perspective regardless of what the facts, cause really who cares about the facts right? they derailed/deflected this issue so much that even you @Snow Rise: forgot to ask the most important question in this thread which is "Where is this consensus?". I have only been blocked once in my 10 year history and even that was just a punitive ban as the person who reported me here was the one who got sanctioned and banned from removing or replacing images. If you look at this section where their "supposed consensus" came from (Talk:Malcolm_Turnbull#Which_photo_from_these_two.3F), even @IgnorantArmies: didn't understand why an image which never really got consensus was being forced and used upon that article and another editor (now banned) pointed out that the image these 2 are trying to enforce makes Turnbull look "like a meth head" (his words, not mine) and in that same thread if you read above, exactly a year ago, i pointed out why this image was improper and should not be used and quote 7 would have been good if the photographer had taken the picture correctly, you can actually see the picture concave inwards (making turnbull's head look like Megamind's head) which makes the image look a bit odd, usually cause by poor focusing on the camera lens . I never said that Turnbull was Megamind, infact they are intentionally using that image to make it look like Turnbull has a large forehead. All i have been trying to do for a YEAR now is to get that image removed by bringing in better and newer option but these two won't budge and refuse to change the image which "was enforced by them" and not by any Wikipedia policy and thus they are Snow Rise, in not only my view but the projects view, vandals. Not the first time people have tried to block me (unintentionally or intentionally) for trying to follow Wikipedia policies and it won't be the last. I don't break the rules here, I enforce it as much as i can and if you think that i was wrong for trying to fix an issue where by two editors who were not only breaking the 2 policies i mentioned above, but were lying as well about a consensus that does not exist then it your opinion even if its not a good one....and also, Spanking misbehaving children may be child abuse in a country where you live but not it mine, it builds character and above all respect for authority....You do realise that on wiki, they have a similar policy right? they ban or block users who do not behave, I believe Timeshift9 and Melbourne Star need to be taught a lesson because they are acting like spoilt kids who can do whatever they like and are not being held accountable for their actions. I find it sad that no one has tackled the main issue here and instead are targeting the one person trying to fight the issue, ironically, not the first time this has happened to me--Stemoc 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Stemoc is now accusing me of having been banned, or sanctioned on Wikipedia for the removal of images (there is no such ban or sanction against me). They have accused me of being a "vandal", of "vandalism" and being a "pathetic troll" (refer to diffs outlined in summary) without proof. I would like those imputations redacted. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you (either of you, in fact) to seek community input from an RfC or other established process rather than edit war and get increasingly nasty over the matter? I've looked into the root conflict here and I don't see that either of you has what might be considered guiding consensus, now that the dispute has been raised. I'd ask again that you just stop with the reference to striking children; however justified you claim it is in your culture, it is not an acceptable way to talk about other editors. But if you want to be married to a metaphor of children, let me tell you that it is hardly as if you are the composed adult guiding the ill-informed child towards the proper way of handling things. Both of you are in fact well outside the established rules for dispute resolution on this matter. You should have taken this to the talk page and discussed the content matter (avoiding any reference to the character or intelligence of the other person) and then reaching out for further community input if you could not come to a compromise solution. Edit warring and leaving increasingly hostile edit summaries is no solution.
But there's a broader issue you you just don't seem to want to hear here: even if you were absolutely correct that the other editors were stonewalling you and had settled into a WP:OWN mentality, you still don't get to breach our behavioural policies in order to "teach them a lesson". Nobody gave you authority to do that, and even if you were in such a position, it would not be conducted through WP:Personal attacks. I repeat: you are not allowed to attack the character or intelligence of other editors just because you believe they have the wrong mindset or even, hypothetically speaking, if they had violated policy themselves. That's not how disputes are handled on this project. You need to handle these situations by soliciting broader community input and (if there is a behavioural issue) seeking the assistance of an admin or reaching out to the community here. Please pay particular attention to the following, because it really as simple as this: you don't get to call someone idiotic on this project, even if you really, really think they are... You are certainly going to earn yourself a block if you can't accept that basic condition of participation here. Snowlet's rap 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: can I just say, this isn't an article issue for me. This is an issue about someone attacking others and myself, without even providing proof. I'm more then capable of discussing the merits of article content, and going through an RfC process: but this user has instead opted to personally attack me and accuse me of things that are completely false. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Proof? uhm what proof, this discussion has gone so long and none of you have told me where the so-called "consensus" came from, this is nonsense, both you and Tomeshift9 are enforcing a poor image in not one but multiple articles citing a "consensus" that neither of you can prove exists, what is this?the burden of proof? and if so, prove it... and @Snow Rise:, discuss what?, look at the link on Malcolm Turnbull's talk page, A discussion is there and neither of the two parties have added an input nor pointed out why that certain image has to be used..and this is why i'm angry right now, you would feel the same if you felt like you were talking to toddlers (just like the guy on my userpage) and MelbourneStar, I never said that it was you i got sanctioned, I said that i have been brought here more than once and only once was justice served (maybe not this time around cause no one here bothers to understand what the real issue is or bothers to come up with a solution) and yes, this definitely does feel like stonewalling, these two are not bothering to come up with a valid reason as to why that image should be used except citing a non-existing consensus, and then come here and claim that i'm the problem..... what is this? #Alternativefacts?--Stemoc 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"#Alternativefacts" well isn't that rich -- have a look at your conduct (also your user page), and then tell me I'm using "alternate facts". This AN/I is about your conduct: in name-calling, violating NPA and AGF. It's also about you accusing others of being vandals -- without providing evidence of such. Me disagreeing with you about your claim of consensus, as opposed to my claim --- does not make me a "vandal", a "pathetic troll".
I'd be more than willing to change my views re the Turnbull image if you decided to stop treating others horribly, and start being a tad more respectful. We can disagree about x, y or z – and still get through things via procedure and being rational. It doesn't need to be negative with all the name-calling. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
My conduct?, also very rich, you started this ANI to bully me off so that i stop changing an image that you and your friend Timeshift9 keep "enforcing" into articles without an actual valid reason and now that i see it, you two have done it in more than 10 articles so yeah its a big issue now because you two are now violating wikipedia policies which i have mentioned above and possibly many others. The fact was that there was never any consensus, I gave up for a while after both of you started reverting my edits but now that i realise that there was infact no consensus and yet you two are still at it, I'm sure you both need to be put to task now, "reverting legitimate edits is vandalism" and also, please stop lying, you have no intention of allowing the image to be changed because if you did, you would have brought it to Malcolm Turnbull's talk page by now, you haven't. You redacted my comment saying both of you were violating WP:OWN so that no one who reads that page finds out and takes you both to task. I'm not the one treating others horribly, Timeshift9 and you are by continuously removing any change made in relation to australia politics articles, and now as i pointed earlier, timeshift9 has intentionally replaced other images of Turnbull out of sheer pleasure with that same crappy version which i pointed out a YEAR AGO on Turnbu;;'s talk page which is just not good enough to be used on wikipedia and you two are citing a consensus which does not exist, and thus violating WP:OWN and heck I don't even touch those articles so i'm not involved and I can see it The issue is Timeshift9, he is the one doing it but you are enabling him by citing the "same" non existing consensus, for the umpteenth time " #THEREISNOCONSENSUS and there Never was one.--Stemoc 04:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You know, for as many times as you two have been going at it (here and elsewhere), it's amazing how completely you can still talk just right past eachother. Stemoc, for what it is worth, having read that entire discussion, I agree that the Sep. 2016 image that you supplied is by far the best option discussed in the rather largish span of time that the discussion has been on that talk page. I also agree that the !votes/shared perspectives were so mixed, that it is entirely reasonable to expect some engagement on the talk page over the matter, given some of the opinions were from more than a year before, when there were fewer options--and especially in light of the fact that several people had more recently endorsed your image.
That said, the point MelbourneStar has been trying to raise with you is much, much more important--in fact, a fundamental principle of engagement on this project. You cannot just unleash a tirade of insults whenever you encounter an obstacle in your editing here. If you are so unable to process this point that you not only ignore it in content discussions, but also don't realize when you are repeatedly making personal attacks and belittling your 'opposition' in an ANI discussion discussion about your conduct, I'm not sure what can be done to get your attention, short of a block. Your chances of prevailing on the Turnbull issue issue go way up if you just back away from the insults. You say you don't really care about this topic, but if that's true, Schmeezus, I'd hate to see what happens when you get crossed on a topic you DO care about! And honestly, you might reasonably be annoyed by a situation in which you go out of your way to provide new options and then feel like they weren't properly vetted. But it does not abrogate your responsibility towards WP:C. No "idiot", "stupid", "toddlers", and certainly not "children who need to be slapped around until they learn". This is the last time I am going to comment here until another community member does, but I really suggest you get ahead of things and apologize for the WP:personal attacks, then RfC the issue. There's a reason the most recent !votes support your new photos; they are the best options. You can easily prevail if you just stop taking every editorial matter so personally, or at least stop losing your cool. Snowlet's rap 09:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved, user notified -- Samtartalk · contribs 09:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Mutt Lunker has been trying to raise some genuine issues and has made comments in good faith. There is some background here which it might be helpful for me to describe. Springchickensoup began editing on 19 November and has shown an enthusiasm for editing articles about the Cowal area. There have been some disagreements between Springchickensoup and other editors around geographical and administrative boundaries. Unfortunately attempts by several editors to explain some of the conventions and policy on wikipedia didn't appear to go down well. After first trying to engage with Springchickensoup on their talk page [78], a message was left by Mutt Lunker on the WP:SCOTLAND noticeboard to alert other editors [79]. This was appropriate as Springchickensoup had been prone to persevering with making a raft of changes despite issues sometimes being apparent. Attempts to give Springchickensoup feedback about this was still at times eliciting difficult reactions. On 17 December, with responses now getting shouty I turned to ANI, [80], feeling that there was a lack of progress in efforts to engage this editor. A few editors joined this discussion and provided some additional perspective, but Springchickensoup then used ANI to accuse me of being "confrontational and warring" [81] Again, other editors gave some feedback but a few hours later Springchickensoup had declared that had "had enough of this" and changed the message on their user page [82] to suggest that they had retired. On 10 January Springchickensoup began editing again. I had left messages on Springchickensoup’s talk page: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87] Mutt Lunker also left some messages along similar lines: [88], [89] These did not lead to further discussion on Springchickensoup's talk page, although it looks like last night there was a brief exchange of views between these two editors on the Cowal talk page. I don't see that Mutt Lunker made accusations about Springchickensoup being the author of a website that had been added as a source, but I do see a question being asked about why it had been used. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Enforcing their view that "region" should only be used as a political defination. Even when I provide a link to an online dictionary. they then quibble about the dictionaries definition.
False accusation. Quote; (Incidentally, I note the squirrel site's home page, and some other pages, have an excessive use of capitalisation of ordinary nouns, simi[lar to your own. Are you the author?) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)]
Warning off of creating an article, an article I've not thought of creating. Quote; Please do not create an article "Argyll and the Isles region" purely on the basis of this body's remit, (which incidentally is different to the two diocese' of that name). Mutt Lunker
This is a talk page discussion, the way we resolve issues here; you'd better get used to them and not be so thin-skinned. You seem to view someone questioning your edits on a talk page as the unreasonable enforcing of a view. You are the one that has reinstated the contended text rather than engage in WP:BRD - what seems more like enforcing? That is a misrepresentation of my view re the term "region".
It's a question, not an "accusation". There is nothing wrong with having written the web site but if you have, you should declare this as it probably means there are WP:RS and possibly WP:COI issues (aside from this particular ref's pertinence). You are evidently a new and inexperienced editor, so you may not know this.
Evidently fruitless attempt at humour (regarding the supposed notability of subjects purely on the basis that a phrase appears on the internet). Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
So now I'm also "thin-skinned"! It seems a dictionary definition is not a reliable reference! Quote, "Are you the author?", for the record I'm not affiliated with any organisation or website. Was not obviously an attempt at humour to me. If I don't wish to interact with people I find have a didactic and superior manner, that surely is my prerogative.{Springchickensoup (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)}
It has been my experience that the best way to not interact with someone is to not interact with them.[91] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a new user of Wikipedia.
I like Wikipedia pretty much in that it is very useful and multi-users can create their own information.
And recently I got very confused on the display technology "QLED" after Korean company introduced their new TV product named by QLED.
As far as I know, the display technology QLED is obviously emissive type display using quantum dots as light emitter.
But when I search QLED on wikipedia, it automatically redirect to "Light-emitting diode".
I think QLED is a topic that needs to have its own page.
We do have obvious definition on QLED and since many normal consumers are having confusion on the non-emissive QD LCD (which is improperly named as QLED recently) vs. emissive QLED
So I wanted to give right definition of QLED when searched.
But whenever I try to modify the definition on QLED, it is undid by someone and recently, the page is protected.
So I'm bringing out this issue to administrator's noticeboard to be solved.
Your answer would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 힐즈너 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
QLED televisions were launched by Samsung at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2017.[92] At the moment, QLED probably doesn't meet the WP:GNG requirement for its own article, but there is a section about the technology in the article Light-emitting diode.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't belong at ANI, but I've retargeted the redirect at the displays. AFAICT, no one is using quantum dot LEDs commercially for anything else at the moment, so it would seem likely most people looking for QLED are looking for info on the displays not general info on quantum dot LEDs. I've added a link to our article on the LEDs in the display article. The article on the displays is far from perfect, but has existed since 2009. Frankly as much as anything there probably needs to be some merging and moving of info, since at the moment the article on the displays seems to be a mishmash of info general info on quantum-dot technology and specific info on display technology. Care also needs to be taken in dealing with marketing jargon, since it sounds like manufacturers have used quantum dot to refer to a whole host of fairly different tech. Just as (I assume) we cover LED backlit LCDs in our articles on LCDs and OLED displays in separate articles. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually it seems my last point is even more on topic. There's actually no commercial QLED display. What Samsung is launching is just another LCD display with "QLED" backlight. I assume their QLEDs in the backlight are at least real QLEDs but I don't know. The article on the displays can be updated to mention this marketing nonsense but that's probably about all that's needed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There has been some edit warring around this subject and the user who started this section was briefly blocked for it, so it's sort of relevant to ANI, but not really. I believe the problem is that the content he's trying to add to the light-emitting diode article is better suited for the quantum dot display article, provided that adequate citations can be provided. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Because.....??? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Because of what's briefly described on, and linked from, User talk:104.54.92.176, I imagine. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That said, it's rather unclear. The most recent objection from BeenAroundAWhile seems to be to this edit, in which the IP adds "[[Category:Populated places established in 1901]]" to an article about something described as "a neighborhood and district". BeenAroundAWhile reverted this, with the edit summary "Reverting silly addition". To me it does seem odd at best to say that a neighborhood or district was "established" in any year; but for all I know the IP just meant that this was when the first building was put up. Certainly nothing in the article supports it (or directly contradicts it). It doesn't seem a helpful edit. OTOH on the IP's talk page, BeenAroundAWhile merely calls it "disruptive". Is this likely to inform or help the IP? -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, so BeenAroundAWhile has posted 10 notifications of various disruptive edits on the IP's talk page in the past 3 months. That's a sizable amount. At the same time, BeenAroundAWhile, you need to notify the IP of this ANI discussion, on their talk page. You can use the template in red at the top of this page if desired. Also, it would be good to describe the nature of your problem more fully, and also suggest a remedy. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile notified the IP about four hours before you, Softlavender, suggested that they should do this. (But I agree with the rest.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't at all consider what he wrote an even remotely adequate notice (and I think BeenAroundAWhile should know better), so I've added one just now. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Full disclosure: my particular interest is in Geography articles, especially California ones. That said: Reviewing IP's February edit at Crenshaw, Los Angeles, seems to be an unsourced addition of a category, which was reverted, with a warning on the IP's talk page. Presumably adding unsourced material to (non-BLP) articles rarely merits either a warning or an ANI thread, so more has been going on. I would like to see diffs as to what exactly are the problematic edits and why they are problematic. If it's adding unsourced material, it would be better to tell the IP that's the issue; calling the addition "silly" doesn't really get the point across about what is wrong with it. And while we could debate whether a neighborhood can have an "established date" (I think a strong argument can be made that it can; just as a city can have both a settlement date and an incorporation or charter date, either of which could be an "establishment" date). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The user (Devencci2005(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told many, many times what they need to change and they haven't reacted in any shape or form. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I placed a short block to see if it will serve as a wakeup call.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It didnot, unfortunately. I doubt they actually noticed the block. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/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.
User:Checkingfax has been repeatedly ignoring requests to refrain from refactoring and otherwise editing my user talkpage (ongoing since 19 January 2017) and User:Dicklyon has recently joined in on his behalf. I would like both users to cease all interaction with my personal namespace.
User:Checkingfax removal of edit warring warning I left to his talk page:
Latest revision as of 00:01, 2 February 2017 Checkingfax
(Reverted 1 edit by Kevjonesin (talk): Please chill and then spontaneously combust. thank you. (TW)-WP:5P)[93]
my inquiry and its response on User:Dicklyon's talkpage:[94]
the summary back to which I was referred:
Latest revision as of 00:04, 2 February 2017 Dicklyon
m (Reverted 1 edit by Kevjonesin (talk): K, you're being an asshole; cut it out. (TW))[95]
my reversion of User:Checkingfax preceding User:Dicklyon's revert:
Revision as of 23:28, 1 February 2017 Kevjonesin
(Undid revision 763251605 by Checkingfax (talk -- In my own namespace I'll insert links and notation as I see fit , TYVM))[96]
User:Checkingfax:
Revision as of 23:17, 1 February 2017 Checkingfax
(Undid revision 763242294 by Kevjonesin (talk) - I do not want my signature on your talk page)[97]
me:
Revision as of 22:00, 1 February 2017 (edit) (undo)
Kevjonesin (talk | contribs)
(Undid revision -- Checkingfax you didn't, I did by via an appropriate template as per my prerogative in personal namespace)[98]
User:Checkingfax:
Revision as of 21:14, 1 February 2017 Checkingfax
(Undid revision 763215093 by Kevjonesin (talk) I do not wish to sign the edit)[99]
me:
Revision as of 18:23, 1 February 2017 Kevjonesin
(Undid revision -- A.) Checkingfax having placed the link unsigned is in the page edit history, B.) Checkingfax has been previously asked/instructed to make no more edits in this namespace w/o explicit advance permission)[100]
User:Checkingfax:
Revision as of 20:24, 29 January 2017 Checkingfax
m (→Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: page history will attribute any comments. i have added nothing to this page. refactored per WP:TPG and WP:AGF. i do not wish my username to appear on this page.)[101]
me:
Revision as of 06:03, 20 January 2017 Kevjonesin
(Undid revision 760975309 by Checkingfax (talk) -- further refactoring of my talkpage by others without my permission may result in requests for administrative intervention)[102]
User:Checkingfax:
Revision as of 22:47, 19 January 2017 Checkingfax
(→Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: I.)[103]
me:
Revision as of 20:15, 19 January 2017 Kevjonesin
(→Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: unauthorized refactor transformed to attributed comment)[104]
me again/preceding:
Revision as of 20:07, 19 January 2017 Kevjonesin
(Undid revision 760901737 by Checkingfax (talk) -- Please don't presume to refactor/replace another's entry on my talkpage; Bring things to my attention with your own comment instead.)[105]
User:Checkingfax's original 3rd party 'drive by' edit on behalf of banned user Wikicology:
Revision as of 14:01, 19 January 2017 Checkingfax
(→Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: rm copy vio per WP:TPG and WP:AGF)[106]
~
interaction after-the-fact with User:Wikicology on Commons:[107]
~
notice on Checkingfax talkpage to refrain from further interaction on my page:[108]
Question for Checkingfax - did you put the text Link to discussion on Kevjonesin's page or not? It kind of looks like you did: [113], unless you were simply restoring a comment from an earlier version of the page. But anyway, if you did add it, then you and Dicklyon should not have edited away an {{unsigned}} template added to attribute that comment to you, I would have thought. — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Amakuru. I refactored the comment to remove the author's text and to replace it with a generic pointer to the author's original comment. My refactoring effort was completely reverted, and I did not restore it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: You repeatedly say in edit summaries that you do not wish to sign the edit and that you do not want your username to show up on that user's talk page. I do not really see how you have a choice in the matter: You made the edit, we sign our edits to talk pages and we have {{unsigned}} for the purpose of attributing edits where, for whatever reason, one was unsigned. If you do not want your username on their talk page then do not edit their talk page... simple. My advice is leave it alone and walk away since you are likely looking at a WP:3RR block if they take it to WP:ANEW. JbhTalk 15:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Miscounted. StruckLast edited: 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The unsigned template adds a line saying that he made a comment; he did not; as a reader there, he made a link work, and did not participate in the conversation. Whether or not you believe it is entirely appropriate for him to remove that auto signature that claims he commented, you should be able to see that K's warring to put it back serves no purpose and is just super obnoxious. I thought maybe an outside opinion about that would sink in, so I expressed my feelings (admittedly, more rudely that is generally acceptable on WP). Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax was responsible for that link being where it was, and for its text. Therefore they should have signed it, and it was entirely proper for an unsigned link to be added in. You can't edit talk pages and then maintain that you had no contribution in them. In fact, it would have been even better to have noted with the link that a copyvio had taken place, since otherwise it's changing other users' comments without explaining why. — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Amakuru. I did not add any content to the discussion. At the comment authors request, and in good faith I refactored a pointer to the existing content, per talk page guidelines. Refactoring does not require a signature, and I chose not to leave one. Regardless, the current text was solely written by Kevjonesin, and not by me, so I do not need to be openly attributed for it, nor do I wish to be. It is all covered by the page history. Kevjonesin added the existing text in a discrete edit—not in a revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Checkingfax
By request, I refactored a copyright violation in this edit.
From that point forward, I was out of the content refactoring loop.
The remaining edit content is Kevjonesin's. It is no longer my content.
As an aside, I reverted my signature twice in 24-hours. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The content they are adding {{unsigned}} to is precisely the content that you added/refactored. Compare [your edit to with the text where the signature is being added. Am I missing something really obvious here (I do not doubt it is possible I am.)? The both seem to be :[[:c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it.3F|Link to discussion]]. Is that the text you added? JbhTalk 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Jbhunley. My edit was reverted. What you see was re-added by Kevjonesin. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... I see what you are saying, however what they did was restore the page to the state you had created - both the text that was removed and the text that was added. Since you should have signed your original edit (you should have even left a note explaining what you did) I do not see how who reverted to your text matters. JbhTalk 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jbhunley. I am not involved in the refactoring. I refactored a copyright violation by request. Kevjonesin completely removed my refactoring. Kevjonesin owns any refactoring from that point forward. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax I do see what you are saying however here is where I, and I think the others are coming from; You refactored some text, per WP:TPO you should have left a note about about what you did, which should have been signed. Someone then reverted your edit and then it was replaced again. Since you failed to sign it the first time there is no way to know if it was independently replaced or simply reverted back to what you wrote. Since the edit is the same as your though the assumption is that they replaced your edit and, had you properly left a note and signed it, that would have been replaced as well. Therefore, it is still your edit and needs to be properly attributed to you. JbhTalk 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jbhunley. No. My refactoring was totally removed in the subsequent revert. Kevjonesin added it back in their later refactoring. It is their baby from then on. They are welcome to sign it with their name, as it is their refactoring. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That's clearly not how it works. If you write some material in an article, I revert what you wrote, and I then go on to revert my revert, does it suddenly magically become my text for attribution purposes, because I was the one who most recently inserted it into the article? No. And the same applies here. Clearly that link was attributable to you, since you put it on the talk page, and per WP:TPO you should not only have signed it, but put an explanatory note against it as to why the original material was removed. I appreciate that you acted in good faith in your actions, but as far as I can tell Kevjonesin was correct to put the unsigned template, and you shouldn't have removed it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Amakuru. Kevjonesin did not insert the comment via a revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: You keep saying that but what do you think it means? You seem to be saying that because they replaced your text via an edit rather than hitting the undo/revert button that it is not a revert and is now their edit. That makes no sense at all - replacing previous material is a 'revert' regardless of how it is done. See WP:REVERT which clearly states "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version."
Why is it so important to you that your redaction (You chose to make the edit after all.) not be documented on that user's page? Again, per WP:TPO, If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]"(emp. added). So there is no question that when you make a redaction that it should be signed.
This whole conflict is such a small thing but I see so many violations of guidelines by you, a) Improperly calling the material you removed a copyright violation and on that basis proxying for a banned editor b) Not leaving a signed note about the redaction as required by TPO c) Trying to claim that someone who returned your text after your edit was removed was not reverting the prior edit. All of this is basic stuff. I know you are a knowledgeable and experienced editor and this seems, to me, to be uncharacteristic for you. Jbh Talk 21:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax: I'm curious how the text you removed here was a copyright violation and why the requester couldn't remove it himself. Rebbing 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rebbing. Because the author was not attributed. The requester asked me to remove it on their behalf. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The comments claiming Checkingfax made a comment and so must have a signature are plainly incorrect. It would be possible to argue that Checkingfax's fixing of a bad link to one that works was inappropriate in some way that escapes me, but fixing such a mistake is not a "comment" that must be signed. The bureaucratic suggestion that fixing a link must be accompanied with a signed note explaining what has been done is, well, bureaucracy run wild. At any rate, Checkingfax did not leave such a comment so a signature is not required and would be wrong as it would suggest that Checkingfax left the link, whereas the edit was just fixing an error. Kevjonesin should attack whatever the perceived problem is (presumably a conflict with Checkingfax at some other page), and should not make a huge incident out of someone fixing a link. Bringing it to ANI shows misjudgment—just drop the trivia and accept that no one owns a page at Wikipedia (not even a user talk page), and next time someone fixes a link consider thanking them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, please support your previous comment with diff links as I really don't know what 'link fixing' by Checkingfax you're referring to. My understanding is that on behalf of a banned user he removed a quote from my user talkpage, left a link to a Commons dialog which requires exploration of Commons page history to parse relevance, and topped it off with an unspecific 'acronym salad' edit summary rather than offer direct communication in straightforward language, eg. "Banned user Wikicology has requested on Commons that he not be quoted here", or some such. I might have responded differently had I been approached differently. But I wasn't. Instead Checkingfax came out-of-the-blue, altered another's entry on my user talkpage, and left a vague trail-of-breadcrumbs rather than an explanation. Should a request made offsite by a banned user take precedent over an en.Wikipedia editor in good standing's wishes regarding their own user talkpage? --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax: I'm curious how the text you removed here was a copyright violation and why the requester couldn't remove it himself. Rebbing 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rebbing. Because the author was not attributed. The requester asked me to remove it on their behalf. Cheers! CheckingfaxTalk 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
... The quoted exchange at User_talk:Kevjonesin which Checkingfax tried to remove came from a public discussion on Wikimedia Commons (as such I presume its content would be considered to be in the public domain). One of the Commons users who had contributed to the quoted exchange, commons:User:Wikicology, was unable to personally attempt to alter User_talk:Kevjonesin directly because they have been banned indefinitely from editing en.Wikipedia in any manner; this however did not stop them from enlisting proxies to do so on their behalf. Apparently Checkingfax chose to be such a proxy. Rebbing, as to Checkingfax's responding to your inquiry with, "Because the author was not attributed.", I presume he's experimenting with 'alternate facts' as the diff you linked clearly shows the parties involved as being both named and wikilinked. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that comments made on Commons, like comments made here, aren't public domain but are irrevocably licensed under the GFDL and the Creative Commons "share-alike" license, either of wich permits reuse and modification with attribution. Under these circumstances, I believe Wikicology had no right to demand removal of his comments from your talk page, and, in my view, you would have been well within your rights to revert repeatedly and rely on Three-Revert Rule Exception No. 2 (and possibly No. 3).
More importantly, Wikicology was banned for reasons including sockpuppetry; using another user to carry out this edit was highly inappropriate. I am surprised and disappointed with Checkingfax's lack of candor in this regard. Not only did Checkingfax not disclose that he was editing on a banned user's behalf—something he surely knew—but, when asked about it here ("I'm curious . . . why the requester couldn't remove it himself."), he evaded the question. Rebbing 13:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rebbing. Kevjonesin did revert my refactoring and I did not restore the revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax and Dicklyon: Stop messing about on Kevjonesin talk page. I cannot see any copyright violation as the original post was adequately attributed. --NeilNtalk to me 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
What a constructive suggestion, considering we've stopped already. And sorry you didn't read enough to understand the relationship to the copyright issue that used to be there. But don't you think that K ought to also be admonished not to engage in such behavior, as I tried to suggest in my one edit summary? Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Dicklyon, please explain how this does not have adequate attribution. And both the text and point of your edit summary and edit were inappropriate. --NeilNtalk to me 16:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The refactored text is still directly accessible via link.
Kevjonesin *reverted* my refactoring.
Their page was then back to status quo.
Kevjonesin *manually* refactored their page back to the way I had it, but added my signature.
Kevjonesin should have signed the new edit with their signature, *if* they felt that their refactoring required a signature.
Kevjonesin decided *not* to maintain the status quo.
My signature should not be attached to Kevjonesin's content. The 2nd refactoring was unsigned by Kevjonesin, not by me. It was their manual edit (not a revert).
As an aside, most things Wiki are not in the Public Domain, unless specifically licensed as such.
Refactoring or redacting is not typically attributed by signature.
One solution is status quo ante bellum. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax, this series of edits took your refactoring and attributed it to you. There's nothing wrong with that - especially as editors have large leeway on how they manage their own talk pages. And, again, your initial edit incorrectly stated there was a copyright issue involved. There wasn't and isn't - do you agree with that now? --NeilNtalk to me 05:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. Kevjonesin *reverted* my refactoring. My refactoring no longer exists. Kevjonesin divorced me from my refactoring. Any subsequent refactoring is attributable to Kevjonesin, not to me. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. I am trying to keep things on topic and without side drama. My refactoring was reverted. That horse is dead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax, you are avoiding a direct question from an admin. You claimed three times [114], [115], [116] that the post Jmabel made was a copyvio, and then claimed the authorship was not attributed [117] although it clearly was. NeilN asked you, "And, again, your initial edit incorrectly stated there was a copyright issue involved. There wasn't and isn't - do you agree with that now?" Please answer the question so we can move on from that part of the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: My main concern is that if you still think you're right, and you act the same way in the future in a similar situation, this "side drama" may once again make a reappearance here. --NeilNtalk to me 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. You are putting words into my mouth and baiting me with a now moot point. My refactoring was reverted. Nullified. Poof. Gone. Bit the weenie. The fine points of copyright, a very complicated topic, are for other venues, and best left to copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers. I do not wish to go there at this juncture nor do I wish to use a crystal ball. Let's remain focused on the original scope of this AN/I, and the timeline of events. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: All right, I take it from your refusal to answer a straightforward question and the fact that you consider this matter best left to "copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers" that you won't do anything like this again unless you fully understand what is to you a very complicated topic. Kevjonesin, I don't think there's any appetite on the part of the community to take things further at this time. You identified inappropriate behavior and edit summaries on your talk page. That has now stopped. If it starts again (really, anywhere) then I'm pretty sure some kind of editing sanctions will be looked at. --NeilNtalk to me 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. You asked for a reply from Dicklyon, not from me.
I did not leave any inappropriate edit summaries on Kevjonesin's Talk page, and the one on *my* Talk page was after this AN/I had been filed and they had sullied *my* Talk page with a long monologue and diatribe. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Did someone ask me a question that I missed? This discussion is too complicated to find it. Probably it doesn't matter, or possibly I don't want to answer, if it was about something I know nothing about like the copyright thing. But ping me if getting an answer from me would be in any way useful. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, what are you actually after here? Understanding the copyright issue, or understanding whether Checkingfax acted in good faith? Either way, I don't see what the point of pressing for an answer here is. You seem to be into prolonging the drama that K provoked by not letting Checkingfax let the revert of his edit stand without his further involvement. This kind of trivia makes me sick. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Dicklyon, repeating what I wrote above, my main concern is that if Checkingfax still thinks they removed a copyright violation, and they act the same way in the future in a similar scenario, they may once again make an appearance here. If this kind of "trivia" makes you sick, the solution is simple - don't provoke editors by making inappropriate edits with inappropriate edit summaries on their talk pages. --NeilNtalk to me 07:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NeilN. My apologies. When you wrote: "Dicklyon, please explain how ..." ... I assumed that the question was directed at ... Dicklyon. As far as copyrights go, we laymen are the gatekeepers. If someone balks, then we can escalate to Wikilawyers – or to real ones. In this case, my single refactoring was reverted and I chose to stand down on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
NeilN: Speaking of: In this thread, one of Checkingfax's comments was misplaced (diff), apparently by the system to resolve an edit conflict; Kevjonesin fixed it, believing it to have been deliberate (diff); yet Checkingfax, after affirming that it had been accidental (diff), reverted to that inappropriate ordering (diff). Checkingfax knows how threading works—he's even shown an admirable tendency for correcting threading mistakes (diff)—and, in this case, was obviously aware that Kevjonesin was irked about this particular misplacement. I struggle to find an innocent explanation for this behavior. Rebbing 00:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rebbing. My edit session started before Kevjonesin's, so the system threading was proper and not in need of refactoring. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, WP:Dicklyon has directed attention to the summary where he's called me an 'asshole'. And I don't think anyone has a yet commented on Checkingfax's edit summary suggestion that I should 'spontaneously combust'. ... May I infer from the overall lack of concern and lack of apology regarding such that I'm now free to start expressing a few choice words of my own? Because at this point dropping some <insert-adjective-expletive-of-choice> blunt phrases might feel pretty cathartic. Or perhaps someone with tools and authority might be so kind as to simply make them go away? And perhaps follow with some actions to encourage them to stay away in the future? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Kevjonesin, please don't play a "tit for tat" game. I believe both editors have stopped editing your talk page and have no intention of starting up again. If they do, they've been warned, so the next step will probably be some form of admin action. --NeilNtalk to me 05:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, K could have and should have stopped this silly back-and-forth well before it got to where I felt like telling him to "cut it out". He seems to like the drama, hence extending the trivia to this AN/I discussion. Unbelievable waste of many editors' attention. And people wonder why I described him as acting like something unmentionable? Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
[things seemed to have been getting chaotic after Checkingfax's reinstatement of non-sequential timestamp order;[121] hopefully this section break will help with ease of editing and orderliness] (preceding note has been edited for clarity; phrasing was tweaked and a citation was added)[122]
Dicklyon commented above ...
NeilN, what are you actually after here? Understanding the copyright issue, or understanding whether Checkingfax acted in good faith? Either way, I don't see what the point of pressing for an answer here is. You seem to be into prolonging the drama that K provoked by not letting Checkingfax let the revert of his edit stand without his further involvement. This kind of trivia makes me sick. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Obviously NeilN is free to respond as he wishes. I'd like to offer some response as well:
For me to feel comfortable 'putting this to rest' I'd like to see User:Dicklyon directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he now understands that his actions on User_talk:Kevjonesin were incorrect and uncalled for and then also directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he intends to respect my request to avoid editing in the User:Kevjonesin namespace in the future. Lacking an affirmative direct and unequivocal response, I'd like to see an officially recorded topic ban put in place prohibiting User:Dicklyon from further editing of the User:Kevjonesin namespace to protect me from further insult and intrusion by him there. While to User:Dicklyon it might just be one more block added to a long list of priors placing a record there might be a service to future admins who may care to take history into account when considering how to interpret current behavior.
Please note that User:Dicklyon has shown a willingness to show a sensitivity to alteration of talkpages when it affects him.[123][124] Perhaps he might be convinced in some way to extend such concern to me as well? Also please note that I did try to engage with User:Dicklyon on his talkpage, offering him explicit opportunity to elaborate in a more civil manner,[125] before bringing our interaction up here on WP:ANI (alongside addressing my more extensive interactions with User:Checkingfax; tone, timing, and topic seemed related). Note that Dicklyon feels free to endorse talkpage discussion when it suits his own purpose.[126][127][128]
As to User:Checkingfax, I'd like to see User:Checkingfax directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he now understands that his actions on User_talk:Kevjonesin were incorrect and uncalled for and then also directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he intends to respect my request to avoid editing in my namespace in the future. Lacking an affirmative direct and unequivocal response, I'd like to see an officially recorded topic ban put in place prohibiting User:Checkingfax from further editing of the User:Kevjonesin namespace to protect me from further disregard and disruption by him there.
Frankly, I'd like a topic ban to be considered for Checkingfax regardless of how he responds as he has repeatedly shown himself to be an unreliable witness for himself. I don't really care whether his behavior comes from malice or cluelessness at this point; I'd largely just like to feel able to rest assured that he'll leave the User:Kevjonesin namespace the hell alone and refrain from edit warring there in the future. Maybe, as a 'cherry-on-top' someone in a position of authority might also try to convey to him that telling people to burn to death in edit summaries as a response to getting called out with an edit warring template is inadvisable behavior as it might well be construed as a personal attack. One can dream, right? ;-)
I'd like to directly and unequivocally state that in this section K is still acting in the way that I asked him to cut out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
[Checkingfax refactored nothing as alleged above; Kevjonesin did, as the edit history shows.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: Both the preceding commentary and its subsection heading were originally inserted unsigned, out of order, into another's thread entry by Checkingfax.[129] Its attribution, via Template:Unsigned, was provided by Rebbing.[130]
Checkingfax has again inserted his own content into the entry. I simply reverted this time.[131] If desired, others are free to transcribe the removed text elsewhere.
<sigh> :( --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, by my reckoning that now makes three times he's altered my entries here at WP:ANI, before that he reverted me three times in a row on my user talkpage, and preceding that he knowingly removed content from my talkpage on behalf of a banned user. Please help. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel disappointed that you did not accept my constructive compromise that clarified the attribution; I don't know if Checkingfax would have accepted it either; but I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems a poor way to present a suggestion in light of this. Particularly saddening as I came by the Wiki to compliment you on something I'd noticed earlier. "That's the behavior I was calling out when I took C's side in one step of the edit war.OK, I shouldn't have,but that's how I delivered my impression and advice to K."[132] [emphasis added]. I thought you might be 'coming around', but it now seems 'not-so-much'. You've certainly as yet not availed yourself of any opportunity to offer such sentiment directly to me. Meh, knowing full well I consider such contentious, after having been asked in very clear terms to refrain from editing at User_talk:Kevjonesin, you chose to again unilaterally make alterations rather than first seek consensus either here or on your own talkpage. I feel naive for having thought I'd seen an opportunity to build some mutual trust and rapport. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You "formerly" request? In all seriousness, you are being comically insufferable about all this. Thanks for the suggestion about developing consensus, which I'll propose below. Rebbing 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for pointing out the spelling error; I'll ask Dicklyon whether he minds if I correct it at this late point. And apologies for having taken a 'speaking-truth-to-power' tone earlier. For some reason I'd presumed you were an admin. I don't typically hang out much at WP:ANI. Also I appreciated and largely concur with the summary of concerns regarding Checkingfax you offered earlier in discussion with Dicklyon. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon:, do you mind if I correct spelling and punctuation errors in the notice I left on your page? Alternately, would you be willing to correct them on my behalf?
I'm suggesting ...
"{{pullquote|{{u|Dicklyon}} I, {{u|Kevjonesin}}, formerly request"
... be changed to ...
"{{pullquote|{{u|Dicklyon}}, I, {{u|Kevjonesin}}, formally request"
ie. add a comma and convert "formerly" to "formally". --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposed compromise regarding attribution of the refactored link on Kevjonesin's talk page[edit]
Kevjonesin suggested developing consensus for altering his talk page. In light of the continuing dispute over this comically trivial matter and out of a desire to appease both parties' expressed concerns, I hereby formally propose that Kevjonesin's talk page be altered to remove the disputed attribution to Checkingfax and substitute in its place: "This link supplied by Checkingfax on 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)." Rebbing 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I will not be taking part in any discussion which starts out by characterizing my concerns as "comically trivial". Rebbing, your POV intro pretty much just blew any chance of me accepting you in a role as mediator. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't call your concerns trivial; I called trivial the dispute between you and Checkingfax over whether or not to attribute the link supplied by his refactoring. (See the title of this subsection for context: grammatically speaking, the "matter" in "comically trivial matter" is the debate over the attribution of the refactored link on your talk page.) Anyway, consensus doesn't require your consenting to it. Rebbing 15:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, ...
[...]
Please refrain from making further comments of this nature on my talk page.
[...]
Excuse me? You came to my talk page and made a series of damaging accusations against me, yet it is unfair for me to respond? You make scandalous claims without evidence, and it is a continuation of my campaign against you to defend myself?
[...]
No. If you do not want editors to respond to your barbs, keep them in your quiver.
[...]
I repeat my request that you stay off my talk page until you have something productive, kind, or necessary to say.
... Rebbing, I find your hypocrisy astounding. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kevjonesin: it is way past time you drop this. From here on out the only place this thread has to go is poorly for you. People have heard your complaint, several agree that Checkingfax was wrong while some don't. Endlessly repeating things and attacking others is not going to help. There is obviously no consensus to sanction Checkingfax now, if they start up on your talk page again then start a new ANI. But for now please, please drop it. You can only damage your credibility by continuing. Jbh Talk 16:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I said I was going to shut up, but I find I can't. This is just too much. I request that K be slapped by a trout or worse, for further extending his stupid trivial drama with this unrelated attack on an editor that's just trying to help, and that this thread be closed immediately. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to remind folks that what we're dealing with is a user who chose to edit another's user talkpage on behalf of a banned user said to have engaged in sockpuppetry.[135][136][137] The edit consisted of gutting another's comment and dropping in a link devoid of context.[138] The user whose namespace the talkpage fell within chose to restore the deleted text[139] while also preserving the added link and then used Template:Unsigned to render context and attribution for the links presence.[140] Contrary to user namespace best practices guidelines the user who had showed up at the behest of an off wiki request from a banned user chose to eventually follow with edit war tactics rather than a bold-revert-discuss approach despite such having been suggested in an early edit summary by the user talkpage holder[141] and despite eventually having been asked by the user namespace holder to refrain from making anymore edits at all;[142] a prerogative customarily extended to user namespace holders.[143] Furthermore, not only did the user who'd initially come by to edit at the behest of a banned user continue to revert the user namespace holder after being told they were no longer welcome in said namespace, they were doing so in a section already explicitly marked as 'closed'.[144] Disregard, disrespect, disruption. When an edit warring warning was placed on their user talkpage[145] they responded with an insulting edit summary[146] and then three minutes later another editor shows up out-of-the-blue and happens to help the previous editor avoid explicitly making three reverts in 24 hours by reverting on their behalf and said 'new' editor also happens to drop an insulting edit summary and also happens to have a history of sockpuppetry.[147][148]
Now I don't have access to all the tools necessary to draw any strong conclusions as to the relationships between these accounts—Wikicology, Checkingfax, Dicklyon—but I am willing to point out how things have played out and suggest that there may be some questions to consider and inquires to be made as to what such relationships might be. Is the User:Checkingfax account a 'clean sock' amongst dirty ones on a multi-limbed beast? IDK, but at this point I think it may be worth entertaining the question.
Regardless, I think it's clear that they've shown confrontational disrespect and disregard both towards User:Kevjonesin and towards en.Wikipedia's customary conventions and guidelines regarding usernamespace domains. While no one technically 'owns' their user namespace (except perhaps User:Jimbo Wales) tradition and guidelines generally grant users the prerogative of fairly broad discretionary authority over such[149][150][151] and use of possessive terminology like 'my/your talkpage', 'my/your userpage', and 'my/your sandbox' in normal parlance amongst the community seems to reinforce such.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment. It's clear that both Checkingfax and Dicklyon have engaged in baffling and entirely unwarranted violations of WP:TPO and WP:CIVIL. Why either of them was even posting on or aware of Kevjonesin's talk-page is a huge mystery in itself: [152]. But yes, they should both get strict warnings, if not sterner sanctions, and leave Kevjonesin and his talk-page alone. And no, Kevjonesin did absolutely nothing out of order at all. Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the 'tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py' link you posted above, can you also add User:Wikicology to the mix? And/or generate similar for the activity of the three of them on Commons? I'm curious what cross-referencing the three on both wikis might show.
Please try to assume good faith. Given the closeness of the timestamps, I believe Checkingfax's comment may have been placed above yours as the result of an automatically-resolved edit conflict. Rebbing 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rebbing. You are correct. We were both writing our replies at the same time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikicology was banned from en.wiki nine months ago, but here is the enwiki search with his name added: [153]. Commons: [154]. What I do find curious is that Wikicology specifically asked (and pinged) Jmabel to remove the copied discussion from your userpage [155], but instead, Checkingfax removed it, 1.75 hours after that request was made to Jmabel. I can't really understand why or where Wikicology would have asked Checkingfax to remove the text when he had just asked Jmabel, especially when I can't find any overlap between Checkingfax and Wikicology on either Commons or en.wiki: [156]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
But the request was made to a noticeboard on commons. Although Checkingfax doesn't seem particularly active on Commons, it seems easily possible they were simply checking out the noticeboard at the time for some reason and saw the request and agreed with it so actioned it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: While I disagree with Checkingfax's decision to edit another editor's comment on your talk page, his rationale for doing so (there was no colorable copyright violation, and he is plainly mistaken in claiming that the comments he removed were unattributed), the lack of clarity in his modification (no explanatory note), his refusal to be credited with a comment modification he made (which should have had a note), his ensuing incivility towards you, and his lack of forthrightness here, I see no evidence that he has acted in bad faith or with deliberate malice. Based on your evidence and my past observations, I think it's far more likely that he merely wanted to accommodate Wikicology's request as a courtesy and became irritated when things got dicey. It's not model behavior, but he and Dicklyon have stopped, and I think you should let this go. Also, the community has tacitly sanctioned far more abusive, sustained, and deliberate commentary than that reported here. Rebbing 21:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, that Dicklyon and Checkingfax are not presently this very moment harassing my page likely has much more to do with pragmatic response to the fact that we're currently discussing the issue here at WP:ANI than it does with any sort of moral change of heart on their part. I can't think of any instance in this where they've shown any sort of contrition or self awareness of having overstepped the bounds of civility and such. Checkingfax is still arguing for his right to determine the content of my talkpage and Dicklyon is still making backhanded slurs at others. While Dicklyon and Checkingfax may have noted that they are not presently harassing my talkpage, I don't recall either of them stating a willingness to refrain from doing so in the future. I fear that a lack of explicit censure and acknowledgement thereof at this point may going forward be taken as tacit endorsement of their behavior. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
p.s.— I'm inclined to interpret "incivility" (wishing that I burn to death) as "malicious" and to interpret "lack of forthrightness" as an indication of acting "in bad faith". --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware the first instance may have been inadvertent, hence I prefixed with "may be"; given our history it also seemed reasonable to consider that it 'may not' have been inadvertent. The refactoring I just linked restoring an error certainly wasn't inadvertent.
FWIW, I just had some background bot misplace one of my own edits,[157] so I'm inclined to now ascribe the first instance to automated error. In my case, I corrected the misplacement and made note that an 'edit conflict' had occurred.[158]
In addition to Checkingfax once again showing an inclination towards combative refactoring, I think we should consider how to address the technical issue that some background process is incorrectly ordering changes rather than initiating an edit conflict dialog.
Hi, Kevjonesin. The MediaWiki backend correctly reconciled our edit conflict in-as my edit session began before yours. It is not a perfect solution, but putting your later comment below mine would imply that I ignored your comment in my reply, when I did not. I had the first session, whereas you had the first save. Take it up at Phabricator. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Previously raised behavioral concerns:
I was just closing out a bunch of browser tabs and stumbled across this opinion offered by Mandruss almost a year ago ...
Checkingfax, I don't think I was one of those reverting your bolding change, but if people were repeatedly reverting you that means that you were a combatant in an edit war, which violates policy as you know. It means you could never be bothered to start a talk page discussion on the question. Reviewing the article's history, I see you doing a lot of that there, and it seems reasonable to presume that's commonplace for you. I'd suggest you review WP:EW and in particular the last sentence of the first paragraph, before you point critical fingers at others for being "hall monitors" on an article. ―Mandruss☎ 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: I find it interesting that at a point where admins seem to have begun approaching Checkingfax in a more overtly critical manner—perhaps more firmly calling out and attempting to pin down bare declarations, evasions, and such—that it is at this point that Checkingfax has choosen to start making some selective invitations[159][160] (rather than of course just directly answering questions which admins have put to him multiple times). --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel was mentioned here even if not by Checkingfax, so notifying them is not only acceptable but required as the header clearly says. It's actually more important than "directly answering questions which admins have put to him multiple times". KDS4444 is a little more uncertain. They participated in the original discussion but don't seem to have been mentioned here. However I'd be very reluctant to criticise someone for an ANI notification thought. Especially since I see no evidence of any sort of canvassing as "selective invitations" may imply. As far as I can tell, anyone involved in the older discussion was notified if they weren't already here or notified. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I will confess that I have not read most of the above, but having been pinged I looked for where I am mentioned. There seems to be some suggestion that I'm conspiring or some such with Checkingfax; nothing could be farther from the truth. I have no idea who he is, and to the best of my knowledge the abovementioned is the only interaction I've ever had with him. People are welcome to look at User_talk:Jmabel#Regarding_recent_refactoring.2Fdeletion_in_my_user_space where they can see the bulk of my interaction with Kevjonesin. I had no intention of carrying it further, but having been pinged here: I felt he gave me absolutely no assumption of good faith, when I had acted in an entirely reasonable manner. That's really all I have to say. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. I don't think Kevjonesin was questioning or criticizing your actions in any way. Rather, he was questioning the actions of Checkingfax. --NeilNtalk to me 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, I confess that after-the-fact it has occurred to me more than once that I may have let my frustration with Checkingfax bleed over into how stern of a tone I took with you. I imagine that at the time you initially felt you were just carrying through on the request Wikicology placed on Commons; however for me at the time, from my perspective it initially seemed that you were reverting my revert of Checkingfax. That it eventually came out that both of you were acting on behalf of a banned user didn't help put things in a good light either. Regardless, I recall being in the middle of an attempt to take a more cordial tone on your talkpage when I received notice that Checkingfax had again subverted me on 'my' page ... whereupon my attitude again denigrated.
As I reflect upon it now, my attempt to tag both Checkingfax and Wikicology in the discussion rather than just addressing you alone was probably a poor idea in hindsight and not so dissimilar to KD4444's choice to host a Commons conference on my talkpage (similar in form if not in extent). I apologize for bundling you in with more disruptive elements and if going forward you're willing to place my concerns above offsite requests from banned users you're welcome to resume interacting again in the User:Kevjonesin namespace should you ever wish to do so. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Nil Einne, please note that my emphasis was on Checkingfax's timing rather than the fact that he'd extended notices per se. And that I put it as a point of interest, something to perhaps note and keep an eye on, rather than suggest it represented, as yet, any sort of overt policy violation. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Can I just remind people again that after Checkingfax made one edit that was reverted, he wanted nothing more to do with the conversation; when someone put his signature back, on something he didn't author in any constructive sense, he wanted it gone. Kevjonesin, acting like a tyrant, repeatedly disallowed him to withdraw. So I told K what I thought about, with advice to "cut it out". Instead, he doubled down on his obnoxious behavior, and here we still are. Again: cut it out. Close this and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone still cares, I think it was this note on Checkingfax's page that caught my attention, and then I noticed that this pot calling the kettle black was continuing the warring; so I pointed out what bad behaviour that was, and asked him to cut it out. I told him what he was being, not really expecting him to hear it, I guess. I haven't seen anything to change my impression. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Accusing me of edit warring for having made reverts in my own namespace seems ridiculous. Policy clearly states otherwise. The first three examples at 'Edit warring#Exemptions' apply ...
The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:
1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
My choice to retain Checkingfax's link addition after reverting his initial quote removal is covered by exemption "1.". My reversions of Checkinfax (both to restore quote passage and to restore content attribution) and my reversion of Dicklyon all fall under exemption "2.". And exemption "3." applies because Checkingfax's first alteration was made knowingly,explicitly, and admittedly as a proxy acting on behalf of banned user Wikicolology. These are the guidelines currently put in place by the en.Wikipedia community. It remains to be seen as to whether current en.Wikipedia admins are willing to enforce them in practice. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that your edit warring transgressed any rules; just that you were being an asshole. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: would you like a block for personal attacks? Because that's what calling other users assholes reads like. If you don't want a block, knock that shit off right now and behave like a grown up. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:, I not sure that Dicklyon regards blocks as much of a deterrent.[161] Also, have you examined the edit summary he's referring to? --Kevjonesin (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have long since cut it out. K has introduced that word explicitly into the conversation on this page in 8 places, so I don't think he's too delicate for me to me to also use it once in discussing what that was about. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
K., you are being totally unreasonable. While I question the propriety of Dicklyon's revert, his characterization of your behavior was both accurate and impersonal. Don't confuse vulgarity with vitriol; his edit summary could have been phrased as: "K, you're being needlessly irritating"—an identical meaning with more "respectable" language—to which you could not possibly have objected. Rebbing 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I object to 'needlessly'. Please consider that Dicklyon, a user with an explicit history of edit warring, has stated that he came to my page in response to having seen the edit warring warning I placed on Checkinfax's talkpage.[162][163] Let that sink in a second ... He was explicitly and self admittedly aware that he was making a contentious edit. Yes? When he reverted my good faith policy compliant content attribution which had been placed within the user namespace assigned to me and topped it off with an insulting edit summary he was self-admittedly explicitly aware that by doing so he was continuing an ongoing edit war, right?
Rebbing, multiple community guidelines state that barring overriding circumstances users are to be afforded special privileges/authority/discretion/'wide latitude'/call-it-what-you-will within the namespace assigned to them. How else to find out if such guidelines actually in practice carry any sort of practical meaning other than to press/plead for their enforcement before those—like yourself—who have been granted even broader special privileges/authority/discretion/powers by the community? If the admin community is not willing to defend guidelines put in place by the community-at-large then there is further community discussion to follow regarding assessment of the-current-state-of-things, seeking some consensus of what is desired going forward, and if need be modifying guidelines to better reflect such. -- Kevjonesin (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I object to 'needlessly', too. I think K really did need to be that irritating to get the attention he craves. See how he keeps at it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. I can't remember the last time I've seen someone work so hard to derail his own complaint. Rebbing 00:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kevjonesin. I'm aware of Dicklyon's motive and his (year-old) rap sheet—something you've pointed out repeatedly in this protracted discussion. It's true that he may be shown less tolerance than others, but a single contentious edit is not really edit warring (even if an edit war was already underway). And I agree that editors are afforded broad discretion in controlling pages in their user space, cf.3RR Exemption 2, but I don't think that means others are absolutely forbidden from meddling with your talk page. I may be wrong, but I believe your remedy for interference in your user space is the undo button, followed by ANEW if disruption continues.
Dicklyon had a plausible reason for interfering: resolving your conflict with Checkingfax by persuading you to let it go. So I don't see his conduct as being something deserving even a warning. (I explained above why I believe his edit summary was fair.) Checkingfax's edit warring, incivility, and repeated obfuscations are a different matter, and pressing irrelevant issues like this risks derailing this whole thread.
I'm not an administrator—just someone who ended up here following something else and thought she'd share her thoughts. Rebbing 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rebbing, but I think y'all are still being unfair to Checkingfax. After his one small link edit was reverted, he wanted nothing more to do with K or his talk page. But then K put in C's signature with summary "unauthorized refactor transformed to attributed comment)". After that, Checkingfax felt he has a right to not have his signature there where he didn't put it, associated with trivial content he didn't create. It started a silly fight, I agree, but is K's "namespace" more sacrosanct than C's signature? Probably not. K just refused to let C off the hook, for reasons I can't quite imagine, other than this strong ownership of own space that he keeps expressing. That's the behavior I was calling out when I took C's side in one step of the edit war. OK, I shouldn't have, but that's how I delivered my impression and advice to K. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about that: {{unsigned}} is not a signature; despite the double-revert, C. did "author" the silly link; and I don't think editors have the right to forcibly remove their remarks after adding them (if the link could even be called a remark). Still, I can't imagine why either one felt the need to continue the dispute, and I don't think it matters who was right at this point. There are so many ways either could have avoided the problem. If K. absolutely had to credit C. with the link, why not use an annotation that is obviously not a signature, something like "This link helpfully supplied by Checkingfax on 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)"?
I'm much more concerned about C.'s "spontaneously combust" remark, his repeated lack of candor here, his nonsense copyright claim backed up by a nonsense rationale that, when confronted, he refuses to concede is nonsense because copyright is "best left to copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers," and his apparent inability to understand that he has done anything wrong. (I'm not out for blood; I like Checkingfax, and I would have laughed it off had I been in K.'s shoes. But I'm not K., and we are here in part because of C.'s actions.) Rebbing 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
C didn't "forcibly remove their remarks after adding them"; his remarks had already been removed; he removed the attribution after K added the link back (and there was no remark; just a link to a conversation, hardly in need of attribution, and no longer added by C since the one he added had been removed already). As for "spontaneously combust", how is that Spinal Tap joke offensive? Did someone think he really intended that K should self-ignite somehow, or just that he should change directions? I don't know what the copyright issue was, but if his edit was so bad, why did K decide to put it back after first reverting it? I can't see that C did anything wrong here, other than maybe not have the best reaction to K's behavior; like me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it was a silly thing to insist on attributing, but it was written by C, even if it was reverted and restored by K. (Similarly, I have a right to insist on attributing comments that have been moved to my talk page archive, even though I, not the author, am responsible for their being where they are.) I've never seen Spinal Tap, so, yes, I truly assumed he was simply saying that he wished K. would catch on fire and die, which I thought was over the line. Regardless of how K. felt about it, redacting another editor's comment on a third editor's talk page over amorphous copyright concerns is not okay. But K. does need to chill. Rebbing 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkingfax wrote no comment. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
He did, however, unequivocally remove text and replace it with something else. Something that should always be noted. I certianly would have placed a note saying who has done what if this had been done on my talk page. I too am quite concerned about the behavior of all the actors here; Checkingfax for - well lots of stuff that has already been mentioned, Dicklyon - for pouring fuel on the fire, and Kevjonsin for continuing this dispute well past its 'sell by date'. It looks like the feuding has stopped on K's talk page so why doesn't, as suggested above by Rebbing and assuming the thread is something where is is desirable to have a clear history once it is archived, K just remove the {{unsigned}} and replace it with a note and a diff of the refactoring edit. Then be done with this and move on.
At this point nothing is going to happen and this should be closed (really it should have been closed days ago) Checkingfax should be reminded that if they refactor someone else's edit they should leave a note - if you do not want to leave a note do not edit another's comment. Kevjonesin should be encouraged to recognize when a thread like this has become pointless and when to drop the stick. Finally Dicklyon needs to avoid pouring fuel on a conflict they are not involved in - if you must join in be polite and non-confrontational, at least at the start. Jbh Talk 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this affair did bring out my pyromaniac tendency; I can see that now. As to Checkingfax removing text and putting a link in its place, yes he did that; his main "contribution" was the removal of stuff he had been asked to remove. After that whole edit was reverted, he was clean of it. When K put the link back, in a different context, he misrepresented C's contribution by labeling it as he did. But, as everyone can see, that's all silly, trivial, and water under the bridge. This will be my last remark. Please close or ignore this mess. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Jbhunley, Dicklyon was in fact altering User_talk:Kevjonesin earlier today.[164][165]
And Checkinfax has continued by altering entries of mine here at WP:ANI.[166][167][168][169]
Drop. The. Stick. Nothing is going to happen. You have made this thread so long no one new is going to read it and those who have are likely pretty much fed up even those, like me, who agree with you. @Dicklyon: please stay off of Kevjonesin's talk page. You are not helping. Thanks. Jbh Talk 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
p.s.— Please consider for yourself how things might seem if over a relatively short period of time four or five editors chose in error to repeatedly take liberties with your talkpage without offering the courtesy of direct discussion beyond edit summaries. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If I could not work it out I would probably go to the talk page of admin whose opinion I trusted and ask them for help. I would not create walls and walls of text, attack bystanders and continue the arguement after I saw nothing was going to happen. If you want to document the change made to your talk page for archival purposes add a note and diff showing how Checkingfax changed things and move on. If you, for whatever reason, specifically want the {{unsigned}} there, leave it (Although I would suggest you just add a note saying 'redacted by Checkingfax [diff] since there is no grey area with that and remove the {{unsigned}})and if they remove it again go ask an admin for help. NeilN is a good chap and has already commented here and is familiar with the situation. But for now drop it until something happens. Jbh Talk 17:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Requested range (49.144.0.0/16) has been blocked for two weeks. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 11:35, 8 February 2017 (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.
As may be seen at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal, this person has been quite active in the last few months, with persistent genre warring especially related to songs that might or might not be considered "soft rock".
Most of the IP addresses are in the 49.144 group, but others are in the 113.20 group. If these two ranges are blocked then this guy will be greatly reduced in his options. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
To have any effect, you would need to block a /16 such as 49.144.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which is considered large. Would you have the patience to check through rangecontribs going back to 1 January to see what percentage appear to be vandalism? EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the earliest 100 edits in the linked list of 502 edits, and I found that 28 of 100 edits were made with good intentions, even though some of these were reverted. So 72% were vandalism or editing tests. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I blocked 49.144.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Hope this has a noticeable effect on the specific vandal. If you can find a narrower range that would still work, it may be justifiable to block it for longer. Though the person is known as the 'Hanoi vandal' many contributions from this range seem to be about the Philippines. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Asked and answered. Thanks all. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2017 (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.
Greetings. Last month I opened a thread on the TFD vandal. It started as an inquiry into a rangeblock, but that became moot. But the question had been asked about whether the volume of vandalism had risen to the point where WMF should be contacting the vandal's ISP--this question had gone unanswered before the thread was archived. So I'll ask again--what's the appropriate point to try an abuse report at the ISP level? I'm persistent enough to continue playing Whac-A-Mole with all the various IPs, but is an escalation warranted? --Finngalltalk 04:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You'll probably be better off posting on one of the WMF staff member's talk pages either here on wikipedia or on Meta. I'd suggest Kbrown (WMF) or Jalexander-WMF --Cameron11598(Talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Finngall: Cameron's suggestion above is a good idea, but it may be worth noting that Wikipedia:Abuse response was once a thing - the reason why it stopped being a mixture of being time consuming and ISPs not actioning reports. Coincidently I once contacted a local council/school regarding a long term vandal and they responded positively (though if any action was taken is another question..) -- Samtartalk · contribs 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks. If you want to request something from my team at the WMF, the surest way to do that is to send an email to cawikimedia.org - we don't always spot pings that come via Echo in time (obviously!), and it's more effective for us to be able to track a request like this via an email thread (preferably that contains a fullly-explained request), anyway. In this case, if someone would write up a summary of the behavior, what you know about the person behind the account, evidence, and what you're hoping the WMF can do, and send it in to that email address, we will take a look. Thanks, and sorry we missed your ping the first time around! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Per general consensus, Junosoon is indefinitely banned from creating new articles. The ban is logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and may be appealed in six months. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2017 (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.
First, I want to say that I realize it's disagreeable to be taken to ANI, and I have tried asking Junosoon if they will agree voluntarily to not create articles other than through Articles for creation. But after asking twice, I have only received a quite mysterious reply,[170] so here we are.
Junosoon (talk·contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since July 2016, and has encountered some difficulties in their editing of Indian economy pages, which ended in SpacemanSpiff giving them a six-month topic ban from content relating to the economy of India on 30 December 2016.[171]. They appealed the ban at WP:AE, but the appeal was declined here. Their disruption in the area of Indian economy included the creation of many inappropriate articles which have since been deleted or redirected. Admins can see the deleted articles here. Four Indian economy articles have been redirected (which isn't a lot different from being deleted, of course).
Since they were topic banned from the Indian economy a little over a month ago, Junosoon has taken an interest in American politics. I just gave them a discretionary sanctions alert for this area, mainly because the Am pol articles they're now creating are for tiny details of Donald Trump's administration, which shouldn't IMO be separate articles. Several of them are now at AfD, compare AfD notifications on J's talkpage.
A detail I've noticed (and have asked Junosoon about without response) is that when Junosoon has created an article, they themselves then rate it for quality and importance on the talkpage. I haven't checked them all, no, but the ones I checked had these self-ratings. J generally rates their creations as "mid-importance", which includes the ones that have been deleted for lack of notability. I don't think they mean any harm with these ratings (or with any of their editing), but the rates are too high, and self-rating them is naturally altogether inappropriate.
It's obvious from J's talkpage that they're pretty impervious to advice from experienced users. I'm particularly concerned about their response here to Vanamonde93's friendly and pertinent advice about article creation. IMO the response doesn't show any understanding of the problem at all, or of the fact that creating inappropriate articles is something that drains the time and energy of other editors. When I saw that reply, in conjunction with Junosoon's recent article Donald Trump promise of Making America Safe Again, now at AfD, I considered topic banning the user from post-1932 American politics. However... their problematic article creation is its own problem, which has now moved from Indian economy to American politics, and could of course move on to other areas. Advice about article-worthiness doesn't seem to help. Creating articles via Articles for creation would be educational, as would more experience in updating existing content. Therefore, I propose a community ban from creating articles other than through Articles for creation. I would encourage Junosoon to first learn from doing these things, and later, say in six months' time, apply to the community to be again permitted to create articles directly into mainspace. Please comment below. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC).
Support Bishonen's post is thorough enough that I'm tempted to write "QED" and leave it at that; so let me just add that they have shown a general disinclination to follow suggestions and advice. I don't know whether this is due to malintent or simply competence issues, but the problem is especially acute when they create new pages which more experienced folks then have to look up and deal with. The problem is severe enough that I would even support a ban from creating articles, period, but if folks are content with sending J to AFC, that's fine. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support indef creation ban - the lack of concern from this user is becoming disruptive. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Long time coming, and at this point the most merciful solution. After the amount of disruption this user has caused, an indef block proposal would probably have enough support to pass, but let's see if this solves the problem before pursuing that option. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Neutral on whether it should be a total ban or include an AFC exception. I generally trust several of the users who are supporting the broader ban, but I don't know enough about how AFC works to say whether I agree or disagree with Boing!'s concern that an AFC exception would shift the burden onto them. Just take me as supporting whichever option is most likely to pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. I remember the Indian economy articles problem and the resulting topic ban, and unfortunately all that's achieved is a shift in topic but still the insistence on creating new articles for tiny bits of trivia. This is a big drain on resources as AFD is a time- and labour-intensive process. So yes, an indef article creation ban (except via AFC) would seem appropriate, which can be appealed no sooner than six months (after demonstrating success via AFC). I'd also suggest watching any subsequent AFC requests with a view to extending the ban if we see the same trivia there without any sign of learning, as the hard-pressed folks working at AFC are very busy too and should not have their time wasted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As others are suggesting, and after more thought, I favour a ban from all article creation with no AFC requests allowed. An appeal can be made after six months, when we can examine whatever other contributions have been made instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support an indef ban against creating articles - the need seems obvious, and I'd rather not burden AfC with this. In six months he could appeal offering a few sample draft articles. If those show any hope, we could modify the ban to allow him to use AfC. Doug Wellertalk 12:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment , I would certainly wish to learn if my article creations are inappropriate, my concern is that,User:Winged Blades of Godric has already been working hard much before this nomination, [172],[173], and I am sure the User:Winged Blades of Godric,recent reaction , as here [174] and User:Vanamonde93, donot like my work, I believe , there is strong evidence of personal issues problems, previous histories of both of them not supporting my work, would certainly not admire my work of article creations through AfC. Junosoon (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC), Undoubtedly, I admit my creations, might not be up to mark, which I certainly wish to improve, I am not against this ban, as it would be learning experience, for me.Junosoon (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC), also I would I like to point, that all the articles, written by me, I submit it to Wikipedia community, as a cooperative, effort, not I have no ownership of content, so what ever the community feels good, they are welcomed to take any action, on the contributions. So far I have used the title search, method only in before creation of articles, and I understand that article creation can never be one alone work, but team efforts, which expands or adds to article, which I have always looked for and addressed, be it adding references, I am thankful to all other editors who had helped me with suggestions on improving the articles.Junosoon (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Junosoon, you are certainly trying to do your best here, I'm convinced of that. But I don't think creating new articles is the best way to learn. I think a better way (for everyone who's still relatively new, in fact) is to work on existing articles. For example, you might look for existing stubs and short articles that interest you, and do some research for reliable sources and use them expand the articles. There are lots of ways you can contribute without actually creating new articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen:Bishonen: Hi,Bishonen, kindly don't address, phrases Junosoon's article creations as you have done on talk page [175], as I have stated before the articles written by me donot have ownership of content or conflict of interest, posting such phrases, on a discussion pages, would certainly impart wrong message to the community. Thanks, hope you correct the phrase.Junosoon (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Support an indef creation ban per Doug Weller. Though I think an indef WP:CIR block may not be a bad idea either. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support per Doug Weller. I admire their want to create articles, but we do not need articles on such minutiae. It's clear that they have been given advice on how to edit better, and have not responded to it, see the topic ban on Indian economics. I also agree that having articles vetted through AFC will only tax the editors that review AFC as well, so an outright creation ban is the sensible way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Strong suport--After the topic ban by SpacemanSpiff, J changed his working field but the issues/deficiencies were hardly addressed.Coupled with it is his frequent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude.I would not even mind supporting a WP:CIR indef ban either.I also support Boing's other's proposal that he be keenly watched at WP:AFC too the ban be imposed without the AFC loophole.There's no point in burdening an already over-burdened project and frankly there's enough ways one can contribute here without necessarily creating articles!
Comment:-@Junosoon:--In what way is my request to be granted the new-page reviewer right even slightly linked with the content of this discussion?Winged Blades Godric 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Change my mind about AfC. Several clueful people have pointed out above that overburdening WP:AfC is not the way to go, and I've taken it on board. I now support Doug Weller's suggestion for an indef ban against creating articles altogether, including AfC drafts, with the option of appealing for permission to create them via AfC after six months. As Boing! has implied, working on existing articles for at least six months would be a more constructive way for Junosoon to learn. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC).
This is probably an unworkable thought, but is there any way we could limit Junosoon to, say, 3 AfC submissions at any one time? This is not 3 pending reviews at a time, but 3 articles in total, in any state. I think AfC is the only way they are going to learn, but certainly I don't want to be responsible for loading AfC with hundreds of impassable submissions at once. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@78.26: that might be too complex. Junosoon is a pretty inexperienced editor with some language problems, and we don't want to put them (or us!) in a situation where they innocently violate overly elaborate editing conditions. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, I figured, but I hate entirely preventing enthusiastic good-faith creation. I support ban on article creation, as well as AfC creation. (unless someone significantly brighter than me comes up with a workable workaround.) 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support indef ban without the AfC 'loophole' for the reasons described by Doug and Bish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support an indef ban on new articles. In looking over their talk page, I see that I PRODed one of their contributions as a one-sentence article with no references. Part of the problem is that this is an editor who thinks that the way that they should contribute to Wikipedia is by creating one-sentence stubs with no references. One-sentence unsourced articles, while permitted, are not helpful in the English Wikipedia, which already has five million articles of varying quality, because they create work for editors who want to save them. This is an editor who needs to work with the articles that we already have, rather than the articles that we don't have. Creating unsourced stubs is especially problematic when discretionary sanctions are applicable. Tell them to stop creating new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Creating a bunch of stub articles that have little notability just makes more work for the rest of us...TJH2018talk 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support without loophole Per Bishonen. We really need them to stop making non-notable articles. ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 19:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support original proposal. From what Junosoon says above about using title search to identify new article topics, and other features of their editing including the odd statements about Winged Blades of Goric above, I suspect English competency is a large part of this. AfC is in a position to help them with both that and notability/referencing. Not all their article starts are meritless, and 2016 Saudi Arabian snowstorm and 2017 Verona bus crash (current titles) are both articles of value on topics about non-English-speaking places, where much of the problem was the quality of the article writing. I don't want Wikipedia to miss out on such articles, on an entrenched bias/not enough editors basis, so although I know AfC is backlogged: that's what it's for. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support ban from creating articles at all with appeal in 6 months. People who struggle with English are very capable of learning and of showing that they are trying to listen to others and to authentically respond. Trying to talk with others is essential for the community to function, and for learning so one can be individually productive. Junosoon has been brought here because of their behavior and this is the correct outcome. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support original proposal I think we should allow Junosoon, in good-faith, another chance. They have shown some skill and definitely a lot of enthusiasm and created several useful articles. Sure, they have created some that do not meet our high standards but I cannot see the harm in allowing them a final chance to take part in the AFC process. If they submit excessive unacceptable content to AFC, then further action can be taken at that time. We should encourage editors from non-European backgrounds to be involved in the project, especially with the systemic bias we have, which makes us poorer. Most editors from India make invaluable contributions to the project. English is one of two official languages of the country so a desire exists to participate on the English Wikipedia. Blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. They shouldn't be punitive. Participating in the AFC process will not cause imminent damage. If Junosoon is willing to reform their editing style then I believe that we should give them that opportunity in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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've given them a 72-hour block. They for the past few days have gone straight back into the same editing pattern that resulted in the initial block. I left them a note stating that future violations may lead to an indef block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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.
@Callmemirela: You should remember to sign, not just date, your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Generally, adding unsourced content is not a blockable offense (and indeed it seems like in recent years there has apparently been a move towards claiming that removing, or tagging, unsourced content is the greater problem). What you should say is that the IP should be blocked for edit-warring to insert unsourced material that has been challenged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice about my signature. I'm on mobile, so I don't notice the mistakes as easily. I've fixed it. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 01:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this to AN3. The IP is still reinserting the unsourced title. Someone can close this thread for me. Thank you. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 02:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Article created in user space, then moved to project space[edit]
Page deleted and user warned. Mkdwtalk 05:10, 8 February 2017 (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.
From their edit history, this seems to be an SPA who is WP:NOTTHERE for anything other than spamming. — Gorthian (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Protected at RFPP. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2017 (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.
A better venue for this would be WP:RFPP - I've taken the liberty of filing a request for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Reopened by NeilN and the original closer warned. Subsequently correctly closed by Black Kite. If it seems worthwhile the pursue, the paid editing suspicion might usefully be raised at COIN. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2017 (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.
Apparently closed (perhaps wrongly) as a Keep by a new editor. I've left a note on the talk page of the editor to undo the closure. Leaving a note here for any administrator who can perhaps guide and assist the new editor in reversing the close. Thanks. Lourdes 08:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Undid AFD close. Strongly warned editor. Judging from their edits, I strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing is going on. --NeilNtalk to me 12:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. At the very least, this editor, Godisthebestone, should not be closing deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
There's no issue to be dealt with here, unless of course certain editors keep inserting multiple external links in violation of WP:ELNO, in which case any administrator can block them. Wikipedia is not a playground for spam links. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2017 (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 recieved a message from BronHiggs concerning possible extreme deletionists in the external links WikiProject. He believes that these deletionists go to pages and delete large amounts of external links without proper reason. Please go to User talk:Adotchar#Wikipedia External Links Project to see what he is saying.
Now as this is concerning deletionists in the External Links project, I think it makes sense to have this discussion here and not at the external links noticeboard. There was already a discussion there, that hasn't exactly ended yet, but BronHiggs was opposed by almost everyone, likely because he seeks to change the external links project on the external links noticeboard. [179] He started off the inquiry by linking to a page he entirely changed, like he does with many marketing articles. (BronHiggs is extremely active in marketing related articles, and has made many start-class articles deserving of C or B of maybe A class status, though it's still start because they're low traffic). The link he started the noticeboard section with was al ink to the external links section of an article he greatly expanded. That external links section no longer exists. Also please see User talk:BronHiggs#Massive destruction of good work. What to do.3F, which shows a user complaining about deletionists. Adotchar| reply here 10:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not "extreme deletionism". It's actually "a number of editors agreeing that those links don't belong in the article per WP:ELNO, and one editor arguing at great length that they do". I don't see a problem, that's how disputes are resolved.
Probably more of a problem is that the user who complained on User_talk:BronHiggs (User:Culturalresearch) had actually had their external links removed because they were inserting links to their own self-published books. BronHiggs response was to suggest they insert their spam on less patrolled pages!! I know which issue I'd think is more of a problem.... Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
...and also blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The user was pretty evidently shopping for sympathy. They also posted at the Teahouse and my talk page about the same things. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Indef blocked by NeilN - Thanks Exemplo347 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2017 (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.
Greetings, can someone please cast their eye over the actions of Hanna Mania300 at this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwen Gyimah (2nd nomination)? The editor has been confirmed as a sockpuppet after I initiated this SPI which is currently awaiting Admin action. In the meantime, the disruptive editing and use of multiple accounts continues to disrupt the AfD (I found this bungled edit a particularly hilarious attempt to hide the fact that they're using multiple accounts) and I'd like to request a temporary block for this editor until the admin action from the SPI takes place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sockpuppet indefinitely blocked. Master also indefinitely blocked as they show no interest in editing anything outside of this article. --NeilNtalk to me 11:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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.
Blocked with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilNtalk to me 12:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you NeilN.- MrX 12:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Indef blocked by RickInBaltimore. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2017 (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.
If he carries on edit warring in defiance of WP:ENGVAR I'll resolve it by blocking him (even though I'm British too), so it would certainly help if someone could get him to stop first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec)I've replied on the talk page. Reviewing their edits, I'm close to issuing a block for disruptive editing, especially given their recent editing history. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) & (Non-British Observation) The WP:MOS is pretty clear on this, and I'm not sure how it would change from a British administrator reading it to an American or an administrator from any other country. Also what does British imperialism have to do with the the price of tea in China?--Cameron11598(Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
And I just realized the analogy doesn't work here because it had a bit to do with the price of tea in China. --Cameron11598(Talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just looked over his history, and I'm seeing a pretty obnoxious approach to collegial editing, together with some anti-feminist POV-pushing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This may be relevant to the conversation: [186]. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm getting an impression of WP:NOTHERE from their edits, is anyone else? Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"@Black Kite: Looking through their talk page history I concur. --Cameron11598(Talk) 18:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The user seems to be on a slow campaign to right the Great Wrong of not preferring American spelling and units as standard throughout the project. As evidence: [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]. Some of these are probably valid ENGVAR consistency edits, but there's a pattern of changing things to American standards without any thought and often against consensus. Terse notes in edit summaries further suggest a POV campaign: "damn commies", "Engrish", "use proper english", "easier to read". And of course the icing on that particular cake is today's "I don't listen to brits". I'm doubtful a strict final warning will be of much use here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Very troubling diffs. I don't see how they're gonna work out here. Tiderolls 19:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC) ...and, I'm an American admin, btw. Just sayin'...
In the past, Bumblebritches has been blocked for a month under Gamergate sanctions. I'm also really close to issuing a block for this new crusade. Deor (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
A minor (pardon the pun) annoyance, they also have been marking a lot of edits as "minor edits", which are including the removal of material, as in their latest edit. WP:NOTHERE is certainly coming into play. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs a block and a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. -Roxy the dog.bark 20:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I kind of object to a Wikipedian asking for a particular kind of admin to handle a problem, based on nationality. Surely there must be a guideline on that sort of thing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's an abundance of caution -- the idiot editor under discussion is anti-British, pro-American (and BTW, I'm an American) so if an American admin issues the block it avoids the appearance of partisanism. EEng 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If push came to shove, I'm sure WereSpielChequers or any Brit-admin could have handled it. This is just a way to highlight a problematic request from a problematic editor. --NeilNtalk to me 20:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do we give such people more than one strike? The chance of this person becoming a constructive editor is 1 x 10^-86 i.e. about the chance of you and I randomly selecting the same elementary particle out of the entire observable universe. Just block indefinitely and be done with it. EEng 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. I realize I'm involved, seeing as I replied to their concern for a "non-Brit admin", however this user was not clearly here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand the policy, but I don't think you were really involved in this case. Either way, good call. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Good bock, more than deserved, "I don't listen to Brits" is enough justification for a NOTHERE block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
@RickinBaltimore: See this diff so I'm also flagging this with {{check user request}} (not sure if they'll be able to help but meh)--Cameron11598(Talk) 23:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
WMF is handling it. --NeilNtalk to me 03:16, 9 February 2017 (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.
Yeah, that is a pretty blatant suicide threat. Emailing emergency right now (if you did it already, well, it doesn't hurt for multiple emails). SkyWarrior 03:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@SkyWarrior: Thanks. I didn't know what to do other than report it here. Adam9007 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's fine. Remember to email if this unfortunately happens again, in addition to reporting it here. In the meantime, the IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist. SkyWarrior 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep (here the diff). SkyWarrior 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for making the call. Small community, there's a chance there's enough there to preempt. El_C 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Now I come to think of it, it was pretty dim of me not to think of informing the foundation right away . Adam9007 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Answer to Exemplo's question from an admin: A NAC close was OK here. If anyone has a problem with it, the solution is to politely ask Exemplo if they will reopen; if not, go to WP:DELREV or ask an admin to reopen. The solution is most definitely not to be haughty and call people names, and involved people should not be reopening AFD's. It was a procedural close, so anyone is free to renominate with a better-organized AFD. And someone needs to take a break for a little while, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2017 (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.
Have re-re-opened it till your ANI is sorted! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you genuinely have a problem with the procedural close of a confusing AfD nomination that has had no comments for 8 straight days, then maybe you should take a step back. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have no interest in the topic at all, you should not be close to it anyways. Get lost elsewhere; relisting is something that has already been invented. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the actual closure, but I will say that, if uninvolved, I believe you can't revert a closure of a discussion for the sole reason of the closure not being an admin (see this RfC here). This appears to be the case here, and therefore the AfD should not have been overturned for that sole reason alone. Also, Dharmadhyaksha, see WP:CIVIL. SkyWarrior 03:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
That was my understanding too. I'm totally uninvolved and therefore there's no grounds for that response. I'll be restoring the closure shortly, hopefully there's not going to be some sort of silly edit war. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes SkyWarrior! We need a lot of editors like you. I-have-no-opinion-on-the-topic-but-always-have-free-advice-and-let-me-just-give-it-away-here-too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As someone who voted! in the AfD, I'm the only voice in it so far after a week; usually I would ask for a a re-list but Dharmadhyaksha's zeal to get the article deleted needs to be calmed down and they ignored any of my suggestions to clean up the nom, which was non-standard in format and rambled against IPs and newer editors (that might be one of the reasons I was the only one to comment). If you don't like the AfD decision, there are many articles here you can look at. Move on from this one. Nate•(chatter) 03:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, you can't re-open a closed AFD. If you have a problem with it, you can go to Deletion Review. That being said, I find the behavior of Dharmadhyaksha troubling, both here and at the AFD and in the edit summaries. A warning to be civil should be in order. Sir Joseph(talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
He's forum shopping now - I've just had a notification of an Edit Warring Noticeboard discussion about this very issue. I think I'll just sit back and watch! Exemplo347 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion isn't closed. I'm still waiting for an Admin to answer my original question. Exemplo347 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Re-opened and unhattened; Dharmadhyaksha, knock it off; you can't close a discussion just because things aren't going your way. Discuss and resolve. Nate•(chatter) 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 fascinates me is not that the OP doesn't know how the process works - God knows that would be understandable - but that they are simultaneously clueless and dead sure that they do know what they're talking about. This was already closed at WP:BN. Also, SoWhy took a reasonable approach. This is either a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, or (seems more likely) a troll. I know AGF says I'm always supposed to assume the former, but that's pretty hard to do sometimes. Before quoting WP:BITE to me, ask yourself: would any rational person actually think this is how it's supposed to work? No, they would not. Block will follow if this keeps up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2017 (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 figured that's what this was about. You may be surprised to learn that Arbcom ordered no one to protect anything - they gave the admin corps a tool to use as they see fit, within a defined topic area. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
"This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." So, admin judgement and nothing much to see here. --NeilNtalk to me 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I'm not seeing it. El_C 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
So, you just found wikipedia and stumbled right into this, eh? SQLQuery me! 04:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] I'm not seeing it either. I also find it odd that this anon also has no other edits yet an intimate understanding of policy and who/what to contact regarding Arb enforcement. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
We need to get a bureaucrat involved here to discipline SoWhy as appropriate. I already let primfac know about the problem. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
IP blocked. But this will give me a chance to add what I wanted to before the close: There have been past discussions on this, the latest one is here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#ECP_in_practice. Admins have generally agreed that ECP is one option, by no means mandatory, and not always the first option to reach for. --NeilNtalk to me 04:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 needs to be clarified a bit. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is not optional. It is an actual prohibition on edits to a group of editors. ArbCom has affirmed this in past ARCAs (see the arb discussion at Special:PermaLink/756684880). Many arbs have even discussed it as if it is a limited topic ban (with more exceptions than the typical topic ban). The page NeilN linked is related to the community's policy on ECP as applied to pages undergoing disruption, not the ArbCom remedy. Admins don't have to use their admin tools at all. That's certainly true. But when the prohibition of the form "Editors that do not meet this quality may never edit this article" is not reviewable or overturnable by the community and we have an exact tool to enforce that, why would an administrator actively decline a request asking for the prohibition to be enforced? You can read the ARCA I linked above and see that the wording was intended to keep other options open, not turn ECP off. Guerillero put it most succinctly when she stated "The ban itself is not optional." ~ Rob13Talk 16:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 You ask why an admin would decline - giving an example is pretty easy. If only part of an article is related to ARBPIA then turning off editing for <500/30 is not my first choice. --NeilNtalk to me 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Please re-read the restriction. It applies to any page reasonably construed as belonging to the topic area, not any edit. If there is substantial content regarding ARBPIA on the page, then 100% of edits from non-extendeconfirmed editors violate the prohibition. On the other hand, if the page isn't in the topic area, 0% of the edits violate, even those which are about the topic area (but see discretionary sanctions, which are still in effect from WP:ARBPIA). ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Now at here. ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Banned IP user has begun personally attacking me[edit]
Having considered the below: It is rare to indefinitely block an IP address (see here for the policy). The IP is being pointlessly argumentative but there's really no reason for you to be engaging them on their talk page. Simplest resolution here is to just stay off their usertalk and leave them to sit out their block. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2017 (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 I ask why you're posting on that user's talk page at all? If they're banned for 6 months, why has your first edit been to pop onto their talk page? A reasonable course of action, surely, would be to leave them alone. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I also note here that the user in question hasn't posted for two days. There's really no reason for you to have started this discussion - especially when they can't respond to it. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Firstly, my IP address changes all the time. I initially told them that they're forgetting the way the term is used in Singapore and other Asian countries as well as in the UK, so it's incorrect to remove the information. I told them to find a credible source for the information they claimed was true and I also told them not to add unsourced information to pages. They replied to my initial message and two days ago they replied to my previous message, so I replied thinking they may have a source. I didn't think they would start alluding to swear words though. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC))
Well like I said, they're banned for 6 months already. Asking for an indef block just because you don't like what they said on their own talk page seems a bit silly. You could easily just not return to their talk page and carry on editing Wikipedia as if nothing ever happened. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Well the Wikipedia guidelines don't support that behaviour. Last year, I experienced the same thing from a registered user and one of the Wikipedia administrators told me that they believe that type of behavior should warrant a "life ban" and they did get banned for life. Hence the reason I came back. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC))
The discussion above 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.
Personal attacks in edit summaries after starting civil discussion[edit]
A “final warning” was given. Κσυπ Cyp 09:31, 10 February 2017 (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 is beyond stupid. You were the first one, who showed hostility from your first edit summary. And MY talk page is MINE and I made no personal attacks towards you. Just because you take word-for-word is your problem and not mine. And I CLEARLY stated that I do not wish to discuss with someone who is hostile from the first word. Admins can do whatever they want—warn me, revoke my editing rights for some time—but I did not do anything wrong. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
In my summaries on The Grinding Wheel, I pointed out MetalDiablo666 was the first and main contributor to that article, bearing in mind WP:CITEVAR, which I later cited. I also said using date before accessdate was "odd" due to the order in which the two parameters ultimately show up on the page. Then on your talk page, I said you were disregarding a policy (well, a "content guideline"). That was not hostile. Also, you did do something wrong: you attacked me twice ("mental issues", "psycho") for trying to start a discussion with you. Just because it's your talk page, does not give you the right to make blatant personal attacks. Ss112 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: You most certainly did do something "wrong", the two edit summaries quoted above, are personal attacks, and inappropriate behavior. Paul August☎ 16:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Your talk page isn't yours its the projects, they are just kind enough to let you hold conversations with other editors there. Amortias (T)(C) 16:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The first diff is clearly a personal attack. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Those summaries were taken from MY talk page and not some article's page. And looks like I wrote "someone" and "people", which are neutral and are not pointed at any specific user. I could have written "f*** off b****" like some other users tend to do, but I did not. It could constitute as hostility, but it by no means is a personal attack. He ignored what is written in WP:BRD, which clearly states that if someone is reverted then that person should start a discussion. Furthermore, I was accused of changing something to "my preference", which is not true. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Everyone understands that you were talking about Ss112 in those edit summaries, for you to try to claim otherwise is not credible. (And that they are from your talk page is irrelevant). Paul August☎ 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sabbatino, trying to escape the reality of this gross violation of our no personal attacks policy by trying to say it wasn't directed at a user is wrong. Given that you removed comments from a _specific_ user with that edit, its edit summary is clearly and blatantly directed at the person who wrote the material your removed. Accusing a fellow editor of having "mental issues" isn't some sort of grey area with regards to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is a clear, unequivocal, blatant violation of that policy. I strongly encourage you to reconsider taking any similar action in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I know better what I did or did not do. If someone is going to accuse me then he/she/it should not go to admins and cry about that. And I am not going to discuss anything with a person who starts his messages by accusing me of doing something, which I did not do. That is the main reason why all of his messages were removed from my talk page in the first place. Moreover, if someone (not directing this at anyone!) starts with hostilities then that person (not directing this at anyone!) probably has some issues if he/she/it can not communicate in civil manner from the start. Simple as that. — Sabbatino (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
And here you've just highlighted the problem. To resolve this dispute, it is completely irrelevant whether or not a person has "some issues" or not. It simply DOES NOT MATTER and is commenting on the editor rather than on their comments. This is flat wrong. If you were to phrase this as "Hammersoft has some issues" it would be a personal attack. If you can't convey a thought without commenting on a person, don't convey the thought. It's not hard. Just don't do it. There is no excuse for commenting on someone. None. Even if that person were confirmed to be suffering from <insert whatever psychological illness you want>, commenting on that person most especially with regards to their mental condition, is flat wrong. You are plenty enough experienced to understand that, and I hope you've now realized the error that you made. Given your experience and clean block record, I am confident this won't be a problem again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If I knew that someone was suffering from some illness, I would not write anything. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This dispute has been at the bottom of this triangle
@Sabbatino:@Ss112: The recent editing history of The Grinding Wheel clearly shows the two of you to be engaged in an edit war. This ends. Now. Trying to prove the other wrong via edit summaries, the senseless repetitive reverts and restorations, accusations on talk pages, etc. are pointless. This is going nowhere fast. I note that neither of you has attempted to start a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the FIRST step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Both of you need to stop editing the article, take a breath, step back, go for a walk, do something different for a bit. When you're ready, come back and discuss it civilly at the talk page of the article. If the two of you can't approach this in an appropriate manner, I would not be surprised if an administrator blocked both of you to stop the disruption. Both of you are long term, experienced editors here with clean block records. Both of you know better, and both of you are better than this. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: the edit war you're referring to ended hours ago. I performed two reverts after my first edit to the page, started the discussion on Sabbatino's talk page, but was initially reverted and insulted, then realised it was pointless to continue. Therefore I have no desire to attempt to talk it over on the talk page, or continue fighting over it. The edits I have made to the page since have nothing to do with what the dispute was about. I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't launch personal attacks on anybody, which Sabattino did. Ss112 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you acknowledge it was an edit war. Please have a look at WP:3RR. It doesn't mean you get to perform three reverts for free in 24 hours. Both of you were quite cognizant of the reverts you were conducting and should have initiated discussion on the talk page. I guarantee you nothing was going to be destroyed by the article having one preferred content or the other until you guys hammered it out on the talk page. Not launching personal attacks doesn't mean you didn't negatively contribute to this situation. Yes, you did initiate discussion on his talk page with this edit. You started off by accusing him of lecturing you. This is hardly a friendly way to start off a conversation. I encourage you to start discussion on the article's talk page, where other interested editors can contribute. That's why Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol exists; get others involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Have look at the triangle at right here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I'm well aware of 3RR and that it doesn't mean I get to just do whatever up to three reverts. I misread your first message here as saying I should be blocked already/implying that I had already broken 3RR, which I didn't. As I said, I tried talking it over with them directly and quickly saw that if I tried on the talk page, it would go nowhere, and I don't particularly care anymore to change it back or essentially keep repeating "it makes sense to have date before accessdate because it shows up that way; original style per WP:CITEVAR", etc. I also contacted the creator of the page, MetalDiablo666, but clearly they are not concerned. I understand I didn't exactly word it the most neutral way I could have, but I don't think that in any excuses the personal attack that followed. Ss112 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
...and Sabbatino has been properly counseled about that above. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There was an edit war and I am at 3RR, which I would not brake (except if it was one of the WP:3RRNO points). I already wrote on my talk page that some documentations have mistakes/errors, but somehow this particular user disagrees and thinks that they are all right. Here is an example of "Cite web" template using the cite tool at the top of the window (all parameters are filled) – <ref name="u" group="v">{{cite web | last1=a | first1=b | author1=i | authorlink1=j | title=c | url=d | website=e | publisher=f | accessdate=g | ref=h | archiveurl=k | archivedate=l | location=m | page=n | pages=o | language=p | format=q | doi=r | date=s | quote=t}}</ref>. As we clearly see – the accessdate parameter goes before the date parameter. End of discussion, and either documentation or the tool needs to be updated. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see how the cite web template generated by a tool at the top of the editing window is the "final word" or some definitive proof to be the "end of discussion", and the documentation is not mistaken. It was typed out knowingly. This is not the place to continue a content dispute, as nobody here is interested in knowing about it. The end result is that accessdate appears after publish date, and therefore that order makes sense to type out in the code. Most pages also do not arrange accessdate before publish dates; this page is actually one of the few I have seen, which is why I initially corrected it. Can somebody please close this discussion before this progresses any further? Ss112 21:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Most people (or should I say majority) just copy the existing templates and fill them by hand. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
[citation needed] In my experience, a majority of editors are already aware of how to fill out a reference themselves and don't need it generated for them, or use another script if they haven't filled it out properly. Now this is just getting into pointless anecdotes. Ss112 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteI have issued a "final warning" to Sabattino, just to make it clear that despite their objections here those edit summaries are obvious personal attacks. I should also hope that it is understood by both parties that edit warring is never the corect course of action. WP:BRD is the way to resolve editorial disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
At People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as MEK, MKO) article, I believe the agents of the Iranian regime are making massive edits. Well-sourced informations, from UK parliament and other free Western sources, such as
"The Iranian government considers the MEK to be the organization that most threatens the Islamic Republic of Iran,[27] since it seeks a secular democratic republic.[28] Since mid-1981, and immediately after a June 20, 1981 pro-democracy demonstration of nearly ½ million MEK[29] supporters' in Tehran, the Islamic Republic cracked down on the MEK. Mass arrests and executions of the opposition have taken place in Iran since 1981. At least 120,000 MEK activists and supporters of other political movements are reported to have been executed during this time.[30]"
have been removed. See former revision of the article: [194]
And now ridiculous statements like "The group has no popular base of support inside Iran, but maintains a presence by acting as a proxy against Tehran" and "They hailed "His Highness Ayatollah Khomeini as a glorious fighter" have been added.
As late as Wed Jan 11, 2017, Iran regime mass arrested MKO supporters, during cleric Rafsanjani's funeral, as reported by Iran regime's own state-controlled media PressTV [195]
During cleric Rafsanjani's ( a cleric who was having disagreements with Iran's very longtime dictator Khamenei) funeral, many protested against regime, in support of opposition, as reported by NYTimes [196] and other free media, and even controlled Arab media [197]
In July 2016, more than 100,000 Iranian rallied to support MKO, according to reliable free source HuffingtonPost, among others. See [198]
The group is considered the main Iran opposition, Khomenei mass executed over 30,000 of them in 1 day. And there are recorded names of over 4,482 disappeared prisoners in 1 yr during Khomeini dictatorship, per AmnestyOrg. See 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners
At People's Mujahedin of Iran, only sources from free reliable media, like western media should be added. Iran regime proxies added controlled Iranian media and book sources, which should be carefully reviewed and removed if deemed unreliable or misquoted.
AGF it's possible they're seeking anonymity with a new username due to fear of real-life repercussions. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@ExliranP:, all we can really do, absent the identification of a specific account consistently violating specific Wikipedia policies by introducing falsely sourced or unsourced content, is ask editors to keep an eye on the article and make sure that edits are well sourced and meet other policies such as undue weight. We can't require that someone prove that they are not employed by a foreign government before they are permitted to edit. General IzationTalk 04:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It also may be much more effective to post this concern on the article's Talk page, as that is where editors who will exercise this oversight are likely to see your message. General IzationTalk 04:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless you have solid evidence that the article is being edited by the Iran regime (but see WP:OUTING and bear in mind that accusations without evidence are considered unacceptable personal attacks), this looks like a content dispute rooted in an assumption of bad faith (if not trolling). The removed material starting with "The Iranian government considers..." appears to have been primary source based synthesis. The claim that "the group has no popular base of support inside Iran" is sourced to a work published by the Brookings Institution -- not something you can claim is controlled by Iran. The rest of the material added is likewise sourced to western academic or journalistic publishers. The bit about the MEK hailing the Khomeini (which you present out of context) is sourced to a book published by I.B. Tauris. The best possible conclusion I can reach here is that you are extremely confused and operating out of blind emotion instead of comprehending reason. Drop it and walk away. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: It's not possible to gauge how much support opposition have when the regime executes anyone they believe belongs to the oppostion. So, all I'm asking is, add the following to the article:
The Iranian government considers the MEK to be the organization that most threatens the Islamic Republic of Iran,[1] since it seeks a secular democratic republic.[2] Since mid-1981, and immediately after a June 20, 1981 pro-democracy demonstration of nearly ½ million MEK[3] supporters in Tehran, the Islamic Republic cracked down on the MEK. Mass arrests and executions of the opposition have taken place in Iran since 1981. At least 120,000 MEK activists and supporters of other political movements are reported to have been executed during this time.[4]
@Ian.thomson:, I understand. whoever added that didn't know how Wikipedia works, but it's not hard to find reliable secondary sources such as NYTimes for this content, and the way the article currently is, it's like cherry-picking sources to make the Iran regime happy (possibly done by regime agents). The protection level for the article is also problematic. It currently doesn't meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--ExliranP (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Hi ExliranP. As Jeremy pointed out above, there not much that an ANI thread can do to resolve a content dispute. The place for you to discuss your concerns are on the article's talk page. This will allow other editors familiar with the article's subject matter to weigh in and address them. If that still does not lead to a resolution, you can then follow the other steps of WP:DR. If you have concerns/questions specific to WP:COI or WP:NPOV, then you can also try asking at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. Please be careful, however, to be cognizant of WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:RGW and try really hard to stick to discussing relevant policies/guidelines wherever you decide to bring this up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm having trouble AGFing here considering it was only a few weeks ago we had someone else with similar nonsense claims about people editing on behalf of the Iranian regime [199][200][201]. It seems that editor was blocked as a sock, and sure enough a case has been opened for this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newcomer1 (see that was already noted above). Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A checkuser found no evidence of socking and I don't think there's enough evidence of socking without CU so I withdraw my above comment and apologise to ExliranP. That said, as Marchjuly has said, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. In addition, unless they have good evidence of someone editing on behalf of the Iranian regime, they need to work in good faith with all other contributors even those who's opinions they disagree with. Also, even if they have good reason to be a SPA, they need to appreciate people are always going to be wary of SPAs in a subject area with such a wide history of socking. If they are able to work well with other contributors, the should be able to easily avoid any concerns. That means as I said, discussion in appropriate places (i.e. not ANI) with everyone to fix any problems in the articles, find appropriate sources etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've rev-deleted those edits and have requested Oversight, but I've only given a short NLT block as I don't really have time to properly investigate - I'll leave it to someone else to extend it and/or consider WP:DOLT as appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't we have a special kind of block -- the WOT Block -- for anyone involved in World of Tomorrow, in the general principle that it's always a waste of everyone's time? The way it would work is the moment anyone edits The World Tomorrow (radio and television) or its talk page, the software immediately blocks them. EEng 19:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, truth really is stranger than fiction. EEng 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, it looks like another People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front thing. Don't you just love the way religion unites people? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Pity us poor career Wikipedians who have never watched the show, make no claims to owning the show, and are simply Wikipeding the article! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, how many legs does a Wikipede have, anyway? EEng 19:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Two long ones and a short one. At least in the males' case. HalfShadow 06:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, having never watched the show doesn't prevent false accusations of being made against us in edit summaries (seriously, the only thing they got right in that summary about me was my user name). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to believe, after all these millennia, that people can agree on a seven-day week but still can't get together on whether Friday, Saturday, or Sunday is the right sabbath. I mean, it would make sense if they would exploit that diversity to improve resource utilization by sharing facilities that currently go largely unused six days out of the week, but No, they've also gotta argue about the shape of the building and what kind of spire and the pictures on the wall and who consecrates it and shit like that. It's almost as if they're arguing just for the sake of having something to argue about. But of course that can't really be it. EEng 20:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Based on the posts by Wwcg-archives (talk·contribs), I'm guessing they are not a sock of Garnerted. Their posts suggest that they are in a copyright or trademark dispute with the socks of Garnerted. Both sides in that dispute need to take their argument outside of the Wiki and resolve them elsewhere; regardless of Wwcg-archives being a sock or not, this is not the place to work out their legal concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Low-level but chronic link degradation from anonymous editor 50.101.13.34[edit]
There's an editor who has been editing from three different IPs- currently at 50.101.13.34 (and formerly 50.101.16.172 circa July to August 2016 and 50.100.178.173 circa October to November 2016). The pattern of edits makes quite clear that these are the same person in each case.
The user was previously notified in very AGF and helpful style where and how this was causing a problem, and then- only after not responding- given further warnings making clear where the problem was.
This is happening at a low, but continuous level, which doesn't seem to suit the requirements of vandalism reporting. However, it's clear that this is the same person, who has been notified of the problem repeatedly, and exhibiting the exact same pattern of behaviour.
Looks like the user has been temporarily blocked by @EdJohnston:; don't know if it was in response to this or not, but appreciated anyway, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I will file a report at SPI. The dab page and its history (only two edits) need to be restored. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
User indeffed, page moved back and restored. We need to come down hard on this practice so I've also revdelled the intermediate versions. --NeilNtalk to me 04:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Could an edit filter detect activity like this, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe if something could just log moves of disambig pages, that would provide something easier to check than the general move log? Or maybe a "disambig" filter for viewing the move log (it would need to filter moves of pages tagged as disambig rather than with "disambiguation" in the title)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That could help, but the first action tends to be the removal of the disambiguation template. Presumably that's an uncommon action. Mackensen(talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's only getting logged; removing the template is occasionally useful (e.g. an improper disambiguation page that gets redirected somewhere), so the filter shouldn't prevent such an edit. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Logging these pages moves would be very helpful. The combination of new users moving dab pages must be very unusual. Note that the sooner we can catch them, the more likely they are to stop (or at least pick a different route) since most undisclosed paid editors offer some form of money back guarantee if pages are deleted, but only if it's within 30 days or so. SmartSE (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
All fixed. Thanks for doing the detective work on this. --NeilNtalk to me 01:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Turbana still needs fixing, I've only been able to move it back to Turbana (disambiguation) but now it redirects to Turbana, Bolívar with no link to the other article. If the intention was to make the municipality the primary topic I think a page move request is needed, particularly as when Turbana was created in 2006 it was a page for both the municipality and the banana company. Peter James (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. --NeilNtalk to me 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There are also disambiguation pages hijacked then cut and pasted back to their original titles, leaving the earliest disambiguation edits in the new article histories - two articles where this has been done are Evan Baehr and Evan Loomis. These are related to the Jason Ballard and TreeHouse, Inc articles where the disambiguation has just been redirected. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Moves, revdels, blocks, deletes - well I guess that's one way to catch up to Materialscientist in admin stats. --NeilNtalk to me 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: It's no biggie, but when tidying these up, it's tidier if you delete the created article, then restore the previous dab edits at that title, then move the dab back to it's original title. Then there's no need to revdel and the deleted versions stay at the right page title rather than still being at the dab. SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: Sorry, I don't quite get you mean. Right now I move [hijacked title b] to [original title a], without leaving a redirect and deleting the existing [original title a]. What do I do instead? --NeilNtalk to me 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: See Special:Undelete/Admiral_Markets_UK_Ltd which was where the dab had been moved to. I deleted that, then restored the old versions of the dab at Admiral_Markets_UK_Ltd, before moving that page back to the old dab title, without leaving a redirect. Like I said, no biggie, but this stops the dab history having random revdelled versions in it. SmartSE (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As I was patrolling the User Creation Log, I came across a large batch of names created one after another. Only reason I'm bringing it here is because they haven't done anything wrong, except for the fact that their userpages are nearly identical...which leads me to believe that they may be part of an educational project...
Not too sure where to put this besides here...TJH2018talk 16:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Judging by their Userpages and talk pages, you are almost certainly correct. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Just bear in mind that this might be some sort of computer education "edit-a-thon". I have a coworker who edited WP as part of a class project not too long ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I took the liberty to leave them a welcome message as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a college course. Some of the user pages say "this is for my Digital Media class". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I would have said a high school course, not a college one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I noticed, too. It led me to comment. That being said, they do bear watching. Young adults learning to edit WP for the first time aren't likely to make dozens of contributions without a few (serious) fuckups. But be welcoming! I'm going to keep an eye on them, and I'm going to act like a straight-up wiki-ambassador if I have to revert, explaining exactly why, explaining how they can do it better next time, welcoming them, inviting them to ask questions on my talk page, offering sexual favors, etc, etc. I suggest a few more folks do the same. Good new editors are a rare breed, we should encourage more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've welcomed and offered to help such users before, but for some reason they seldom respond. I'm wondering if they're supposed to do the class-required stuff mainly on their own...White Arabian FillyNeigh 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine that they create the accounts during class, then are assigned homework to edit WP. Since college homework is rarely graded, most don't do it unless they need the practice to pass the test. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
IP 91.243.69.239 was "blockinated" for 2 weeks while Kend remains blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (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 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 discussion above 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.
Yeah, I think GAB misread the report and thought that Kend94 was blocked. However, I made this close come true by blocking the IP editor for two weeks. This seems like a fairly stable IP, and the only edits made were obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Matter seems to be handled: thank you to all the participants here. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2017 (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_talk:Gavin.C.Fernandes - Has been adding non free images to Commons which have been cropped from Google results. Though the intention seems to be laudable, adding non free images is probably still not acceptable. Examples of transgressions despite repeated warnings on his commons talk page include - File:Rakesh_Maria.jpg which is a cropped version of [202] and File:Havildar_Hangpan_Dada.jpg which is a cropped and inverted version of [203]. This person had his English Wikipedia page blocked for similar reasons and probably the block should also be extended to Commons. JupitusSmart 10:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: If he's already blocked here, then reporting him here won't do anything, right? I'm not sure how one requests blocks on Commons, but Commons admins don't necessarily look at this page, and at least 80% of en.wiki admins do not have the ability to block on Commons (that's just based on the numbers, but it's a low estimate because it assumes all Commons admins are also en.wiki admins, which is definitely not the case). Are you asking for a global lock? That's done on Meta. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I think only IP addresses can be blocked globally per my understanding of reading Meta, due to technical limitations. Hopefully a Commons Admin reads this or somebody mentions this to a Commons admin, who might do the needful. JupitusSmart 15:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, accounts can be globally locked, and many are. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
COM:AN notified in case they may want to add something to the discussion. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
He's evading his block as an IP editor to add the copyright-violating images to Wikipedia once they've been uploaded to Commons. Blocking 49.248.176.0/20 would get him. It's a little wide, but there's virtually no collateral damage as far as I can tell. Almost all of the edits in range contribs are adding GCF's Commons pics to Indian air marshals. However, the range has been pretty quiet for the past week, much like the Commons account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart and Timothyjosephwood: If the images uploaded to Commons are copyright violations, could you please tag them as such with sources, and we can then get them deleted and the user blocked. Nick (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank You all. Many of his other contributions are in the Public Domain even though he does not seem to know it. All the photographs provided by the armed forces are in public domain if sourced from their respective sites. So if you are reading this Gavin.C.Fernandes, I would suggest adding the images again, after adding the license properly. I have added a new photograph of Hangpan Dada - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hangpan_Dada.jpg in the same way. JupitusSmart 15:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Everything has either been deleted or marked for deletion besides three images ([204], [205], [206]). Most everything was 10 seconds or less to find a source, but I really don't know where these came from. TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
All images deleted and user indeffed on Commons by De728631. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have indeffed the Commons account and I suppose we don't need a rangeblock over here because there are no images left for him to add to articles. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 mentioned above is failing to reply to any message left on his talk page when regarding to something substancial (excluding some from @JackErskine), fails to make use of WP:BRD and is constantly vandalizing Iago Aspas' article, aside from vandalizing the aforementioned (JackErskine) user's page. I once tried to talk to him, and received no replies. MYS77✉ 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Thanks for the report. Unfortunately, it is unclear exactly what should be done here. Κσυπ Cyp 17:25, 11 February 2017 (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.
In this article ONE HUDGE AND PROFOUNDLY MISLEADING DEFINITION OFF QUEBEC,S NATIONALISM WAS MADE .
IT,S ANYTHING BUT CULTURAL .
ETHNIC ,TRIBAL ,SELF CENTRED ( ETNOCENTRIC )
FAR VERY FAR FROM WESTERN CIVILISATION OR CULTURE
80% OFF IMMIGRENTS ARE LEAVING !!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.201.248 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
HangingCurve – false representation of sources[edit]
I have had my concerns about the edits of HangingCurve (talk·contribs) ever since they started to appear on my watchlist a few years ago. Initially this was largely to due to the unencyclopedic language they used (and still do).[207][208] This later became more about the unreferenced material they were adding to articles,[209][210][211][212][213] or changing the information in a sentenced referenced to a certain source but not changing the source.[214][215] Recently I began to revert any unsourced additions that I saw them make.
Very recently, their edits have become very troubling because they are repeatedly misrepresenting the sources being used when adding references (someone else had spotted them doing this some time ago[216]). I can understand an editor making a mistake once, even twice, but today I spotted a third occasion where they had done this in the last month. The ones I have brought them up on are:
15 January 2017 Re-adds material I had deleted for being unreferenced using a source that does not contain any reference to the claim being supported.
30 January 2017 Readds material previously deleted again using a source that does not support the claim being referenced
2 February 2017 Adds new material to an article with a source, but source does not support this claim (conveniently they have not used a direct link to the relevant section (despite a previous request to do so), but I have been through the sections that cover this era of Polish history and cannot find anything that vaguely resembles the facts being referenced).
I am not sure whether this is malicious or just an extreme WP:COMPETENCE issue (perhaps trying to head off any reverting by just sticking in any old reference that vaguely covers the period of history in question), but I am getting tired of seeing this user's edits appear on my timeline because invarliably they are problematic (and I only see the ones they make to election articles – as their contribution history shows, they cover a wider area than that). I'm also not really sure what needs to be done, but the issue definitely needs raising – a quick check through their talk page and its archive show that concerns have been repeatedly raised with regards to their editing (this archive in particular contains numerous complaints about their sourcing, or lack of). Possibly a last warning followed by a series of escalating blocks if this continues? Cheers, Number57 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have apologized for any mistakes I may have made--they were not out of malice, and I have tried to be more careful of late. Again, I apologize.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
HangingCurve, you say you have tried to be more careful of late but the most recent example is from yesterday. How is this being more careful? --NeilNtalk to me 15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned how two of the satellites to Poland's ruling Communists had a fixed percentage of seats in return for accepting their subservient role. I could have said more about what it meant, but I simply mentioned the fixed percentage. I was going to change it to "a fixed number" before it was reverted.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 15:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
But that's not supported by the source either. You don't really seem to understand what the problem is here... Number57 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we can come to an agreement on this and resolve this misunderstanding. Here's what the source says for what I was trying to insert earlier: "In return for acknowledging the leading role of the PZPR, the two major coalition partners and three smaller Catholic associations received a fixed number of seats in the Sejm. Although one of the latter category, Znak, was technically an independent party, its allotment of five seats gave it very limited influence. Typically, the United Peasant Party held 20 to 25 percent of the Sejm seats and the Democratic Party received about 10 percent." How can we word this and resolve this issue? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
So, I eventually managed to find where in the source website this sentence is stated – why could you not link to the page where it actually states this rather than force editors to trawl through various pages on a website? This doesn't excuse the other instances of false representation raised though. Number57 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at another edit you made yesterday, you have cited the claim "With no other choice but to appoint a Solidarity member as prime minister, Jaruzelski appointed Solidarity's Tadeusz Mazowiecki as the country's first non-Communist prime minister since 1948" to pages 273–275 of this book. However, the source says nothing like this. What it does say is "On August 14, Kiszczak resigned, and, on August 24, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a Catholic journalist and an opposition activist, was accepted by the Sejm as the new premier." It says nothing about him being appointed by Jaruzelski and nothing about him being the first non-Communist Prime minister since 1948. How do you explain this? Number57 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Based on the wording of the article on the 1990 election, I thought the source mentioned that as well. I apologize ... I toned it down accordingly.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Are other admins not bothered about this??? Number57 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As you said, this is either malicious or a competence issue. AGF and assume it's a competence issue. HangingCurve knows their editing and sourcing is going to be scrutinized more heavily and more sloppiness will likely trigger editing sanctions. --NeilNtalk to me 19:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as HangingCurve has just falsely represented a source again (I have this book, and all that page contains are the dates of elections and referendums from 1919 until 2007), I have blocked them for a week. @HangingCurve: Next time it will be a month, then a year, and then indefinitely.
Aside from this, I wonder whether a mass undo of their edits is needed as I doubt these are the only instances of them doing this? Number57 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
HangingCurve has a past of revisiting the Montreal Expos article to re-insert unsourced, non-neutral content. Here is an example about the sale of the team to MLB, calling it a takeover by the commissioner's office: 2008 attempt; 2009 attempt; 2010 attempt Here are examples of adding content beyond what was contained in the cited text: [217]; [218] (re-insertion attempt a few days later with misleading edit summary: [219]). HangingCurve has added missing content (albeit at times with repetitive, overly verbose wording), so a blanket reversion was often not necessary, but sometimes there was too much opinionated material to sort through (see Talk:Montreal Expos#Partnership agreements for a discussion of one instance). isaacl (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
HangingCurve has been an editor for at least 11 years and is a former admin. I think he deserves a certain amount of goodwill here. I've worked with him on several articles relating to television stations and other subjects. While we've had some minor editorial disagreements, I haven't encountered the problem you describe on anything I'm familiar with. Would a mass undo affect other people's work? JTRH (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant to reply to another editor, as I didn't suggest any mass undo? There were some concerns about the editor's actions as an admin, but as I mentioned, I agree there have been many edits adding new content. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant to respond to Number 57, above. I apologize for the confusing indentation. JTRH (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Just putting a link to this discussion here. The thread should have probably been on ANI to start with, since it is explicitly about user behavior and seeking community sanctions, but since it is already a lengthy winding discussion, this should probably suffice to solicit public comment from those who don't frequent the ref desk. TimothyJosephWood 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the discussion at the refdesk talk page should be closed and redirected to here. ANI is the place to discuss TBANS and behavior issues. Sir Joseph(talk) 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll inform the folks at the RefDesk that the IBAN discussion should be redirected here, but there is a broader policy discussion underway in that thread, quite separate from what to do about Futurist himself, so I think closing the thread would be inappropriate. Snowlet's rap 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
We can suggest that Futurist takes his questions about children and the law here or here. Count Iblis (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to push for any action yet, hopefully Futurist110 will get that many of us find questions like this unacceptable here, and take them elsewhere. Or more helpfully for him, get professional help (this is a never-ending extreme fixation-fear of his, and us answering his questions is not going to help). Discussion is ongoing about hatting questions of this sort, but we may need to re-open this if this behaviour continues, and make a formal request for a topic-ban on this user. There's a lot of discussion as to what rules cover such behaviour, and "refdesk rules" tend to be murky. I'd love if any admins could go check out the situation (yes, it's caused a 'lot of angst, I seem to have inadvertently opened some can of worms when I raised my concerns about Futurist110's questions!), and offer an uninvolved opinion on the issue, just in case we need to take it all the way to a formal topic-ban request at some future point. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The question cited above was, if a bit convoluted, on-topic and answerable, and people did answer it in interesting ways. Therefore, it could not have been inappropriate. The underlying issue of paternity, if a narrow one, is indeed one of significant legal and cultural importance and could well be explored at a professional level in much greater depth than all the Refdesk threads combined. There is a fundamental tension between the notion of the welfare of the child and innate duties of the father and the notion of being legally immune from other people's intentional bad actions. The odd sequelae, such as a question of regulatory issues involved in mailing body parts, are novel and interesting. The rule of dialectic is that the clash of thesis and antithesis are the engine of invention.
It is impossible to seriously make recommendations for Futurist's personal benefit without first showing you are willing to treat him fairly by Wikipedia procedure. The mere fact that you recognize his username does not make a question more objectionable. The basis of action here is the spy-state ground law that whosoever you see a spycam picture of while picking his nose, wanking, being posted by her boyfriend in revenge porn, whatever, is less of a person. You imagine you have privacy and should be respected but he or she has been understood by you in some way and now you can treat him or her like less of a person. But there is no privacy, only the temporary favor of the spy state, so the snooty airs of those looking down on the person whose fixation is known will last only until someone threatens to reveal their own. It is no way to live. We must first accept Futurist's rights and respect him, then we can try to get him to branch out into other things in a way that we think is more healthy, bearing always in mind that we might be wrong anyway. For every weird injustice in the world there shall be someone sent by God to end it. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTTHERAPY Wikipedia is not the place for anyone to do anything regarding this editors problems mental or physical. How does any of this deal with editing and improving articles? MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The ones suggesting "therapy" for Futurist are the ones pushing for a ban. For myself, I am content to let him post weird questions now and then and see what answers they get without ever trying to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment for any condition we might imagine that individual person might have. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not our place to do anything about his personal issues, just decide how we deal with the questions. Wnt, I don't care who posts lunatic questions like that, they are going to raise concern. But the issue is, he has done it repeatedly. Note my earlier comment that I backed off on requesting sanctions pending attempting alternative ways of dealing with the problem. But no, allowing such questions to be repeatedly posted does raise concerns. I'd like to avoid sanctions if at all possible. But yes, I do have a problem with the refdesk being the place for him to indulge his never-ending troubling fixation. If we can stick to hatting questions of this sort, or better still, if Futurist can take them elsewhere, that would be fine. As I have stated repeatedly, he is not otherwise a problematic editor. If not, than yes, we need to consider asking for a topic ban. I know you disagree, and that's your right. But no, I IMHO can't just "let it go on". Note also that at every point, the suggested sanction (to the degree to which some of us have advocated it) is merely a topic ban, limited to the topics at hand, not kicking Futurist110 off Wikipedia, or even off the Reference Desks. This particular issue of his is one he may need to take elsewhere. Eliyohub (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you define "lunatic questions"? I realize that the Twelve Tables are going out of fashion worldwide, but here it is still unusual to have a ban without a visible policy to explain it. Note that this is an enforcement forum, not a new policy forum - perhaps this discussion should never have been moved here at all? Wnt (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't personally think we should discuss this here, let it stay at the ref desk. The ref desk isn't really part of Wikipedia, none of the normal rules apply there, it is an open forum and does not operate like a real reference does at all. Let what happens at the ref desk stay at the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I know, exactly this issue was raised, about the odd nature of the Reference Desk compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and the lack of clear rules as to acceptable behaviour thereon. There are Guidelines, but absolutely no policy specific to the desks. So we are sort of stuck when issues like this arise, as to what the rules are, and whose job it is to police them. Given the lack of policy covering the matter, I can't really expect any admin action in a situation like this (barring clear violation of usual wikipedia rules, such as trolling or disruptive editing - we do have a troll or two, and in one of them, admins have blocked him, and included him in WP:LTA), but what do you suggest so that us refdesk contributors can draw up some enforceable rules to deal with our unique situation? If someone proposes a policy as to acceptable refdesk questions and responses, and it is accepted by the usual consensus process, can the admins then enforce it as any other policy? We're sort of stuck with a free-for-all at the moment, and it isn't always working. Eliyohub (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to introduce some sanity a few years ago, and the refdesk regulars weren't having it. They were mad that someone from outside the clubhouse was trying to spoil their good time. It's notoriously difficult to introduce reforms in walled gardens like the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yup. I came across this via a post at the Help Desk, and...seeing the way things seem to work, I fully realize why I don't go there. As far as drawing up a suggestion, seems a lot like 90%+ is hattable under WP:NOTFORUM, and I suppose if you could find a way to do it that wouldn't run afoul of WP:POINT, there's really nothing anyone could do to sanction you, since being "disruptive" in a way that is 100% in line with policy isn't sanctionable...and isn't actually disruption, even if lots of vocal people don't like it. I'm not sure I care enough to spearhead anything, since it's likely to be a waste of time anyway, but if someone wants to put together a hat-squad to enforce NOTFORUM, I'd volunteer a bit of my time. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I could never understand why Wikipedians so begrudge an occasional joke or off-topic reply in a thread, but then, with no sense of irony at all, start nasty admin witch-hunts that go on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about stuff that could just as readily be ignored, chock full of bogus ethics and bogus wikilawyering that is patently intended to serve some POV or grudge or side agenda. Ordinary healthy forum banter is not a problem on Wikipedia (and even less so on the Refdesks) -- it's the endless game of veiled threats and fine gradations of intimidation that is the problem. It may indeed be that throughout the entire internet, there is only one message, and that is the medium, and the medium is one of concentrated wealth, private ownership, and unrestricted arbitrary power exercised by the few against the many. But Wikipedia should try to defy that trend while the world looks for a better economic and communications system. Wnt (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind the "occaisional joke or off topic reply" at all, and indeed have been known to make such posts myself. The thing with the refdesks is that they are a policy-free-zone that isn't consistent with the way the entire rest of Wikipedia works. Frankly, they shouldn't be here as they aren't really part of the encyclopedia at all. There are plenty of other places on the internet that aren't tying to be an encyclopedia what already do exactly what the refdesks do. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You can say that user talk pages aren't really part of an encyclopedia, or Lua modules, or video, or many other things. But what does that mean? If you have an encyclopedia, people are going to want to ask questions, and many will feel that answering those questions can help to grow it. So you can do what I know some hard-core process people would take great pleasure in and outright ban every new user who posts a "how do I do this...?" question in response to one of our legendarily clear articles about math concepts that are full of long unsourced proofs while vigorously resisting the temptation to prove simple examples. And ban them for harassment if they instead go to the editors who wrote those articles and ask. Or ... you can provide a proper place for them to go.
Now properly speaking, Wikimedia should integrate its various projects more closely; it may be the Refdesk would be more satisfactorily pigeonholed as a Wikiversity project. But in practice we know the other branches seem to wither and aren't well integrated because things like transclusion and bluelinking/redlinking don't work between them and even user login transfers are a little iffy, and worse, they all have different rules and different power cliques to go with them and I'm sure you know that being sure to study and obey every last rule is more important than having an educational intent. So a transfer of that magnitude just seems too large and awkward to do. What we know is the content is valuable, educational, within the WMF mission, arises naturally from the routine operation of a working encyclopedia, and can contribute to the development of that encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the WMF mission isn't nearly as relevant as the purpose of Wikipedia, since each project is only intended to fulfill a delineated piece of what the WMF is for, and do that as well as possible. If the purpose is to operate an actual reference desk, that is, to assist editors in finding sources for use in improving the project, or find obscure WP articles on particular subjects, then that is certainly within the scope of WP, and the ref desk is failing fairly badly at it. If however, the purpose is to (...oh...poking around on recent questions...) provide recommendations for skin care products and help users find online manuals for their quad copter, then it's a pretty resounding success, but completely outside the scope of the project.
Regardless, since there seems to be wide spread opposition to any type of sanction, and reforming the reference desk as a whole is 1) not a discussion to be had on ANI, and 2) not a proposal that obviously requires administrator action, we can probably close this, and probably should, and anyone who cares enough to hash it out can have the conversation and the ref desk talk. I happen to not be one of them. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: It seems a small criticism of the refdesk that a passerby asked a vague question about a quadcopter manual. How would we run a refdesk so that no one asks a question you think ought to be beneath it? More to the point, we could take this opportunity to organize a better list of the quadcopter articles we have, ensure that relevant documentation for each is provided, and explain what "Plug and Play" is and what kind of USB cable it is. Mind you, I'm not talking about relaxing notability requirements -- we already have half a dozen of those articles, just do a search. An editor has just pointed out that he can't find what he wants. Either we can be snooty, say you lousy prole, how dare you ask us about some trivial consumer good when all we should really be writing about is the big government death machine kind of drone, or we can listen to him and fix that. So far the Refdesk hasn't really pulled through there - the OP not specifying a model or a clear question didn't help - but it could, and that makes it relevant. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, I'm done with the conversation. Literally anything else on the project is a better use of my time. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The editor hasn't made an edit since Jan 22, but it's fairly clear that their contributions are unhelpful. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2017 (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.
Fre58ezzat (talk·contribs) inserts random texts in Arabic script and does not respond to talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I ran a few of their posts through a translator and they come back as some rant about a forbidden marriage, definitely WP:NOT HERE --Cameron11598(Talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
complete revert of several edits without constructive discussion by User:Alexbrn[edit]
Kku, thanks for raising this but you have not presented credible evidence of a conflict of interest, and I can't see any sign of your talkpage contributions being removed. What remains is a content dispute, for which there has so far been fairly minimal discussion on the relevant talk pages. There are certainly multiple valid viewpoints in how an encyclopaedia might present issues to do with major pharmaceutical companies, but you'd be aware that the talkpage is a better place to sort them out. Absent any evidence for the other points you raise, suggest you pursue the content issue in a better location than ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2017 (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:Alexbrn reverted my edits on the extremely biased Big Pharma conspiracy theoryhere / and here without even getting into a discussion about the matter at hand. Besides, one of his/her first reactions were quite upsettingly unfriendly. Are we possibly dealing with a conflict of interest in this game? Given the references I had gathered, it should be evident that "big pharma" is neither a holdall for the entire pharmaceutical industry, nor are we dealing with a mere conspiracy theory (a notion that is both narrowing and insulting to those who discuss it). Besides, it came as a not-so-mild surprise that big pharma companies have obviously so far never been listed concisely together in a table, like the one I assembled for the neutral article. How can this be deleted offhandedly, without any factual discussion, I wonder? -- Kku 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
1) How is this not a content dispute? 2) Please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK --NeilNtalk to me 17:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You made a page move of Big Pharma to Big Pharma (disambiguation) and created a new article at Big Pharma, and you redirected Big Pharma conspiracy theory to your new article. Both of those actions were contentious, and anyone is allowed to revert them without consulting you first. The onus now is on you to start a discussion about your desired changes and wait and see if you get a consensus. There is no admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Though, on reviewing Kku's recent edits there may be - this seems to be part of a pattern of POV-warfare including recent edits such as link (sourced to the Daily Mail!) making points about the evils of "Big Pharma". Maybe the WP:BOOMERANG needn't be thrown just yet but complaining to WP:ANI straight away over this (without warning me) isn't great. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
this edit note is worrisome: it is a wild distortion to just talk about it as a conspiracy theory, cutpaste and this Talk comment shows a lack of understanding of the stuff they are editing so fiercely about. This is not going to end well for Kku. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed and worried to see that it appears entirely OK to not only 1. revert work done by other authors for whatever reason but also 2. ENTIRELY PURGE ANY CONTRIBUTION that I have made INCLUDING my ADDITIONS ON THE TALK PAGE. Sorry for yelling, I do not normally do this. But this demeanor appears so entirely at will and focused on complete silencing that I wonder what reasons still founded in the WP code of conduct could motivated the involved users to act like this. I have never, so far, witnessed anything in WP which is so close to censorship. I repeat: there was not a trace of discussion on the content level - I was not given a chance. How can I not turn to this board, when I am denied basic editor rights? How are some editors more priviledged in being allowed to evade substantial discussion altogether (something that was quite rudely demanded by them of me) Administrators, bureaucrats, if all of this does not suffice not alarm you, then WP is truely in a sad state. -- Kku (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Where are your Talk page contributions "purged"? Who are the "involved users" responding here? I note you did not respond to the discussion at Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theory but came here instead. As for privilege, you appear to be asking for your edits to be accorded some special status of being "revert-proof"; this is a sign of WP:OWNERSHIP, an actual rather than an imagined kind of behaviour problem. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Alexbrn got put through this. This discussion has probably gone past its expiration date, and should probably be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 Auapc(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told a, wholebunch of times what they need to change and they are still at it while not reacting in any shape or form. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This IP really doesn't get it or is not here, even after a block. Multiple warnings on breaking wikitables with nonstandard formatting (their most recent edits); not giving any consideration to MOS:BOXING by adding redundant/non-applicable infobox stats (the bulk of their edits otherwise, for which they were blocked at WP:EWN); and never any edit summaries or talk page responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this IP hasn't edited for over two days. I'm inclined to take no action until such edits continue. Otherwise, any action taken would appear punitive (see #4). ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 11:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Still doing it: [220] – just slowly. Same exact edits for which they were blocked before. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This is getting well out of hand, PAs, ridicule, accusations of bias and telling uses to fucking stop[221][222][223][224]
I have not linked to all (just the latest spat, the last 12 hours), it is the whole thread.
This needs to be put a stop to I have no wish to say who I think is at fault (I do not think it is one person) but there seems to be an attitude that says "we will not tolerate any Fringy stuff, or those who support it's inclusion". This in turn is causing other users to respond angrily.
To be clear, the two users pinged in my "fucking stop" comment were actively edit warring...as in...a reversion every few seconds. That wasn't directed at anyone but them, and I have no opinion on, nor have I actually read whatever that conversation is actually about. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's be very clear about this from the beginning. JpS (or however else they wish to be known) was hatting a polite and civil comment on my part where I was requesting JpS comment on the edits, not the editors. This is a perfectly normal request which we all see many times a day on WP. I reverted the hatting because it is "illegal" - WP:Hatting states " ...should only be used by uninvolved editors "(bold emphasis is from the page). JpS is clearly involved and should not have hatted my comment. I'm not even sure why this is being classified as edit warring on my part, other than I reverted JpS' illegal hatting twice. DrChrissy(talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, the comment about no tolerating stuff was about a general tone I have seen on the forum from a group of editors of whom Jps is the most vocal. I am sorry if you think that was aimed at you. To be clear the only complaint I have with you was the swearing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the intention was to get someone's attention, and apparently it worked. The amount of dumb in edit warring over whether to hat a nine word comment is beyond my dumb-tolerance-specifications. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:, perhaps you would feel differently if it was your words that were being illegally hatted. Would you care to comment on the edit summaries that JpS has been leaving at that thread? DrChrissy(talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If you'll note, I unhatted when I left my comment, so that should probably suffice as to my opinion on it. Other than that, I'm not really part of this complaint. I would only note the pointy header installed after I unhatted. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I should have thanked you at the time for the unhatting - thank you. DrChrissy(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I am quite in the dark about why jps/9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/ScienceApologist is saying I have some bone to pick or clear agenda there, or why he wants to hat or section off the bit where he said so, but I wouldn't call it edit warring unless he repeats those actions. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Tim is talking about Jps and DrCrissy, and we can now add edit warring to the list.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
All of this appears to be over whether or not to call Eric Lerner a "scientist". I do think that jps needs to dial it down. But here's an idea: for all of the reverting at the Lerner bio page and all of the arguing at FTN, not a single word has been spilled at Talk:Eric Lerner. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Then an admin needs to have words with him, as he is ignoring everyone else (not that he seems to be that concerned over admins as well, but then given the number of blocks he has had (and had reduced) that is hardly a surprise). But I shall raise this on the talk page, and see what happens.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I am semi-involved there. I think that discussion has gone way off the rails. WP:STICK needs to be invoked by all concerned, and the dead horse should be left in peace. The only thing I see administrator intervention as facilitating would be a forced end to that discussion by hatting. But I suspect the discussion has drawn to a close naturally. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The the PA's and ridicule, the blatant breaches of AGF?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Keeping a pointless and unproductive discussion alive long past its freshness date can have the general effect of wearing patience thin. This is a tried and true Wikipedia tactic. I have no doubt look that an administrator considering sanctions will not look very kindly at the supposedly "good faith" presentation of creationist sources as if they met WP:RS, failure to RTFA, insisting that to not say something in an article requires a source that says that it's not true, etc. If this was not all a deliberate tactic to provoke other editors at FTN into questioning one's competence and/or good faith, it was doing a damn good job of pretending to be just that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Which "pointless discussion"?, as to "creationist sources" they are not automatically not RS, and this shows exactly the kind of attitude I was referring to in my OP here. The automatic and contemptuous dismissal of anything that does not agree with their POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I understand that it looks like automatic and contemptuous dismissal. I really do. But go to Talk:Creationism, Talk:Evolution, Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, Talk:Evidence of common descent and Talk:Intelligent design and read through the archives of those pages. When you get sick of reading the same arguments over and over, then you might understand the contemptuousness that seems to be present whenever anyone brings up anything creationist. You'll understand that it's not so much contempt as it is frustrated exhaustion.
As to the 'automatic' part, I think the long and well-worn histories on those pages show that this isn't automatic, but the result of years and years of consensus that has been challenged in every conceivable way, yet stood firm against all challenges. I agree that the tone in that thread has gotten out of hand, but as has been pointed out: that's to be expected for this kind of discussion. Sanctions aren't needed because the problems will go away just as soon as the discussion does, and will (tend to, at least) remain within the context of that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think you are wrong (after all Jps has multiple blocks for edit warring and other offences (about 1 a year, including a few last chances), but I will accept the decision.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
For any article centering on evolution, or the geological history of the earth or other related topics, creationist sources are automatically fringe and not reliable sourcesexcept for reporting the views of creationists. They are not reliable for factual, scientific information. That anyone editing a fact-based encyclopedia should think otherwise is simply bizarre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it was clear from context I was saying he was wrong about Jps not continuing his pattern of behavior. Also I was not using the source for "scientific facts" but whether some is a practicing science (which (as with any job) you do not have to be any good at to practice it). The point being made is that they are not RS for anything they say. I never tried to use it to support a scientific fact, not have ever said they are usefull for that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
23:03, 6 February 2017 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted page Smyser-Bair House (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of yorkinn.info/points-of-interest.html and numerous others)
I dont understand why they deleted it, I just don't agree with it. 1) I need to tag the photographs as being my property. 2) we need to make it clear to them that I (the owner of the house, owner of the website, and submitter of the wiki article, am the author/owner of the language/content. Once they understand that, they should be able to turn it back on, even if they suggest we delete some of the details (like all the rooms and such). I'd rather have just the history, custodians, etc. than nothing at all. If we have to delete the room descriptions and points of interest, I can live with that.
I want to get back the page to make edit again.Please give me the oppourtunity.Smyser-Bair House (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Eric D Godman
I am sorry I think you typed it into the wrong tab or misunderstood something if you need me to further explain just ask.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.74 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC+9)
Smyser-Bair House, we cannot restore the article on Wikipedia as it contains text copied from other sites. Would you like a copy emailed to you? --NeilNtalk to me 01:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hi Smyser-Bair House. Since your user name and the name of the article you submitted are identical, I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Although conflict-of-interest editing is not something expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia, it is something that is highly discourage because it can often lead to more serious problems. Moreover, your choose of username also does not seem to comply with Wikipedia's policy against promotional user names, so you might want to consider changing it. I have added some links to your user talk page where you can find out more information on how to do this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The text was copied from two different web sites. If you actually own the text and the web site, then we need you to prove that the text is released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licenses. The simplest way to do this is to attach a copyright notice to your website to say that all text is available under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licenses, and specify any attribution you would like. More complex ways involve you proving that you are the real own by email by WP:OTRS and read WP:PERMIT. User:Smyser-Bair House was doing the right thing in using WP:AFC, so that others would check if the topic was suitable. I think the topic is suitable, and some of the text is suitable. Some other text needs a rewrite to be encyclopedic style. If you do change the copyright on your web site, let us know and the material can be restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing, personally insulted me and other users, and already has a 3RR Violation[edit]
Editor User:176.23.1.95 has received a 3RR violation and has filed false accusations on me for a 3RR violation basically calling me a puppet to another user which led to the page being protected (Yemeni Civil War). Where we could discuss the topic of dispute respectfully instead of having an edit war which led to a vote where he insulted me and another user saying we were puppets to the main person who had his debate with because we didn't vote for his side and canceled our votes on the topic. Not only that but the person that was moderating the debate and vote had warned him to stop his personal attacks on us but he has refused to cooperate. He continually oversteps his boundaries and is just continually looking for problems instead of looking for common ground that everyone can agree on. Therefore I ask on you to please make Wikipedia a less hostile place and do on him a topic ban that will not allow him to edit anything about Yemen due to his lack of knowledge and rudeness to me and other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.74 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Your report is unsubstantiated ad hominem. Use your energy on cooperating with me on making a consensus, instead of attacking my person with this report on a flawed basis. Read WP:BRD for understanding how to handle dispute resolutions, especially the WP:BRD#Discuss section. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors[edit]
No actionable proposals set forth and editors are divided on whether or not the original complaint has merit. --NeilNtalk to me 18:08, 11 February 2017 (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.
And away we go again. You are reminded that "Threats from SMcCandlish" was closed by two uninvolved as unfounded, one advising you to drop the stick. And this did not call anybody a liar and didn't approach personal attack. If Dicklyon or anybody else has violated behavior policy or guideline, please cite the p or g and provide diffs. Otherwise stop using ANI as a weapon in a content dispute. ―Mandruss☎ 00:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I second this. Just because the real world has turned really ugly doesn't mean that editors can repeat it here by using this forum for continual attacks to get their way. Tony(talk) 03:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit. Saying that someone knows something is untrue and is saying it anyways *is* an accusation of lying. This is not even slightly difficult. How can you not know this? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
How can you not know this? Did you just call me a liar? Using words like "Oh, bullshit" does not increase the strength of one's argument. I call for close before this spirals out of control. ―Mandruss☎ 03:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any of that rose to the level of calling other people liars. At most some people were accused of forgetting certain things and having to be reminded of them. That's no big deal. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh, so Dicklyon using his phrasing "did not call anyone a liar" and yet somehow my using the phrasing did? Or at least enabled you to resort to the tired "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR" rhetorical device? I'd say that you've demonstrated that using "bullshit" to describe what you call an argument is merely an accurate description. Here, do you need any help in coming with any less-cliched rhetorical fallacies? This might give some help. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not helpful. I believe that Mandruss' question was intended as an ironic way of suggesting that neither your comment nor Dicklon's was an example of calling someone a liar. Paul August☎ 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course it was. I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton. ―Mandruss☎ 20:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so you've decided to go with "moving the goalposts" as today's rhetorical fallacy. Tell me, are you working off a checklist?
I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton No, I'm certainly perfectly aware that making up bullshit excuses for bad behavior is not helpful. Perhaps you should stop? Or do you have more rhetorical fallacies on your bucket list? --Calton | Talk 12:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I support Andy Dingley's complaint about User:Dicklyon, and that complaint should not be closed just yet. There is clearly an issue as to whether the latter has been disruptively editing, because the latter has been making similar moves to multiple pages without discussion where there is no consensus for such a move. In my view (expressed on Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony), a large part of this disruptive editing is based on a misinterpretation of MOS:HYPHEN, which, in my view, neither requires nor supports such a move. Also, saying to another editor "It's not credible that you've never seen "narrow-gauge railway", is an accusation of lying, in my view. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The moves under question were already addressed, here, which is why the RM discussion is open. Can't have it both ways, proposing that Dicklyon is a bad guy for doing manual moves instead of opening RM discussions, and that he's also a bad guy for opening RM discussions instead of doing manual moves. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG for Andy Dingley, for misuse of ANI to try to get his way in a trivial content dispute, and for excessive, battlegrounding personalization of title and style disagreements, per WP:ARBATC; Dingley received a {{Ds/alert}} about ARBATC only a little over a week ago [225]. Aside from this frivolous and unclean-hands ANI filing – already a "spiral out of control" – Dingley also posted the following WP:ASPERSIONS about Dicklyon, under the heading "Back at ANI", at Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony itself, instead of writing something more reasonable at DL's user talk page: "Dicklyon, this edit crosses another line. You do not get to describe other editors as liars, simply for disagreeing with you." [226]. This does not comport with WP:TALK policy, and seemed to serve no purpose but to try to color the RM and its closure against DL and anyone else who is not in agreement with Dingley.
Dicklyon expressing his own credulity level is not "describing other editors as liars". Also, what that other editor posted was not "simply ... disagreeing with [DL]", it was reality-denial, of all the sourced evidence already posted in the RM by DL and by others (including substantial source research by me). The "personal crusade" here is Dingley's 'my topic is magically special and immune to guidelines, evidence, and reason, and I'll have your head for saying it isn't so' behavior. It is disruptive, now of multiple pages and processes, and uncivil.
Finally, Dicklyon using the prescribed WP:RM process to request moves – based on WP:P&G, evidence in reliable sources, and previous RM precedent – after specifically being instructed by ANI a year or two ago to do so, is hardly "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors"; it's doing as instructed by the community. This was reaffirmed in another ANI, in which Dingley participated, within the month, so Dingley is well aware his hyperbolic accusations are false. That also makes this "re-ANI" an attempt at WP:OTHERPARENT shopping. Dingley is further well aware that his claim of a "common practice within [this] specific field" to drop hyphenation has been disproved, again with RS, in the very RM he's trying to WP:WIN by ANI abuse (the sources are not consistent at all, so we do what MoS says to do, as usual; we don't fight about it article by article until until someone bleeds out). Dingley's is a WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:TE, and WP:WINNING pattern. It has to stop. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that Andy D. is over reacting in this instance. Already two non-starters have been presented. It seems Dicklyon did not call anyone a liar. Also, I am going to AGF about the DS template ANI and say that this as threat was misinterpreted. Apparently there are discretionary sanctions regarding MOS issues, and to be forewarned is to be equipped. I don't understand why that is being brought into this discussion, because it was a non-issue.
It also seems to me this is misuse of ANI. Pertaining to the DS Template ANI that was a non-issue, so why bring it here. Andy, do you think it is credible to call a DS template a threat and bring that to ANI? Andy has been around on Wikipedia for a long time (since 2007) along with 113,412 edits. He is a seasoned editor. This really has to stop.
Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. The result of that page move ban was no consensus, but part of that finding was that he engage in discussion to develop consensus. This seems to be exactly what he is doing. Please stop bringing the page ban move to ANI every time there is a discussion about Dicklyon unless he is unilaterally doing numbers of page moves. It would be like he lost all good judgement and it seems that has not happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. -- really, no, just no. We can and should set limits or else the discussions might never stop. I don't claim those limits have been reached here yet, but it's clear that there is unhealthy MOS obsession going on. Almost all MOS disputes are bullshit and when it's the same few people in the center of them over and over, the question of the community's patience has to come into view. I'd oppose boomeranging Andy in this incident. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a BOOMERANG is a punitive over-reaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing punitive about it, but purely preventative. It's clear he will continue escalating in this direction until restrained. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What? Looking for a new club now that your attempt to hijack the Discretionary Sanctions process is failing at WP:AE? --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is "unhealthy MOS obsession" is decided by consensus. That's consensus established by Wikipedia process, not individual arm-waving and the volume of voices ("I don't give a damn what you think", "Oh, bullshit") in spurious ANI complaints. Dicklyon has consistently followed Wikipedia process, and it's just too damn bad if certain people are on the losing end of that. A few people need to read and internalize Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:How to lose. Anarchic mob rule seems to be on its way out at en-wiki, thankfully, and I'm here to help it find the door. I don't really care if Dingley gets his just desserts here, but how else is this business finally going to end? It doesn't appear that he and others are going to stop unless forced to stop by the community. One of Dicklyon's opponents clearly violated WP:CANVASS yesterday or the day before. He could have had an actual ANI case, but declined to bring it, and the violator gets off scot-free. In contrast, Dicklyon is careful not to violate such policies, so his attackers are forced to invent extra-policy rationales and throw smoke. I think that's a fair illustration of the difference between him and them. ―Mandruss☎ 14:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The "style trivia disruption" is, as usual, being caused by "topical fiefdom" editors who disavow the applicability of site-wide guidelines to "their" topic, even when the preponderance of sources is against them, and when then turn the dispute nasty and personal when it looks like they might not get their way. This continuing pattern of WP:1AM / WP:FACTION escalation against WP:P&G on micro-topical basis needs to be brought to an end. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you misidentify which end of the 1AM is which. The author of that essay has also done the same thing multiple times (in good faith of course). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that if you're upset at having your arguments termed "bullshit", your best bet would have been not to provide bullshit arguments. Just saying. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Come on, really? It seems as if any attempt by Dicklyon to advocate for his opinion, is seen by some of his opponents as "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors". This seems like an abuse of ANI to me. Paul August☎ 14:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not the "any attempt"; it's that we're by now in the nth occurrence of "what, this again?" that makes this recurring issue so tedious. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it must be tedious for Dicklyon to be forever defending himself for following correct procedures and protocols. Primergrey (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, it's tedious for editors to be constantly put with with editors who've confused styles of language and guidelines with religious dogma. It's tedious for repeatedly disruptive behavior -- behavior that's been sanctioned by ArbCom, no less -- cropping up again and again. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the average Wikipedia reader cares even one iota about whether "line" should be capitalized or not? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. But Dicklyon clearly does, and he's happy firstly to waste everyone else's time arguing the point, and then to start abusing people over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Because I am tired of Dicklyon wasting the time of more productive editors with an incessant stream of these renames. And secondly, some of them (like Heart of Wales Line) are simply wrong. This is why he has only recently been at ANI with editors seeking a topic ban. Yet still it continues. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As trivial as it is, if it's wasting your time, then that's by your choice. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are the one acting outside of process and policy here. You have asserted one violation of behavior p&g, and it's laughable. If that's the best you have, I suggest you withdraw. The only viable reason to leave this open at this point is because some editors would like to see a boomerang sanction per WP:HA. ―Mandruss☎ 17:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I am not interested in a Boomerang at this time. But maybe other editors are, and I can't speak for them. I don't know who was doing the Canvassing but that was out of line, I think for obvious reasons. From my experience on Wikipedia - emotions do not equal justification - and I think I am talking about myself. Oh yeah, I've gotten upset at times - but somehow I remember to look at the long term, and see what effect my disagreeable behaviors will cause for me, as an editor. Yes, this is a selfish point of view - maybe it is called self-interest (self-preservation). Well enough about me...how you doin'? (referring to anybody here) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll address who did that canvassing in a subtopic below. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've seen some of the dispute about this, and want to chime in with this positive note about User:Dicklyon's editing (and feel free to cite this). One area of Dicklyon's MOS-related page-moves and editing within articles is about dashes vs. hyphens in topics like Ritch–Carter–Martin House, a historic house listed on the U.S. National Register. Dicklyon has been super about addressing a concern I raised and shared with WikiProject NRHP, about incompatibility of redlinks changed to use dashes vs. other redlinks that continue to use hyphens for the same topic, amongst WikiProject NRHP's many list-articles and related disambiguation pages. They're cooperating fully with a workaround (adding changed redlinks to a worklist), summarized publicly at wt:NRHP#hyphen vs. dash issue monitoring after some civil discussion elsewhere. Frankly I am glad someone is taking on the task of changing hyphens to dashes where appropriate, which I perceive everyone was expecting but avoiding as it was likely to blow up in some way, and it is going fine. Thanks, Dicklyon. Thus endeth my !vote of appreciation. :) --doncram 00:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I understand this: are you saying there are some nonexistent articles that are redlinked in multiple styles, and that's a problem that needs fixing by some means other than writing the article and creating the redirects that are needed anyway? Why not just leave the redlinks alone? Writing the article and making the redirects will fill them all in anyway. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I got drawn into this debate, when I had a totally unnecessary and frightening box slapped onto my talkpage.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI when I had the audacity to pointout that some editor who had dropped in had made a silly or stupid edit without any understanding of the nuances or facts. Ignoring my local knowledge, and without resorting to the talk page. In response I see all these WP: flying around. The central point that my interpretation was consistent with MOS:GEOUNITS was ignored, See article on forms of passive aggression- the issue was one of hierachy and control. I am not surprised that this debate has been further deflected by another foray into a further WP, and I am sad to say the same tactic of demonising the messenger- which to my mind proves the point under debate. From my experience, Andy's initial comment was right. Technically he has always been right and it is disgraceful the amount of time wasted when there is so much to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
CommentEnough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. I'm starting to think that it's Dicklyon who should not have to tolerate the abuse at this point in time, with a second ANI listing in the space of one month. I interact with him around the place from time to time, and we don't always see eye to eye, but he is fundamentally courteous and I have rarely if ever known him to overtly break rules or continue with controversial actions if it emerges that consensus is against them. Clearly he has strong beliefs on certain issues, for example down casing of titles, commas in WP:JR, and hyphens/dashes, and will happily spend lots of time discussing those issues and editing articles accordingly, but in no way is that the same as disruption. Repeated listings of him at ANI, for what are fundamentally just content disputes, does not reflect well on those carrying out those listings. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Boomerang – Content and personality squabbles are not AN/I fodder. Furthermore, this an abuse complaint by proxy. Nobody called Andy Dingley a liar. If Corinne feels abused or harrassed, Corinne should file their own complaint. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Character example: ..."fundamentally courteous"...??? While unrelated to railroad articles, this recent edit by User:Dicklyon, "K, you're being an asshole; cut it out.", may perhaps serve as an example of his present demeanor and approach towards fellow editors. To my knowledge, I've had no previous interactions with the user, he just swept in and reverted me on my own user talkpage on behalf of User:Checkingfax whom I had shortly before served with an edit warring warning (which was quickly removed along with its own rude/confrontational edit summary). As User:Dicklyon has been previously blocked for use of sockpuppets in addition to his numerous edit warring blocks, I'm inclined to wonder about what relationship may exist between the two. I offered User:Dicklyon an opportunity to elaborate on his talkpage and he simply directed me back to the summary (where he'd called me an 'asshole' by way of introduction). --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Since Steve Quinn and some others seem unaware of the details: The canvassing of railfans to the RM discussion was done by Bermicourt in an alarmist and highly non-neutral post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains[227]. Bermicourt posted this in direct response to my request for reversal of his mass moves to strip hyphens from articles with "narrow-gauge railway" in their titles while two RMs about the matter are still ongoing, and someone else's proposal that the Saxony RM determine outcome for the whole lot of them [228].
This was followed in the same thread at the wikiproject talk page by what is difficult to interpret as anything but pointed and direct canvassing by Redrose64[229] to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon (after the one the other day on the exact same matter didn't extract a pound of flesh from him [230]); here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter. This WP:DRAMA-activism incident strikes me as questionable conduct for an admin like Redrose64, especially one well aware of WP:ARBATC and the sanctions applicable to personalizing title and style disputes. Its hard to picture anything more personalizing of such a dispute than to incite a wikiproject, which exists to work on article content, to instead "wiki-politically" research dirt on and then go after another editor just because he's in a content dispute with some of that wikiproject's participants (over a trivial and entirely routine, guideline-compliance move request, backed by sourcing).
As noted above, Andy Dingley then canvassed RM participants to this very ANI discussion, with a post to Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony directly under the still-ongoing RM, highlighting the ANI case, and making unreasonable accusations [231].
This is WP:FACTION behavior, in an anti-consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL in particular) direction of WP:OWNership of a topical category, and disruption and abuse of process. Wikiprojects, article talk pages, RM, and ANI do not exist for organizing and executing anti-guideline campaigns or bounty-hunting against other editors in content disputes. If it doesn't stop, maybe it's time for ArbCom to address it. These editors could even theoretically come up with some "smoking gun" of proof that their anti-hyphenation stance is correct (good luck with that, since it's already been disproven), yet their behavior would still be wrong and sanctionable. RM is a reasoned, civil discussion to assess facts, rationales, and consensus; it's not a topical "great wrongs" battlefield of ideologies and personal vendettas. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not there "to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon" and I resent the accusation. Nor did I make any comment whatsoever in the previous ANI. As for "here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter" - did I raise this ANI? No.
My concern that in the last few weeks we have had a whole heap of undiscussed page moves (by various people, but Dicklyon most of all) and it's time for people to slow down - even stop - and consider what others might think before taking unilateral action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Most admins resent it when people criticize admin-unbecoming things they do. Admins are held to high standards and sometimes forget this. It takes conscious effort to live up to them. You didn't file the ANI yourself, but you encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute that a handful of them care about over-much, and here we are. Getting others to do the ANI dirty work for you when one with your experience would expect community blowback for filing a frivolous complain is what we call "throwing people under the bus". I never said you participated in the earlier ANI, though you've been involved in plenty of disputes with Dicklyon and against MoS compliance. I didn't say you were anti-hyphen, either; you're just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic despite the sources not supporting its removal as any kind of special convention. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Again you claim that I "encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute" - nowhere have I requested that anybody do any such thing. Also, if I am "just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic", please indicate exactly where I have sided with an anti-hyphen position. I have already demonstrated (above, at 22:15, 29 January 2017) that I am not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
We can start with a quote of your post at WT:WikiProject Trains. Quote: Let me guess - were the moves made by Dicklyon (talk·contribs)? If so, you might like to look through their user talk page, also several threads on WT:UKRAIL, and this discussion at ANI." How is this not a) siding with those at the wikiproject (which is hardly unanimous on the matter) to defy MOS:HYPHEN; b) misusing a wikiproject page to encourage drama-mongering against a particular editor you have an issue with; and c) further personalizing a title and style dispute? Consider this a rhetorical question for personal and community reflection. My goal here is not to get into an interminable argument with you about what your motivations may have been (I'm not a mind reader, and this is about the result of the poor decisions, not the path taken to arrive at it), or to see you punished. It is to prevent a repeat of something like this, and to get this vexatious rehash complaint against Dicklyon dismissed rapidly so we can all do something less pointless than continue to argue about it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have as little understanding of Wikiprojects as you do of Arbcom and its usefulness for threatening editors with [232]. It is far from canvassing for a project to publicise significant project-wide issues across a project. Especially not when there is a serious WP:OWN problem from Dicklyon, an editor who has no other evident engagement with or interest in railway topics. He is insistent on imposing trivial styleguides over content, doing this across a wide range of articles, and using one article talk: page (not the project) to establish some sort of "precedent" here (BTW - we don't work by precedent). In such a situation, it's entirely appropriate and useful to the project for Bermicourt to flag this on the project page. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The notice violated WP:CANVASS because it was not neutral, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. As for WP:OWN, your understanding of that policy stops short of its nutshell. It's about preventing others from editing or participating at an article; there has been zero indication that Dicklyon has tried to prevent anybody from doing either. The nutshell ends with, "Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page" - exactly what Dicklyon has been doing. Please learn something about p&g before you cite it, especially here at ANI. ―Mandruss☎ 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's get through this quickly and in an orderly fashion, Andy:
What Mandruss said. ^^
I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have, and been more involved in their development (including of MoS and naming conventions guidelines for some of them, written specifically to explain how to apply site-wide AT and MoS to the topic, instead of trying to defy them for topical-insider stroking purposes to the detriment of our general readership).
Dicklyon didn't propose using that one particular RM's outcome to establish a precedent for the rest of the category; Mandruss did [233]. Get your facts straight. But it's normal, everyday WP process do that anyway. We apply the reasoning in RMs to similar cases; we don't re-re-relitigate the same tired details over and over until you've browbeating your enemies into submission. It is certainly not cause for raising a bloc-voting alarm in a wikiproject to stack the outcome against everyone else on Wikipedia.
RM is a site-wide process specifically designed, like RfC, to bring in diverse viewpoints and thwart the "local consensus" effect. Most Wikipedians prefer that WP be written in a consistent manner instead of being stylistically PoV-forked, or we would not have AT policy, the MoS, or the naming conventions in the first place. Most editors understand that the encyclopedia is written for a general audience, and is written by people who edit all over the place and are not in a position to memorize 10,000 different topical style quirks that fans and alleged experts in this topic and that one and that other one all insist is the One True Way to write anything about their magically special topic. This is not RailfanPedia.
Please stop playing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You already tried to pillory me at ANI for delivering a standardized, ArbCom-specified notice to your talk page, and it was independently closed twice against your viewpoint that it was inappropriate. You received a notice, not a threat or accusation. Suggesting that ArbCom is the place to deal with an ongoing and long-term behavioral conflict if ANI won't isn't a threat, either, it's what ArbCom exists for and why WMF impose an ArbCom on Wikipedia in the first place.
You could brush up on WP:TALK policy and WP:REFACTOR. Personal disputation about behavior and disciplinary actions for it does not belong on article talk pages.
Are you done now, Andy? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
To see Bermicourt's notification as inappropriate per WP:CANVASS, I can only assume that you do so (as you haven't specified) on the basis that members of a project are an inherently partisan audience. You would be wrong in that.
As to WP:OWN, Dicklyon's actions are most easily described as a form of Gish Galloping - he seeks to swamp others by sheer volubility and persistence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you weren't done. To see Bermicourt's post as inappropriate all I have to do is read WP:CANVASS and note that the post's wording was quite non-neutral. Which I already said. And as someone else already said, WP:OWN applies to attempts by individuals and wikiprojects to control the content of a page or topical category against "outsiders"; a topical outsider like Dicklyon trying to bring a page closer to guideline compatibility and to consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia and readers' expectations is the diametric opposite of that. Andy, at what point are you going to stop playing transparent NOTGETTINGIT games? And please actually read Gish gallop; it bears no relation of any kind to listing some articles at RM, civilly discussing rationales for moving them (at which Dicklyon is actually quite concise), and providing evidence in support of those rationales, which is what Dicklyon is doing and what the RM process exists for in the first place. Now compare gish gallop to your habit of going page by page raising the same objections over and over again no matter how many times they are disproved, and injecting various straw man arguments and hand-waving as distractions. It's a much closer match. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
How is that a "problem"? It's normal, intended RM process to multi-nominate moves when they raise the same question, so that the community can consider them at the same time and so that RM admins do not have to close 10, 20, 50, whatever near-identical RMs and have to act on them separately. Doing moves properly is an involved process and time-consuming, best done in groups when possible. Did you even read the previous ANI requests against Dicklyon and their conclusions at all? He was specifically instructed to use the long-form RM process for this and reminded that centralized discussion to reach consensus was the way to go, rather than moving articles around one by one in any cases that might be "controversial". Aside from the fact that the present "controversy" is entirely artificial (a product of tendentious resistance against sources and everyday English by you and a handful of others), what you're doing is demanding that ANI reverse itself on two previous decisions about the same editor, just to keep him away from "your" topic. Doesn't work that way. Finally, no one suggested keeping anyone in the dark about anything, so I'm not sure where that straw man is coming from. You seem to just be thrashing at this point. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have"
And that gives you a greater voice? (well, clearly a louder one). You are losing complete sight of how WP is constituted to operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Another straw man; I made no such argument, only pointed out that you're not in a special position to lecture me about what wikiprojects exist for and how they work. Given that I clearly understand WP is constituted to operate as an anyone-may-edit-anything collaborative project for a general audience, and all the arguments you are making are for clustered content control fiefdoms of specialists/fans writing for other specialists/fans, keeping everyone else at bay, I don't seem to be the one who's lost sight of anything. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Stanton keeps talking about the MOS overriding the "local consensus" of actual content decisions all over the wiki. In reality, sitewide consensus is what editors all over the site do, and the MOS itself is the local consensus of the MOS specialists who edit MOS pages and impose MOS bureaucreacy on articles, instead of editing content as content. So the CONLEVEL argument should go the opposite way of what Stanton suggests, imho.
RGloucester had a proposal a while back (that he called "unthinkable", but that sounded like a great idea to me) of demoting the MOS from "guideline" to "suggestion" in order to stop some of this insanity. Maybe that can be done through MfD, though such a proposal should be preceded by a lot of preperatory work. In any case, the crappy reception that the MOS specialists get from generalist editors in these discussions tells me that the consensus behind the MOS is not as strong as SMC seems to think it is. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You've clearly not actually read and understood WP:CONLEVEL, which the community adopted specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to make up their own local "rules" against site-wide consensus. You're getting generalist and specialist backward. MoS is a site-wide guideline; that's generalist by definition. A tooth-and-nail fight by a handful of topic over-controllers to go against that guideline when the sources don't back them, just because some of the specialized sources (which are not written in encyclopedic style) agree with them (see WP:CHERRYPICKING) is specialist editing, also by definition. The funny thing is, exceptions can always apply to MoS or any other guideline; MoS in various places (and COMMONNAME, in WP:AT policy) say to do what the sources do instead of what our default would be, if the sources consistently do something different from what we do. Yet the source do not in this case. WP follows the sources; why won't the railfan contingent?
Good luck with your anti-guideline campaigning. You should probably also read WP:MFD's intro materials and WP:DE first, since they directly address why trying to get rid of guidelines the community has adopted simply because you don't like them. There is no "insanity" here. There's a lot of disruption, and about 99% of it comes from people try to defy guidelines and write WP articles to conform to the expectations of insular groups of fan forum, aficionado magazines, and ivory-tower academic journals, instead of general-audience writing. (PS: Please log in; only two editors address me habitually by me first name here, and one has already posted in this thread, so you are not gaining any anonymity.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what made Andy think it was appropriate to come here instead of joining the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Decapitalizing_Line that prompted some of the RM discussions and moves he's talking about. The only serious accusation I see is that I called User:Corinne a liar; I did not, and she did not take my comment that way, and has since changed her comments to be more credible, and has retracted her opposition to the move in question. 'Nuff said? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that a lot of editors really do not care about whether we follow title guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS; I don't understand why in not caring they feel they should jump in and add noise, like Baseball Bugs does above, but sometimes they can't resist. In the discussion about downcasing railway lines, there's some general unease, especially about process. Some have pushed me to open RM discussions even when the recommendation of WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear. Some say we can't decide these case-by-case, some say we do have to do it case-by-case. So I did a few:
The British rail fans seem of mixed mind about the 30-article multi RM. Some seem to want to stonewall to slow me down, even though they don't actually oppose any of the proposed moves. Others seem afraid that I might come back and do 30 separate RM discussions and waste even more time, which is not what I or anyone wants.
I think what will help with these is if a wider audience of editors will look and decide whether to support or oppose on the merits, independent of feelings about me, MOS, railfans, and other personalities. Maybe someone could do a "central" listing of these few to see where that takes us? Or should there be a separate discussion, perhaps an RFC, to figure out whether these articles should follow WP:NCCAPS or not? Someone more neutral than me could perhaps take on doing such a thing? Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You are inventing an opposition to changes like "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" when there is none. Maybe in the US there is, but for the UK lines I've seen no opposition to the broad adoption of the lowercase, as per the styleguide. However this is a 'broad styleguide, not a mandatory rule.
When the names are treated, in sources, as proper names then they should be capitalised. You disagree. No one "of the British railfans" is seeking any more than this.
Why you're seemingly happy to let the US lines stay as capitalised "because they're USA" but raising complaints about any opposition in the UK, that's another question. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I noted that "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" is unopposed; I listed it as one of the RM that came out of that discussion when someone in that discussion reverted what most of us would have taken to be uncontroversial. The ones listed at the RM on Redhill to Tonbridge line are similarly uncontroversial, yet procedurally stonewalled by the rail fans; you could help there. On Heart of Wales line, I don't recall anything about that being questioned, challenged, or reverted; did someone object to the downcasing? Where? And on the American lines, no I am not happy to leave them as an exception to WP:NCCAPS, and would welcome your help in fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem obsessed with this issue. Any time of yours that's being wasted is by your own choice. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. You, too. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is not for resolving content disputes. The only relevant questions here are: What, if any, behavior p&g has been violated, to what extent (sanctionable?), and by whom? Please confine discussion to those questions. ―Mandruss☎ 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree that its not for discussing the substance of the content dispute. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. I'm asking admins and experienced editors to help break the stonewalling that's making me and Andy and others frustrated with the process. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My perception is that non-behavior admin issues are more properly handled at WP:AN. There needs to be a clear separation between behavior and content, widespread disregard for that separation notwithstanding. As to the content issues, I don't think all of the non-admin WP:DR avenues have been exhausted in any case. ―Mandruss☎ 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this specifically qualifies as an "incident" as per the top of the page, more or less as per Mandruss immediately above. I do get the impression that this is a long, drawn-out affair with individuals in fairly entrenched positions, although obviously I could be wrong, and that isn't good, and I again like Mandruss hope that, maybe, if nothing else, starting a widely-publicized Request for Comment or similar discussion to establish guidelines as firm as possible for matters of this kind (to the degree that such is possible) would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Since all of the disputed articles/titles seem to be railway articles, perhaps the solution is for Dicklyon to take a voluntary or community-sanctioned absence from railway articles. At the very least, I would suggest that he stop arguing with !voters and commenters who disagree with him in RMs. Simply to state one's case once is entirely sufficient. In any case, it does not seem that he has any real interest in railways aside from page-moves and article titles; I think it would therefore probably be in everyone's best interest for these things to be hashed out by those who edit those articles. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
We need something like a "Thank" button, but with opposite valence; sort of like the different kinds of waves that drivers use to communicate positive and negative reactions to each other. So anyway, !thanks for your opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
^^^ Y'all got that he just obliquely flipped-the-bird at Softlavender, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In my experience WP:BLUDGEON (a widely-accepted essay, but an essay nonetheless) applies to Survey sections and discourages replying to every opposition !vote. The response is to cite BLUDGEON, not to ban a user from the topic area. In any case, Dicklyon is doing no more of that than a couple of other editors, as far as I can see, and his replies in Survey sections have not crossed the BLUDGEON line. As for Discussion sections, what are they for if not discussion? Dicklyon is not being combative or argumentative in RMs. I further disagree that editors interested in railways are the only ones who should be involved with punctuation in article titles of railway articles, considering that the gist of the argument posited by Dicklyon and others is that we should avoid specialized usage in titles. I would be interested to read p or g supporting your position on that. ―Mandruss☎ 17:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: There are a series of similar issues: United Kingdom, British vs American spelling, capitalization etc. In these ideological war-zones editors choose a POV and proceed into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing of articles that they have never edited before, nor will they ever edit again. I believe this "off topic" editing of articles creates a great deal of conflict among editors, they then end up here at ANI. I would love to see a guideline/policy that would discourage this "single purpose" behavior, even if it seems to be supported by WP:MOSDougmcdonell (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've read though the above and, at the risk of brickbats thrown my way, find there's no concrete, actionable proposal being put forth, let alone consensus for such a proposal. A solo admin cannot (or should not) impose sanctions/warnings in such a situation so either concrete proposals should be presented or this topic should be closed. --NeilNtalk to me 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose that OP Andy Dingley be trouted for bringing his content dispute to ANI and falsely accusing me of calling another editor a liar. Or just close it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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.
Wow, what a string! But I'd like to make one minor proposal as a start to sorting it out.
Whatever the background, the request from User:Kevjonesin to Dicklyon to effectively topic-ban him from his user talk page [234] was out of order IMO.
All Wikipedia pages belong to the whole community, and there are even several stages of WP:dispute resolution which oblige a user to use another user's talk page... including and obviously, ANI itself.
There are instances where it's appropriate to topic ban a user from a particular user talk page, to control harrassing in particular, but such a ban cannot be unilaterally imposed by a user, they must go through the appropriate channels. This should be quite clearly stated for the benefit of Kevjonesin and any other user tempted to follow their example. Andrewa (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Andrewa, that's not exactly what happens in practice here. Editors regularly ask/tell other editors to "stay off their talk page" and that request/demand is usually honored. If it isn't, and the matter comes up at ANI, then the requesting editor can point to the posts as harassment. --NeilNtalk to me 06:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's a request and is honoured, agree there is no problem. I myself have had such requests made to me, and have honoured them, in order to de-escalate the situation... generally but not always successfully. My concern is that if it's a demand, as seems the case here, and we approve it, then this prevents access to DR and ANI. Don't you see that as a problem? Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Not really as that's usually handled in one of two ways. Either the "banned" editor includes a request with the ANI/DR post that someone else make the notification or they go ahead and post the notification themselves, adding something like, "I am required by x process to post this on your talk page." --NeilNtalk to me 13:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That's fine if it's understood, and perhaps it is commonsense. And I certainly would not be prevented from using ANI or DR by such tactics, I'd post to their talk page anyway rather than violate the very clear procedures we have, expecting to be reverted (perhaps even politely inviting it) and then posting a diff of that reversion in the appropriate place. But if another user were to raise an issue at ANI and supply a diff explaining why they had not raised it on the user's talk page, I'd regard that as acceptable and would myself then notify the affected user on their talk page and regard all boxes as then ticked, despite a technical violation of procedures.
I seriously question whether that's the best way to do it. Far simpler IMO to affirm the principle that the community owns all pages, and that this at the very least allows ANI etc procedures to be followed, and this overrules any unilateral demand. Most users of ANI etc are not ANI regulars, and we want to make things as clear and easy for them as possible. But if we have rough consensus here on another way things should happen in practice, so be it.
And to that end, does anyone else have an opinion? Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.
Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request"
Also, Andrewa, you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand with User:Dicklyon and myself. Namely that he chose to call me an 'asshole' in our very first interaction and has continued to refer back to such in following interactions rather than offer any apology or even agree to leave me alone in the future. As I see it, that Dicklyon and Checkingfax are not presently this very moment harassing my page likely has much more to do with pragmatic response to the fact that we're currently discussing the issue here at WP:ANI than it does with any sort of moral change of heart on their part. I can't think of any instance in this where they've shown any sort of contrition or self awareness of having overstepped the bounds of civility and such. Checkingfax is still arguing for his right to determine the content of my talkpage and Dicklyon is still making backhanded slurs at others. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
p.s.— I may come back and add citation links to the above at some point.
p.p.p.s.— BTW, I'm on record stating my awareness that no one technically 'owns' there namespace on en.Wikipedia.
[note: I'm aware my oversight of the User:Kevjonesin namespace is technically a privilege extended by Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and to some extent the Wikimedia community at large rather than true 'ownership' per se; however, so far as I'm aware it's a matter of both custom and policy/guidelines to extend fairly broad authority to editors over their own user namespace excepting instances where other explicitly stated policy may supersede. At this time I feel inclined to exercise the authority I've been given, such as it is, rather than risk further erosion by rude indifference. I may eventually be open to considering written requests for future changes to be made with the understanding that such may only be implemented either by me or in some manner having received my explicit personal approval, in advance, on a case-by-case basis.]
While no one technically 'owns' their user namespace (except perhaps User:Jimbo Wales) tradition and guidelines generally grant users the prerogative of fairly broad discretionary authority over such[235][236][237] and use of possessive terminology like 'my/your talkpage', 'my/your userpage', and 'my/your sandbox' in normal parlance amongst the community seems to reinforce such.
User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.
Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I endorse the idea of having a standardized notification template for such. I think it might help make things clear and unambiguous to recipients. I suggest that having such link to relevant guidelines and/or other elaboration elsewhere might be helpful. Perhaps some sort of summary subsection might be provided on the template's page so as to offer further explanation and assorted relevant guideline links and quotes in one centralized place. Stuff seen as relevant both to those who might use such a template and those who might receive it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: One of the benefits of the current practice is that it is informal. No heading to ANI to increase drama, no boilerplate templates that further annoy the editor being banned, just a personalized note along the lines of, "hey, stay off my talk page". WP:NOBAN does address many of your concerns: "although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to". --NeilNtalk to me 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I was forgetting WP:NOBAN, good point. But I think that it supports what I was saying before.
I have a general notice on my own user talk page that says in part Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.) On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!
But that doesn't (I hope) hint at the sort of confrontation and even enforcement that, to me, seemed to be the intent of this edit. I still think that such (purported) bans are unhelpful, contrary to guidelines, and should be discouraged. Whether by a suggested template or other means, I don't really care.
Agree that we need to work towards minimising drama. By the time that notice was posted, that horse had bolted IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to amicably agree to somewhat disagree on how much talk page bans should be discouraged. I agree they shouldn't be used at a drop of a hat, or even when volatile, passionate discussions are going on, but I don't believe they're often abused and need to be more regulated. The editors involved will still likely have to interact on article talk pages but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace. --NeilNtalk to me 15:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace" ... ' Amen ' ;-) --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also I think relevant that in this particular case, the edits in question were not addition of material, but removal of signed material that the the signatory didn't want there. I'm not sure that guidelines cover this adequately, unless the material is posted for the purposes of attack. But it seems to me polite to respect such requests. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Andrewa, again I feel you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand ... the user making the request is indefinitely banned from editing en.Wikipedia and was in effect attempting to do so anyway via proxies. No request was presented to me in advance of unilateral action by others in namespace which guidelines state as having been deemed by the community to be under a wide latitude of my personal discretion (barring some explicit policy violation on my part). I violated no policy and was seeking in good faith to abide by and exercise prerogatives which guidelines state are to be afforded to me by custom (unless some administrative action, policy violation, or such requires the prerogative to be superseded).
The usernamespace is recognized in guidelines as being in some ways unique from other namespace and variations of customs and policy are in place which reflect such. For instance policy states that by default I am not to be viewed as engaging in edit warring when reverting others in the user namespace allowed to me. Others however do not get such latitude there, and I would even argue that when editing in another's personal namespace a 1RR (or 0RR) standard rather than a 3RR standard would be appropriate for judging behavior because the namespace holder is known to hold special privilege by default. Hence making unapproved reverts by others inherently contentious and pointless.
And Checkingfax did explicitly make three reversions of the same edit (to a closed discussion in 'my' User:Kevjonesin namespace) ... That only two of the reverts fell within 24 hours may well have more to do with the fact I was off wiki for a few days before correcting the first one than it does with any cognitive discretion on Checkingfax's part. In fact, my first impulse was to present my case to the edit warring tribunal rather than here, but as there were/are also issues of personal attacks, off site banned user influence, disregard of userspace prerogatives, and collusion at play in addition to combative reverts I chose to present my case here thinking it a more appropriate venue for a multi-faceted case. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Next time you'll be more aware that complaining at a noticeboard about a problem you could have easily resolved is just creating extra drama, and not likely to get you a lot of sympathy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That strikes me as quite disingenuous (or clueless, take you pick) coming from someone who could have avoided being named in the dispute by 'a.' not calling me an 'asshole' and reverting valid user talkpage content in the first place[238] ... and 'b.' could have accepted my offer to engage in discussion on his talkpage[239] rather than refer me back the summary[240] where he called me an 'asshole'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we can keep it up, and remind everyone what I called you and how little you have done to change my opinion. By the way, not that it excuses my language, but when I said you were being one, as opposed to are one, with "cut it out", I meant that it was a transient state under your control; about your behavior, not you. Maybe that subtle distinction was lost in the noise. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I encourage people to read your block log and decide for themselves what your opinion is worth. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That's level six again (see image at left). Suggest cool it. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I admit I had not noticed that the user in question was banned, good point. I still think it would be better to politely remove the material they wanted removed. If it's needed to substantiate their crimes against Wikipedia, archive it by all means. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Andrewa, if anyone had seen fit to politely ask me, I might have. But they didn't. Instead, multiple attempts were made to force changes upon the user namespace assigned to me. Namespace which is held as being in some ways unique by both Wiki custom and community guidelines. Namespace wherein the user whose name it falls under is traditionally and as a matter of policy to be given wide personal latitude barring cases where some explicit circumstances overrides such. Has such an overriding circumstance occurred? If so please point it out to me; otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would consider rising to the defense of an editor in good standing who has been confronted by an editor with an established history of contentious editing.
Please consider that Dicklyon, a user with an explicit history of edit warring, has stated that he came to my page in response to having seen my edit warring warning on Checkinfax's talkpage.[241][242] Let that sink in a second ... He was explicitly and self admittedly aware that he was making a contentious edit. Yes? When he reverted my good faith policy compliant content attribution which had been placed within the user namespace assigned to me and topped it off with an insulting edit summary he was self-admittedly explicitly aware that by doing so he was continuing an ongoing edit war, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There are faults on both sides IMO, and I'm forming the opinion that no admin action is called for, other than a warning to both sides.
But I may be a lone voice in criticising you, and if so I'll accept that as consensus against me, and still go with a warning to Dicklyon. But they at least have shown some willingness to take responsibility for their unhelpful actions.
Our only aim here is to improve Wikipedia. I know it is difficult to respond politely and constructively when others are being downright rude. I've had a bit of it myself here, and the last time I myself raised an issue here at ANI of being personally attacked, two non-admins chimed in and said it was clearly attack and a warning at least was warranted, but there is no evidence that any other admin even looked at it before it was auto-archived. No warning was given, and the perpetrators subsequently succeeded in achieving the "no consensus" result that they were seeking, and we will never know how much their disruptive tactics helped in that. That was hard. But the world did not end.
You've made your case. Leave it to others to assess it, but please also look at what you might do better. And have a good look at Graham's pyramid above for a start. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't even the right section for Kevjonesin to be making any kind of case; he – and you – just injected a lot of noise into an otherwise dormant discussion unrelated to him, so you both could say something bad about me and hope it would hurt me. More behavior of the sort I originally asked him to cut out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You have a point, but your allegation on my motives is both false and baseless. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, good; I'm glad to be wrong on that point. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking again at how you started this section, it does almost look like you were trying to defend me; though it would have worked a lot better to do nothing, instead calling attention to K's rants and inviting more. Anyway, sorry I lumped you in there on noticing that you started the section; I was too hasty. Also note that I posted to K's user talk page exactly once; whether I ever do again probably won't have much to do with his dis-invitation, but so far I have not gone against his request. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the more I look at it, the more it looks like you made a simple blunder and started this subsection in the wrong section. Maybe you want to move it into the section where K is complaining about me and Checkingfax instead of here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And it's easy to see how you made that mistake, following on the heels of K's bird post, now that I look. It's been a mess; let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It could have gone in either section. In hindsight, yes, it might have been better in the other, but I don't think we can fix that now, and again in hindsight I don't think it would have achieved any more there than it has here. It went here because I thought this was the more important of the two closely related discussions. It clearly didn't have any chance of helping in either. I need to learn from that, and I'm still wondering exactly what I have learned!
The intention was not to defend you, or to attack you. The intention was to start to untangle a very complex discussion by suggesting a decision on an issue that I found simple and straightforward and expected to go to a quick consensus.
I was quite wrong, obviously. I still think Wikipedia is the poorer for not affirming that nobody here owns even their own user page, let alone their user talk page, which I thought was a simple, basic, profound and very valuable principle, and which could and should avoid much of the wrangling above (in both sections) if we had kept it, but there you go. It's not the end of the world. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, no big deal, though the discussion you were trying to untangle was not the one here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
They seem tangled together to me... even before i arrived, that is. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.)
On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!
[preceding passage quoted from User_talk:Andrewa; emphasis retained from the original]
Yes, a "satellite"; or perhaps an asteroid or meteor. Time to close; the whole thing, too, that would have archived by now without K's interjection. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Although I think a formal close is better than just allowing it to auto-archive. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure whether it's worth raising there. It seems to me at least possible that this is an undiscussed change to what was once long-established practice, but I could be wrong, and such things do occur over time.
Yes, those are two good places to discuss this one further, and this is not. We seem to have a sort of consensus of silence here supporting your view on it. I accept that. Thanks for your input. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Thanks for raising this. Mildly incomprehensible threat referred to proper channels, and IP blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2017 (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.
diff. It's badly worded, so I'm not 100% sure about this... Adam9007 (talk)
Hard to say, but it's certainly disruptive. DarkKnight2149 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of that, but I did block the IP. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've revdeld the edit out of an abundance of caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Although we can't be 100% sure if it was a threat, it was indeed wise to not take any chances in a situation like this. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Both users warned for edit warring, page protected so that WP:BRD can be followed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (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.
Piriczki(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has shown signs of repeatedly changing or editing specific pages to his liking having total disregard to the facts presented to him. I have attempted time and again to persuade him to not repeat his actions to no avail. He seems to pretend as though he is oblivious to the guidelines set by Wikipedia and continues to edit pages to his liking even going so far as to cite false websites or falsely cite websites. I write this hoping that sufficient actions will be taken against him to further prevent his vandalism. I also state that several other users have had disputes with him over these same issues on his talk page. Thank You.
Links below to a page where Piriczki(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) falsified information about the release of a particular album he wished to put as the best selling of 1992 when he was fully aware of the fact that it was released in 1991. He is now currently putting an album that has 4.7 million sales as the best-selling album of 1992, when it was infact the album Unplugged of Eric Clapton that was the best selling with 10 million sales. I have repeatedly cited my sources and he has not.
So, this is clearly a content dispute. Priczki started a conversation on the talk page, which is exactly how one is supposed to resolve content disputes, yet you have not commented there. You've both been edit warring as well, so I've fully protected the page for a few days to give you a chance to resolve this through discussion instead iof edit warring, which by the way will get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Update - User:Piriczki has vandalized another user's userpage in this edit. I've dropped an only warning about it on their talk page. Twitbookspacetube 12:50, 13 February 2017 (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:Edson Frainlar has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag from DMI Foundations Trust after being warned that the author should not remove the tag, although the author may contest the deletion.
If an administrator thinks that the article isn't appropriate for G11 or A7, I am willing to go to Articles for Deletion, but an author is not supposed to remove the speedy tag, but to let the admin decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the page in question, as it did not appear notable, nor did it have any sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon The user is no way related to me. If he has any issues in my article, then he can view my article DMI Foundations Trust. No way the article is against the Rules of Wikipedia. If the user again reports such filthy things about my work, I will never any articles in Wikipedia. Because of such people, many writers are being disappointed. Right from the beginning he is reporting against my article even before the submission of the article. (talk), 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edson Frainlar (talk • contribs)
Hmmm. There may be a language problem here. How can I report an article before its submission? If he means that he hadn't finished writing it before I tagged it, my advice is to develop articles in draft space or user space until they are ready for article space, including being properly sourced. If he needs advice on how to develop new articles, he may ask at the Teahouse. I, and some other New Page Reviewers, would rather disappoint writers by deleting pages that aren't ready for article space than disappoint readers by allowing junk in article space. I will treat the reference to "filthy things" as a language problem rather than a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you have no idea. Robert has been disappointing writers here for a very long time. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect you could speedy them as G11. Also, there's a lot of copy and pasted material from the various DMI and MMI websites in there. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Good thinking. The creator doesn't even seem at all sure what to call these organizations — "Sisters" or "Society" of Daughters of Mary Immaculate? "Fathers" or "Society" of Missionaries? Etc. I've speedied them. Bishonen | talk 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
Subject editor is making hostile posts to my talk page:
It is true that my suggestion that the editor edit a Wikipedia in a language other than English, while meant in good faith, may have increased the hostility. I am willing to ignore the hostile posts and do not plan to change my attitude. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Robert, Edson Franlair has been making hostile posts to the talkpages of everybody who has ever spoken to him or mentioned his articles, so I don't think it's so much that you mentioned the language thing — you haven't been singled out. I've warned him to stop harassing users. He needs to read the policies he's told about, not try to push through his articles by force of aggression, or it'll soon come to a block. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
(Non-administrator comment) Edson Franlair aggressive approach to dealing with others has carried over to Commons. Language ability may be a problem because the editor seems to be misconstruing any warning/notification left for him as a personal attack. Templated warnings can probably seem a little brusk to a new SPA whose first language is not English, so maybe the personal message that Bishonen left on his user talk page will help. Still, if the current behavior continues then the community may need to take some action to prevent further disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Edson Frainlar has been gently spoken to and warned by several users about their behavior yet the hostility continues. I believe there may be a bit of a language barrier but there is no excuse for this kind of hostile behavior. I believe all editors involved in this situation have assumed as much good faith as possible but it is clear that the user is not doing the same of others and does not seem to be here to collaborate.
Here are several examples of pretty extreme responses:
Even now you haven't changed your attitude. You said that iam not proficient in English. I accept because I used to accept my faults. You said to ask doubts in teahouse. They will clarify my doubts. For discussion alone I need to approach teahouse in that sense then for what purpose you proposed my article to get deleted. Do your business. Even now you are not answering my question properly. I am wondering how you have created all that non sense articles. And you are self praising about you by showing those filthy articles. - OnRobert McClenon's talk.
Don't get into my nerves by continuously saying such filthy reasons. I have given all type of references available in internet. Moreover as a proof of religious congregation, i have included the reference from www.indiancathokiconline.com . Please view all the references carefully. Don't come and complaint without proper observation. Change your attitude. If you are perfect, let those skills rest with you. You don't pinpoint others like a senseless creature. - In response toBishonen's rather kind guidance
You have deleted my article named 'Fathers of Missionaries of Mary Immaculate' . How are you saying that this article is not neutral? Can you give me valid reasons. Without any proper evidence you have deleted my article. Wikipedia is not a good place for emerging article writers. Because of you people, I have stopped to write articles. Having some worthless intentional causes you have done this atrocity. You will repent for it soon. - Also in response to Bishonen (Also vaguely threatening imo with the "You will repent" garbage)
I asked only for proof . Can you cite how my article was considered promotional? You cannot give me proof because you cannot find fault in my article. Soon you will repent. Good bye Another vaguely threatening response to Samtar. I don't remember what it was in response to exactly but I believe it was a talk page comment elsewhere.
Additionally, it seems that this user may not understand the nature of Wikipedia being a collaborative project when they make edits such as these:
The user is no way related to me. If he has any issues in my article, then he can view my article DMI Foundations Trust. No way the article is against the Rules of Wikipedia. If the user again reports such filthy things about my work, I will never any articles in Wikipedia. Because of such people, many writers are being disappointed. Right from the beginning he is reporting against my article even before the submission of the article. - EF at ANI thread about removing speedies
Can you tell me what is the reason for nominating speedy deletion for my article 'DMI Foundations Trust'. If you dont know how about my article, dont report. You are discouraging me. You may read the contents of my article. If you are so intelligent, just tell me the valid reason why you have suggested my article for speedy deletion. I have removed speedy deletion tag unknowingly. You are doing all these things intentionally. Behave yourself. Dont interfere in my articles. What do you know about DMI Foundations Trust? You may not know about all these stuffs. But you are ready to complain others as if you are good in writing articles. I am a new writer. Dont flatter as if you know everything. These are the words from my heart. So, behave yourself. Dont behave like a child. Even they are good than your sense. - EF's response to Robert Mclenon
You are discouraging the emerging article writers by repeatedly complaining . What fault did you find in my article? Can u explain y?Continue your skill of scolding and aniinhsnipimh - EF's response to me
Even now you haven't shown proof. Don't tell me to change my attitude. Do you know how I created that article? I was spending three days for that article. Nearly i have edited 30 times in three days. Without visualizing all these things and without any proof how dare you delete my article? I used to speak polite. But you are getting into my nerves and forcing me to speak harshly. Anyway you don't have proof. Accept - here
I could continue to list all the hostile edits here but I think it's clear. Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
May be a touch premature. They haven't actually done anything since Bish gave them a stern warning this morning. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood I hesitated to post this but they've been asked several times to cut it out and the lack of response is also concerning, as is their removal of well meaning comments after they received the warning. I realize users are free to remove whatever they wish from their talk page save for block notices, but that doesn't seem like good faith to me. This could also be an opportunity for them to show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project and as such they will be civil to other editors and try to understand policies and guidelines. Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll put it this way, if they come back and continue, then I completely support sanctions, because they were warned by at least two people (myself included) that this kind of behavior would result in a block. TimothyJosephWood 19:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's wait and see how they respond to Bishonen's latest actions. And is everyone aware of the related section above? Paul August☎ 19:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty, they are lucky Bish got there before I did, I would have blocked had I seen the diffs in the above thread first, but I respect Bish giving them one last chance to cut it out. Let's hold off until we see how they react to what's already transpired. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
She did it again? Bishonen is a disgrace to the admin community. darwinbishBITE☠ 22:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
Sorry about that. Darwinbish should know she's not allowed in Wikipedia space. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
(Non-administrator comment) There's another ANI about Edison Frainlar ongoing at WP:ANI#User:Edson Frainlar removing speedy deletion tag. Shouldn't the two be combined into a single discussion in order to avoid any unnecessary repetition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now combined the two sections. Paul August☎ 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 a matter for ANI. You have raised it at RFPP and also with the blocking admin, and these are more appropriate fora. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2017 (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
I came across a citation on IKA's page (citation No. 23) that was previously provided for Mahan Air's Baku route, that's when the route hadn't started yet. But now that the service has launched, the reference needs to be deleted. This is standard practice on all major wiki airport articles (LHR,CDG,FRA etc.). Take a look at those articles and you'll see that virtually none of the currently active routes have citations. Citations are typically reserved for upcoming routes.
The IKA's talk page is currently protected so I had no other option than bringing it up here. Could someone apply this edit please?
The discussion above 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.
Thanks for the report. Page deleted and editor blocked by Anna Frodesiak. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2017 (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.
Per WP:NLT, I got to report this legal threat here. User has been warned for making the legal threat, and the page it happened on should be deleted altogether as a talk page of a deleted page. SkyWarrior 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 mass revert recent edits by User:2.220.230.237, like this, and this which switch articles from more specific "England/ English" categories to less-specific "United Kingdom/ British" ones? I seem to remember we've had this problem before, but it's late here and I can't easily find details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
British is (or should be) the correct usage. But it's kinda causing inconsistency by changing only English, while not changing Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Please come back when you've got consensus for deleting a the "England/ English", and equivalnet, categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a consensus on that. Merely suggesting that the IP should be blocked, if he's only changing English to British. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless his national identity is in some way covered in the article/relevant to him particularly (A Church of England Bishop would be categorised English rather than British, much as a Church in Wales would be 'Welsh', or a footballer who played for England and so on) British is the default term. This does ultimately tend to discriminate against the English but then the English are less likely to make a fuss about their nationality than the Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. Afzal for example as far as I can see has no clear national preference, a quote from one of the sources used in his article "Of his own cultural identity, Afzal says: “There's no tension between being British and being a Muslim. On the contrary. You don't love your first child any less if you have a second.”" So switching him from English to British is not an issue. Especially since his job was for CPS, which is not 'England only'. Unless the category changes are inappropriate (switching say Sean Connery or Charlotte Church to British) this is not a problem. The Priyanga Burford example also has no weight behind it. No indication she identifies as 'English'. From personal experience UK-born citizens of Asian descent are less likely to divide along archaic nationalistic lines that have no relevance to them, being 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation immigrants, preferring to describe as British. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be the default term, as neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are sovereign states. Not sure why there's usually such a resistance to usage of British or United Kingdom throughout Wikipedia, but that's another topic & not meant for here. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Combination of anti-imperialism and UK nationalism. Lots of people are proud to be British however. WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and British_people#Classification are required reading in this area. (Which is why I was not surprised in the two examples Pigs used above, both were Asian. Which outside of areas like sport would be unlikely to class themselves as English in the first place) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at the IP's category changes to BLP's, it appears most of them are 1st or 2nd gen immigrants, the section of society *least* likely to class themselves English rather than British. So absent a reason why they should be 'English' (sport, particular English association of some sort) I dont see a problem here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: did you miss the fucking great notice saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." DuncanHill (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You can cut that right out - there's a right way and a wrong way of letting someone know they didn't do something. Come on! -- Samtartalk · contribs 17:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Cut what right out? Asking someone if they missed the notice? DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You know what I meant, the tone of that was just entirely uncalled for.. -- Samtartalk · contribs 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling for a mass-revert of an editors edits without contacting them first, or notifying them of the discussion, on frankly flimsy grounds? He was lucky 'fucking great notice' was the only salty language used. (It is a fucking great big notice). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing is aware of his failure but has not yet informed the editor in question. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And @Samtar: no, I don't know what you mean. It is a fucking great notice, and apparently Pigsonthewing missed it. I'm sure he wouldn't deliberately have failed to follow the rules. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Could a fellow uninvolved admin please have a look at this user's recent behaviour. I recently closed two AfDs here and here, where I believed in good faith that the deletion rationales were sound and had not been rebutted in any significant way. Quidster4040 appears to have taken offence at this and has nominated a number of articles I created some years ago for deletion here. I believe that this behaviour is simply pointy and that, aside from the fact that the guidelines cited (NSEASONS) are not relevant to the articles, the only reason for nominating them is that he does not like my closing rationales to his articles. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment as I'm not an administrator, but I may have experienced the same thing as Fenix down mentioned above. I was the original creator of both AfD's noted above and right after the 2016 America East nomination, the user in question then, while that discussion was ongoing, nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia out of the blue – an article with which I had previously worked on. It surely could be coincidental as I'd prefer to assume good faith, but with the situation above it may be more indicative of a pattern. GauchoDude (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's wrong with the stupid Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Palau Soccer League. I wanted to close it as "Retaliatory, bad-faith nomination", but Quidster seems to have done something along the way that already closed it. I'll pull the AfD templates from the articles anyway. So it is clear to me that this is indeed pointy and retaliatory. I'm not in a blocking mood right now, but this certainly is/was a blockable infraction, and if any other admin sees here a good enough reason for a block, go ahead. I'll just say that Quidster better stop doing this. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the nomination was malformed. I manually closed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Still looking, but... Hey, @AusLondonder:, from WP:G4: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).
I think you're misusing G4 on his userified copy and you need to stop that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to propose a boomerang for Namiba. The Linda Cohen article was deleted through the usual community process at AFD in May 2016. Shortly before that, Namiba moved the article to userspace. Since then, Namiba has made zero edits to improve the article. WP:G4 states that content that has been moved to userspace to circumvent deletion policy is eligible for speedy deletion. WP:FAKEARTICLES also makes clear that "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with db-g4". Namiba then proceded to violate WP:CSD policy by removing the speedy tag three times from the userpage. Namiba furthermore violated WP:UP#CMT by removing the speedy notification from their talk page. Regarding harassment, not assuming good faith, and making wild accusations, Namiba launched a bad-faith attack on me for nominating an article on a non-notable African-American for deletion during Black History Month, implicitly accusing me of racism. Namiba then immediately made a disruptive revenge deletion nomination of an article I had created on a secondary school in Africa. Namiba must cease this highly disruptive and battleground behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Was any effort made anywhere to explain "If you don't work to improve this, it can't hang around indefinitely in your userspace", or did you just move straight to a G4 proposal? You appear to have just moved straight to G4ing it. No talk page, no edit summary, nothing. If I am mistaken please point out where you did so notify. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Namiba is not a newbie, and, I assumed, would have resented having things "explained" to them by myself, a much newer editor. They've been editing for more than a decade. They've made nearly 90,000 edits. They were of course welcome to object to the speedy deletion proposal, they chose not to. I notified them immediately. I'm not sure how you can be the only other editor here to choose to criticise me instead, given the page has now been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
How can you think that just repeating something several times without explaining why/what is appropriate *anywhere* to *anyone*? And this goes for @Twitbookspacetube: as well. People misunderstand or misread policy all the time. Hammering harder is never the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The best way to explain something is to let someone read it for themselves. That was done. How would you have explained the "why" and "what" differently? AusLondonder (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The policies had been linked to and reverted from their talkpage on at least 5 occasions. Clearly no effort was made to read them. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, exactly. If an editor with a decade's experience and approaching 90,000 edits is not listening it is not the obligation of other editors to waste their own time and somehow magically translate for them. Seems we're having a bit of nit-picking going on here. How about we nitpick about the false allegations against me at the start of this ANI? AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Didn't realise that this had come here. I already deleted the page and explained that you can't just keep stuff, since last April, without making some improvement. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I've also had experiences with AusLondoner that make me go "hmm." I was working on an article for a cosmetic product that no one I know even uses (much less sells), and within only a few minutes AusLondoner tagged it as "unambiguous promotion." It wasn't that big a deal so I didn't fight it, but it's looking like AL could slow down and be a bit more reflective on these sorts of things. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing, vandalism, gaming the system[edit]
Done by NeilN. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2017 (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.
Agreed. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilNtalk to me 19:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
At the very least, I gave the user a first and final warning about blanking articles. I also blocked the 2ndry account El_C 09:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
VegaDark's good-faith query asked and answered, and bot activities modified per comments by B below. This addresses the actual issue, even if the response took a while. The WP:BOTPOL communication requirements do apply to all bot owners, though mileage might vary on how timely that response should be in a volunteer community. Either way, the last couple of comments suggest both parties consider the issue at least broadly resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2017 (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.
After reviewing the bot policy, it was not abundantly clear where to bring up an issue like this, so I thought this might be an appropriate venue. If not, please feel free to redirect me. It is in my estimation that User:B is in violation of the Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Good_communication portion of Wikipedia:Bot policy. To quote this policy,
Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves.
That being in mind, I had a good faith issue with one of the actions the bot (User:B-bot) performed, where I left a note on their talk page. That was back on January 2nd. Towards the end of the month, I noticed this user had made edits, so it appeared as if I was being ignored, so I again made a note (on January 28th) on their talk page. User:B still has not responded to this issue. Furthermore, there are several other questions and issues raised on their talk page over the past month that have not been addressed; see User_talk:B#Bot_creation_of_categories_2 and the queries below that. I took a look at User:B-bot's contribs and it appears as if it does quite a bit of productive work on the site, so I very much hesitate to stop the bot (which can be done from here), but it appears as if this bot operator is not in compliance with the above quoted portion of the policy by leaving issues unaddressed for over a month. I'm not sure if that means shutting down the bot until the user starts complying with policy or what, which is why I'm bringing the issue here. VegaDark (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any problems. My findings and suggestions, bulleted for clarity:
As stated on their talk page, B is a semi-retired user, so I wouldn't expect a timely response from them for any query. Furthermore, all of us are volunteers, and nobody is required to respond to you, me, or anybody else who edits this site.
As far as I can tell, the bot is performing its tasks correctly. I'm puzzled by your note on their talk page. You seem to be interpreting a database report as some sort of backlog; it is not a backlog.
As to your first point, you're essentially arguing that because a user becomes semi retired, that the bot policy doesn't apply to them? I don't see any part of the policy making exceptions for users who proclaim themselves retired. If anything that would suggest that users who are semi retired are not allowed to run bots if they aren't prepared to comply with policy and actually respond to posts on their talk page. You're right, we are volunteers and we don't have to respond to anyone, but presumably if we are going to have that part of the bot operator policy we should either remove that or enforce it. Like administrators are expected to respond to queries on our talk pages promptly and cordially, so too are bot operators. As to your second point, it's completely irrelevant what my issue was insofar as the reason for coming to AN/I. I agree most users won't see the issue I raised as a particlurly big deal - it's the lack of communication and therefore violation of policy what should be discussed here, not whether you agree or not with my good faith complaint about the bot. That being said I would certainly characterize the database reports as backlogs, whether official or not, and I would submit that even if I were completely in the wrong about an issue I brought there about the bot, a cordial and timely response would be warranted. Furthermore you don't address that there are other users leaving messages on the talk page that are going unaddressed - this policy is in place for a reason. VegaDark (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please tone down your rhetoric, I'm not here because I want to argue with you. I simply reviewed the grievances you described, and found no evidence of disruption or wrongdoing. Policy could not possibly cover 100% of cases, and when it doesn't, we apply common sense... -FASTILY 11:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if my rhetoric came off as too aggressive, I was not reading it that way - just relaying my points as to why I don't think this should be ignored. VegaDark (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to respond to Fastily's comments above: Communication is *required* on wikipedia as part of a collaborative editing environment. Users who fail to communicate when good faith concerns are raised about their editing tend to get blocked until they do so. WP:BOTPOL is more explicit in that queries relating to bots should be responded to promptly either by the bot owner, or a proxy arranged by them if they are unable to. Secondly to lead on from the actual query - it seems a perfectly reasonable question, why is a bot creating categories in advance of them being needed, that may not be used at all, and end up getting deleted if they are unused? (The answer btw is here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It explains why the bot is creating the categories, but it doesn't explain why it is creating them a month in advance of the earliest possible date they will actually become populated. All other maintenance categories are created at most a couple days before there is a chance they will become populated. I also don't particularly understand the reasoning as to why the category couldn't be auto-created after detecting that a category is populated (similar to other maintenance categories being deleted and then created by a bot when it detects them populated), but that's the lesser of the two issues. VegaDark (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Good Lord. First, thank you for the notification that did not link to the section header and makes me search for what you are talking about. Second, Wikipedia is not a battleground - is it really necessary to find a rule to pigeonhole your request into? How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful", not "RULE BREAKING OVER HERE!!!!!!!!"? Third, I have made the changes you requested - my bot will no longer pre-create next month's categories and will not create this month's category unless/until it is needed. --B (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
First off, as to the notification, I followed the directions at the top of the page which doesn't include any parameters. Admittedly I did not look into the actual template to determine the potential parameters to make it easier to find, but I also did not think it would be particularly hard to do a search for your user name, not to mention the direct links you would have received as a notification due to pings. Second, I was not "pigeonholing" a request into a rule. You can't both be operating a bot and ignoring your talk page for months at a time and be compliant with policy - plain and simple. As to "How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful"," that's exactly the mentality I approached you initially with. I left you two good faith messages on your talk page with plenty of time to respond, which you chose to ignore, and you're trying to make me out to be the bad guy here? I am happy you implemented the change. Going forward I am hopeful that you will be more responsive to good faith issues brought up on your page. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 has been started at by new editor User:Chris H of New York(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who has already been warned about their previous edit-warring on the same issue by two admins and by other editors (see their talk), but seems to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues, and has a previous block for socking. With only 66 edits in all, his may be a NOTHERE person
I think that this needs nipping in the bud. Please can someone take a look? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Closed the RM. Mulling over a topic ban or indefinite block. --NeilNtalk to me 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
One or the other would be good. Chris's latest reply on their talk indicates that there's not much hearing there, so a topic ban may not work. But maybe another round of WP:ROPE.
@BrownHairedGirl: I think I removed the template in my subsequent edit. No one alerted the editor about discretionary sanctions so I can't properly levy a topic ban. Editor is indeffed with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilNtalk to me 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN, sorry I missed your next edit. Template is indeed gone.
The discussion above 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.
EnoughsEnough ripping out Daily Mail sources[edit]
I think there's general agreement here. Removing Daily Mail sources is fine as long as they are replaced with a reliable one, otherwise they should be tagged with {{bettersource}}. The exception of course is if the Mail sourcing is to a contentious section in a BLP and no other source is available, then the material should be removed completely, just as it would be with any other unreliable source. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (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 appreciate that the Daily Mail no longer counts as a reliable source but EnoughsEnough is charging through the encyclopedia ripping out Daily Mail citations and leaving content unsourced. Several editors have raised this issue with him at User talk:EnoughsEnough but he his persisting with this course of action. Now, I am not arguing against the ultimate goal of removing Daily Mail sources but I do not believe that leaving content unsourced improves the situation. The sources need to be replaced in an orderly fashion. A good first step would be to geta bot to tag all uses of it between ref tags, but second of all this behavior needs to be nipped in the bud because it's not helping. EnoughsEnough has been asked svereal times to stop but it has had no effect on histheir conduct so can someone with a bit more authority get him to stop please. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The content was unsourced beforehand. That's the problem here.
Mostly I've tagged these as {{cn}} if there wasn't another source already. I didn't do that for the Agutter article (I agree, maybe I ought to) as I considered the specific claims there fairly uncontroversial and already covered by the other sources present. EnoughsEnough (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The information was not unsourced. It was sourced and now the status of the source has changed. The problem here is not that the content is unsourced but that the source needs to be replaced. Removing a source and tagging content as uncited is not the same as tagging the source as unreliable, that is why we have {{Rs}} i.e. so problematic sources can be replaced in an orderly fashion. Leaving content is unsourced is worse than leaving it sourced to teh Daily Mail so your actions are not helping. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Conveniently the editor only replied when I started rollbacking, Anyway although consensus is to not use the dailymail there's nothing that says they have to be removed, I have no problems with them removing the DM as long as they actually replace it which they haven't been - They've just been removing it and that's it, I don't really wanna support blocking however something should be done. –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with Betty Logan's comments above. I just have the feeling that if the Daily Mail was a left-wing publication - we would not be having this discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Pssh tosh, David J. Johnson, stop looking for left-wing boogeymen under the bed, because they're all out in the shed drinking wodka.EnoughsEnough: Leave in the material and either replace the source with a better one, or mark it with {{bettersource}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is going to be one of many issues that are going to come up regarding editors taking the RSN choice as a licence to adopt a (and i'll avoid Godwin's Law here) Cromwellian attitude toward DM sources and just charge in to remove it and not consider the damage that is being done by removing sources from articles where they have been established and accepted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with Betty Logan's comments. And it's rather worrying that EnoughsEnough seems unwilling to distinguish between the concepts of unsourced and unreliably-sourced. It would be far more useful to tag the articles as having an unreliable source, and so that editors who want to do the research of finding alternative sources can identify the articles which need this attention. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Also agree with Betty Logan. Tagging these sources as being potentially unreliable is the correct thing to do if they are not being immediately replaced with a reliable source. The deletions of the sources are disruptive, and the fact that the account was created mere hours after the Daily Mail RFC closed [251] and is an SPA for removing Daily Mail refs suggests that another editor is behind the account and knew that the wholesale removals would be controversial. Meters (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 Sondra Currie's talk page, a user with IP address wrote something about Antony Crowther being inspired by Sondra Currie and then goes on about winning a piano competition at the age of 11. I saw this as irrelevant and removed the edit from the talk page. He undid this so I removed it again with mentions about WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM, but he undid it again. So I replied with links on how to use Wikipedia with the intention of removing his edit later (in a week?). I wonder if I should pursue on getting this talk page clean or just let it go. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A lot of times it's more effective to collapse off topic comments rather than outright removing them. It allows you to leave a semi-permanent explanation as to why the comments are inappropriate, and do it in a place that isn't an edit summary. Gotta keep in mind that most newbies probably don't understand how to use page history or even what an edit summary is. It's likely they just get a ping that their edit was reverted, and intuitively respond by themselves reverting.
But overall, as long as the comments aren't violations of things like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, which absolutely must be removed for legal reasons, there's no real harm in letting an off-topic but not obviously bad faith comment hang around. Like most newbies probably don't understand what an edit summary is, most readers probably never or rarely ever visit a talk page. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I hav taken the liberty, as an uninvolved editor, of collapsing the relevant discussion as off-topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Good deal. We can probably close this then, and for future reference Lyverbe, for questions that don't require the use of administrator tools, but instead are mainly requests for input from experienced editors, you may want to keep Wikipedia:Help desk in mind. It's a pretty active community and there are always folks around willing to help. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 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 discussion above 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 edits by Editors Jytdog and Ymblanter on Gender Disphoria 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.
Two editors, Jytdog and Ymblanter, have just engaged in disruptive edits on the Gender Dysphoria article. I had made a series of constructive edits, which nevertheless may not have been desired by people who feel they WP:OWN the article. Both Jytdog and Ymblanter have attempted to avoid the WP:BRD process: Rather than discuss their reverts, they have merely Reverted and then refused and failed to discuss. Worse, editor Ymblanter rudely and improperly put a semi-protect on the article, including a false claim of "disruptive editing" when no such disruptive editing had occurred. Only editing which these editors may not have liked occurred, but the proper response to that would have been to engage in the WP:BRD process. Instead, they attempted to shut off the WP:BRD process by blocking edits from an editor, myself, who did not agree with their apparent desires as to the content of the article. Obstructing an editor merely because his edits are not desired by one or some (rather than those edits genuinely being "disruptive") is a clear violation of the principles of WP. Evidently, those two editors, rather than actually defend their positions, desired to conceal the dispute from the record. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The IP hopper apparently tries to create a false impression that I ever edited the article, whereas it is easy to check that I only added the protection template. They also forget to mention that their proposal at the talk page was rejected by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If anything, Ymblanter's now-admitted fact that he never edited the article (at least not in the last 500 edits I just checked, back to August 2014), makes things far worse for him: Ymblanter has no prior interest in the article, and has not paid any attention to the content of the article. He is clearly being used as a "hired gun", to retaliate against me, and to obstruct my edits. Clearly, he was called to this dispute, probably by Jytdog, and instead of actually investigating the nature of the problem before acting, his first and only tactic was to obstruct the person that he was asked to obstruct, presumably asked to do so by Jytdog. Wikibullying. Also, Ymblanter falsely claims " They also forget to mention that their proposal at the talk page was rejected by the community." Nothing was "rejected by the community". Yet another "hired gun" showed up to obstruct things; apparently this is a very common WP tactic. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The burden is on the OP to provide diffs to prove what they are saying is so. El_C 09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you are ASSUMING that I know how to do that. I don't. WP USED TO be called "the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Years ago, anyway. But in reality, I now see that it has been made so complicated that ordinary people can't do that any longer. Worse, it appears that you are chiding me simply for failing to do something I dont' know how to do, and implying ("the burden is") that if an editor doesn't know how to do a specific task, their positions are automatically ignored. That's rude. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'm assuming is that you'd take the time to read that link and learn how to. The onus is on you to prove your case, which so far you failed to do, sorry. El_C 10:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like your editing actually put the article into conflict with the sources, which is a big no no. Jytdog's reverts were good, and Ymblanter's protection was good. The article is not going to be changed because you dislike the language used by the sources. If you want to make your changes, find better sources, and explain why they're better. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What it "looks like" to you is wrong. You do not identify where the "conflict" is, for starters. Further, I was obstructed from continuing to edit (including correcting and adding sources) by the very people I'm complaining about here. And whether or not you believe "Jytdog's edits were good", nevertheless he failed to engage in the full WP:BRD process that is required. You falsely imply that he may simply revert and then ignore the issue, as he did. Did he call you here for backup, like he called Ymblanter? Figures. Yet more Wikibullying? Don't demand that people find/add sources, AFTER they are obstructed from adding them by means of a partial protection template. That is not merely rude, but obnoxious as well. The fact that Ymblanter partial-protected the article, even before giving me and others the opportunity to find and add sources, clearly shows the nature of the abuse. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 has decided to retire, no use for continuing on. (non-admin closure) —JJBers 15:13, 12 February 2017 (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.
There is a dispute on the talk page, that me and a another user are being randomly accused of being sockpuppets. Editor is also disputing about his content being removed, but is not edit warring about it. —JJBers 06:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User:StephenTS42, do you actually believe what you're saying? If not, stop banging on about them and consider apologizing, because your allegations waste people's time. If on the other hand you are serious, then get to work. (For starters, read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: User has now redirected their account to a unregistered account listed above. —JJBers 11:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Discretionary sanctions levied on CNN by Ad Orientem. Blackmane (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2017 (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 discussion above 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.
BTW, it's my understanding that this article falls under the "American Politics since 1932" discretionary sanction regime, and I've personally notified User:Motsebboh of that fact, but it hasn't stopped him from ignoring consensus and editing per his POV. Given this, I also (obviously) am aware that the article is a DS article, so if my behavior on the article or talk page has been disruptive per that DS, I acknowledge that admins are authorized to deal with me according to those rules, which also (obviously) pertain to Motsebboh. I'm simply sick of his continuing bullshit, and wish this to be dealt with, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Gee, I thought I had already responded here but I must have somehow erased it rather than saved it. To repeat: Good, I probably would have brought a complaint against Beyond My Ken soon. His sins are many; he consistently tries to exercise ownership of the article in his bull-headed manner. He claims that my fairly modest, proposed edits are a "whitewash" of the subject. He has displayed extraordinary bias against the aticle's subject as seen here: [253]. He eagerly but falsely claims consensus for his views by convincing himself that the only other editor in the discussion, Dr.Fleischman agrees with him when he clearly hasn't. He then immediately edits the article as he pleases and claims that my protests run against consensus. He reverts any edit I make in the article out of spite, even when they are obvious corrections or improvements as seen here: [254] and here: [255]. He has also taken to stalking my edits by suddenly finding interest in two rather obscure articles, Carol Downer and Mike Burke (journalist), which he had never before edited. In short, he's behaved very, very badly. Motsebboh (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find this to be rather revealing. El_C 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like classic WP:CPUSHing (perhaps escalated enough that the "civil" portion no longer applies, but the behavior still fits the description, so let's call it WP:PUSH). Neither editor is behaving well, but one is much more clearly editing with a POV, which I see as a far more serious problem (and a much more serious threat to the project). Mojoworker (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As the third wheel in the talk page discussion and a direct observer to this nastiness, I think both editors could use a block as a lesson on civility:
(I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm another third wheel. Both ought to stay off the TP and away from the article for a while. Take a break and ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to stay away, but WP:3O is not appropriate, as there is already a consensus on the talk page. I also note that you just made some changes to the article, but did not touch the consensus material. Does that mean that you, also, agree with the current consensus version? In any case, I'm taking the article off my watchlist, under the assumption that you and DrFleischman and @Fiddlestyx:, and others, I hope, will continue to watch over it and take action against any future attempts to whitewash the article. BMK out! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC) @Fyddlestix:Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I would also be more than happy to have Beyond My Ken stay away. But, seriously, what I would suggest is that we each be banned from the article for a period of time, say a month, but in separate consecutive months. I'd be willing to serve my sentence either first or second. That way we could each work on the article without being provoked by the other. Motsebboh (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like the parties might be agreeable to an interaction ban. Perhaps an admin can weigh in and potentially implement? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to support a several (3-6) month restriction from editing the article for both of them. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Mojoworker, thanks for the response. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll note that some of the back-and-forth wasn't just about Center for Security Policy. Diffs: [256], [257], [258], [259]. It seems like this was just where a simmering dispute happened to erupt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to burden anyone with one of those threads where an editor answers every comment - I found them annoying when I come across them, and I'm certain others do as well, so let me make this one comment and then I'll attempt to refrain from further input.The community can, of course, impose whatever sanctions it deems appropriate, but I would point out that this incident -- which was incited by Mottsebboh's removal of sourced material from Center for Security Policy without prior discussion -- is the first time I have come across this editor, at least as far as I can remember, so I'm not aware that we have any previous history. Yes, after that edit, I did indeed look through that editor's contributions, and, yes, that was where I formed my firm opinion that he is POV editor, and yes, I did revert some of his more egregious edits in other articles, but that is all part of this single incident. My experience has been that interaction bans are generally not considered until there is a pattern over some significant period of time of disputes between two editors, so (as far as I am able to be dispassionate about this situation), it does not seem to me to be an appropriate sanction at this juncture. Should there be additional disputes between us in the future, that would, of course, change the situation.I have already said that I have no plan to edit the CSP article again. If Mottsebboh would make the same pledge, I think that would be sufficient. Again, I don't believe a formal topic ban from the page is necessary, since one can be instituted if either of us edits against our word. But, whatever you folks decide. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
He already did, which I admit surprised me. Is that edit one (either of) you consider un/contentious? El_C 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure who you're asking here, but if it was me, I do not think the edit you linked to was a problem. I'd say that it improved the article. I am confused, though - where in the edit summary does M say that he's not going to edit the article any more? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, good. So long as it's noncontroversial. No, he said: "I would suggest is that we each be banned from the article for a period of time, say a month, but in separate consecutive months" (Italics is what I overlooked). I still don't see why you can't both just stick to discussing the material—yes, even with everything that has happened. He is using the talk page in preparation for his next edit, which is a good sign. El_C 09:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I know myself better than that, and it really sticks in my craw that an obvious POV editor is allowed to run free on Wikipedia, skewing articles to meet his ideology. If I went back to editing the article, sooner or later it would become a problem. No, I know it's best if I just stop, and leave stewardship of the article's integrity to other editors. That's what I said I would do, and I plan to stick to it. If M doesn't want to do the same (saying we'd edit on alternate months is ludicrous, and not at all the same thing), well, that's his choice, not mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You know yourself best. But I still don't see why it has to become a problem, if you only engage the material (and not the editor, same goes for him) directly at the article talk page, and try reaching consensus. I encourage you to do so. The world is filled with 2nd chances. Good luck. El_C 11:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be an assumption by a couple of editors here that because I edit politically contentious articles I edit them in a decidedly biased manner. Of course, all editors have political viewpoints that to some degree will affect their editing. The test is whether in their selection of sources and use of those sources they make a scrupulous effort to neutrally follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think I do. Rather than citing the articles I've edited as a sign of bias, try citing specific edits that go "beyond the pale" of what would be considered reasonable.
As for the resolution of the issue here, I'm willing to accept the verdict. Naturally, I think my suggestion is a pretty good one but it's not up to me to decide. Motsebboh (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the next step if there is no response on talk:Spam-blacklist?
Also, is there a way to search to see whether links to this domain have been recently added then reverted? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The "proposed additions" and "proposed removals" sections of the SBL page tend to get more visibility than the "discussions" section - that may be why nothing has been done with the report, it's falling below the radar in that section.
I'll review the blacklist page later today ... when I first gained my admin tools, that was my primary activity ... but I drifted away from it quite a while ago (sometimes, you just need a break). I think I'm ready to go back to that activity now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Help please: Dealing with filibustering at WP:COMICS[edit]
Proposal for a topic ban, further down, gained sufficient consensus to be enacted by Drmies. Wrapping this mess up for archiving. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2017 (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'm at wit's end with this disruption. We have a serious issue that needs to be discussed regarding how to handle article on cross-media character franchises. Unfortunately, we've hit a roadblock, as User:Darkknight2149 has been filibustering/WP:BLUDGEONing each discussion. WP:IDHT and straw manning are amongst his most frequent behaviour issues. His goal appears to be to prevent the discussion from happening at all—he rejects all proposed solutions, and the idea that solutions are needed at all. The current discussion was meant to drum up ideas before presenting them to the wider community, perhaps at the Village Pump. But the discussion ins't even being allowed to happen.
A typical example (of a wide variety):
Darkknight2149: You said there must be multiple articles for the character.
Me: No, I offered that as a solution if the editor didn't want to refocus the article. There was no demand for multiple articles.
Darkknight: Goto 1.
... over and over and over, until utter exhaustion. Putting words into my mouth, ignoring direct questions, posting links to diffs that don't say what DK purports, and more general WP:NOTHERE behaviour preventing us all from finding potential solutions to the problem under discussion.
We've been here recently over WP:CANVASSing allegations. The discussion closed with DK being told he canvassed, and my mass-pinging in response also constituted canvassing. The related AfD discussion was closed, but before it was, DK returned to it and repeatedly denied the canvassing, even after three (?) uninvolved editors showed up to assert he in fact had, including the admin who closed the ANI discussion. Two weeks later he posted an inappropriate message on the talk page of one of these editors, and this on his user page. This sort of WP:IDHT behaviour is typical of the rest of the discussions over several user, project, and article talk pages.
We have a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. It won't be dealt with as long as one editor is intent on drowning it. I know I have a reputation for being less than polite, though nobody but Darkknight2149 has accused me of acting in bad faith. Here I'm trying to find a constructive solution rather than blowing my top again.
You have really shot yourself in the foot now. Ever since myself and Curly Turkey found ourselves at opposing ends of a discussion at Talk:Joker (comics), Curly Turkey has been uncivil. While at first, I tried to have a civilised discussion with this user, I have quickly found that that is something Curly Turkey would never allow. Essentially, throughout the entire argument (which continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) and at WP:COMICS ([260]), Curly Turkey has been trying to undermine my side of the discussion with blatant assumptions of bad faith, from WP:NOTHERE to accusations of "starting dramah". It seems that pretty much everyone who disagrees with him is apparently a disruptive user ([261]), and he pretty much revealed his intentions with this edit (in a discussion about me that was meant to take place behind my back). This exchange is finally what drove this over the edge ([262], [263], [264], [265], [266]).
Turkey's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and general attitude are what's disruptive here. Ever since I first met him in 2015, he has had an attitude problem ([267]). A consensus can't be reached when every other word he makes is an accusation. It really needs to end. DarkKnight2149 04:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Take the above as an example of DK's style of discussion, particularly comments such as "he pretty much revealed his intentions with this edit". Please click through the link and try to figure out what "intentions" it reveals. His comments are loaded with such bizarre links. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they should click the links to get a look at your inappropriate behaviour. And your comment of bizarre links just reeks of your failure to get the point. You have been trying to undermine the discussion by inventing accusations since this discussion began, a massive violation of both WP:PA and WP:GOODFAITH. Good luck getting anyone beyond your petty WP:FACTION to defend you here. DarkKnight2149 04:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I also recieved an edit warring warning, and make no mistake - You were very much involved. You already revealed your intentions with this damning exchange. DarkKnight2149 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And it's playing out as I predicted, isn't it? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
[shameless plug...] Nor is it about WP:WHINING. EEng 05:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just defending myself. I'm being honest. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. Lord knows I have frequently (?) disagreed with Curly Turkey, but he's right to remind me of that ANI closure and the subsequent fallout. I'm not expert when it comes to these two editors, but in this thread, if we have to determine a winner in the snark and uncollegiality contest, Turkey is clearly the loser. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'm gonna recuse myself from !voting in any of the below proposals because my past interactions with both CTand DK are a matter of public record and if I was accused of bias ... well, the accuser would probably correct. That said, I urge the community to look into this dispute and not take the relative lack of diffs as an indication that both users are hiding something. I have seen the way CT deals with constant IDHT and filibustering, and I know for a fact that he has a very high tolerance for it (his early interactions with a certain retired user whom I won't name prove that); the fact that it has taken less than two months for this to come to ANI is therefore telling. I'll also say that DK is the last person who should be telling others to drop the stick when he showed up on my talk page 13 days after the fact and posted this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That's because I wasn't on Wikipedia for 13 days, which you are well aware of and have even acknowledged. And all it takes is a quick look at Talk:Joker (comics) to see a very lack of tolerance to simple disagreement. Also, "bias"... DarkKnight2149 17:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a very messy situation all round. It's obvious that some measures need to be taken to stop the disruption occurring. As such, I would like to propose a two way IBAN. User:Curly Turkey and User:Darkknight2149 would be indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, either directly or by reverting edits from the other party. Any violation of this IBAN by either party will result in escalating blocks. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Question: how will an IBAN deal with the larger problem? DK is devoted to derailing the discussion. We need a solution that will also handle that. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It removes the element of the other editor and gives the party being disruptive enough rope. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The simple solution would be to drop your incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. It's THAT simple. You're not interested in the simple solution. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm being polite now. Does this mean you'll stop saying I've said things I haven't? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've already provided links to what you claim to have not said. And that condescending question proves what your uncivil intentions are here. DarkKnight2149 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't sound like moving forward. We can't have a civil discussion if this kind of behaviour is what's to be expected. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose: How is an iBAN going to work when we both have opposing strong positions in a valid debate? Go read where this all began at Talk:Joker (comics). I have tried to have a civilised conversation with Curly Turkey, but he has been uncivil from the start. This would all end if Turkey would just drop the incivility and have a clean discussion. Turkey is clearly unwilling to do so. DarkKnight2149 04:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Try to lose that WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and look at things as an outside observer would see them. You've had several editors and a previous ANI thread go against you. As I see things, it's either this, or a block. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A block won't solve anything—I provided a link above where he showed up at a user's to leave a "HAHAHAHA!" message two weeks after the ANI closed. From evidence such as this, I'm not convinced blocks or IBANs will improve the situtation. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
So is the thing that got you two here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You, Twitbook, have some explaining to do. A legit debate is NOT a battlefield. And Curly Turkey is the one making it uncivil. And this further proves that he's the one with the BATTLEGROUND mentality. DarkKnight2149 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm hoping to find a solution that will best facilitate the discussion being planned. I hope to find a non-disruptive solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Conditional support, specifically on the condition that Curly be the editor to disengage from comics talk pages where the two are having a spat. I read for instance this talk page, which seems home to completely civil discussions until Curly shows up. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If either of us is "having a spat", then that editor has broken the IBAN. You're not saying one editor gets to fight? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that you two should not be the interacting at all, anywhere, but that Darkknight should not feel he has to avoid an article because you picked a fight with him there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
But I should have to avoid an article because DK might pick a fight with me? Are we forgetting "HAHAHAHA!"? This is hardly one-sided. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Curly Turkey will not agree with those terms. One of the main reason's that he is doing this is to undermine my side of the argument. And I have already elaborated on what that "HAHAHA" meant. Keep reaching for all you've got, Curly. DarkKnight2149 04:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That's right—you explained that "HAHAHA" meant you reject the community's judgement that you canvassed. This is part of the problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't dropped that? Everyone else has. Seriously, nobody is talking about that anymore. Now you're trying to bring that resolved and once heated debate back up. It's clear that you are reaching. DarkKnight2149 05:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You've linked to the discussion about it on my talk page in this very discussion yourself. It's deeply tied to the ongoing issues, an example of what makes the discussion so frustrating. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This is very clearly a content dispute, and all that the various disputants need to do is open up some form of official dispute resolution. It's clear to me that both parties love to fight and to perpetuate fighting (note that the OP did not produce even a single diff, or even an indication of or link to where the disputes[s} was taking place), and the fact that they are fighting each other is coincidental and immaterial. The solution, as always is not to fight, but to resolve, via WP:DR. Final note: If DK canvasses again in any form, he should be blocked (cc: Drmies). -- Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You are correct. This is indeed a content dispute, which is what I said above. However, I do not love to fight. In fact, I am very exasperated at this point. I tried to have a civil debate when this started at Talk:Joker (comics), but Curly Turkey was uncivil from the start. And his incivility is nothing new. DarkKnight2149 04:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No Curly, this is about content. I only showed up to that discussion to make a legit point regarding the content and that's what my discussion at Talk:Joker (comics) was about. As an uninvolved editor rightly pointed out above, it didn't get uncivil until you showed up and started making wild assumptions of bad faith because you disagreed with me. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That dispute is long over, and we've already been to ANI over it. We're talking about the current one at WP:COMICS that is explicitly about a cross-Project issue. Is it that you're carrying a grudge that you're behaving this way? I apologize for being impolite. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose (edit conflict) x2 IBANS seldom work in this type of situation. If one or both parties can not get their acts together than a TBAN is less subject to gaming. This has gone long enough and caused enough disruption where it would probably be best for both parties to take 3-6 months off from the area of dispute, however it can be defined, and told if they start up somewhere else a long block would be in order (multiple weeks to couple of months). Jbh Talk 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)·
This could easily end if Curly Turkey just stop with the incivility. No seriously, it is that easy. It is the incivility and the invention of accusations from Curly to undermine my side of the discussion that have spiraled this entire situation out of control. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've apologized for being impolite already, and I've asked you quite a few times already to stop putting words into my mouth, etc. Will you promise? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I would agree to be more careful about quoting you (although I didn't intend on putting words in your mouth, there was obvious miscommunication, [268] in that discussion) IF we can drop the incivility and accusations, and try to get back to the content discussion. Although we disagree, we can hopefully reach a consensus if we discuss this in a civilised manner. Because, at the end of the day, I think we can both agree that content is what's important. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My edit record bears this out. Proposal: no linking to who said what from before this thread. Let's move forward. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we can get something that doesn't involve blocks or bans here. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would propose that you both go and have a civil discussion and work out your differences in a collegial manner. If neither of you can do that then both should be topic banned from The Jokercomics broadly construedfor four months so others can work. A strong indication of not being able to work together would be the two of you taking over this ANI thread sniping at each other like happened in the last one. Jbh Talk 05:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC) If the narrow Joker topic is not enough, per Curley Turkey below, then lets open it up to Comics broadly construed. I don't really care how you define the topic. Jbh Talk 05:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've proposed to move on. Waiting for a response. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept those terms, though it obviously won't work if Turkey doesn't also accept (not to suggest he won't). DarkKnight2149 05:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I should point out again that Joker isn't the locus of dispute. It's an issue that long predated the dispute there, so a proposal naming the "Joker" article misses the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*sigh* I've given you links to previous discussions about these things already. The heading of the discussion "Assistance in developing content relating to individual characters across multiple articles") makes it clear that this is not about Joker. It is a discussion about fictional characters in general, particularly those who appear in multiple media. This is the very basis of the discussion, and it's been going on for years. "Joker" is a single example of the issues raised. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The disruption I've seen and that evidence has been presented for relates to The Joker but if you want it opened up... sure, comics, fictional characters... wherever you two are arguing about. I thought is would be best to have a narrowly focused TBAN but meh. Jbh Talk 05:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for a solution that would lead to keeping the discussion on topic, but I guess that's not what ANI's for. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI is about stopping disruption. If you want DR it is ===> thataway. You do know y'all can just drop this right now and go to DR, right? That would go a long way towards showing uninvolved editors that you two are at least willing to try to work through your issues. Jbh Talk 05:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest having an honest discussion on one of your talk pages to figure out a way the two of you can disagree with -- and fundamentally talk to -- each other without resorting to trading verbal blows ad infinitum. It's clear you two deeply distrust each other based on how you've interacted, so maybe you need to ask yourself and each other what you need to do to earn that trust, and really work at it if the goal is to work together. Alternatively, an interaction ban isn't going to work, but maybe limiting your interaction with each other is a better way. Frankly, you both make your points about the Joker matter early on, and the subsequent back-and-forth does not resolve your disagreements or make things clearer to other editors, so maybe you need to consider making your point once and leaving it at that. I JethroBTdrop me a line 05:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
What, actually resolving issues between editors? Whoa. I mean, whoa. GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to "make your point" when another party keeps telling people you've made a different point. I'd oppose myself if I thought I were proposing what has been presented as "my position". Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey and Darkknight2149: Is it possible that the difficulty is partly because something is not clear? I know that may sound crazy given how much the both of you have had to clarify your positions. Are you sure both of you understand each others' positions? Perhaps you should try independently summarizing your own position and the other's position (in a neutral, non-judgmental manner) to see how they size up. That may reveal something like, "Oh, I thought they wanted to do this, but they actually don't. I guess I was wrong about that." On the issue of someone else not understanding your position or making it sound like something it is not, I understand it's normal to rebut and correct-- this is Wikipedia after all. I think some of that is OK, but after a while, you need to disengage and trust that if a single editor doesn't get it, other editors will understand you just fine. And if there aren't other editors involved, involve them through RfCs. That strategy is a much better course of action than persistently trying to make the person "get it" to the point where it spirals out of control into a big old insultfest that internet discourse is so well known for. We should do better than that. I JethroBTdrop me a line 04:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: That probably is how this all started. However, the problem is no longer about me and Turkey. Right now, the only dispute is this heated thread, which should have already been closed. It has served it's purpose and has become even more toxic than the initial dispute between me and Turkey. DarkKnight2149 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Someguy1221, User:I JethroBT, Softlavender, et alia, have we ever considered blocking a pair of editors from everything except each others talk pages so they have no choice but to talk things out? It worked for Papa-Lo and Shotta Sherrif; it might work on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) not to bring disputes to usertalk; they should only ever be discussed on article talk or project talk or DR board. They can either take this to heart, agree to that now, or not. And if they don't agree to that here, then it may be in their best interests (and in the interests of Wikipedia) to formally bar them from each other's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal disputes shouldn't be in article or article talk space. This is no longer a content dispute or, if it is, it's not about content. In a way I'm suggesting the opposite of what you're suggesting, below. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
For me, this was always supposed to be about content, going all the way back to before I started talking to Curly. It spiraled out of control when all of the incivility and "you did this, I did that" came into the mix. DarkKnight2149 19:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I misread your question; I thought you were proposing a mutual user-talk ban, but you were proposing the opposite. Your mileage may vary, but in my career on Wikipedia, I've personally never seen two bickering editors of this sort of stripe resolve anything on user-talk. Bickering is the reason we have WP:DR, which provides neutral venues and formats for resolving disputes and maintaining civility and gaining feedback (especially when civility or being on-topic goes astray) from others. Softlavender (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I've never seen that kind of remedy before, but I could get behind that idea. There's been an attempt been an attempt at following these steps, but it hasn't worked, and I do not see either party deciding to willingly disengage. Both parties have had ample time to use the dispute resolution noticeboard, but have not. If we are confident that both parties are capable of finding a more productive way to engage with each other (you'll note that not everyone here is), forcing discussion between the two of them seems like the right idea. FWIW, I've worked with Curly productively before on topic areas where we've disagreed, so I know he is not always like this. I JethroBTdrop me a line 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User:I JethroBT it's a crazy idea and will probably never work, which means that if all else fails, we should give it a shot. Remember Jerusalem in World War Z? Softlavender, here you go. I'm hoping to get my copy signed in April. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
And there are plenty of other editors that would say the same about me. But a select few editors have decided to change the focus of the mutual dispute to try and turn this into a "Darkknight2149 is evil" thread. Ironically, the dispute between me and CT is over at the moment. The only dispute now is here, and this discussion should have been closed already. As I've been saying, this discussion needs to end. DarkKnight2149 17:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to ban Curly Turkey from all comics pages and discussions[edit]
This is not gaining traction. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2017 (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.
OK, here's one, just ban Curly from all pages and discussions regarding comics. I just took the effort to read all of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics# Assistance in developing content relating to individual characters across multiple articles, where I find more of the same thing I found at Talk:Joker_(comics). A completely civil discussion, until Curly shows up, and then it devolves into a shitfest. Darkknight participates, but he is not the instigator. I don't know or care what prior interactions these two editors have had. I just know that things seem to move smoothly in this topic area until Curly starts contributing. So, simple solution, disallow that. By the way guys, both of you, if you want to ensure this discussions ends with both of you getting blocked or topic banned, by all means keep sniping at each other in this very thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I hope some other editors take the time to read the discussion, as my first several comments were all polite, constructive, and on topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - this COMPLETELY ignores the disruption caused by the other party. Regardless of who started it, disruption is disruption. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't be ANI without a proposal for some sort of ban, broadly construed. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 06:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
... And then I saw this and remembered how sloppy ANI can sometimes be. Strongest possible oppose CT has contributed a number of GA- and FA-class articles in this topic area, and in this particular dispute he is not only right on the substance but has been far more patient and civil than DK. A TBAN of CT would be a disaster for the project, and would completely miss the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
"Far more patient and civil." - Whatever you say. DarkKnight2149 16:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear who you were calling impatient and uncivil, but the diff you provided showed no evidence of either, which makes that an "[a]ccusation[...] about personal behavior that lack[s] evidence". I have blanked it in accordance with WP:RPA. Do not restore it, and do not repeat similar comments elsewhere. (And yes, I am aware that you've posted essentially the same thing a half-dozen times in this thread; I removed this one to make an example. I'll leave you to self-retract the others.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, and not worth blanking. Just an off-topic piece of irrelevant conspiriology with a bizarre piece of non-evidence. I wouldn't accept this explanation if it wasn't what I've come to expect from this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I searched for a bit, but I couldn't find who restored the above personal attack against Curly Turkey. Given that in the past two months I've had at least three good-faith users getting up in my face about their super-strict interpretation of TPO (which completely ignores any wiggle-room to accommodate RPA), it would be unfair to assume that whoever restored the personal attack was the same user who originally posted it, but it wouldn't surprise me. That said, whoever did it did so without disclosing that they had done it, and so was being a bit hypocritical if their rationale was TPO-based: they indirectly refactored my comment by removing the context in which it was written and not inserting any kind of explanation. I don't like being made to look the fool who said they had removed a personal attack when the personal attack was still there for all to see. I won't revert the un-removal, but someone else should remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: That isn't a personal attack, you just misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not calling anyone impatient and uncivil. I was quoting what you said, and providing a diff that shows your self-admitted bias (CT, until now, hasn't been either patient or civil). I don't recall who restored the comment but they were correct to do so.
That being said, I've trying to end this discussion, not keep it going. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that clears that up, and pointing out my bias is not a personal attack -- it's just really uncivil to do it as many times as you have, and apparently more IDHT given that it looks like you are trying to "expose" some hidden conspiracy that the rest of us have been trying to hide when in fact not only was I upfront about my bias but several other users pointed out to you how upfront I was. It also really wasn't clear that demonstrating bias was what you were doing, since if you wanted to do that you should have linked the comment in this thread where I specifically said I was biased, not that other one that ... well, Drmies already told you to stop citing it, since it's pretty obvious you don't understand our canvassing policy and why that comment was not in violation of it. That's enough anyway -- you shouldn't have posted the above comment for a bunch of reasons, but per your explanation one of them wasn't NPA, and so I won't blank it again. Please be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that I provided diffs and a detailed explanation for the only other person I said was factioning. But yeah, after this disaster, I probably will take more caution in the future. DarkKnight2149 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"Whatever you say" and a link to an old diff that you have been thoroughly told off for repeatedly misrepresenting is not "a detailed explanation". If you post something that looks like a personal attack, and the only way it can be taken as anything other than a personal attack is by accepting a bizarre explanation that I only accept because I have experience of the way you write about other users' behaviour, you should not be surprised if it gets blanked as a personal attack. Your behaviour since posting the above shows you are not being any more careful than before. You should knock it off, or you'll soon find yourself with some form of sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a personal attack. And my explanation wasn't bizarre at all. The point of the post was that those words coming from you aren't trustworthy. And the diff proved such. You even admitted yourself that you are biased in this discussion. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I know it wasn't a personal attack, as I already specified above. But the only reason I now accept it wasn't a personal attack was because I accept that, according to your bizarre logic, the diff you provided demonstrated some sort of bias on my part. The diff only showed (1) that CT and I have interacted before, but it's about the most mundane diff of that you could find) and (2) that I am willing to comment on your disruptive and biased edits to comics articles that deny or downplay any outside-comics influence. I only accept that you think it demonstrates bias on my part because I know you have a tendency not to interpret comments as actually meaning what they say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I was pinged into a previous ANI discussion so have a little bit of background. My reading of that one went the other way to Someguys. I suspect there is a walled garden of sorts around WP:comics and we should not topic ban the main person trying to open it up. AIRcorn(talk) 01:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
@Someguy1221: Would you mind withdrawing this proposal and closing this subthread? It's pretty obvious that the proposal is not going to pass at this point as it's been opposed by myself and two others and has received no support. I apologize for asking you to withdraw it, but if I just posted a "Please close" the odds of anyone seeing it and being willing to read through the above off-topic tangent to determine whether they actually should SNOW close this are extremely slim, but at this point the subthread is serving no purpose but to allow DK to continue nitpicking over something I have already retracted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that I'd already gotten my wish. I don't know what happened. Drmies must have saved his edit in the brief instant between when I clicked "Edit" and when the edit screen loaded. I didn't notice the archive template (it's a lot less obvious in black and white). Anyway, thank you Drmies and apologies to Someguy1221 for an unnecessary ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My reading of interactions since the last ANI[edit]
Alright this was great. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2017 (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've read the discussion at WP:COMICS and gone through the comments made by both editors in this dispute in chronological order
How the latest fight between these two started
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Darkwarriorblake—you never made to split it. You were given the choice of refocussing or splitting, and you chose to split. Having said that, I agree that the opening line to the current Joker (comics) article could probably serve as a model for fictional character articles. I've made a change to the Goodman Beaver article to reflect that—even though this character has appeared exclusively in comics, it shouldn't be referred to as a "comics character". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not uncivil.
2. Whether there are spinoff articles at all depends entirely on whether there's enough content to justify it. Character articles should not be split by default into in comics and in other media to isolate a favoured incarnation, which is what the superhero editors seem to demand. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Still not uncivil.
3. Correction: my concerns have had nothing to do with in- vs out-of-universe. Mainly, I've had two concerns:
WP:COMICS taking OWNnership of fictional character articles by DABbing them with (comics)
WP:COMICS making the comics incarnations of fictional characters the base article, and shoving everything else (regardless of how substantial) into little "other media" subsections or other articles entirely
The above applies almost exclusively to superhero articles; you won't often find this sort of thing in non-superhero fictional character articles, and when you do, you don't run into a ridiculous wall of resistance when you try to fix it. Just look at Wolverine (character)—it's been moved at least four times as WP:COMICS members have tried to exert OWNership over the article by giving it a nonsensical DAB.
SMcCandlish's "a comics focus is obvious for Doctor Strange despite there finally being a movie" reiterates what I've already said—if the subject has appeared almost exclusively in comics, per WP:WEIGHT the bulk of the article will end up covering those comics appearances (à la Goodman Beaver). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable argument.
4. It would have been appreciated if someone would have notified me of this discussion, since I am the one who nominated the deletion to begin with (unless a few editors would consider notifying an editor who is already involved as canvassing as well). What I will say is that Joker (character) can not continue to exist in its current form. Whether it's deleted or merged with Joker (comics), coming to a permenant centralised agreement would be very helpful. The problem here is that we seem to have two different waves of editors that have separate ideas of how these articles should be handled, so we need to fix that by coming together and fixing the contradictory guidelines. DarkKnight2149 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
5. I've been busy with things outside of Wikipedia, other articles, and a massive fiasco, but I may be able to contribute wherever I can. DarkKnight2149 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Civil.
6. If we're deleting or merging Joker (character) (which is what needs to happen), then I don't see why not. And this "creating separate articles for the general character and the comics character" should NOT become a trend. We aren't about to start splitting articles and wasting useless space simply because a group of stubborn users want to use slippery slop WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that aren't even true ("all other character articles do this"... no they don't). I don't see why the character's source material can't be covered in the base article. And Joker (comics) is the base article. As previously stated, other media versions are covered in that article (with Joker in other media only being split due to the sheer amount of content). If you don't think that Joker (comics) covers the other media interpretations enough, then try ADDING TO IT. Going out and creating a duplicate base article because you think that it focusses too much on the comics or because you think the project is being WP:OWNy borderlines on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also keep in mind that you can't title an article (Character) in comics unless it is specifically about the comic book appearances themselves. Joker (comics) can't be renamed Joker in comics because it's about the character, not the various appearances that the character has made. DarkKnight2149 21:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Also, members of WP:COMICS better watch your backs. Curly Turkey is coming to clean you up. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Strawman argument.
8. Oh, look! Darkknight2149's shown up to stir the shitter! Who'd've thunk that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPA, in response to the continued strawman and WP:IDHT in regards to the AFD and ANI. It basically devolves into a shitshow after this point.
TL:DR: Things were going reasonably well until DK entered the conversation with immediate WP:IDHT and strawman arguments. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have been keeping track of the conversation, you would know that this didn't start at WP:COMICS. It started at Talk:Joker (comics) and carried over. I suggest you stop your obvious WP:FACTION behaviour. DarkKnight2149 16:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And yet, here you are, making unsubstantiated claims of meatpuppetry here and here - I'm starting to have serious trouble assuming good faith when you clearly aren't. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated, eh? I think not. And you have further proved with this hypocritical ban proposal (along with a great many other things) what your intentions are here. DarkKnight2149 00:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Um.... Okay? DarkKnight2149 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I hope people are clicking through to see DK's "evidence". This is one of the behavioural issues at the core of the dispute. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope they are clicking through my evidence as well. And I should also point out that WP:COMICS (which is construed in the collapsed section above) was not the start of our dispute. It started at Talk:Joker (comics) and carried over a few different places. DarkKnight2149 01:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
There is consensus for a topic ban on COMICS for Darkknight. Whether this will resolve the issue depends on Darkknight. Hereby issued, for six months. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2017 (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.
After reading events above, I propose that, due to continued refusal to get the point, User:Darkknight2149 is indefinitely topic banned from comics, broadly construed. In addition, both users are to be strongly reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If this content dispute continues between the two users, standard blocks of escalating length will apply. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As you said above, this completely ignores the actions of the other user. It is very obvious at this point that you are only here to WP:FACTION, from you only leaving warnings to me and not Turkey, to you jumping at WP:BATTLEGROUND claims, only supporting Turkey and now a highly hypocritical ban proposal. Need I bring out the diffs? DarkKnight2149 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I certainly can't remember any interaction with you... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Turkey, because it's not like you haven't given us any reason to be suspicious of you, right? DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Twitbookspacetube and Curly Turkey have never interacted with each other prior to this thread: [269]. Moreover, I have consistently observed Twitbookspacetube to be studiously neutral, circumspect, and helpful. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No edit war is currently taking place at that Talk Page. However, if I want to remove my comment because of Twitbook's "don't post" rubbish, I have every right to do so (given that virtually no real discussion took place). DarkKnight2149 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, I think he has been convinced otherwise. See the sub-conversation in the now-hatted last section of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope you're right, but I don't see anything suggesting that. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It's impossible to know what Twitbook's exact motives are at this point (could be a grudge, faction/meat puppetry, or something else). However, their bias is nonetheless clear (see the diffs and breakdown listed below). I wouldn't be surprised if they make another one-sided proposal that serves no real point just as things appear to have cooled down. DarkKnight2149 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In order to completely confirm/debunk a faction or meat, we would have to go through their edits on all of their accounts. I think I speak for everyone when I say that nobody wants to make things worse by opening that can of worms. DarkKnight2149 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh good grief, every single person on this entire ANI thread who has !voted or opined agrees with Twitbook. This battleground mentality is why no one has rescinded their !vote for a topic-ban, and why you are also skating perilously close to a block for sheer disruptiveness. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the IDHT. Also, apparently Jbhunley somehow "isn't a neutral party" now (even though he has clearly shown exasperation for both sides of the argument). DarkKnight2149 00:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Every single person on this entire ANI thread is a neutral party, except Hijiri who is a friend of CT's. That was what Twitbook was referencing. You don't see it, but everyone else does, including admins. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I called JBjumley a neutral party and Twitbook laughed as if it were false. You sure have a way of spinning situations. I'm thinking of stopping responding altogether. The discussion between me and Curly seems to be more civil now, so there isn't anything else that this thread can accomplish. It has served its purpose; no need to continue looking for reasons to keep it going (such as by pulling up old threads, like the "Great Canvass Dispute of 2017"). DarkKnight2149 00:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender: you must realize by now that there'll be no end to this. I mean, here he is (as of 00:55, 12 February 2017 UTC) still arguing he never canvassed and still not giving up on the idea that Twitbook might be a meatpuppet. Do you really want to keep arguing with him here? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No. But it does point up the fact that some sanction is in order. And the fact that he can't see Twitbook's meaning in that sentence is sort of baffling. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You mean the meaning that you invented? And sactions for what? You should have proven those dead-end canvass claims when you had the chance. It's over now. And so is this discussion. I think my posts here from here-on-out will be minimal. If you want to keep this going, you will now be doing so on your own accord. DarkKnight2149 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: I did not make canvassing claims, Curly Turkey did. And the community and Drmies agreed with the claim. If you want to verify what exactly Twitbookspacetube meant by this, just ask him. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm starting to see where WP:CIR can apply to DK. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Support after reading all the 'it's not me it's the other guy' stuff below. Jbh Talk 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
What "other guy" stuff? I said that I would be willing to accept the proposal if Turkey agrees (because this won't work if we both don't form a mutual agreement). What is so difficult about that to understand? DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yet you are still here complaining about FACTION and how impossible it is for you to be civil and work with CT etc. Go start some good faith, civil dispute resolution rather than continuing here. There really is nothing you can say here that would help your case more or be more constructive than that. At this point pretty everything you or CT say in this thread other than 'OK mate let's see if we can work this out like gentleman (or whatever)' just make it more likely that people here will figure you, if fact can not work out your differences and the topic area would be better off with one, or both, banned. Since you seem, based on what I have read here, to be the more verbose it likely will be you. See First law of holes. Jbh Talk 00:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT got old a while ago. I never said that it was impossible for me to be civil. That's not what I said at all; I suggest you re-read my comments below. I've already spelt out what I said. Secondly, I have already accepted Softlavender's proposal at least three times already, not to mention that I HAVE discussed an agreement with Curly ([270], [271], [272], [273]). Do you have any other reasons for supporting this absurd ban? I apologise if I come across I little irritated right now but, to be honest, it's because I am at this point. DarkKnight2149 00:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If an admin has to warn you about being blocked for IDHT behaviour, you shouldn't be saying This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT got old a while ago. I've got half a mind to go through the COMICS discussion to see if you've continued denying that you were canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you have done nothing but complain about factions, and make meat accusations and say "I'll do this if CT agrees" etc. Go open the bloody DR and see if CT will participate. Just ====> Press Here If you don't think that will work go open a well formed WP:RFC. Do. Not. Say. - Simple. Jbh Talk 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I might just consider that. And for a civil discussion to work, both sides have to agree to be civil. Otherwise, the discussion won't work. I've already been over this, but this WP:IDHT is encoded in this discussion, I guess. And I've backed up my faction claims with substantial evidence. You are aware that blatant tag teaming is a form of WP:MEAT, right? DarkKnight2149 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"I might just consider that" - No, you either want to move forward and will do it or you don't and won't. Do or not do - simple. "[F]or a civil discussion to work, both sides have to agree to be civil" - not true. You decide that you will be civil what the other guy does is on them. Until you learn that you will keep getting in situations like this. I already see in you many of the signs of an editor on the track to an indef. I think you have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia and think that would be a shame. Jbh Talk 01:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support As I said above, I'm biased (in favour of CT; my bias against DK is justified and relevant), and I wasn't going to comment here until it was brought up again on my talk page, but yeah... DK has a penchant for edit-warring as opposed to civil discussion, a tendency to engage in IDHT/filibustering on talk pages when he even does post there, pretty bad sourcing standards (which makes the edit-warring and the talk-page IDHT and filibustering even worse) and ... well, 75.9% v. 5.1%[274] is not necessarily a bad thing, but when over 40% of one's mainspace edits have "undid revision" in their edit summaries, and at least some of those can be demonstrated as reinserting poorly-sourced POV and/or OR into articles (see Talk:Mr. Freeze), that is really suspect. All of this, plus his willingness to collapse comments he doesn't agree with because they are "off-topic" even though he will post on the talk page of the user who made them weeks after the fact and laugh at them without even providing a diff or a link to the relevant page ... Yeah, enough is enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, the reason showing up weeks late and laughing at me without providing any link to the comment he was laughing at was bad in combination with the edit-warring and selective hatting was because he made it really hard to figure out how to respond to him. I didn't even remember where I had posted the comment he was quoting at me, and when I "Ctrl+F"ed the page where it actually was I came up blank. I reverted the (uninvolved, good faith) editor's collapse and was immediately reverted by the same guy who had seen fit to lead my on that wild goose chase in the first place. This is not to say that I am !voting here for the purpose of getting DK to re-revert his disruptive hatting and would retract my support if he did so; the article edit-warring, POV-pushing, borderline-OR, IDHT, filibustering and canvassing all need to be addressed, and they are bigger than the one uncivil comment he left on my talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
"I'm biased" - Yes, we know. And you already admitted at your Talk Page that no disruptive editing took place at the Mister Freeze article ([275]). I also never hatted anything, except for reverting you when you tried to edit a closed discussion ([276]). I was not the only one to do so, and I did not put the hat there to begin with ([277]). I literally didn't hat anything. Not. One. Thing. You already know this, so I don't know why you are lying. DarkKnight2149 00:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if it was you or someone else who removed my maintenance tags without addressing the core problems, but just because I chose not to get into an edit war with you doesn't mean you wouldn't have edit-warred. The disruption took place on the talk page, and is there for all to see.The article as it is now conforms to your POV, which is in line with the DC Comics propaganda narrative rather than objective history, and as a result the original creator of the character is not named anywhere in the article. My having given up on the page because your constant IDHT, filibustering, and refusal to accept sources you don't agree with (or even claiming that they said something they didn't say) does not mean that you were "right" and shouldn't face sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not how it works. In order for their to be an edit war, there actually has to be an edit war. My POV isn't inline with any propaganda, and I don't recall ever removing anyone's maintenence tags. I know that, at Mister Freeze, there was a lack of consensus due to conflicting sources. DarkKnight2149 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You edit war. That's a fact. On the Joker AFD that started this recent flare-up, you edit-warred. Almost half of your article edits a blank reverts with automatically generated edit summaries, and that doesn't even include any partial or manual reverts. The Mr. Freeze example was one where you didn't necessarily edit-war (although if you wern't the one who removed the maintenance tags, you should say so), but you engaged in gross misrepresentation of sources, IDHT and filibustering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't canvass :) DarkKnight2149 01:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Sorry to ping you again, but ... well, you can ignore my talk page. I genuinely didn't think DK would do this, and so I didn't think I'd have cause to ping you here. You should block him for flagrantly violating your warning. If you don't want to do it I'll ask someone else. This constant IDHT is really getting on my nerves, and I only started following this yesterday after a long break. I'd hate to think how CT and the others feel.
Or if any other admins are watching, please feel free to step in. DK needs to be blocked because the multiple warnings clearly weren't enough to get him to stop.
Neutral, leaning support (see below). The fact that DK started right back up with disrupting a civil discussion (see section directly above for evidence), even after the last ANI thread, and the fact that he has gone out of his way to time and again repeatedly deny that he ever canvassed at the AfD, leads me to believe that he may be the primary problem. I would probably lean towards a time-limit on the topic ban, though.Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I already told Drmies, on his very own Talk Page, that I won't be taking responsibility for vote stacking because I had no intention of vote stacking. Why are you bringing this up? Drop the stick. That canvass fiasco is over. At some point, you need to get over that. DarkKnight2149 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, since you refuse to provide any diffs, the discussion are apparently talking about is here. You promised to refrain from further canvassing, which is good in theory, but you also persisted in the whole "what I did was not canvassing" schtick. "What I did was not canvassing. I have never canvassed. I will not canvass in the future." is meaningless because if you don't accept the same definition of canvassing as everyone else then we have no reason to believe you won't do the same thing again and continue to deny that it is canvassing.
But what's worse is that Drmies' warning wasn't even about canvassing. Is was about refusal to accept that there was canvassing. So regardless of any dubious promises not to engage in future canvassing, you are still violating the warning by denying that you canvassed in December. I don't care about the canvassing at this point. It's IDHT that's getting on my nerves.
Nice try, Hijiri88, but you're dead wrong. You were the one who wanted me blocked for denying it. And blocks are not for punishment; they are to prevent further behaviour. @Drmies warning at the deletion discussion was "Stop canvassing, or you'll get blocked. Listen to other editors". At Drmies' Talk Page, I told Drmies that I am not taking responsibility for something that I didn't intent on doing. His response[278][279] was pretty much "You're not going to canvass in the future, are you? No? Excellent, don't."
Why are you continuing to bring this up? It's over. This ended weeks ago. Seriously, move on. I haven't mentioned it in a while (before this report). DarkKnight2149 03:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Shit. On second reading, you might be right. I read the "it" in there was canvassing. Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked. Please listen to other editors as referring to the IDHT that was being discussed immediately above the comment (another reason I didn't like it being hatted). But on closer reading it does look like "stop canvassing or you will very likely be blocked" might be the better reading. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It's fine, we're all human. DarkKnight2149 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not come back up and interupt a civil discussion. I was already involved in the matter and I simply stated my position, which was too much for Curly to handle. And the ban proposal is not evidence. It's from an Twitbook, who quite obviously has a bias against me (see real evidence below). DarkKnight2149 00:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender: I see you're experiencing what I've been experiencing since this whole thing began. Note the quality of his "real" evidence against my Twitbook, and see how it compares to each time he posts a link supposedly refuting me—often links saying the polar opposite of what he asserts (for example this of his linking to this of mine). This is the exact style of interaction that's led me to deal with DarkKnight as I have. No, I'm not excusing my incivility. Perhaps he's acting in good faith but has serious WP:CIR problems—which could explain why he can't accept that any of his transgressions have been real. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:CIR issues? That's funny. You mean aside from nearly three years of editing that proves otherwise? And I did try to be patient with you, Curly. Go read Talk:Joker (comics) where it started. I am still willing to be patient with you again, and have a civil discussion. But your incivility and invention of accusations clearly didn't win you or me the discussion, did it? More importantly, it made it impossible to reach a consensus. And as we can both see, the discussion has spiraled out of control. And one thing that these editors are all correct about (except for perhaps Twitbook, who said he wants me to be indef blocked for some reason) is that we do need to reconcile this incivility and move forward. DarkKnight2149 01:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose: You cannot enact a topic ban on me without also banning Curly Turkey for his behaviour, especially given that this is a mutual content dispute. Not only that, but it clearly isn't necessary given this agreement ([280], [281], [282], [283]) that everyone has conviently ignored and the fact that I have agreed to Softlavender's proposal multiple times (though that apparently isn't enough for her).
I should also note that both the proposer and the supporter Hijiri88 are both highly guilty of WP:FACTION behaviour with Curly Turkey. HiJiri has admitted it here (not to mention this). The proposer, Twitbookspacetube (who happens to have a history of disruptive editing), has particularly been laughably one sided throughout this entire discussion. Almost as soon as Curly Turkey posted this WP:ANI discussion, Twitbook immediately left two warnings on my page without even addressing Curly one time ([284]). Then, as soon as he arrived at this discussion, nearly all of his arguments have been either defending Curly or accusing me of something (such as WP:BATTLEGROUND, when I mentioned the content dispute [285]). When it came to the proposal that Curly Turkey recieve a topic ban, he argued that Turkey shouldn't be banned because it doesn't address my part in the argument. Then, Twitbook turned right around and hyprocitically proposed the same ban on me (while violating WP:IDHT by suggesting I started the whole thing). Twitbook has even suggested that I be blocked indefinitely. And that's not even mentioning his dismissive reaction when I addressed him at his Talk Page. This is clear WP:MEAT behaviour and Twitbook quite obviously has a bias against me. DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your "what other guy stuff" question above; This is other guy stuff. Jbh Talk 00:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Providing genuine evidence for Twitbook's obvious biased intentions with this highly hyprocritical proposal is not disruptive. And because of the mutual content dispute, you can't topic ban me without doing the same with Turkey. It would also be very one-sided and wouldn't address Curly's glaring part in this. The exact same argument was made when someone proposed that Turkey be banned, so don't give me this other guy gibberish. DarkKnight2149 00:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. This bizarrely inappropriate and extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (visible on this entire ANI thread, on the collapsed discussion copied in the section above, and on the last ANI and AFD and in DK's endless comments about those last two items long after they were closed) needs to be stopped, and this is a reasonable first step. If it fails to stop the behavior, a block may be in order, because the community cannot waste more time on this disruptive behavior. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the AFD has not been resolved. It crashed because of your unproven canvassing claims. And there is no WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Now it is you who are repeating what Twitbook said. And if you actually followed the discussion, you would know that the collapsed section above isn't evidence for anything. All it is is Twitbook twisting facts. And frankly, this is not[286] the first time that you have reached to find disruptive editing where there is none. And because of a genuine content dispute, you can't topic ban one of us without also banning the other. Banning me also doesn't address Curly's massive part in this. Again, you completely fail to get the point. DarkKnight2149 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: I did not make canvassing claims, Curly Turkey did. And the community and Drmies agreed with the claim. The AfD was closed as "trainwreck" because of your canvassing and Curly Turkey's subsequent ping-canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support DK2149 clearly can't participate in this area without contentious attacks. Even in this thread which is specifically about HIS behavior he can't help but not hear criticism (eg "Again you completely fail to get the point.), and focus on others' behavior instead of address their own. He claims that "...you can't topic ban one of us without also banning the other.", we absolutely can do that. The way things are going it looks like that is what is going to happen. CT AND DK, you are both good editors, I implore you to drop your sticks and walk away. Whether that walk is to other places in the project or counting paces until you draw down on each other is up to you.--Adam in MOTalk 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not the one making the contentious attacks. And yes, I will defend myself against misguided or straight-up wrong accusations. And I have already expressed an interest in moving forward peacefully with this content dispute and have spoken to Curly Turkey about it. I don't know why editors are keeping this going, especially with laughably one sided proposals. And for the majority of the discussion, there were no contentious attacks from me. You and some of the others seem to neglect that it was Curly's incivility that caused this mess. And believe me when I tell you that I 100% believe in everything that I've been saying. DarkKnight2149 01:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. The battleground behavior on display here is amazingly self-defeating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
What battleground behaviour? The WP:IDHT and general ignorance of the many genuine points that I have made is amazingly self-defeating. By the way, you should probably come up with your own analysis instead of just repeating what everyone says. What would this pointless one sided ban accomplish and why should I be the only one banned? (and please bring something new to the table; I grow tired of having to repeat the same points over and over). DarkKnight2149 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
One final comment: The final thing I'll say is that comics have been the primary topic that I have edited for my nearly three years of editing, with little incident. Banning me from the entire topic due to one conflict without even addressing the other user would be nearly as foolish as banning me in general. Of course, this entire thread served its purpose a while ago and the debate at WP:COMICS is going smoothly now, but other editors insist on keeping it going. Well, I guess they can keep it going on their own accord. I'm done here. Unless I am giving a great reason to return, you can expect very minimal (by which I mean little to none) responses from me here now. This thread can serve no purpose any longer. DarkKnight2149 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning oppose because what's the TBAN meant to achieve exactly? Support TBAN as ROPE - You should have proven those dead-end canvass claims when you had the chance <- the straw that broke the camel's back. You've been denying those claims ad nauseam despite the statements of almost everybody involved at the first AN/I thread, several user talk pages and this AN/I thread. Here's exactly what you should have done yesterday when things started going sour: shut up and open a thread at WP:DR. What has been done instead: re-litigate old discussions, accuse an editor of meatpuppetry, repeatedly claim that everyone is IDHT except for them, and most relevantly here of all battleground. These are the signs of an editor who is flailing and not listening. All of the above and below are demonstrative of this to such an extent that I don't only not need to provide diffs, but, by the time you get to my comment (assuming you read from top to bottom) will have already seen this amply enough. This needs to stop, immediately. My not openly supporting this proposal is solely and absolutely down to the fact that I don't know what purpose a TBAN is meant to serve. This issue is not due to the topic of comics it's due to editor's behaviour which, right now, is spread across the encyclopaedia - comics, AfD, user talk (Drmies for example), and AN/I. I'd think a time-out would serve a far better purpose in getting it through to the editor that all of the above, below, and elsewhere is not acceptable and that the community will not put up with it. You have a clean block log and have otherwise been a productive editor, so I hate to recommend a block, but, it's either a TBAN, a block, or you stop and reconsider. On your talk page you have the UBX {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}. Well, it's no good having that UBX if you don't abide by it. You have made mistakes, several of them, you have had these mistakes laboriously explained to you by editors, several of them, over the course of the last few days. Now is the time to stop, take a step back, contemplate the issues others are having with you and begin comprehending them. They are not figments of their imagination, they are quite real and quite plain. No more IDHT, start IHT (I hear that). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, no, Mr rndude. Blocks MUST be preventative. This dispute existed only between me, Turkey and the topic of debate, then it spilled over here. This dispute now exists exclusively here, because the incivility between me and Turkey has now ended. For this reason, I won't be responding here any longer, because this thread has served its purpose. And no, I will not say that I canvassed simply because you accuse me of it. That's not a block-able offense; blocking for that would be purely punitive. You only need to see the discussion at User talk:Drmies to see that this canvassing thing will never come up unless you keep bringing it up. If you want me to stop denying it, then drop it. Plain and simple. DarkKnight2149 03:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a block because you canvassed (WP:IDGAF what you think of it), or because you IDHT'ed your way through this, but, because this is a) causing immense disruption, b) you've levelled accusations at several editors including the one directly below me in what I can only describe as bad faith (WP:AGF and WP:NPA), and c) you have a battleground mentality as is amply exhibited by your insistence on the existence of "factions" opposing you. The IDHT just so happens to be the root of the disease. I don't know if you've been reading this thread (you're either not reading or not comprehending), but, this stopped being about your dispute with Curley Turkey three subsections ago. For that matter IDHT is a blockable offense, Per IDHT; If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. Whether you see it or don't, in the eyes of the community they've spent enough time "cleaning" up your mistakes and "educating" you on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Aside from the TBAN I'm adding a recommendation to instate a 2 week block for causing disruption, making several personal attacks and accusations without evidence, and the absolute refusal to listen to the point that it has exhausted community patience. Stop! you are in the Marianas trench. I would retract the block request if I saw even a single iota of evidence that something (any of the above) is getting through to this editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Basically, the TBAN gives them enough rope and allows them a (possibly undue) chance to show that they can do more than just disrupt. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Note that I am now only responding to this toxic discussion when I absolutely have to. I didn't make faction claims without evidence. I provided all of the diffs with my arguments in my intial claim. And given that this dispute is now self-contained here, a topic ban is useless. And, again, a block would not be preventive in any way, shape, or form. Blocking policies are not up for debate. And defending myself against claims does not constitue "personal attacks" (and notice that I am now only responding to you here). The dispute between me and Curly is over. The purpose of this tiresome dispute has been met. Why do you insist on keeping it going? DarkKnight2149 04:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocking policies are not up for debate - I absolutely agree; IDHT, disruptive, NPA, CIR, and battleground are blockable per the blocking policy. Specifically; prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia and deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. I have no more to say. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Admirable. I'm fine with the TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I just explained how a block wouldn't be preventitive of anything (that is IDHT). Defending myself does not constitute personal attacks and I am more than compitent. "I have no more to say" - THANK YOU! I, too, am moving on. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad that you approve. I'm seriously considering pinging an admin to hand out that two week block for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption. I've seen editors banned for just one of those! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point, that may be a better idea. Looking at DK's contribs, almost all of his editing is on comics. So a topic ban is not going to leave him much to do. At this point, the overall disruption and the other problems are continuing rather than abating, and a two-week block for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption would probably be more appropriate than anything else. If someone starts a proposal, we could see if there is consensus for that. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, a block would NOT be preventive and a topic ban would be pointless (if anything, there should be an ANI ban because this is where the conflict is). Most of my edits are comic related, but I also edit articles pertain to horror, Star Wars and fiction in general BTW. DarkKnight2149 04:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's clear that I have to avoid you to avoid conflict. - DKFacepalmTwitbookspacetube (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Question for Curly Turkey: DarkKnight has made exactly 7 posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics since the opening of this ANI. He has made 100 posts to this ANI thread. He claims that discussions are proceeding smoothly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Do you consider that this topic ban is advisable or that it will achieve anything? I'm asking because if you do not think so, or if you do not answer, I am going to withdraw my support of a topic ban on someone whose nearly entire edit history is that topic. I believe DK has a serious problem with disruption and blatant difficulty being WP:HONEST when pressured, but I am not convinced that currently barring him from his main editing field is the correct action unless you believe it is. I think DK's multitudinous problematic behaviors are more appropriately controllable via a block; either now, or if he ever gets reported again. He has spread his disruption and dishonesty across this thread and other pages as well, and does not seem to have the self-control to prevent himself from continuing to do so if he meets the least bit of confrontation. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A painful question to answer. I don't have a crystal ball. The new discussion at WP:COMICS has progressed without incident in the short time it has been open. Yet DK also denies having done anything wrong, and has left quite the number of accusations open. That's basically how the last ANI discussion about him ended ... and here we are. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, here we are: and now his disruption has exploded into approximately 200 disruptive and, increasingly, dishonest edits across not only this entire ANI, but a few other pages as well, in the short time this ANI has been open. His inability to be collegial is much in evidence. In my mind 7 posts are insufficient proof that he will not revert to behaving as he has behaved with the past 150+ edits outside of that currently structured environment of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. The question is, does he do any valuable work in the comics field? Or not? If he does. then maybe a topic ban is too broad, and maybe a series of increasingly long blocks are the solutions to his disruption and the immense drain it is making on the community. Please share your thoughts on this, Curly Turkey. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
He works in superheroes; I work in arts comics. Our paths rarely cross, and never in article space, so I can't comment on the quality of his work. Hijiri has indicated in this discussion that he has interacted with DK over content. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I only posted this because I was mentioned immediately above and it seemed like my comment was being requested. I don't want to make this discussion any more unreadable than it already is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That I have, but I really don't want this to hinge on my testimony. I don't edit comics articles much in general, and not enough to actively seek sanctions for users I come in conflict with, even if it is obvious that they either do not understand or are consciously rejecting our content policies and clearly have no respect for our conduct policies. On those fronts, DK is disruptive, but he isn't even the worst I have encountered. Several of the users he canvassed back in December are, in my experience, much more dense when it comes to their sourcing standards, clearly either don't know how to or don't want to write articles that Wikipedia's readership would want to read, and are even more aggressive and uncivil than DK. I have never (as far as I remember) opened an ANI thread on any of them because I would generally prefer to spend my time writing articles and giving up on whatever dispute I am currently having with said editors and moving on to something else is usually more conducive to my doing that. CT knows what I am talking about because almost this exact thing happened on a non-comics article we were both working on back in 2015. I don't want to name names, but the first paragraph of our Avengers: Age of Ultron article being currently unreadable (in the sense that no sane person would want to read each word of it from start to finish) can at least partly be blamed on my having given up on the article in frustration with various editors on the talk page.
But that's really another matter. DK by himself, even if he could credibly blame the toxic environment of WP:COMICS for having given him the wrong idea of how collation on Wikipedia is supposed to work, deserves some sort of sanction. Maybe, if he were TBANned from comics, he could go find some other articles to contribute to and see how the rest of the project works and if he has some decent contributions under his belt he could appeal his ban a few months down the line. For obvious reasons, I am sympathetic to anyone who doesn't want to be TBANned from an area that accounts for more than 90% of their past contributions to the project, but I also recognize that sometimes that's just what has to happen, at least in the short term. For exactly this reason, if the above "a few months down the line" scenario comes credibly to pass, I would not only happily support DK's ban appeal; I would request its repeal myself. But first he has to stop denying/deflecting all criticism of his behaviour and lying about, e.g., canvassing.
The discussion above 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's obvious to me, despite denials, that both editors are equal parties to the feuding behavior, and engage in attacks and insinuations and in bringing up (or alluding to) old grievances. All of this has to stop. Please carefully read my detailed proposal/remedy in the "Other proposals" section above. Softlavender (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is. DarkKnight2149 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only way things work is by each of you being willing to be polite and move on regardless of how the other behaves. "I'll be good if the other guy is too" is never a good sign and tends to indicate someone who is not really ready to move on and wants to use the other party's behavior as an excuse for their continued bad behavior. Resolve to behave impeccably and do so, if the other party then behaves badly there is no question about who to sanction. Jbh Talk 18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It's impossible to have a civilised discussion when the other editor won't allow it. I was civil when this all started. How do you think it spiraled out of control? DarkKnight2149 18:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Of course it's possible! You can be civil even if the other party isn't. Fighting fire with fire does not work in this context. Paul August☎ 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed entirely possible (and a requisite skill to being a civilized editor on Wikipedia) to have a civilized discussion, no matter what other parties are doing. To repeat: Discuss content, not editors. ... [A]void mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Completely ignore any personalized comments or misdirection from others. That's all it takes: staying on-topic by stating your preferred content and ignoring everything else. Softlavender (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Big words coming from people who weren't involved in the discussion. This isn't a matter of "fighting fire with fire". You can't have a civilised debate when CT's every other word is an assumption of bad faith or an off topic incivility. It was basically just incivility and accusations over and over and over. There's only so many times you can put the conversation back on-topic as you realise how impossible CT is making it to reach any sort of consensus. And I suggest you take a good hard look at Talk:Joker (comics) before denying it. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you are unwilling to closely read the advice that has been given you (including the various forms of dispute resolution), or to even learn to be civil in the face of what you perceive to be assumptions of bad faith or off topic incivilities, says to me that your time on Wikipedia without sanctions will probably be limited. Softlavender (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No amount of incivility justifies being uncivil in return. Paul August☎ 19:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said that it justified incivility in return. I said that Curly Turkey was making impossible for us to reach a consensus and have a civilised discussion (AKA being a roadblock). This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is getting absurd.
And I already agreed to the damn dispute resolution at least three times already. How is that "ignoring the dispute resolution"? Seriously, you need to start listening. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
One doesn't "agree" to dispute resolution, one initiates dispute resolution. If you don't know what dispute resolution is, I've listed and linked all of the forms of it in my proposal. The fact that you are still blaming others, and making conditions on others, and now cursing, indicates to me that you do not yet see that the conditions for civility reside entirely in yourself. You either unconditionally agree to be unconditionally civil (which includes initiating dispute resolution when that may be warranted), or you don't. My proposal is not for you to make a bargain or a condition; it is to agree to henceforth proceed only with civility. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You are well aware of the resolution proposals, so stop pretending like you don't know what I mean. And there are no "bargaining" attempts here. A mutual civility agreement wouldn't be much of a civility agreement if both sides don't agree to it, now would it? And given the WP:IDHT and the failures to get the point, I think my frustration is warranted. This is also not the first time that you made ridiculous claims of disruptive behaviour. DarkKnight2149 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
"You are well aware of the resolution proposals, so stop pretending like you don't know what I mean." I literally have no idea what you are talking about or what you mean. Your abdication of responsibility for your own civility, and your argumentativeness and belligerence here even in the face of evidence of your disruption (in the above sections) and good-faith attempts to resolve the situation without exacting sanctions seem to me to be evidence that perhaps sanctions are indeed in order here. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I am talking about how you created a proposal and then, when it was accepted, you tried to act like there was no proposal. And if you are about to incorrectly accuse me of disruptive editing and misinterpret what I say, of course I'm going to be argumentative. And no, the fact-twisting hyprocritical ban proposal of the obviously biased Twitbookspacetube isn't evidence for anything. Try taking a look at the REAL discussions that have been linked over and over. DarkKnight2149 00:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As several editors have made very clear to you, more than once, you did not accept the proposal. You made your own proposal, which was "I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is." (emphasis mine). You also clearly have no idea what DR is nor have you made any effort to find out, despite multiple links repeatedly provided to you here. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And as I have made clear, it will only work if both editors are being civil. Otherwise, Curly Turkey will still be halting the progress of the discussion with his incivility. You can't move forward when one editor is still be disruptive, and if I report Curly for futher disruptive behaviour, we will both be under suspicion again. Frankly, it's not a hard concept to grasp. DarkKnight2149 01:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You clearly have either not fully read, or not fully understood the proposal, nor what anyone else has said to you in this section. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of repeating my proposal here:
I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
To also repeat, I'm willing. DarkKnight2149 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Then initiate the relevant processes. As was said above, you initiate dispute resolution, not agree to it. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Twitbookspacetube: Get real. All you did was repeat what Softlavender said. I don't know if you have something against me or are just supporting Curly Turkey, but your laughably one-sided meat puppetry needs to stop.
@Softlavender: If myself and/or Curly accepting your proposal is too much for you, then why did you make the proposal? And if it weren't for all of this tiresome WP:IDHT, everyone would already know that there has been initiative. It's funny how everyone managed to skip over this potential agreement between me and Turkey ([288], [289], [290], [291]). DarkKnight2149 00:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Those links aren't evidence of anything—especially the third. Is the third one an error? Anyways, things clearly haven't moved on now that you're attacking Softlavender, accusing Twitbookspacetube of sockpuppetry, etc.
Note: the discussion at WP:COMICS has continued in a civil manner without DK, just as it had been progressing with civility before he joined it. I'm promising to remain civil regardless of what DK does, though I admit I'll no longer be assuming good faith. What can we do if the disruption returns? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
For clarity, I'm going to repeat from up above: DarkKnight, at the top of this thread, you didn't accept my proposal, you made your own proposal, which was "I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is." (emphasis mine). And you have not retracted your conditional proposal. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I had a rebuttal planned for that ridiculous claim up there (who the hell accused Twitbook of sock puppetry?). However, it does appear that Curly Turkey is finally ready to drop the incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. For that reason, I can drop my guard and we can go to the peaceful discussion that this should have been all along. Yes, Softlavender. I 100% agree to your proposal. DarkKnight2149 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You give yourself away there by saying "it does appear that Curly Turkey is finally ready to drop the incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. For that reason, I can drop my guard and we can go to the peaceful discussion that this should have been all along." This indicates to me that you are not agreeing to be civil and observe my guidelines no matter what. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I will continue being civil, even if Turkey doesn't. I never said that I was going to "fight fire with fire". I simply made a point that its impossible to reach a consensus when Turkey begins being incivil. That's what I've been saying this entire time, but you took that and turned it into something else.
Since you are the main one chastising me that doesn't appear to be in Turkey's inner circle (and since you are the one who made the proposal), I want to ask you specifically - hypothetically speaking, IF Turkey begins being incivil again (right now, the conversation at WP:COMICS appears to be going smoothly), what do you think I should do? DarkKnight2149 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No one on this entire ANI thread is "in Turkey's inner circle" except possibly Hijiri, and he readily admitted that he is biased. I never said anything about "fight[ing] fire with fire", nor did I twist anything you said; it's all there for anyone to see. I'm not going to answer your question because it is already answered in my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: "I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages." - No, your proposal doesn't come close to answering my question. But since you're going to be difficult, there's nothing left to discuss. Discussion appears to be running smoothly at WP:COMICS. Unless another problem arises, I think we're done here.
All that's left is that pointless and facepalmingly biased topic ban. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for quoting my proposal. It's very clear, and the answer to your question is exactly that. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, posting this in the "discussion" section so as not to clog up the proposal itself: since I suspect someone will try to claim IDHT is not a blockable offense, I would draw their attention to the 2015 final warning given to CurtisNaitohere. I have been getting flashbacks to that incident, and I am sure CT is of like mind. Enough is enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Do you disagree that the IDHT behaviour is disruptive and needs to stop? I really wished "discussion" would have taken place in this section. Would you be opposed to reopening the discussion with separate "survey" and "discussion" sub-sub-sections? How do you propose we deal with it? It's not very helpful to just say "you're being non-constructive; shut up and stop talking; I'm closing your proposal".Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The IDHT is part of why there is a topic ban proposed. Earlier I opined that you were providing more heat than light to this discussion because of the obvious bad blood between you and DK. You earlier complained that DK was making the thread TL/DR so it would not be closed. What you seem to have missed is that you are doing the same thing. While your focused input and perspective is useful, much beyond that is much less so. You, by your own statement, are biased against DK - and it shows. DK has done a great job of illustrating the case against them all by himself, in this very thread.
If you think the IDHT goes beyond the topic area proposed for the ban the please start a seperate thread that focuses on that. The purpose of this thread is to address the comics/fictional character conflict. I did not mean any offense to you by hatting that section but it was, in my opinion, unhelpful as is your back and forth with DK and bringing up unrelated stuff like that tagging/reverting or whatever that was about from up thread. The less focused the discussion the less likely there will be any resolution. Jbh Talk 00:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of this thread is to address the comics/fictional character conflict.—that conflict should be dealt with elsewhere. This discussion is about the disruptive behaviour that has prevented progress on the "comics/fictional character conflict". Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, y'all may be right. We'll see if the TBAN solves the problem. If not, we can always come back later -- if someone gets a TBAN because of IDHT behaviour and the IDHT behaviour continues, getting an admin to say "I will block you if you continue this disruptive behaviour" will be super-easy. (Especially considering that, if the present IDHT pattern continues, he will probably deny that he was even placed under a TBAN and will almost immediately violate it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
And that has now been addressed. I don't know why some editors insist on keeping this going, but as I said a second ago, I'm probably done here. If someone opens another laughably one-sided proposal, dragging up past conflicts, it will be their doing. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, is "the disruptive behaviour that has prevented progress on the 'comics/fictional character conflict'" resolved, in your estimation? Or not? Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Note I have posted at WP:AN[292] asking for more input and, ultimately, a closer for this thread. Jbh Talk 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a closing is long overdue. To the admin closing this, I can only ask that you consider both sides very carefully before deciding on anything drastic, such as a ban. DarkKnight2149 16:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-constructive bickering struck per requestJbh Talk 16:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Last edited: 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
So yeah ... as it turns out I may have been wrong about Darkknight2149 already being on a final warning about this "I didn't do anything wrong, and there was no community consensus to that effect" act. But he really should be, because it was already starting to get ridiculous during the AFD. So I'm proposing a final warning that if Darkknight2149 engages in any more IDHT behaviour, he will be blocked for 24 hours. This proposal is independent of all the others above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - It's abundantly clear which party is being disruptive in this coversation alone. This proposal can help bring some sanity into the discussion and prevent more extreme alternatives gaining support. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Really?: Oh look, it's the two editors from Curly Turkey's inner circle. And they're posting another proposal that conveniently only mentions me. And it's happening right after Softlavender's proposal was accepted and discussion resumed as normal at WP:COMICS. Give it a bloody rest.
It's been repeatedly explained to you that Twitbookspacetube and Curly Turkey have never interacted with each other prior to this thread: [293]. If I were you, I would read WP:HOLES. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't Twitbook's first account. And even if they haven't, the bias against me is clearly there. I already provided a detailed explanation with diffs above. It's blatant. DarkKnight2149 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Although the quick edit-warring notice and cursing on your talk page was extremely odd, his admitted previous accounts have absolutely zero contact with Curly Turkey, ever. If you believe there is yet a further previous or sock account that he has not admitted, I suppose you are free to request that a checkuser look for sleepers; and since editing similarly to an old account is a violation of his declared WP:CLEANSTART, that would be sanctionable if true. Beyond that, accusations of factionalism seem unfounded here. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I second the above comment. Although, if any sleeper accounts are found, that will absolutely be news to ME! - however, I am beginning to suspect that the same may not be true for you, DK., given the alarmingly convenient hit and run suggestion from User:Someguy1221 that conveniently supported you and opposed CT... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not Darkknight2149, I say so clearly on my userpage, which has never been wrong. That said, I'm sad to see all the sniping has just kept going. In the content disputes at the heart of this, both Darkknight and Curly hold totally reasonable, if incompatible, positions. Both are capable of civil discourse. It seems to me that both editors are willing to try moving on. I think if they can avoid dredging up old issues they've had with one another, even to other users, no topic bans will be necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If you think that Someguy and I are the same editor, then perform a checkuser. Seriously, if you're not just making this up, investigate. You also still didn't address much of what I just said (AKA WP:IDHT). DarkKnight2149 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, if we're giving out final warnings for IDHT, then several editors here need one. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I hope that last comment wasn't aimed at me. The whole reason I made this proposal was because I don't have an IDHT problem. I misread something another user said, and then when it was pointed out to me I accepted that I was in the wrong, and apologized. If you made a mistake like that, you would just double down and insist that there never was a mistake. We know because that is what you have been doing for the last two months. The idea of you saying On second reading, you might be right. [...] My apologies for the misunderstanding. may be laughable at this point, but it really shouldn't be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't aimed at you. DarkKnight2149 05:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
For those who missed the discussion above, this "IDHT" proposal is about Hijiri88 digging up the past. A while back, I was accused of cavassing. Essentially, Hijiri88 wants me to get blocked because I won't say that I canvassed. This entire situation ended weeks ago, Hijiri88 is now bringing back up for whatever reason. DarkKnight2149 05:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I didn't decide to propose this until the latest incident of IDHT earlier today, in this thread. Well, then it's a good thing I didn't canvass :) isn't some obscure incident from two months ago that I am refusing to drop the stick about. It happened today. Like eight hours ago. Two hours before I opened this final warning discussion. Trolling kaomoji and all. DK either doesn't understand the difference between the specific canvassing incident two months ago and the long-term, recurring and current IDHT problem, or (more likely) he is deliberately feigning such a misunderstanding. Given that a few hours ago he was lecturing me on the difference between the two (You were the one who wanted me blocked for denying it. [...] Drmies warning at the deletion discussion was [about canvassing, not denying it]) I find the latter more likely.
DK, you do realize that just because Drmies didn't threaten to block you for IDHT, it doesn't mean that IDHT is okay and you can continue doing it without repercussions. Drmies told you in the same breath that you should [p]lease listen to other editors.
By the way, if this proposal gets ignored by the closer because there has not been enough interest in it, it will be obvious that filibustering the discussion was your intention. I'm collapsing this to encourage more participation from neutral third parties. You would do well not to do anything else that might lead others to think you are trying to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: First of all, you don't get to hat off my defense every time you don't like what I have to say. Second, Hijiri88, do you think any of what you just said justifies pulling up this water under the bridge? I'm not going to say I canvassed simply because you pressured me to. EVER. The sooner you drop it, the better. Nobody has brought this up in weeks. DarkKnight2149 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've had it up to here with people assuming that the only reason I could want to collapse (not "hat off") something it must because I "don't like it", especially when I specifically say that that's not why I'm doing it. It's blatantly obvious that you are trying to make this thread TLDR so it won't get closed and you can get off without the warning you deserve. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And as previously mentioned, blocks actually have to be preventative. Period. It's in the policies. DarkKnight2149 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are actively engaged in disruptive behaviour and making Wikipedia unpleasant for other editors, and have been doing so for months, and are threatening to continue to do so, a warning that if you do so again you will be blocked is not punitive; it is preventative. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: you are really simply adding more heat than light to this thread and are a major contributor to making it TL/DR as you complained about earlier. Please, if you must argue with DK do it somewhere else. Thanks. Jbh Talk 16:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Twitbookspacetube: I don't want to get into another "edit war" over collapsing on-topic discussion, so do you want to field this one? Numerous people have expressed concern over DK's IDHT behaviour over the last two months, and a non-admin just literally filibustered it with the rationale that I had made it TLDR.
@Jbhunley: If you think it is not yet time for a final warning about IDHT, then you should express that opinion in the form of a comment. It is highly inappropriate to unilaterally shut down a proposal that several other users have already supported. If (like me!) you think the proposal is good in theory but unlikely to pass because of lack of outside interest due to the "discussion" between the subject of the proposal and the proposer, then you should collapse that part.
Personally, I think it's not worth the effort. It's blatantly obvious that DK won't see their indef coming until they are hit by it with or without this warning. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And predictably, the two biased users are starting trouble again. And Twitbook just suggested an indefinite block for the second time (good luck with that, BTW). Seriously, take a hint and drop it. You're clearly not editing in good faith at this point. It's ridiculous that, even after an editor rightfully intervened, you still won't let the dispute go. DarkKnight2149 00:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: As a neutral party, feel entirely free to hat this as well. I don't want this to escalate any more than you do. DarkKnight2149 00:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"Neutral party" - I haven't laughed that hard in years! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, never mind. The hat was wrong, and my opinion on this point has not changed. But it's definitely not worth the effort. Maybe the above TBAN will by side-effect solve the IDHT problem, as getting a broad TBAN might make DK reflect on what he has been doing wrong. So undermining the TBAN with a final warning proposal that might prevent the entire thread from being closed is a bad idea at this point. But the inaccurate summary needs to stay out. The first three or four comments were not non-constructive bickering. Let's just stop ... bickering, now, okay? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: I didn't notice this until just now, but you need to remove this from your user page. It's not a POLEMIC violation, but if you really want people to think you've dropped the IDHT act you shouldn't be saying things like a rather unproven accusation from early 2017 and some editors falsely believe that I may have done so in the past on your user page. You canvassed. If you would rather just forget about the incident, don't brag about it on your user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to lie and say that I intended to canvass simply because you're trying to bully me into doing so. The note is there to inform everyone that I'm against vote stacking. DarkKnight2149 14:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No. This would be punitive, and does not find strong community consensus. It is not impossible, however, for a block to be applied for ongoing disruption. And in the interest of decreasing drama, I have a suggestion for Twitbookspacetube: find something else to do. Stay out of this ANI thread, do not get on AN about this agein, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2017 (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.
Per the evidence above and below, I propose that Darkknight be blocked for 2 weeks to PREVENT continued disruption, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and elements of WP:CIR. This will allow reasonable discussion to occur here and elsewhere, and hopefully allow enough time for a consensus to be reached. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
NOTE 1: Twitbook just confirmed below that he wants me blocked in order to punish me (his word). This is on top of the fact that he tried to canvass administrators into blocking me outside of the discussion, as seen below with diffs. DarkKnight2149 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
NOTE 2: I should also point out that nearly all of the one sided proposals against me have been made by Twitbookspacetube, who contradicted his own defense for Curly Turkey in the process. A thread about a now ended mutual incivility between me and Turkey has turned into an exclusive Darkknight2149 thread. DarkKnight2149 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
NOTE 3: As if things couldn't get any worse, Twitbookspacetube just left a Wiki Love message to Curly Turkey for his part in the dispute. DarkKnight2149 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
NOTE 4: After this new evidence against him came to light, Twitchbook attempted to retaliate by opening a new thread. DarkKnight2149 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
*Recuse - I am now involved here so I will do the right thing and recuse myself from this whole mess. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposing a sanction does not in any way preclude anyone from !voting on the sanction. Most proposals are followed by a "Support as nominator" !vote. Nor does having been heavily involved in an ANI thread preclude one from !voting. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Again, for the reasons mentioned by me above, a block would NOT be preventative. And it's over. Me and Turkey are now discussing the matter civilly, and the ONLY conflict is here at this discussion (and this doesn't happen on a regular basis in my nearly three years of editing). Just let it end already. DarkKnight2149 05:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The disruption here has been endless and unrelenting, and we are only one day in. And that is blockable. And it is not just here, it is also here, here, here, and here. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
None of those links are valid:
This was me trying to remove my comments after Twitbook said I wasn't allowed at his Talk Page. This was after I responded to his message on my Talk Page. I quickly dropped the situation.
This was me leaving an edit war warning on Turkey's talk page after I recieved one for the same edit war in which he was involved.
This was me asking a genuine question. As you can obviously see, I was unaware it was an archive.
Here, I did absolutely NOTHING wrong. You responded to an earlier comment that I made. I decided to clarify what I meant while also agreeing with you. You then attacked me for no reason.
Anyone can see the actual truth of the situation by clicking on each of my links. People know by now not to trust what you say, and your misrepresentation here is in keeping with previous misrepresentations. All of the venues I submitted are indeed very valid and obvious evidence of disruption, most of them continued disruption. Anyone can see exactly the full behavior that is going on in each by simply clicking the links I provided. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Anyone can click the links to see the truth. DarkKnight2149 06:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved Admin Comment - I wish to note that User:Twitbookspacetube (or someone purporting to be him) requested an admin block User:Darkknight2149 in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. I have no stake in this disagreement, however, as I raised in the IRC channel at the time, the weakness of IRC is that not all involved parties are present and there is generally not a record kept of discussion. Therefore this note is left as a courtesy to allow for as much of a transparent record as is possible. Mifter (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Going behind our backs to request a block elsewhere, instead of letting the discussion play out? Now that is disruptive. Especially after Twitbook said that he would recuse himself from this proposal.DarkKnight2149 06:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, this IRC conversation occurred prior to User:Twitbookspacetube making this block proposal. Mifter (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay. This is still unacceptable, though, because Twitbook should have let the discussion play out instead of trying to bypass it without us knowing. DarkKnight2149' 06:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Support, for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption, especially based on the continued disruptive repeated blatant lying on various pages, and even as we speak (above). This is getting genuinely ridiculous and the community should not have to waste any more time on dealing with it. When a user deliberately fails to be WP:HONEST so repeatedly and so cavalierly and so knowingly, the community needs to rescind their editing rights, both to protect the community and to prevent disruption. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC); edited 08:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, defending myself against accusations is NOT disruptive and I am being honest. Why is this discussion still going? It's already served its purpose and all it's doing now is raising tensions. Let. It. Die. Nothing constructive can come from this. DarkKnight2149 06:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Lying, and continuing to lie, is disruptive; you are not being honest. This discussion is continuing because you are still being disruptive; you could have avoided sanctions by dropping the stick approximately 150 posts ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been the one trying to end this this entire time. I've been saying that this discussion has served its purpose and that it should be closed. Instead, I've been met with needless accusation after accusation. That's the only thing keeping this going. So I say again: We should ALL drop the accusations so that we can walk away. There's no reason to continue. DarkKnight2149 06:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Which only proves that, despite at least two people advising you to read WP:HOLES, you did not do so. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Support as proposer - this isn't an Arbcom case, there is nothing for me to recuse from! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Problem: Twitbook has gone behind our backs to request a block at IFC instead of letting the discussion play out (see above). This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. By trying to bypass the discussion without anyone knowing, they have contaminated the proposal. DarkKnight2149 06:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
He didn't contaminate anything or prevent any "discussion from play[ing] out". He apparently acted on Mrrnddude's unofficial proposal. This was before anyone had opened a thread with a formal block proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That is absolutely correct SL, he had responded to my comment and expressed the intent of getting an admin to consider it. An admin will consider this proposal alongside everything else. It will be their responsibility alone to determine what actions to take based on everything that has been said. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This proposal is clearly compromised at this point. Twitbook just tried to bypass the discussion again. If they continue to try and canvass administrators, action may be needed. DarkKnight2149 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as a note for the closing admin, the diff above pertains to Twitbook's comment on the AN thread where JBH has requested a close of this AN/I thread. Twitbook has not tried to bypass this discuss as is evident from the diff. That's two bogus claims of them trying to bypass the discussion that DK has levelled now - the first one up above took place before the proposal was made and was in direct response to my comment recommending a two week block. Appropriate? probably not, being used as a bypass to the discussion? no, the discussion was to run in conjunction to the block and not being used as a substitute for it at all. In other words, it was not a ploy at getting something back at DK with everything else failing, but rather, an immediate attempt to prevent further disruption and to allow this discussion to proceed without the hindrance of constant bickering that has now been strewn across eight sub-sections in an apparent attempt to overburden it with false accusations of misdeeds/misbehaviour that has been levelled at every single editor who has commented here. Really all you have to do is read the OP, it alone describes this quite well. I will, however, also note that Twitbook's claim of forumshopping in the linked post is equally bogus because, again, the request was for an administrator to close the discussion made on the administrator's noticeboard pertaining to this discussion on a subpage of the administrator's noticeboard. It's the same forum. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - per my comments in one of the subthreads above, my comment is linked for perusal; [294]. Please refer to all of the discussion above and below that comment as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Again: A block would NOT be preventative. I have never been known for disruptive behaviour. This is a self contained dispute. This sort of occurance is not regular, so there is no point in a block. And the purpose of this discussion has been fulfilled. It's over. This discussion is now the only place where this debate is taking place and it should have been closed by now. When this case closes, there will be no dispute. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It is patently untrue that you've never been known for disruptive behavior; you've been on a disruptive streak since at least the beginning of this year. This is the second time this year you've been taken to ANI, and you've spread your disruption across several pages, including, since the start of this ANI, the pages I linked to above. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You mean the canvass thread that was, once again, a symptom of the mutual incivility between me and Turkey (that isn't even taking place now)? And please, name an instance before the Turkey-Darkknight dispute in which I was genuinely disruptive. DarkKnight2149 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment - As you can see above and below, the relevant user is insisting on replying to everything posted here, and continuing to attempt to filibuster this very discussion by providing more evidence of their WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"Insisting to reply and continuing to attempt to filibuster." As you can see above, they apparently think that they are allowed to make or invent whatever claims they want, and defending myself in any way is disruptive. Lately, I've been the one trying to end this discussion. I am simply making this note for the closing admin, as this has been going on the entire dispute. DarkKnight2149 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Neutral - One thing I have to say now. DROP THE STICK! —JJBers 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This discussion has served its purpose and should have been closed a while ago. All it's doing now is raising tensions. Nothing constructive can come from this. The mutual incivility between me and Turkey has ceased. And so should this. DarkKnight2149 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Support block until this thread is closed, not two-week block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
But support two-week block if the alternative is to do nothing. Assuming this thread gets closed with a ban, a final warning, or some other similar, a separate block would not serve a preventative function. But given that the "I never did anything wrong, and there was no community consensus to that effect" IDHT act has continued, indeed grown worse, since the last ANI discussion, letting him off with another slap on the wrist would not be a good idea. A block would at least force him to recognize that his behaviour is disruptive and consider changing the way he behaves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri's self-collapsed TLDR elaboration
While my earlier belief that DK was already on his final warning about IDHT turned out to be mistaken, he has definitely been behaving dsruptively enough in this thread alone to merit a block, at least long enough for the community to figure out how to deal with the issue wothout him filibustering. But "two weeks" seems arbitrary. If something prevented the discussion from being closed before that time, a two-week block would not prevent him from coming back and filibustering after the block expires. Conversely, if this thread was closed tomorrow (and I think the result is obvious -- all that's needed is an admin to read through the long discussion), a two-week block would not serve a preventative function. Any block that is not meant specifically to prevent him from filibustering might be taken as punitive. All that said, if for some bizarre reason the thread is closed without result (weirder things have happened on ANI), unblocking to allow him to continue filibustering WT:COMICS should be discouraged. My support for an altered term is conditional on this whole discussion getting a proper close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
FTR, I think "two weeks" is a good initial length, but if and when this discussion gets closed with an indefinite TBAN the block should be removed, and if it looks like this discussion will not be closed before two weeks run out it should be increased a week at a time. I sympathize with the users who think his disruption is significant enough that he should be blocked in the hopes that he learns his lesson, but I think it's unnecessary if he has a clear TBAN whose violation will lead to a block. I am also fully aware that any admin who reads this subsection is as likely to read my comments or read the whole section and close with a ban, so my proposed amendment may be completely pointless. Please do not point this out to me. I also know that, if my comments here serve any purpose in that scenario, it would be to cause the closing admin not to block. I really think DK deserves a block, especially after all the shit he's put me through (let alone everyone else), but I must !vote consistently based on policy, and not hold my tongue in the hopes that a closer will administer "justice" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Small NOTE: I didn't hat the above comment and I'm not sure who did. Not that it's a big deal, but I didn't want any confusion among administraters. I don't think I've hatted anything in this thread, actually. DarkKnight2149 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I did. I recognize that posting TLDR comments is not in my interests, so I self-collapsed. I thought that was obvious. Anyway, if you are going to respond to a self-collapsed comment, you should do so within the collapse. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose of my self-collapse. I appreciate that in this case your not doing so was accidental, but I would ask you not to move this back out of the collapse now that I have moved it in. I have expanded the collapse title to make it clear that it was a self-done.
That said, even if I don't think I've hatted anything in this thread, actually is technically accurate, you did, a little while ago, edit-war on the Joker AFD over collapsing my comments, and in the section just above you promoted (both by comments and apparently a WP:THANK) edit-warring to maintain a non-neutral hat title.
OpposeSupportIf topic ban does not pass or in addition to topic ban. DK just does not know when to quit and needs a wake up call. He really should have let this die down while waiting for this to close rather than responding to every little thing. Hopefully by showing DK that his behavior here has been sanctioned for being unacceptable it will prevent repetition of the behavior in the future and the disruption it causes. I do not think a block will really achieve much. The IDHT seems to be intrinsic to DK's editing style and a two week block is not going to change that. The proposed topic ban is a sanction that will allow DK to learn and demonstrate new collaboration skills over time instead of simply waiting out two weeks and not modifying his behavior.
Personally I think DK is on his way to an indef if his behavior does not change drastically so I prefer sanctions that allow him to continue editing and grow as an editor rather than embark on the trail of escalating blocks which will, with near certainty, result in Wikipedia losing him as am editor. When he is not caught up in a conflict like this he does good work and provides good insights so losing him would be a true loss rather than just the obligatory 'oh we don't want to lose editors' one is expected to say in these situations. Jbh Talk 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Per my statements above and the continued disruption. But we should, at least, call this what it is, a community ban for two weeks. I'd suggest to DK that regardless of how this shakes out that they back down before this turns into an indef ban. The rope has now drawn tight.--Adam in MOTalk 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocks must be preventative. That is none negotiable. A self contained, and frankly unusual, dispute like this does not warrant a block to a single party in a mutual debate, especially when that debate has ended. The only debate is here; myself and multiple other editors have already called for a close to this discussion. DarkKnight2149 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said this is really a community ban which has no such strictures. Did you even read my comment? Nope, don't answer that.--Adam in MOTalk 01:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You said "Support" on the block proposal. And a ban would also be gratuitous, especially if I'm the only one banned (a discussion about a now ended mutual dispute has devolved into a DK2149 hate thread; why is this still going?). DarkKnight2149 02:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yet more IDHT: "I didn't do anything wrong, so no matter what happens to me it's gratuitous". You can't call "punitive" on a block proposal while actively continuing the behaviour that led to the block proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't misquote me, please. And yeah, I get your position that this dispute is entirely my fault. DarkKnight2149 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Continued accusations and escalating one sided proposals are what's keep this going. An admin should make a decision (if any) and close the discussion. There is no longer anything constructive to accomplish here. DarkKnight2149 22:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Addition - this shows that there is a persistent problem with WP:IDHT since the last ANI. Twitbookspacetube 09:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you weren't even involved in the last discussion, which you refuse to drop. Seriously, it's over. You can WP:DROPIT now. And the note clearly says that I'm against vote stacking. DarkKnight2149 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, DK, YOU need to drop it. Take that silly lie off your user page. You canvassed. Everyone except you agreed that you canvassed. You were explicitly told by an admin to stop claiming that you hadn't canvassed. Even if said admin didn't say he would block you if you kept lying like that, he did tell you to stop. You can't tell other people to drop it when you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who has read this discussion can clearly see that you are the one who keeps mentioning the canvass debacle. And yes, I did have some supporters. I'm not allowing this canvass thing to continue. It's over; don't expect any more replies from me on the matter. Any attempts to edit my user page will be met with generic Talk Page warnings, followed by a report (if done continuously). THIS is dropping the stick. DarkKnight2149 21:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, anyone who has read this discussion (specifically the closed off section about this particular problem) can clearly see me saying Just so it's clear, I didn't decide to propose [a final warning about IDHT] until the latest incident of IDHT earlier today, in this thread. "Well, then it's a good thing I didn't canvass :)" isn't some obscure incident from two months ago that I am refusing to drop the stick about. It happened today. Like eight hours ago. And if you say something on your user page, it is taken as an up-to-date statement of which you approve; if someone asks you to remove it, and you refuse, that is the same as your having added it today. If you really have dropped the stick and don't want it to be brought up again, you should remove it from your user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Proposal: trainwreck, wait for review of proposed changes to relevant MOS and/or go to ArbCom[edit]
This entire thread has run its course. John, as much as I appreciate your attempt to find a different way to tackle a topic, waiting it out does not solve the problem of ongoing disruption or the fact that there may well be consensus for a topic ban on COMICS for DarkKnight. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2017 (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.
First, I notice that there now exists discussion at WT:COMICS, started by @Argento Surfer:, who I think deserves serious applause for starting it, regarding possible changes to the comics MOS. as well as a proposal by SMcCandlish to work on developing the MOS for fiction in general, for which he also deserves applause. It looks to me like Darkknight2149's questioned comments and alleged stonewalling are basically an attempt to adhere to the existing MOS for comics for the most part, and I honestly can't see a lot of reason for sanctioning someone for trying to adhere to MOS. I personally can't say that I necessarily see any reason to think this questioned conduct would continue if the relevant MOS were clearly different or reviewed and clearly defined for the specific content involved. On that basis, I can't see a lot to be accomplished by sanctioning him at this time. Curly Turkey's conduct might be seen as some as a lot less than optimal too, but I don't have a lot of reason to think it would necessarily continue if the existing MOS were clarified in a way which directly addressed the concerns regarding the subject under discussion. That being the case, I don't know that I see a lot to be gained at this point by sanctioning him either. If we could get focused attention on the fiction MOS, either with or without help from ArbCom, that would probably be the best way forward. Alternately, I suppose, if it came down to that, having ArbCom take up the case and maybe set some sort of sanctions for some editors for the topic area until such time as MOS issues can be resolved might work as well. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment The whys of the disruption really do not matter. Pretty much everyone can justify their views on a controversial issue. DK has shown throughout this ANI that they are incapable of restraining themself or of understanding what behavior people are objecting to. The content dispute is irrelevant to whether DK should be sanctioned, his existing, objectionable behavior is why sanctions have been proposed. Jbh Talk 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me defending myself against accusations. I am allowed to do so. I'm also not the only person in the wrong. My vast contribution history proves that I can collaborate with others. What you are not getting at is that this is a single dispute that has been kept going by continued allegations and one sided proposals. Why was this turned into a Darkknight2149 thread? It was a mutual dispute. DarkKnight2149 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I should probably also point out that both ANI threads (including this one) were extensions of the uncivil content dispute between me and Turkey. That mutual incivility was the problem to begin with. Please do not pretend that you know me based on this discussion. DarkKnight2149 16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support A perfectly reasonable solution. This is a single dispute in my prolific and reputable career on Wikipedia. Right now things have been going better at WP:COMICS; I think me and Curly Turkey are finally moving forward civilly. However, some decided to turn this discussion about a mutual dispute into a Darkknight2149 thread and right now, the only dispute is here. This discussion should have been closed a while ago.
Some people think that giving me an unnecessary block or ban will somehow "teach me a lesson", but in all actuality, it would be entirely gratuitous and a complete waste of a productive editor's (me) time. DarkKnight2149 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: I should also mention that, in addition to the above proposal, I would also support having IBANs between me and Softlavender, as well as me and Twitbook, if simply as a precaution to keep this dispute dead after closure (though it really shouldn't come back up). DarkKnight2149 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
A topic ban or a ban between me and Curly Turkey would be counter-productive. DarkKnight2149 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now - Trainwreck means DK goes unpunished for their ACTIVE ongoing disruption. Besides which, Arbcom is for when other measures such as discussion, topic bans and blocks fail to stop disruption. If DK continues their disruption in this area after a block, then we can bring it there. Twitbookspacetube 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing constructive about "punishing users". That's not Wikipedia is about. Blocks must be preventative. And yes, this discussion is very much a trainwreck. DarkKnight2149 22:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Denying a proposal because a certain user will "go unpunished" is clear WP:GRUDGE behaviour. Administrators should also note that this was Twitbookspacetube's response when a ban was proposed on Curly Turkey. You can clearly see the biased contradiction. DarkKnight2149 22:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(e-c) I have to agree blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Also, at least in my own thinking, if the matter were sent to ArbCom and they requested MOS on fiction or similar be worked on, I think that might get more interest in that field, which itself would very possibly prevent some discussions similar to this one in the future. And removing someone who might be useful in such a MOS discussion early seems to me to be maybe counterproductive. That is, of course, if it were to go to ArbCom and they made a request for some more detailed fiction MOS. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 Hijiri said. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since I don't want to make the above thread about this user any more TL;DR and this is technically a separate issue anyway, I'll raise it in a new section. The above mentioned user has been rather blatantly stalking my edits and actively twisting my words. See here, here, here and here for just a few of the more recent examples.
This is clearly an ongoing problem with the above mentioned user, and shows active refusal to get the point. Is it possible to get some kind of action taken over this? Twitbookspacetube 00:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, son of a...@Twitbookspacetube: You should probably wait for the above thread to be closed, and see if the problem continues. It is related to the above discussion, as he was doing the same thing to me and CT several weeks ago (Ctrl+F "canvas" in the archives of CT and Drmies' talk pages), and has continued doing it to us in the above thread (Ctrl+F "bias" on this page).
Ideally, whatever sanction he gets out of the above thread will make him reconsider his actions in relation to pretty much everyone who has a problem with his edits. If not ... well, I hate to say it, but if the community and/or admin corps doesn't see fit to deal with the problem then hopefully whoever doesn't place the necessary sanction on him but does give him a slap on the wrist will have him hounding them over how they didn't deserve a slap on the wrist for the next month.
Either way, this thread should be closed pending the resolution of the other thread.
That said, I really wish someone would point out for the record in the other thread that the constant protests of "one-sided proposals" on the part of everyone but himself are kind of annoying when it's prety blatant that the disruption itself is one-sided, or at least highly lopsided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Also: Twitchbook - I don't know why I didn't think of that for my username! Twitbookspacetube 01:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 noteRegarding the edit on JudgeRM's talk page, there is basically only one way to respond to that, and I have done so per WP:URGENT. What will happen now is basically out of our hands. To be clear, the block is not in response to the overall issue discussed here but rather to that one specific edit and the mandated response to such postings. The user may be unblocked at some point, at which time this discussion can resume. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know if it counts for anything but, Otta used to spend a bit on Wikipedia:Missing wikipedians and seemed to have his head screwed on there at least. this and this seemed like pretty 'on point' edits. I'm not saying I disagree with everyone else here, just that, from my perspective, there was at least one place that he did okay in. Credit where due, and such. (I've no problem with being proven wrong with this though) MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done I have also nominated the file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked. Seems like a he crossed the bright line there. If he rescinds and agrees to play nice, will unblock. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteI'm not sure this is as nefarious as we are thinking, it may be a benign mirror actually hosted by the WMF. Pinging @Mdennis (WMF): just so she can see this discussion and comment if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
. Anyone can click on that to see that what I'm saying is true. You're the one playing with words to create a misleading impression. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
In all seriousness, you are being comically insufferable about all this. 
Thanks for the suggestion about developing consensus, which I'll propose below. Rebbing 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
wikimedia.org - we don't always spot pings that come via Echo in time (obviously!), and it's more effective for us to be able to track a request like this via an email thread (preferably that contains a fullly-explained request), anyway. In this case, if someone would write up a summary of the behavior, what you know about the person behind the account, evidence, and what you're hoping the WMF can do, and send it in to that email address, we will take a look. Thanks, and sorry we missed your ping the first time around! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment:-@Junosoon:--In what way is my request to be granted the new-page reviewer right even slightly linked with the content of this discussion?Winged Blades Godric 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Working TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
