@Bwleon79: Thanks, I've removed the link (it was added by a suspected COI account back in 2015). Feel free to remove any potentially malicious links on your own in the future. Regards, Alex ShihTalk08:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bwleon79 and Alex Shih: Please read WP:ROT before simply removing old links. In fact, the reference was valid, and I've added an archived capture to the relevant article. Domains change hands constantly, which is not the same thing as the link having been introduced in bad faith. It was well formatted, and contained the date of access. Always check web archives before making rash decisions to remove valid, sourced content. Please don't just go around removing links without checking what you are doing, and don't encourage others to do so. If you don't know what you are doing, please don't mete out irresponsible advice. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but what happened to common sense here ? ... Iryna Harpy is bang on - the link should've been replaced with an archived version not just removed entirely, if a link is utterly irrelevant then chances are as Iryna says someone would've taken over the domain/website. –Davey2010Talk19:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Arguably, if the site was suspected to be malicious in some way, I don't think there is anything wrong with removing the URL temporarily while trying to figure out what to do about it. I think you both are coming down too hard on Alex for a reasonable response to the issue. I JethroBTdrop me a line03:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Temporarily removing the "dead" link (more deadly than dead, perhaps) is a reasonable action. Even though there is a preferred alternative (i.e., linking to an archival service), not everybody knows to do this, or how to do this. As an aside, the original source strikes me as rather low-quality, even though we're talking about the local arts scene in Chicago. While leaving it unreferenced would've been less desirable than using an archive link, I think in this case an even better answer would have been to outright replace the reference. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of these are unregistered, and the few that are have only made edits to their sandbox talking about PowerShell. SaintCon seems to be a cybersecurity conference of some sort which is currently going on, and several of the talks involve PowerShell. I'd say that there's no reason to worry as long as they don't start editing other stuff. ansh66621:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, here's all the accounts that seem to be related to this event:
Yet, they are experimenting on WP. Surly this deserves a IP range block? As they are giving us more oversight work to do, just a we are doing now. Aspro (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Biografer – multiple accounts per se are not disallowed; what is not allowed is the use of those accounts "to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". I am still not seeing evidence that these accounts are currently being disruptive, or deserve to be blocked as Aspro states – do we even know for certain that these accounts belong to the same user? (Could be multiple attendees at the same conference...) In any case, the proper place to report suspected abuse of multiple accounts is WP:SPI. –FlyingAce✈hello16:54, 13 October 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.
Both users are recently-created accounts who seem to be attacking each other. They may be the same person. Either way, both are likely WP:NOTHERE (anything but contributing to the encyclopedia).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago111 comments33 people in discussion
Having reviewed this whole thing - twice - I can make three definitive conclusions: 1) There is no consensus for an indef block at this time. I suspect (but can not prove) that the reason for this was the abrupt speed with which the original indef block came on. 2) Given the amount of bad blood I seem to be sensing here one or greater (or possibly fewer) of you need to seriously entertain the idea of avoiding each other because, quite frankly, tearing into one another over actions that may or may not have seen like good idea to an admin or an editor/contributor at the time solves nothing. 3) For purposes of the original matter, Joefromrandb (talk·contribs) shall be considered to be on his Standard Offer. If any claims of incivility or disruptive editing arise in the mainspace or on the talk pages of editors otherwise not involved in this thread for the next six months from this thread's closure then - and only then - may the community reconvene at ANI to consider the issue of an indef block, and any indef blocking will occur only after the thread has been reviewed and closed by an uninvolved admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:24, 16 October 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.
Joefromrandb (talk·contribs) has a long block log for disruptive editing and incivility. He was released from his last incivility block 15 days ago. He's made 37 edits to user talk pages in total since that block, 2 of them, nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others:
Support Indef Block - This is a long term pattern of incivility towards other users and against WP:BATTLE. This editor seems unwilling to change and is being disruptive to the project with edit warring and incivility. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". This is a clear cut case of disruption to Wikipedia. -- Danetalk19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Toddst1: (edit conflict) Thank you for bringing this to our attention - Joefromrandb has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behaviour, and does not seem to want to change. I have blocked them indefinitely, as this behaviour is not conducive to this collaborative project. I'm disappointed its had to come to this, we should all be able to have differing opinions without reverting to incivility -- There'sNoTime(to explain)19:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved here from User talk:Joefromrandb@There'sNoTime: Thanks, and with respect too I do agree with your point. For anyone that's watching this page/coming across this page later, indefinite does not mean infinite, and Joefromrandb can be unblocked by uninvolved administrator once there is a consensus to do so. I disagree with indef being issued so quickly (despite of the long history) without hearing the input from Joefromrandb at latest WP:AN/I report, but we will wait for more input from others. Alex ShihTalk19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I also thought the block was a bit too quick. As Bishonen said on Joe's talk page, Todd's civility warning could be reasonably interpreted as a provocation. On the other hand, Joe really does need to tone down the incivility. It's a difficult matter dealing with an uncivil individual. Warning him to stop will only further rile him up, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. I therefore can't oppose the block very strongly; my only concern is that it came awfully quickly. Maybe Joe would get the message more clearly if there was a strong community consensus in favor of the block. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You say Joe has made three edits to user talk pages in total since the previous block, Toddst1? That's very inexact; I make it seven, most of them to his own page. The two edits that you diff above as examples of "nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others" are also to his own page, responses to one post from Bkonrad and one from you, where he requests first one and then the other of you to fuck off. The context is a quarrel between the three of you on WP:AN3. The post from you was a templated NPA warning about Joe's rude response to Bkonrad. I don't think getting aggravated in such a context is heinous. And no, Toddst, "Please fuck off and go away", that you warned Joe about, isn't a personal attack. I'm sorry, but it just isn't, because there's nothing personal about it. Read WP:NPA. Your NPA warning about it, taken in the context of what seems to be a long conflict between Joe and you, appears frankly to have been designed to elicit another rude, impatient reply, and you got it. There'sNoTime, I think you were too quick with your indef, and I don't support it. Please don't close this thread yet. If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes. Bishonen | talk20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC).
I am not making excuses. I've had my differences with Joe in the past and his behavior is highly problematic. I'm trying to help you see how your response might not have been ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic. Despite possible provocation, this has been a continued and unwavering course of incivility and I believe an indefinite block, which allows Joefromrandb to state a case as to how they will continue to contribute in a civil manner like the majority of our long-time useful content contributors manage, is the best way forward -- There'sNoTime(to explain)20:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, the block was too quick. The point of bringing an issue to AN/I is that the best course of action can be discussed. There was no time for anyone to actually do that, and Joefromrandb's action did not fall into any category of needing an immediate indef (apart from anything else, he hasn't edited for over 15 hours). Note: I don't believe I have had any previous dealings with this editor. Black Kite (talk)20:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I can put my hands up and say yes, this was a quick block - personally, I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms -- There'sNoTime(to explain)20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nice day for shopping isn't it? (UPDATE: Even more shopping.) So far, Toddst1 has taken Jfromrndb to ANEW, now ANI, and in the meantime Oshwah's talk page- with the misleading claim that "he's made 3 edits to user talk pages"- and as I pointed out, two of these were to his own page. For a start we allow a greater degree of latitude on editors' own pages, secondly, Toddst1 leaving a 'No personal attacks' only-warning (as a response to what JfrRNB said on their own talk) was clearly designed to encourage them to respond in kind, and thus provide an excuse to bring them here. WP:BAITING applies; either that or it shows phenomonally bad judgement on Toddst1's part. Either way, ANI is getting played like a stradivarius. And frankly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, blocking a few minutes into an ANI, that's had almost no eyes upon it apart from involved parties is having a bit of a tin bath really. No offence. There was absolutely NO reason for Toddst to keep pestering the other editor on his own page- unless, of course, the purpose was this- and a block. — fortunavelut luna20:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Slapping an NPA warning on a pissed off editor is only going to rile that editor up even more and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out - If TNT came and slapped any template on my talkpage I too would've told them to fuck off - Personal messages go a long way and a lot further than templated messages,
The block should've been 2 weeks max IMHO, Also Indeffing someone 24 minutes after an ANI report was raised is asking for trouble. –Davey2010Talk20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the block was too hasty too. There was no immediate need to do anything, and a discusson-based consensus on what to do would be a much better idea. I also see a bit of this going on here too. Take this as a !vote to undo the indef block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that an NPA warning was incorrect and only really amounted to poking someone when they were already in a bad mood - and that escalated the matter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
For clarity, if an uninvolved administrator would like to undo the indef block I won't object. I only ask that they ping me and that they work towards ensuring Joefromrandb cuts out the incivility -- There'sNoTime(to explain)21:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
In my handful of interactions with Joefromrandb he's been an angry prick, but this block was way too precipitate. If nothing else, the subject of a block is more likely to accept its legitimacy (and that matters, if we want him to accept he needs to change his ways) if it comes after a community discussion. He's mostly constructive but he needs to cut out the caffeine, or something. EEng22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look at this and am leaning towards two conclusions. First, there is a plausible argument that TNT may have pulled the block trigger a bit quickly and w/o giving other editors an opportunity to chime in. But I'd not call it outside his discretion or otherwise improper. Secondly Joefromrandb's track record is itself very strong evidence that this is a user who just doesn't play and get along well with others. Even taking into consideration that a couple of his blocks were lifted early, we are looking at twelve blocks over roughly five years. Whether or not TNT might have been better off waiting a bit, I haven't read a credible argument that the block is excessive. Given the background I honestly am a bit surprised that they haven't incurred a long term block before. I'm strongly inclined to affirm the block, with the stipulation that Joefromrandb could apply for a standard offer in six months. But the OP asks a good question that no one has answered, "At what point do we say we've had enough?" I'd say now is a good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Support for block and strong support and appreciation for NoTime's action. First off, admins are completely empowered by the community to block (including the implementation of indefs) whenever they think it is in the best interests of the project--so long as the block is undertaken purely for those good faith reasons. It makes no sense to insist that if TNT had come across this behaviour out "in the wild" of the project generally, he could have implemented this block, but because a process had begun here, the block was somehow harmful to the blocked party or the project's interests. That would be pro-forma/procedural silliness and has never been a standard adopted by the community (explicitly or implicitly) when admins come across disruptive behaviour in this space (or at any other noticeboard/community space). If anything, the fact TNT took action based on misconduct raised here (and noted the block here) gives additional protection to the blocked party, insofar as the reasons for the block itself will come under more scrutiny--and thus any particularly kneejerk or unjustified block would be more likely to be called out.
Nor is this a particularly borderline case. TNT's block was Joe's fifth this year alone, four of which were for incivility. And just weeks back from the last one, Joe has already ramped themselves up to "Fuck off" levels of caustic/disruptive behaviour. Clearly this user is not hearing the community's concerns, and may indeed just not have the temperament at present to participate in a project of this sort. And for those saying "Well, but a block like this is, which doesn't give the party a chance to defend themselves, will only make them angrier," I have a response of but one word: "So?" This user's anger (or more specifically, their apparent inability to control it) is exactly the issue here and holding other parties responsible for it in this context makes zero sense. Furthermore, it's not as if this user has not had an opportunity to engage with the community over these matters and been given an opportunity to understand and assimilate community expectations with regard to civility; they have been to ANI recently and each of the occasions on which they have received a lesser block, it has been received from a different admin, who would have explained the reasons for the block. How many different ways does the community have to try to explain the baseline conduct standards of this project before we view a disruptive user's inability to internalize those rules as a problem with the editor themselves?
Lastly, as has been noted above, an indef block is not per se a permanent one. If this editor can take time away from the project, analyze what went wrong here and come back to us with a genuine effort to identify and address those concerns, they will almost certainly be allowed to resume editing. They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection. Or it won't, and they will continue to see everyone but themselves as the problem--in which case they shouldn't be on the project anyway. Regardless, I think that There'sNoTime did not just make a reasonable call here--they made the obvious one. The community of contributors here at ANI is often very vocal about the difficulty of getting admins to act on clear issues with alacrity, which makes the complaints in this case all the more peculiar, but regardless, I think TNT's action was 100% appropriate, justified, and in the best interests of the project. Snowlet's rap01:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough--you have an admin's perspective on this--but, if these facts are insufficient, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would be much more fair for an admin to exercise their authority to institute a long-term block. In this situation we have a user who has been blocked five times in eight and half months, four of those resulting from the same issue. What would be the threshhold at which you think an indef for blatantly uncivil behaviour is warranted? Or do you think admins should not have recourse to indefs in cases of incivility? If so, that's another conversation and I strike no firm position on that--aside from generally worrying that WP:C has, in recent years, not been treated with the seriousness it deserves as a WP:PILLAR policy (and in my opinion maybe our most important in terms of making a collaborative endeavour work). Perhaps that's a conversation worth having, but insofar as admins are right now, under every relevant policy and community expectation, allowed the discretion of indefs in cases of recurrent problems, it's hard for me to imagine what more TNT would be expected to wait for in this instance. Snowlet's rap03:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Please note that I changed the original filer's template from Template:vandal to Template:user. That is a courtesy we can afford an "angry prick". For the record, there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite block. Sure, there are editors who have been begging for an indefinite block, and some of those editors show up regularly on these boards. Joefromrandomb is not one of those. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose WP:BOOMERANG block of the OP. (I've been quite critical of calls for BOOMERANG and those who love to apply it, as it has migrated from its original -- that a complainer is guilty of the same complaint they are registering, in the same instance. In this case I think the application is perfect, since admin Toddst1's complaint of WP:BATTLE clearly applies to Toddst1, an admin known for holding grudges and going after others based on incivility concerns, which is a lark, since there are more pernicious ways of metering out incivility, than saying a bad word in a blunt reply on user Talk, such as what Toddst1 has mastered: following around his pet targets, inciting them to respond, then trying to reap maximum damage, all the while never saying a bad word himself in nearly his entire editing history, just to be sure no one can put an objective finger on his own incivility. There is probably a Mother Goose fable about this, basically, wolf in sheep's clothing story. Toddst1 is a rogue admin, this proves to me no change after his dodge from being de-sysopped.) ¶ Admin TNT did a block from the hip, a surfacy "incivility block" to the max, which is supposed to be reserved for users doing egregious damage. After Toddst1 gave one of those to me, he further attempted to bury me alive, by removing my Talk page access. (TNT, how much background on these two respective users did you do? None? Thought so.) And about telling someone to "fuck off" their own Talk page, if you think that is uncivil, then please go tell admin Drmies, who is now also arbcom, as he several times told me that on his Talk page. (Hypocrisy much?) ¶ User Ad Orientem, go soak your head, trying to use an editor's block history against them. (Classic technique to bias others according to your wishes. Let's see, Toddst1 indef-blocked me, is that a strike against me, or against Toddst1?) --IHTS (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha, "hypocrisy much" says the editor who only shows up when there's an opportunity for digging up old grudges. For the record, Toddst1 is, on the whole, always, a fine, fine admin, and never finer than when he blocked you. Did I tell you to fuck off? Maybe so--on my own talk page, where you used to come trolling, back in the good old days.
We can have a discussion here about the value of the block, the value of the warning that led to the block, the speed with which the block was issues, the length of the block, the value of the editor relative to the disruption they cause (if any--some minor edit warring and a "fuck off" or two on their own talk), but for none of those things we need you. Stick to chess--you were doing fine there! Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, I'm here to object to abuse against Joe. (WP is an abuse pit. For years before I ever started as editor.) Yeah, thx for reminding (your past assessment of Toddst1 as "a fine admin"). You told me at least 3 times to "fuck off". (And I have no problem with that. I wasn't trolling you, you just couldn't tolerate truthful flak back, so the easiest technique to defeat that is what you did: "Fuck off my talk page." Cheap, but doesn't bother me. The hypocrisy lies in attempting to apply that uncivil comment against users versus against admins. Ditto the lack of recognition there are more pernicious ways to be uncivil than blunt responses containing a bad word.) If Toddst1 isn't being called out in this thread, then you really do need me, sorry if you don't like to hear that. (And you don't, because you're basically telling me to "fuck off" again, but like Toddst1, have mastered the ability to comment w/o incorporating choice words.) --IHTS (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Drmies has also called Toddst1 out in this thread, as have several other users. It seems you are too busy casting aspersions to get a good bearing on what is happening in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
False equivalence; I am comfortable assuming that Drmies did not make those comments as part of an extended pattern of incivility that had already seen them censured by the community repeatedly throughout the year. Despite my high regard for them as an admin and member of the community in general, I actually do not approve of Drmies telling another user to "fuck off" under any circumstances. I think it is a clear, brightline violation of WP:C for any user and particularly problematic for an admin. But not all violation of policy (even the same policy) are alike in scope and context, and your analogy does not hold up here. This discussion is not about Drmies, it's about Joe, and Joe has already been the beneficiary of attention from the community this year telling them that they need to bring down the heat in their interactions with others. If they didn't take those warnings to heart in that context, then a) there's no reason for the community to assume the situation is going to get better on its own and b) Joe has no one to blame but themselves, at the end of the day. Snowlet's rap04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought I recalled a prior history between IHTS and Toddst1, one that didn't necessarily reflect well on the latter. In the admin's defense, both Joe and IHTS are known for uncollegial behavior, but that doesn't mean that Toddst1's behavior was optimal in any way. It is unfortunate, IHTS, that you chose to jump in here with a petulant rant, and telling another editor to "go soak your head" is not appropriate behavior. IHTS, this is not an elementary school playground. Lepricavark (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Point of order: Toddst1 is not an admin, though he used to be, long time ago now. The Arbcom of that time didn't share your good opinion of his admin actions, Drmies. Bishonen | talk03:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
Very specifically, he took a self-enforced one-year hiatus to escape an ongoing ANI and prob. an Arbcom case which was imminent and returned to prolific contributions after and only after he was desyssoped for in-activity.But IMHO, that is immaterial to the current case.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave06:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Wait, come again? What editor, page, or line of reasoning led you to the conclusion that looking at an editor's block log/previous history with the project was an exercise in bias, when the community has to consider how to deal with disruptive behaviou?. That is A) an incredibly curious conclusion and B) not a standard that has ever been endorsed by this community when it comes to grappling with longterm behaviour (logically and unsurprisingly enough). "Bias" would imply that someone was bringing in factors which obsfucate the matter under discussion and have no direct bearing on the matter. When considering how much WP:ROPE the community should/can afford to expend to an editor, the number of times they have been blocked (especially over a relatively short period of time and for the same issues) is clearly relevant--and evaluating past behaviour in general is outright necessary. Snowlet's rap03:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Joefromrandb has been blocked 10 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness – nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence – have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore support the indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy we uphold, or it isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment--While the block was a bit too rapid, and the complainant's behaviour looked provocative to an extent, on an evaluation of his battle-ground uncivil behaviour with those with whom he dis-agreed, I strongly support the indef.This may be well-considered to be a cumulative result of his long-term behaviour rather than a reflection on this part. incident.Also echo Snow and GRing.Obviously, if John posts an un-block req. and is willing to change his manner(s), there's no need for the block to continue.which seems snow-impossible, given his latest edits.It's seriously problematic when certain editors think content-creation etc. excuses you from 3RR etc. and the subject of the disc. begins to think that his version of policies is the one that shall be abided by.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Blocking before discussion had even got underway was a poor decision. Per Bish: "If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes". The behaviour of the complainant was certainly provocative. "Fuck off" is not a personal attack. I agree with Drmies that there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite one. As, I think, Carrite has been known to say - this is a shop-floor, not a vicar's tea party. When improving the encyclopedia becomes secondary to "ooh, he said a rude word" then it is the encyclopedia that suffers. Oh, and who's John? --Begoon06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Begoon, I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is. Nor is anyone saying that the behaviour in question was inappropriate because it involved a "rude word". Both of those strike me as blatant straw man arguments, conscious or otherwise. This isn't about sensitivity to vulgarity, when it comes to someone using the phrase "fuck off"; surely you recognize that the phrase, used in the context of a personal dispute, has meaning beyond mere vulgarity. I suspect most of the editors in this community couldn't give a fig if someone went around saying "Fucking brilliant work on the vandalism task force, friend. You're a great contributor and if anyone says differently, I don't give a fuck." Nobody is complaining about that sort of thing. But when someone tells another editor to fuck off as their means of dispute resolution, then yes that's clearly a brightline violation of WP:C, and yes it's a problem, regardless of how comfortable we might be with the word itself. And when this is done by a user who has already been blocked numerous times recently for incivility, it becomes particularly worth comment. One doesn't have to be a prude/particularly sensitive to vulgarity in order to find this particular usage in this particular context offensive and disruptive. Snowlet's rap07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Snow Rise (inclusion of which means I can now continue with impunity, because I've curtsied to the civility gods, yes?), I don't 'recognize' that the use of that phrase, under provocation, merits any kind of a block, no. I'm much more concerned about faux-civility tactics used by POV pushers and as a technique to "win" an argument or conflict than I am by this particular usage. --Begoon07:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Your use of the term "faux civility" suggests we have fundamentally different notions about what the word civility itself means. Civility is not (at least insofar as we generally use it on this project) a state of mind so much as a standard of conduct. And it's not about being affirmatively nice, it's about avoiding certain blatantly disruptive behaviours. You can be civil towards someone at this standard even if you don't agree with them, like them, or are quite certain they are being a total idiot. And without going through any particular extra effort to be nice, for that matter. So "faux" doesn't even come into the analysis for me. And whatever we feel, WP:C is one of the WP:5P. No, it doesn't (and is not meant to) solve all problems--your POV pusher, for example, or any manner of WP:disruptive user man we might use as a boogey-man to excuse being uncivil with others--but it surely addresses one particularly significant problem. Because we have policies to deal with those other issues, but those can only be applied if we first surmount the much lower standard of WP:C--or nothing else can ever get done. That's why this community enshrined that value as one of its foundational policies. If someone cannot negotiate such a low bar as not getting blocked four times in 8.5 months for civility violations (which is actually pretty hard to do even once), that's a problem for this community, plain and simple. Snowlet's rap09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we can agree to disagree on this. I am personally terrified by the number of times I see tenuous "civility concerns" inappropriately used, often as an attempted cudgel to unbalance or derail a discussion. That's much more of a concern to me than an editor, under provocation, telling someone to "fuck off" from their own talk page. (Oh, and my alleged "blatant straw-men" have asked me to put forward the NPA template on Joe's page as evidence against their 'strawness'... I told them to fuck off, obviously, but they were adamant...). --Begoon09:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Snow Rise, I was the first to point out that "fuck off" is not a personal attack because Toddst1, not TNT, had indirectly (and provocatively) said it was, by posting a "No personal attacks" template on Joe because Joe had said "fuck off" to Bkonrad. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I thought I was. For "With all due respect", see WP:Wikispeak#R"respect, n., Often used as in with respect, or with all due respect, euphemisms for I think you're talking bollocks". Bishonen | talk09:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
I'm not seeing where I implied that you didn't say that, Bish. As for "with respect", you're free to cite any essay you like as justification for not WP:AGFing that I mean it sincerely, or you can take me at my word that I do. Snowlet's rap09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You're not seeing that, really? Snow Rise, I'll risk sounding like Mr Bennet in Pride and Prejudice when Mary had gone on playing the piano for too long ("Child, you have delighted us long enough"), and ask if you wouldn't you agree you have contributed enough bytes to this discussion now? Bishonen | talk09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
First off, what a patronizing way to frame a sentiment that, at it's core, is already patronizing. Second, I didn't invite you to engage my comment, which was not directed at you. If you choose to do so (and especially if you do so for the purpose of suggesting I am being insincere), you can't take then take umbrage/try to highroad me with implications of being to single-minded if I respond. Snowlet's rap10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can comment to challenge an apparent error without your invitation, eg "I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is" (my emphasis) when the OP did exactly that by posting an NPA warning. I was going to point out the same thing myself, but I got an edit conflict with Bish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, Bish, "with respect" means "with respect". I use it occasionally, and never as cowardly cover-my-ass code for "I think you're talking bollocks". My experience with Snow Rise strongly suggests that they never use it like that, either, and there is nothing here to suggest otherwise. Pretty clear AGF failure there, Bish. It appears Bish and Boing have a point as to NPA, Snow, and I AGF that you just missed that. I'll resist the temptation to go all meta on these larger issues, but I'll say that this dialogue has been (mostly) a refreshing if brief change from the standard fare on this page. ―Mandruss☎11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Support indef block - On my tenth Wiki-birthday I am going to stand once again for the blocking of long-term abusers. This, right now, is the point where we have to say enough is enough to those with multiple blocks who show clear intent to continue their disruptive statements. In the decade I've been here the editing environment has grown increasingly toxic, so much so that recently I usually find I have better things to do with my time. We are discouraging new editors by allowing bullies and name-callers to dominate this project. I'm sick of excuses, and enablers. I salute the OP and the block as a first step in the right direction. Jusdafax08:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Support block TNT hits the nail on the head here with the phrase "continued blatant incivility" which pretty much describes Joefromrandb's behaviour. Like it or not, last time I checked WP:CIVIL was still a policy, and unless you want to change that then TNT's block was absolutely correct, and I applaud him for daring to actually enforce CIVIL, which it seems many admins have just given up on- and judging by this thread, you can certainly see why. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose block - really, "fuck off" is not a personal attack. And jumping to an immediate indef after less than an hour discussion is concerning. Remember - encyclopedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Collaboration doesn't mean everyone behaves exactly alike - it means that sometimes you're going to run into people with different standards of collaboration than yourself. Keep in mind the goal of the project and it becomes a lot easier to say "gee... is this really worth the effort I've expended on it" - which, quite frankly, the source of this dispute shows clearly. The encyclopedia would all be better off if editors worried less about cuss words and more about accurate sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: First of all, WP:CIV exists. Second, are you aware of their exhaustive block log containing blocks that were placed for this exact same tendentious behavior? Boiling this down to just one usage of "fuck off" displays shortsightedness. Nihlus12:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Weirdly enough, yes, I'm quite aware that WP:CIV exists. Of course, that's because I've watched it be used over and over as a hammer to get rid of opponents over the years I've been on this project. Heck, I even pointed it out in my RfA, and said then that I wasn't a big fan of its enforcement. Personally, I think keeping in mind the whole goal of the project doesn't display short-sightedness... it displays the correct attitude. Your milage/kilometerage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk12:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You didn't speak to the long list of previous blocks. And unless I am misreading something, I find it odd that you would oppose something merely because you dislike the policy that others have used to bolster their arguments. I mean, like it or not, it is one of the five pillars, so I hesitate to say your attitude is the "correct" attitude. Nihlus12:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Nihlus, I really don't want to go all "listen to your elders", but in this case please listen to your elders. Ealdgyth is an editor whose quality and experience, not to mention common sense, is pretty much unmatched; if she says "fuck off" is not a personal attack, that should be taken seriously, not responded to by asking if she knows of our civility rules--she does. I wouldn't say it in the way she said, but I would say, and I have, that "fuck off" isn't really blockable (certainly not on one's own talk page), and I say that from experience and from conviction, though I suppose this case might prove me wrong. What youngsters (yes) frequently fail to appreciate is that civility is difficult to enforce, for a couple of basic reasons, one of which is that one person's incivility is not another's, and another is, given that there is a broad range of levels of incivility, it is not easy to enforce that. So it's much less about correctness and the application of policy then it is about other things, and it is clear that Ealdgyth and I are not in agreement (I think Black Kite is with us) with the application that prevailed here. Finally, I think that attempting to summarize Ealdgyth's conciseness as shortsightedness is not fair to her, and worse, you are missing out on what could be a good learning opportunity. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: That's a rather needlessly patronizing comment. I never said nor implied that saying "fuck off" was a personal attack; I said it was uncivil, which it was and still is. And I never asked her if she knew the civility rules; I merely stated they existed in response to the implied reasoning that nothing was wrong with saying "fuck off". And while I can respect the notion that civility is hard to enforce in certain situations, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, especilly for habitually uncivil users. And implying that the "fuck off" was the only reason for the block is a display of shortsightedness as it fails to address the other multitude of arguments presented by others; this is why I asked her to address the nine previous blocks, which she has yet to do. Nihlus04:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Nihlus, if u could take a break from digging your own grave, w/ you please relocate your generalized "Support block" rant out of the discussion between There'sNoTime & me, where it doesn't belong, to the !voting section where it belongs? Thx. --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: >"elders". And Nihlus has a point: "Fuck off" may not be a personal attack, but it's mildly rude and offputting at best, and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Wouldn't it be much simpler if, instead of replying "fuck off" and getting people's feathers all ruffled, people would turn the other cheek, so to speak, and just ignore or remove comments that tempt them to make that response? Personally, when I get that rising feeling to say unpleasant things, I find it's best to take a step back from the wiki and do something else for a couple hours. Think how much drama could be avoided if everyone did that. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I doubt TNT feels the need for validation, but since we're doing this, clearly I Oppose this block, both in duration (as the blocking admin now acknowledges) and indeed in its neccesity, due to the previous provocation. Unless of course TNT decides to block Toddst1 for unfounded accusations of personal attacks which are of course personal attacks :) — fortunavelut luna12:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Support blockin its current, 3–month form. My concerns about the speed of the block, and the behavior of the OP, notwithstanding, Joe's incivility has reached a point where it needs to be addressed strongly. An indef block is still a step or two away, but a three–month enforced Wikibreak is nothing to trifle with and will hopefully help Joe to see the need to adjust his behavior once his block expires. Lepricavark (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Support increasing back to indef Joe's latest posts, such as these [3], [4], show that he still doesn't get it and likely never will. His strawman that he is being asked to "prostrate himself before you and beg to be forgiven" is beyond ridiculous. He has tried to turn himself into the victim because he is being asked to abide by our civility pillar as an unblocking condition. He has made his bed, and now he is determined to lie in it. Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No. (I'm not admin or an admin wannabe, whose conducts s/b "at a higher standard". p.s. You've misused word "ironic"; the word you were looking for was "inconsistent". p.p.s. Can we gunk this up w/ further baiting badgering? Does "whispering" in small font make it better? --IHTS (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to feel baited, if that floats your boat. P.S. Small font isn't whispering, it's a peanut gallery comment. Have a nice day! Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, please, you (& AutomaticStrikeOut) feel free [to continue to badger], it's the notorious ANI cesspool, afterall (where your "peanuts" = little turds). --IHTS (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Support indef block until Joe can show that he can WP:GETTHEPOINT. Lepricavark's diffs provide ample proof that this will not stop, so the community should wash its hands of this user and stop wasting its time. Nihlus15:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Support admin discretion - If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has acted outside admin discretion, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming a violation of WP:BLOCK, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has violated some other relevant policy, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone feels that There'sNoTime should be relieved of the mop, this is not the venue. If someone feels that admins have too much discretion in general, this is not the venue. The rest is noise. Those non-admins who feel they know enough to haul an admin over the coals over a within-policy action should be required to spend 3 months as an admin (and actually do controversial things with the mop during that time.) ―Mandruss☎16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Support indefinite block - A long block log shows he may not learn from a temporary block so I think he should be banned altogether from the site. Also, seeing him use the phrase "fuck off" in response to this shows a level of immaturity when handling this which does not show good conduct from a Wikipedian. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk)01:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
'Comment I've seen administrators use the phrase "f*** off" and nobody blocked them for it. (Only twice mind). Why don't we inform him this is his last chance and give him an indef block if he doesn't get the message? TomBarker23 (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
If admins aren't warned "last chance", and their conduct is "at a higher standard", then how is that suggestion logical? --IHTS (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
As I've mentioned in this thread, I blocked quickly. I can see now that waiting for additional comments on the matter is helpful, though currently I'm not swayed to a position of thinking I was mistaken in placing an indef block. I'll welcome a discussion into my block if the community wishes to go that direction, but the point of this thread was wholly incivility by Joefromrandb. So, for the sake of trying to "get things done", what would the community like to happen now in regards to the original report? -- There'sNoTime(to explain)07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree with any mention of standing offer here. Joefromrandb is not a vandal nor sockpuppet, nor was this a community-based indefinite block. I think moving forward we should discuss 1) if the block was needed 2) the appropriate length of the block 3) what the editor needs to do. Earlier this year Floquenbeam has proposed to Joefromrandb to restrict themselves to 1RR, and I think it's time to turn that into community enforcement. Alex ShihTalk07:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I too disagree with a standard offer for the same reasons, as mentioned on my talk page, I'd unblock immediately if Joefromrandb put their hands up and committed to continue working here without these little outbursts -- There'sNoTime(to explain)08:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, having looked at this, and my actions (and having taken on-board the comments, both supporting and opposing) I'm going to undo my indefinite block and replace it with a three month block (the next highest duration in TW after the previous 1 month block). I'm doing this because my initial block was too quick, as nearly everyone above has pointed out, but I am not entirely removing it as I still stand by a block being a reasonable result even now. I appreciate there are some who support the indef block, and would like to note that your support was noted in making this decision. I believe a discussion as to how we deal with this should be had, but I will recuse myself from that. If continued discussion here finds that any block was not required, an uninvolved administrator may remove it without notifying me. Thanks -- There'sNoTime(to explain)08:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Incomprehensible. (The complaints of "too quick" were re blocking at all, not re length of block. Your logic is that because you agree re "too quick", you're retaining the block but adjusting duration?! After complaints of "too quick" came in this is how you responded: "I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms." If you believe a "too quick" consensus has formed, that means any block was premature. You also responded: "I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic." which clearly shows an over-zealous civility enforcement mentality that has been discussed to incredible lengths in historical ANIs & arbcom cases. Really, are you even aware?) --IHTS (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I clearly can't make everyone happy. I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling. Now, I'm gonna go back to improving some medical articles, perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do? -- There'sNoTime(to explain)10:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I support this block fully. Before today, this user had been blocked 9 times for tendentious editing and incivility. He has a multi-year history of telling others to fuck off and making belittling comments such as "Does that make you feel better?" in response to any an all blocking admins (or calling it pussy shit). The responses above about how this block was inappropriate are baffling. Users should not be permitted to be hostile towards other editors in any situation, let alone after being given multiple opportunities to change their behaviors, and other users shouldn't be asked to deal with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EQ, and WP:CIVIL all come into play. Nihlus11:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
How patronizing: "perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do?". Your RfA had 13 support !votes showing at least some "concern/pause/hesitation" re promoting someone w/ such shortage of content experience. Your statement: "It's clear from my article contributions that I do not find content creation as captivating as others do, but instead that I wish to volunteer my time and energy into areas where I have both skill and an interest." I guess that included patrolling ANI as civility cop? No mention of that at RfA. Your "I believe an understanding of content related policies and being able to empathise with content creators is important - I don't believe this experience can be gained solely from creating content, but can be gleamed also from interacting with both articles and content creators themselves." elicited in a support !vote: "I would just caution them that the only real way to understand the content creation side of WP is to actually do it." Anything learned here? Four support !voters dismissed the relevance of content creation experience, typically: "The myopic focus of some with content creation at RFA doesn't sway me. Yes, an admim must be able to understand the hurdles dedicated content creators go through, but where would we be without admins who [...]". I guess right here, dealing w/ the fallout? --IHTS (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
IHTS, I seem to recall you complaining in the past about how ANI is a cesspool. Guess what, it's editors like yourself who make it one. You've added not one iota of value to this discussion, and your further attempts at derailment by bringing up TNT's RfA demonstrate that you are incapable of contributing here in a productive manner. You have the rare talent for arguing with people whether they agree or disagree with you, and you are fortunate that your IDHT behavior hasn't yet earned you the same fate as Joefromrandb. Before you lash out at me for making these remarks, consider that I am employing your own strategy of personally discrediting one's opponents. The difference is that, unlike you, I actually have something to work with. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Badger much? Here or RfA. Still can't get over the criticisms I left @ your Talk years ago, huh? Go away AutomaticStrikeOut. --IHTS (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Your "I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling." does not compute. (If I don't volunteer to leave my state to fight a forest fire in California, am I "enabling" the fire?) --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I note that whilst there has been much commentary on the fact that this is Jfrnb's nth block. Indeed, much reiterated commentary- in case we haven't got the message, perhaps. On a side note- per Godwin's Law I won't mention who (IIRC) originally said it- but there is a sense here that "If you say something often enough... people will believe it." Yes the numbers are true, the conclusions drawn, less so. He went block-free between 2013 to February just gone; four years. Has anybody actually ever enquired- attempted to find out- what if anything happened in February, that all of a sudden, after four years, he went to Defcon1 and has hardly come back from it since? WP =/= THERAPY, of course, and we are not psychologists- but surely we have a duty to protect the encyclopaedia? And by that I mean attempt at least basic editor retention. — fortunavelut luna12:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The concern with editor retention should be what keeping someone who displays such uncivil behavior does to others, not the other way around. We shouldn't strive to keep people around whose behavior contravenes multiple policies. Nihlus12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible that we have different operating philosophies; mine is more along the lines that their isn't a "concern with editor retention"; there are "concerns with editor retention." That there are shades of grey, degrees of culpability and responsbility, blame isn't binary, most things go two ways, and that a community ==/== consistency. But that's why we do this, surely. — fortunavelut luna12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
Eh. I was OK with the indef but downgrading this to a 3 month seems reasonable. That said, I am getting tired of seeing editors get a pass on persistent gross abuse of CIVIL, often with the excuse that they are productive editors. On which note I'd like to thank There'sNoTime for their very calm and even tempered response to this discussion. And in closing I would caution Joefromrandb that they had best work on their communications skills. If their recent pattern of behavior continues after coming off block I would support an indefinite block, w/o further recourse to ANI. Now unless there is something that has not been said about this issue I am going to move along. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll take Ad Orientem's "Eh" and expand it to what young people call "Meh". I'm not really happy about expanding a 1 month block to a 3 month block on the basis of a couple of comments on the editor's own talk page (for which we have far more latitude), at least one of which was prompted by poking from the OP of this thread, who I'm sure will be very satisfied with their work in this situation. Some sort of a block was needed (more for the 3RR than the "incivility"), but I'm not sure that's best served by admins throwing out knee-jerk random blocks in the middle of an ANI discussion as seems to have happened in this case. "Meh", indeed. Black Kite (talk)14:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth at this point, when I see an editor coming off a one-month block edit-warring against the MOS and citing irrelevant guidelines (as in [5][6][7][8][9]); being their fourth (maybe fifth, depending whether you count the extension in August) block this year for similar situations; making personal attacks in edit summaries (as in the '961 diff above); and when attempts to discuss the content in the dispute are met with gross incivility, I think I'd be at least considering indef. Something needs to change and clearly limited-duration blocks are not doing the job. The number of editors above who seek to excuse gross incivility is depressing. Responding to a civil attempt to discuss a dispute by telling someone to "fuck off" is never civil in any situation. Some above compare Wikipedia to a shop floor (or as sometimes happens to a pub common room), as thought "fuck off" was a perfectly civil article of interaction in those places. Of course it isn't; those are just places where incivility is commonly tolerated. Wikipedia is not such a place; that it is not such a place is not my opinion, it's one of the five pillars. And for what it's worth, of my two local pubs, in one you'd be asked to leave and the other you'd likely start a fight, which is the point of the pillar, really; a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger - not what we're trying to achieve. GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@There'sNoTime: Regardless of whether there is justification for a block of a productive editor, you didn't take the time to weigh factors like his block log against others like the provocation he received and the blatant inaccuracy of the original posting. An ANI discussion really should be allowed to explore these factors in any established editor's case, and we don't need admins displaying an itchy trigger-finger on the block button so soon after a debate has started. You should consider your position. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
^^ What he said. There seem to be some vociferous people here with axes to grind (what's new?) but one thing is certain: TNT acted inappropriately and even their change of heart is rule-bound beyond sensibility. Admins need to use discretion, not just rules. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do - I'm sick to death of seeing this (and the related whining). Turns out the only thing I regret in this block is backing down from the indef. I've fucking had it with content creators getting a free pass on civility. If anyone has a problem with my block to the point where they believe it needs a full review, feel free to make a thread. -- There'sNoTime(to explain)16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You are one mixed up cookie. If you "regret backing down from the indef", then restore it, since it is you who is otherwise "whining". p.s. What a shining example of admin. p.p.s. The "sick to death" response more appropriately applies to your admin judgments/actions/comments. Echoes of Kafziel and "the puling masses". Do you think you w/ have passed your recent RfA had you expressed this same battleground attitude there? --IHTS (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't think I have a battleground attitude, and I thought this block would help. Clearly I'm wrong. From a message on my talk page, I've undone my block so that other admins can make a better call. You're probably correct calling me a mixed up cookie, as I've now changed my mind three times regarding this, I'm confused. I thought I was helping -- There'sNoTime(to explain)06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: Flip-flopping doesn't make anyone mixed up, it's illogical rationales that do. Putting thought & communication ahead of action never hurts, always helps. Me thinks this ANI essentially forced that. Live & learn. This editor appreciates your unblock. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 08:18, 16 October 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.
Here is the problem. I wrote the book. The Assassination of Jesse James ... Ect.. here is the deal.. your computer system steals and lies about many historical events. "The Outsiders". I wrote that script. The actors all know why is it your trying to take credit for my work. My stuff is all saved. You can't change history. Your liars will end up in jail or worse. Time to tell the Truth. Face your fears. That is my hard work not yours. Memories are important...so I ask why would you work so hard to lie to the public. People are awake. All except the ones who are still trying to cover their butt. It won't be long now. For the record I hate you. I am smart....I am a great director....I do make a good difference.....I am. Hayley Dawn Harvey. God's kid
Ivanvector, no worries. It's basically moot, as you say. With the IP already blocked there's nothing productive to do here before the bot comes by to archive it. ATraintalk16:29, 16 October 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.
Run-in with an editor acting like a troll results in me getting warned by another editor
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
NO ACTION
I'm closing this up before Lexers615 digs him or herself any deeper. It's good that you feel passionate about contributing to Wikipedia, but it's bad that you react to routine editorial decisions in this manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where your point of view will not always prevail; a thicker skin than you are exhibiting is required. Please read WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA, in addition to the reading recommended by SarekOfVulcan below. ATraintalk13:55, 16 October 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.
To make a long story short, I created a short entry for "damaged beyond repair" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Damaged_beyond_repairs. For no reason what-so-ever, David.moreno72 rejected my entry. If you consult his page, you'll see his profile is essentially a flamebait. I deal with common trolls on a daily basis on gaming forum and on Facebook, so knew nothing good would have resulted in me contacting him directly. From his profile and other comments, I bet everything he has a notepad file with pre-writen "well crafted" flame lines design to look civil yet dealing the intended insults ready just for this situation, just like his profile is. So I went to the other link provided. Given first editor total and blatant lack of respect, I posted about the incident in the appropriate language. Then, second editor Ammarpad reverted my post, claiming I wasn't civil. I believe civility in the case of David.moreno72 is totally inappropriate given how he launched the hostility. However, I did a second post without the trashtalk, which I insist is the only language appropriate when facing common trolls... This time, Ammarpad reverted my post, now under the false pretense I was attacking an editor.
So my two issues: First is the run-ins with the two editor; second, for name-whoever-you-want's sake, on Wikipedia, I've seen several entries a lot shorter than what I submitted, I see controversial subject getting taken over by lobby firms (look for any and all entries about abortion or similar "hot topics"...), and anyone was free to latter add more "meat" on my entry, which is I believe the exact reason Wikipedia exist to begin with. So, if Wikipedia is supposed to be this "democratic", why do common trolls like David.moreno72 end up in such a position of power, and why editor have that much arbitrary power without having to justify themselves? My original post wasn't a case requiring urgent moderation, neither was my ulterior posts on the Help desk. Ammarpad's unconditional defense of David.moreno72 reflects poorly on the duties of the editor, just as David.moreno72 being an editor to begin with...
(edit conflict) Both of your posts at the AfC Help Desk contained unacceptable personal attacks. Calling other editors self-centered and arrogant is not permissible, and in any event, arguing against the person who reviewed your AfC submission is not acceptable. Respectfully, your AfC submission was correctly rejected because it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Our articles are generally about concepts rather than phrases themselves, though even articles about specific phrases must contain more than a dictionary definition. I see nothing specifically wrong with the other editors' response to your conduct. If you continue to personally attack other editors, you can expect to have your editing privileges revoked in short order. This does not mean simply to cut down the trash talk, either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:39, 16 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion
Closing as the previous report was only closed 6 days ago, and none of the edits since then requires additional intervention. Andrewa has graciously taken the role to mediate (relevant texts can be found in User talk:Andrewa, User talk:Launebee and User talk:XIIIfromTOKYO). Launebee is advised that the action of both parties are under scrutiny, and the editor should work toward settling the dispute instead of bringing them to the noticeboard again in haste. Alex ShihTalk02:06, 17 October 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.
1. said I violated the French intellectual property law by creating a disambiguation Wikipedia article with the name of a trademark, twice [10][11] (and did not remove his other accusation of violation of French criminal law)
2. implied I am part of a conspiracy to target French users by legal actions, linking to something from January 2017 [12] (and did not remove his statements regarding his other conspiracy theory) and
3. personally attacked me by writing "Many contributors… have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by" me. [13]
What is needed here?: All of these diffs claimed to show misconduct come from discussion of the previous ANI megathread that was just archived yesterday. If there were noncompliance with the topic ban (I don't see such a claim), that would be one thing. Dragging XIII to ANI for being arguably unfriendly on his/her own user talk page in a discussion about the dispute that led to the topic ban in the immediate wake of it being instituted strikes me as rather excessive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mendaliv, These diffs are – all three of them – from after the warning (aside from the topic ban) that he is clearly not abiding to, with for example new accusations of violating the law (for having created a Wikipedia article). In only one day and half. --Launebee (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that much. I don't see the edits you point out as meriting the urgent intervention of an outside administrator, which is the purpose of this noticeboard. The issues you have presented, respectfully, strike me as minimally problematic, especially given the extremely short period of time that has passed since the previous thread was archived. I don't see anything untoward, honestly. The concern about intellectual property law and your edits don't strike me as any more egregious than pointing out possible copyright violations. So, no, I don't see any purpose to this thread and recommend closure to allow the outcome of the previous thread to better take effect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The top of this page says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors: can you show me the word "urgent"?
Also, since you say this is "too soon", what is the required lag between when the warning was received and when it's actually enforced? Do violators get 48 hours or is the grace period longer? --Calton | Talk08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a judgement call I think. I'll of course go with consensus here, but I'd like to give it a bit more time. See further comments below. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Usually its at least a couple of days while a user gets it out of their system on their talkpage/has it clarified by an admin etc etc. Short of 'Well fuck you I'm ignoring it!' almost all admins will given editors a reasonable grace period, unless its clear they have no intention to behave. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just as the presence of a fringe on the flag does not convert a court of law into an admiralty court, the absence of words like "urgent" or "important" or "things that actually matter" in a summary, instructional description of the purpose of a noticeboard at the top of ANI turn it into a place where people may vomit whatever personal gripes they may have, no matter how petty. As an aside, before clamoring for "enforcement", you might want to consider what you're asking to be enforced. Here, it's a warning. The consequences of repeating that conduct isn't a block, isn't a ban, and isn't necessarily a new ANI thread; those would be the consequences of violating a topic ban, or perhaps a clear final warning. There are at least two admins already handling this situation at XIII's user talk. Let it go at that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just pointing out that if you're going to gas on about rules and guidelines, it's perhaps best to refer to ACTUAL rules and guidelines instead of making things up. Just saying. So your Freeman on the Land analogy works, just not in the way you intended. --Calton | Talk00:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about rules or guidelines. I'm talking about actual practice. If you're unfamiliar with the practice of these boards to refuse to take action on this sort of dispute, then I would suggest you take to observing more threads before commenting. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I have been observing the actual practice of the board, genius, and for longer than you (if you are unfamiliar with editors you are trying to to be condescending to on ANI, then I would suggest you take to actually looking up editor contributions before commenting). The actual accepted -- and acceptable-- practice, according to MY observation, is that if someone persists in bad/sanctioned behavior that they at least are warned. The lazy -- and for some, most common -- reaction is to claim ANI is too busy/settle it amongst yourselves, which will lead to the inevitable reappearance of the problem. --Calton | Talk14:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironical that I decided to take an interest in AN/I after my first two attempts to refer personal attacks here were both auto-archived without any admin even looking at them as far as I can tell. Personally I think we need to be far stricter on personal attacks than we have been in the past, with earlier intervention, before things escalate and other editors follow the appalling examples some set. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I see no attacks, and no conduct worth addressing at this time. There are already admins watching XIII's user talk page. You should go edit Wikipedia and ignore what XIII is doing. You should also respect XIII's request to stay off his/her user talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Support close. What we have here is the eighth appearance at AN/I of an unfortunate personal feud between two otherwise constructive contributors, based on a bitter content dispute over French universities. One of them is a bit more sophisticated in their disruption than the other, and so it's probably only a matter of time before that other gets indeffed, but that would be a shame and I'd like to keep trying for now! See User talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Further discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I asked whether you had introduced the text fake education into an article, and your answer was evasive. XIIIfromTokyo provided some diffs that show you introducing very similar text, with unfortunate phrasing... On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being complicit with the "mediacratie" for example. [14] This is ambiguous in English, it's not clear whether Wikipedia is asserting that it's a fake school etc. or whether we're just saying it's accused of that. The matter is sensitive enough that it's important to avoid such ambiguity, particularly in an article likely to be read by others with poor English. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
XIIIfromTokyo is now hunting me down on Andrewa talk page, making up warnings I never received [15] and bringing back old disputes by saying that Andrewa asked him to do so [16]. Only in death does duty end, you talked about being clear the user has no intention to stop, he is now continuing over and over. --Launebee (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, XIIIfromTokyo is participating in the discussion on my talk page because I explicitly asked them to do so. They made a mistake regarding the warning, and have now admitted that. Their English is no better than yours, as has been established over and over. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 16 October 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.
@Buaidh: I am sorry about that. The history and recent contributions (NPA in the template discussions, for instance) are very troubling. I have left a warning note on their talk page, and I hope this will stop similar behaviours from this user. Alex ShihTalk05:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am new to Wikipedia so hopefully I am in the right place.
The information regarding the Melbourne City Council Report and a user called MelbourneStar keeps deleting it without a valid reason, they have also falsely accused me of pasting copyright material.
As User:MelbourneStar has mentioned, you should be discussing it on the talk page of the article. Appearance of a copyright violation is a valid reason for reverting an edit. The revert should not be re-reverted, especially in the face of copyright concerns. On Wikipedia, we cannot copy significant amounts of content directly from outside sources. Hamtechperson04:29, 18 October 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 editor evading block and disrupting articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday a new editor User:Amy. Firehoof. was created and started making a series of edits to articles related to Wales. These edits were mostly reverted, including by User:Andy Dingley and myself. The edits were problematic, and included this edit which attempted to remove the assertion that a specifically Welsh invention was Welsh, this edit that removed the Welsh language name of North Wales from the article about North Wales (with the alarming edit summary that this was "irrelevant info) and this edit which remove the Welsh name for a Welsh town, claiming that this was "fixing my own typo". Amy. Firehoof. entered into an edit war on Car gwyllt to get their changes into the article, including this change which is both factually inaccurate (see the citation in the article on Wales which establishes it is a country]] and irrelevant to that article. User:Amy. Firehoof. was blocked last night by User:Alexf for edit warring.
I was just writing up an SPI, but it's a lot of typing to do all the diffs and the massive crossover! This duck isn't quacking, it's neighing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This was going to be an ANEW post, but now we've started here...
Amy. Firehoof. appeared last night and walked straight into a triple 4RR edit-war over removing descriptions of anything Welsh as Welsh. This morning, a 31 hour block.
Tonight, a very obvious sock or meatpuppet appears. Repeats a couple of the edits and wikilove the original's talk: page. This is either a sock (during a block) or a meat, and CU might answer that.
When we start seeing POV edits to a local council page, from someone who's userpage claims naively, "Interested in learning more about the United Kingdom", then we have a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
<ec>> That was rude. No wonder I got an EC. I added to the SPI while trying to create a new one. A veritable barnyard of neighing and quacking.18:12, 17 October 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 am proposing a permanent topic ban of @YahwehSaves: on the Featured Topic Audie Murphy. A temporary ban will be useless, since this editor's history has been to make disruptive edits on articles and talk pages, and then lay off for several months or years, only to come back and repeat the pattern. In the latest, he laid off from January 2016 until this week. By much that I see at AIV and SPI, this is vandalism, masquerading as "improving" the article.
His agenda is whether or not Murphy is the top US decorated WWII soldier, mostly to prove Murphy is not. The Audie Murphy article does not make the claim of "most decorated", but YahwehSaves reworks his military service, and is fixated on the medal/awards/decorations count. This time when rewriting the prose, he shrunk the Medal of Honor image and complained on the talk page that it was "puffed up". When he is reverted, he claims to be the victim of unfair editors/admins. He is active on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson - the two competitors for "most decorated". Please apply a permanent topic ban to stop this. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have had a lot of patience with YahwehSaves, at the expense of the editors they interact with. They're currently under a 2-week block by @HJ Mitchell: for "disruptive edits to Audie Murphy and belligerence and incivility on the article's talk page". In view of YS's recent actions at Audie Murphy, their intemperate personal attacks on its talkpage, their one-month topic ban in December 2016, their block log, and their SPI, I propose extending the block to indefinite. If that's not acceptable, I support the topic ban as proposed. Bishonen | talk16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC).
That looks like the IP has continued to edit on at least one same article as YahwehSaves since that SPI. I would support an indef block. We don't have time for intermittent nonsense from intermittent editors. I would also block the IP for a year, no account creation allowed, as it appears only he uses it. The topic ban would be my second choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I support a community site-ban. He's the only editor I've ever been given specific warning about. He has no article accomplishments that I've seen, a long block log, and I see no point in expending further tolerance. I'd suggest a topic ban for all of MILHIST (broadly construed) if you want to re-arrange deck chairs for the time being. Chris Troutman (talk)17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the topic ban, at the least. I came to the talk page unaware of the history set forth above. An attempt to help resolve the situation resulted in immediate, stark WP:IDHT on YS's part. They refused to accept clear consensus. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Support indef block While I'd consider a topic ban on all MILHIST topics, this behavior has gone on for far too long (and the socking via IP only adds to my concern). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I considered an indef but thought it was a bit too bold for a unilateral admin action. It would have been my next port of call if the disruption resumed after the current block. I have no problem with my block being changed to indefinite if that's the consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Support either indefinite block or site ban. Eight blocks in six years, consistent refusal to accept consensus, years of continuous IP socking, insulting other editors, and pushing a personal agenda. Clearly a net negative. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:27, 18 October 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.
Mwest55 (talk·contribs) was indefinitely topic banned earlier this year from Wind turbine syndrome for disruptive editing, and later given a two month block for violating that ban. He had previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. West has returned with a new account, MWest55 (talk·contribs) and violated the ban again. Not taking action myself as I am quite involved. From looking at his interactions, I think it's possible he actually doesn't realize he's topic banned. After all the attempts to contact him, that would bring into question issues of competence in addition to the edit warring and conspiracy mongering. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 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.
Requesting Assistance on Persistent Disruptive editing by user
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Requesting assistance. A non-registered user of IP-address 116.15.94.199 had been repeatedly reverting contents without any specific rationale (except for one, but should have raised it up on discussion instead of a forceful reverting action) or raising any rationale up on the discussion. This is despite warnings by multiple users and a block applied a year ago (as dated on the block log). Failed attempts had been made to reach out to the user via the talk page or the edit descriptions (basically much of the actions appropriate under a extended confirmed-user privilege). Lyg 2001 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
What began as a content dispute at the list of current world boxing champions has devolved into a conduct dispute filled with lies and personal attacks. At talk, I have tried to discuss the (albeit bizarre) intricacies of the WBA's world title rulings with User:David-golota, but all he does is make repeated accusations of ownership:
All of which are ludicrous. Anyone who observes my edits at the article will see that I have never displayed WP:OWN behaviour—for many years I have collaborated with plenty of editors in making routine stats-related updates. A week ago, User:David-golota removed official WBA terminology ([37]), which I reverted with an edit summary ([38]). His next revert and edit summary accused me of ownership ([39]), which is instead what he himself seems to be doing. His way or the high way, others be damned.
What I am claiming is WP:V (namely the official WBA site, which supports my stance), but he chooses to ignore that. Along with the constant ownership lies, he also thinks every one of my posts is a personal attack. I can't get through one interaction with him without an accusation of personal attacks—whereas again, it is his antagonistic tone that needs serious work. Granted, I have indeed said "Screw you" in response to him labelling my edits as "BS". A bit of tit-for-tat, but that's about it as far as personal attacks go on my side.
From thereon, it's just the same thing over and over again—he won't back down from his false accusations, and I won't discuss anything with him until he stops with the battleground antics. All the while, the actual content dispute doesn't move an inch. Every time I do respond, it's a personal attack as far as he's concerned. I even tried reaching out and calling him "Buddy" (which isn't an insult where I come from), but he took great offence to that. So I'm at a loss. There isn't going to be a handshake from either party, virtual or otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Follow-ups from User:David-golota:
"Your level of arrogance is beyond what I ever thought anybody could have on this site." – That's some pretty bold stuff right there, and verging on personal attack. Or, he's looking in a mirror and seeing himself. In my first post at the talk page, all I did was lay out my rationale. He then came in with all guns blazing, and hasn't stopped since. He's somehow got it into his head that I've hurled scathing insults at him, which isn't true (besides my abovementioned "Screw you" response; just the one, freely admitted). Since he was the first to bring up tone, and isn't letting it go, I'm not sure what he actually wants—for me to grovel at his virtual feet and tell him he's right?
"You refuse to read the links from WBA official website because of my tone?" – I've presented my sources, but all he's concerned about is conduct and my tone. How is discussion meant to advance with two issues at hand? I've said repeatedly that I'll discuss the actual content dispute if he drops the conduct dispute, but he brings up the latter every time. Likely any response I give at this point will rejected as WP:OWN.
I'm tempted to go for WP:3O to see if it's just me against whom he has an agenda, but I absolutely will not back out of the content dispute just because he's not a fan of my words. As far as I know, WP:DRN isn't the right place, as that's not for conduct disputes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:19, 14 October 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 diff a borderline legal threat can be found -- Is it admin / Wikipedia policy to leave it to the victim to obtain fairness via legal action against admins or Wikipedia ?. Some appropriate action ought to be taken -- it might be best to read around a bit, concerning the subject and the content dispute on this article. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Karlwinn It's against two of Wikipedia's main principles to threaten legal action. Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal. Keep editing, but please don't threaten to use legal action again, it makes you really unpopular.TomBarker23 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
TomBarker23, I mean the following in all sincerity. It's great that you're an eager new contributor, but ANI is not a good place for newbies to get their feet wet. You've been adding comments all over here suddenly, and a lot of them make no sense; your statement that Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal is preposterous. With your multilingual skills you'll be a great asset as a content contributor, so take my advice and hold on to your ANI-virginity as long as possible. Keep your mind on article editing until you've been around the block a few times. I repeat that this is sincere advice meant to help you remain a happy editor, and avoid premature aging. EEng17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
n.b. the user in question is an WP:SPA whose mission is to whitewash an article about a racist neo-Nazi. Vanishingly little of value would be lost if the user were indef blocked for making legal threats, as is typical. ATraintalk10:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't close this down until another admin has reviewed my block and agreed that it's kosher. That's half the point of ANI. ATraintalk12:54, 19 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all,
Sorry for putting this here, Twinkle's RFPP module is crashing for me.
Over the past year or so, User:Shahriar al mahmud has repeatedly attempted to create autobiographies which are WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. Just recently Shahriar Al Mahmud and his userpage were created, both of which I've tagged for speedy deletion. SALT may be needed on all capitalisation forms of the name as previous talk page warnings have indicated that he has used camel case to avoid SALT protection.
@DrStrauss: Done. This could probably have been done by contacting individual admin though, instead of coming to AN/I. And I am puzzled that you cannot use RFPP without Twinkle. Why? Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Alex ShihTalk08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Not multiple socks, it’s multiple different people, as you can see from the different ip addresses. It’s a cohort of over 70000 people. You can’t win — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFalex (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment from non-administrator: Obviously I can't do anything to act on this note, but why not cascade-protect anything to do with mangoes or Australian education and ask good faith editors to suggest edits in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Current page protection hasn't been enough to stanch the flow, regarding the use of a poem in an Australian school. JNW (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Suspected IP sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov who is an edit-warrior, made personal attacks against me in English on the edit summary. Check here please: [42]. He is calling me terrorist and Macedonian Muslim. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jingiby: re the above, feel free to ping me directly about these socks, I've become pretty familiar with the editing patterns over the last month. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Kevin Deutsch, part II. Single-purpose accounts, neutrality, self-published, COI, NOTHERE issues.
User:Ballastpointed was blocked for 1 week, but things have not improved, and the sock / meatpuppet account User:AlexVegaEsquire instantly stepped in as soon as Ballastpointed was blocked (diff). As such, I'd ask for sanctions to be taken against either both or neither of them. I'm not asking for a Sockpuppet investigation because, thanks to tags, it seems likely that Ballastpointed is the user's mobile phone account - almost all their edits are tagged as such - and AlexVegaEsquire is their desktop account. So they likely have different IPs even if they're the same person. But it doesn't matter, because WP:DUCK applies - both accounts are single-purpose accounts who have never edited anything other than Kevin Deutsch. Talk page collaboration has also stopped, not that it ever went very far to begin with. For example, I responded quickly to an Oct 10 edit on the talk page (diff), no reply, I cautiously make my edit on Oct 12, which is promptly reverted within hours (diff).
Without getting too deep into the content dispute, suffice to say there's a fundamental failure to agree on what sources say. Ballastpointed / Alex seem to deny not merely the claims against Deutsch (which is fine, and good per WP:BLP; Wikipedia shouldn't state in its own authorial voice what happened), but also deny the claims happened at all and bury the scandal under the rug, despite this scandal being by far the most notable thing about Deustch - for example, repeatedly removing from the lede that Deutsch was accused of inventing convenient quotes for his news stories, despite multiple sources accusing him of just that (example source if you're curious). Again, Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily say he did actually fabricate the quotes, but reporting the accusation and the fact that the quotes/sources were unable to be confirmed is perfectly legit. They also like to quote WP:SELFPUB sources very extensively... I think that the article already over-quotes Deutsch himself as is, when he is not a neutral source and is making a number of self-serving claims.
I should note that in fairness, some of Ballast / Alex's contributions have been fine, and others are stylistic preferences on emphasis that editors can legitimately disagree over. I had hoped that they might chill out. However, their general style of instantly reverting to their preferred revision isn't the way Wikipedia should work. I might have been willing to let it go for some of the more minor changes, but when I tried waiting them out, they used that as an opportunity to cautiously include more dramatic revisions (example diff; this was from October 8 when I tried letting an October 5 edit stand), so I think this edit war will last forever as is. If you think that the most recent revision looks harmless or too minor to care about, it might be, but Ballast will use it as an opening to revert the article to how it looked a month ago eventually, which was a straight-up puff piece that excised almost all of the scandal. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or reflect the sources, they're here to fluff Kevin Deutsch's article.
As a side note. In my opinion, these two users are most likely Deutsch himself. It perfectly fits the pattern of someone obsessed with just one article and making it as admiring as possible and adding in links to Deutsch's blog (diff) and using the same phrasing as Deutsch from his website (e.g. crowing about his fifteen year career... as if that's something unusual among journalists. blog, diff). Ultimately, this is largely irrelevant, but I just figured I'd throw this out there. (They have denied having a COI, for the record. They just "care about accuracy".) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to why my accurate edits continue to be reverted. They are clear, concise, accurate, objective, contain indisputable facts, and comply with Wikipedia's living persons policy. Alternatively, the edits made by @snowfire are inaccurate, presumptive, conclusory, and violate the LP policy. I believe his edits constitute vandalism, and that he is an author of one or more of the sources for this article. He could also be a party with a grudge against article subject. Either way, he has a clear/obvious conflict of interest, as is demonstrated by his one-sided edits. I request an objective party arbitrate this dispute.
As I have stated numerous times, I have no connection to article subject. I am simply a person with interest in the controversy (having learned of it via Wikipedia). I don’t see why my revisions are being subjected to vandalism when they are neutral and harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: True, that would be one way to do it... but per my comments in the AFD, I think that Deutsch is notable enough, and would rather normal editor discipline be applied here to stop the edit war. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I would support deletion at this point. The back and forth is completely absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A few day ago I ran across KingQueenJack (talk·contribs) making questionable, unsourced edits in Carolingian Empire, which is on my watchlist. I went to 3RR and screeched to a halt there. Fortunately, so did KQJ. I invited KQJ to discuss things several times (see relevant talkpages). KQJ did not respond. Checking up on this user, I found the same kind of behavior is repeated in other articles (here and here) and other edits are generally not considered helpful. I think some admin action might be helpful. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, since you brought this here we might as well discuss things--I see basic incompetence (note how they changed a book title to help make their date change work: "H. Garipzanov, The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c.751–843,884–888) (Leiden: Brill, 2008)"). Plus, we've blocked editors for being uncommunicative before. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Most (if not nearly all) of the recent edits I'm going through by this user appear to be changes to text in Chinese, or at least include changes to text in Chinese. I'm wondering how well or fluent this user is with English... maybe this is what is contributing to the communication issues? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
AB10002 (talk·contribs) is a single-purpose account that has been targeting the Julie Payette article for a few months now. They have stated that "our team is watching the page and constantly removes the false allegations". The supposed "false allegations" are verified by multiple reliable sources and have been widely reported in the Canadian media; some are not even remotely controversial, such as basic information about her marriages [43] or minor criticisms about her appointment process [44]. The "team" behind AB10002 appears to think they have the right to control what content appears on Payette's Wikipedia page. Their most recent edit [45] made an accusation that "person(s) have attempted to deliberately smear the reputation of this public figure by posting false irrelevant information..." (edit summary was cut off). Given the legal phrasing used and the editor's apparent governmental connections, to me this sounds like a potential accusation of defamation and an attempt to intimidate editors into relinquishing control of what content appears on the page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I smell an Aboriginal fighting weapon. This is the sort of non-content (Person had a road accident. It was an accident. So what?) that Ivar the Boneful has been edit-warring to re-insert into this BLP with the only edit-summary being "RV paid editor". Black Kite (talk)18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's entirely possible for their edits to be problematic for WP:COI reasons and yet still at least partially correct. The thing about the car accident has never actually had a compelling reason presented why it needed to be in the article at all — sure, it's sourceable, but nobody's ever answered my talk page question about whether it was noteworthy or relevant to note in her biography. As I noted in that comment, it's sourceable that politicians show up at community events to announce government donations and hand over plastic novelty cheques — but there's no noteworthy or relevant reason why documenting each individual instance of that needs to happen in an encyclopedia, so the mere fact that it's sourceable isn't a sufficient condition by itself. What needs to be shown is not just that the car accident is sourceable — what needs to be, but hasn't been, shown is a reason why it matters to an encyclopedia article about her. Yes, it's true that a person with a direct COI doesn't get to control the content of the article — but it's also true that the information hasn't been demonstrated as needing to be there at all. So, yeah, I think there's a curved hunting weapon in the vicinity too. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"most probably a sock" ... well feel free to open up an SPI, Dr. K., though I think you might find it pretty difficult to explain how an Australian editor is doing so using an IP address traceable to New York City. You might wish to consider the old saying about glass houses – someone on the article talkpage has already pointed out that you seem to have made several edits identical to those of AB10002. Or perhaps you just both share a similar distaste for the mention of divorce? Dr.K. 21 July, AB10002 6 October – quite the coincidence! It's quite interesting that you've managed to magically find your way to this ANI thread despite not being notified and no mention of it being made in any edit summaries – and yet AB10002 was notified of it. It's almost as if you logged in as AB10002, saw the notification, and quickly switched accounts to maintain the illusion of neutrality. That boomerang just keeps on spinnin'! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I would HIGHLY suggest that you do not cast aspersions on editors being socks without some rather concrete proof as you just did. To be blunt, the edits regarding the traffic incident were indeed inappropriate and should been removed, per the talk page discussion. If AB10002 hadn't removed it, another editor would. Also not every sordid detail of their life needs to be in the article, especially if it doesn't add to the actual substance of the article. This discussion regarding what should and should not be on the page needs to go to the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ivar the Boneful: In my reply above, I mentioned that the IP was most probably a sock, but neither did I specify whose sock I suspected it was, nor did I did use your name. I am not sure why you automatically thought it was you I had in mind. As far as the rest of your aspersions, you just upgraded that big aboriginal hunting implement in the sky with a radar-homing sensor, and it is not pointing to me at all. I leave it up to you to guess its direction. Dr.K.19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I suggest you strike that particularly ludicrous assertion, Ivar the Boneful? I would suggest that you alternatively open an SPI against Dr. K, but since you have absolutely zero convincing evidence, there's probably no point in doing that; indeed, the only likely action that is going to be taken here is against you for casting aspersions. Which would be unfortunate for someone whom, looking at your contributions, is mostly a positive. Black Kite (talk)13:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago37 comments6 people in discussion
Thoroughly discussed, the new user in question have started to communicate and answered the questions that were asked. Another new user in this thread have been approached by several editors on their talk page about reducing their involvement in AN/I. No further action is required at this time. Alex ShihTalk05:30, 20 October 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.
Hichem algerino has been editing for years. If you look at User talk:Hichem algerino, you will see warnings going back to 2014 about creating unreferenced articles, but this is still going on. Hichem has ignored dozens of messages about this, including other editors saying if it doesn't stop they may mass delete his creations (that was back in 2015, no improvement), threats of blocks for continually adding unreferenced information from 6th July 2016, an actual block showing on 30 July 2016, more warnings about a potential block for adding unreferenced information on 25 August 2016, same on 12 December 2016, 31 May 2017, 2 July 2017, and about 20 messages from me, mainly on different articles, just since August, all about creating unreferenced articles or completely blank articles. Hichem has been reminded that WP:Communication is required but only seems to have responded to one of the more than one hundred talk page messages, and that was to say 'I will try' (to add sources). I appreciated that but there has been no change in behaviour or further communication, he continues to create unreferenced articles. I feel I've exhausted all other avenues to solve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
He seems well intentioned but I suspect there may be something of a language barrier. I’ve dropped a line in French on his talk page; let’s see where we go from there. I’ll have a look at his creations as well (I’ve added a couple of sources to Djamel El Okbi to start with). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Malcolmxl5, I saw your message to Hichem algerino and I agree that the language may well be an issue. However, Hichem has still not communicated here, and has been able to explain his referencing on his own talk page, which shows he does understand and his answer does not indicate he understands the importance of reliablee sourcing. His English is certainly good enough to understand the main point of the messages, and I think his understanding is probably clear. Hichem, can you please communicate here? Do you understand that articles must have references? Will you start responding to messages? There are plenty of people here happy to help you, but we can't have editors persistently creating articles which aren't verified. It might be worth you reading WP:V. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
As i told Malcolmxl5 i could not find sources on the Net i tried so much but without value, sometimes it is based on sources from French Wikipedia or some videos from YouTube and dzfoot.com However, i will not create new pages without source --Hichem algerino (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Boleyn, I was looking at the latest unreferenced issue raised, 1999–00 Algerian League Cup, the sources Hichem is using are in the external links section rather than the references section, a minor error. The previous one, 2013–14 MC Oran season - Hichem was working on that for a few days and by the time he finished, there were two citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. Similarly, for the one prior to that, 2013–14 CR Belouizdad season, it now has 14 citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. So, it’s getting done but perhaps not before the articles are reviewed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Some have had sources added, but most, like [46] still have no sources two months after a message has been sent to Hichem, a message he hasn't bothered to answer. This is the case for many of the articles. I would also say that Hichem has been asked on more than one occasion if the links he has added to an 'external links' section are actually his sources, but he hasn't taken the time to answer. This may be an oversight, but I don't know that they were his sources, or if he had any sources. This is no big issue for one or two answers, but is a big issue for dozens. Hichem, you are still not demonstrating that you understand WP:RS, WP:V or that WP:Communication is required. Please comment on this. Malcolm is offering you good advice and support, which is great, but I have spent hours reviewing your articles and messaging you, all of which you have ignored. We need to know if you will stop creating articles without WP:RS. Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hichem algerino, you are continuing to edit but not replying to this thread. You will have received pings plus should have this watchlisted. As the concern is partially around a lack of communication, this is particularly concerning. I again remind you that WP:Communication is required. ANI is a serious process, and I think everyone always prefers if the issues can be properly discussed and resolved, and a block avoided. Please communicate so we can help. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hichem algerino, you have now agreed not to create articles without sources, can you please engage in this thread, hopefully so we can close this with no action needed? The questions you have not responded to, are do you understand that sources need to be clear (not labelled as 'external links' if they are actually your sources) and reliable (not Youtube and other Wikipedias aren't good either, see WP:RS and WP:V. Will you start to respond when other editors take the time to message you, and do you understand that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia? If you will keep to these in future, we have no problem, but you do need to take part in this thread. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Boleyn, I do not have anything to add i do not know what the problem is now. i said I will not open any new page without a source and about [47] there is no source because it is an individual work of me and it is impossible to find a source And relied on the arrangement of the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 already located in Wikipedia look here Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season by season --Hichem algerino (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Hichem. I'll try to word my unanswered questions differently so hopefully you will understand them. Do you understand that you should answer messages other editors send you? Do you understand that you shouldn't create articles without reliable sources? Do you understand that your own work, Youtube and other Wikipedias are not acceptable sources? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to respond to every message (although it's polite to do so, especially if they have asked you a question). However, according to WP:Communication is required: If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. That would cover the dozens of messages sent to you about sourcing. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hichem algerino, thank you for adding sources to some off your articles, this is much appreciated. However, you have still not answered the three questions above, can you please answer them? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TomBarker23. Hichem algerino, an WP:ANI was initiated because your lack of sourcing, refusal to add sources when it was brought to your attention and your refusal to answer messages was disruptive editing. You are still editing, still clearly reading the thread, but not answering the questions, when asked by different editors in different languages. Again, please respond. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hichem algerino, do you understand that we are talking about the questions I have asked you in this thread? You have not responded and you have been asked many timeūs to do so. The questions (I will write them out yet again) are:
Boleyn: Remember, his national language is French. I just don't think he understands. Remember Nelson Mandela: "Speak to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. Speak to him in his language, that goes to his heart." Try using French, and note that his first comment to me seems to indirectly say he understands. Remember the existence of Google Translate. Wow, I'm amazed noone else suggested that. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Following my own advice here...
Hichem algerino:
) Comprenez-vous que vous Communication est requise devrait répondre aux messages que d'autres éditeurs vous envoient?
2) Comprenez-vous que les sources devraient être claires et ne pas être appelées «liens externes» si elles sont vos sources?
3) Comprenez-vous qu'il est important d'utiliser WP: RELIABLESOURCES, c'est-à-dire pas Youtube et de préférence pas d'autres Wikipédia?
TomBarker23, Malcolm already tried French, and Hichem indicated that it is not his first language, in that he said he is better in English. I have no idea if this started with a language gap or not - Hichem just refused to answer messages or change his editing, which may or may not have been wholly or partly to do with not being a native speaker. His later messages indicate he understood what I was complaining about (and what many other editors had complained about) but felt it was OK. Forgive me if I sound terse now, but I have asked the same questions in different ways more than thirty times now, and I still have no proper response yet he is still editing other pages. This ANI was only opened as a last resort, and it's not a process he seems to be taking seriously. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Boleyn, I think you will find that if you've messaged him 30 times he will be a bit tired of the questions turning up on his talk page. He has made edits saying he agrees to this page. He does understand communication is required. The original purpose of this page is complete, he's citing sources now. I think he is just of the opinion he has answered the questions and thinks the discussion is over on his part. We've really strayed from the original purpose of the ANI. Can we just forgive each other and close the discussion down now? TomBarker23 (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
TomBarker23, I doubt he's tired of the questions seeing as he has simply ignored them each time. This ANI started because he was refusing to answer questions - he has improved that slightly, but hasn't really engaged in this ANI, wasting other people's time. It was also about a lack of reliable sources - he has indicated on his talk page since the ANI started that his articles are based on WP:OR, Youtube and French Wikipedia. That is concerning. I don't think it's much to ask him to answer the questions as to whether he understands about reliable sources (we're here to help if not). He clearly does not accept that communication is required either, as he is choosing to edit regularly but not respond. He's had many, many warnings over several years about all this. I'd just like him to engage in the discussion so we can be sure everything is understood and then move on. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, we finally have a response - Hichem algerino plans to communicate more and add sources for all articles, sources which are not WP:OR but are WP:RS. I think we can now close the thread. Hichem, if you have any questions about reliable sources, Malcolmxl5 has shown he is happy to talk yo you about which sources are reliable, as am I. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Remember the existence of Google Translate. Wow, I'm amazed noone else suggested that.@TomBarker23:
Maybe that's because they knew that it would likely not be helpful. If you knew French, you would have realized that as well. It's rather ironic, to say the least, that in a section entitled "Communication and sourcing issues", in attempting to communicate with someone whose first language is not English, that anyone would suggest using Google translate. Instead, you could try Wikipedia:Translation/French/Translators or one of the translator categories as a starting point. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 20 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago32 comments14 people in discussion
I have blocked User:Sardeeph indefinitely per an obvious consensus that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, regardless of the result of the SPIs which may produce further useful information. Black Kite (talk)17:15, 20 October 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 was preparing to start edit some pages and I went through the old talk page archives to understand how the articles I was interested in have been built so far. What I saw shocked me. I read some of the old discussions and say that a highly active user Kautilya3 has been engaging in Civil POV pushing/tendentious editing. Though these discussions are now many months old I see that Kautilya3 has not changed his skewed style of pro-India editing. Indeed this edit summary still displays a tendentious mentality.[[48]] Such skewed and nationally motivated editing is ruining the encyclopaedia.
Given Kautilya3's anti-Muslim and anti-Kashmiri and anti-Pakistan prejudices I propose he should be topic banned from editing anything related to Muslims and Kashmir.
I am tagging here respectable senior editor @Fowler&fowler: and administrator @Dbachmann: to note these diffs and check the tendentious editing which has taken place so far on many Kashmir pages.
1. Here Kautilya3 makes clear his anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan and anti-Kashmir prejudices
[[49]]
a) Responsible editor @Vice Regent: noticed his anti-Muslim comments: [[50]] Vice Regent had to tell him to stick to policy based arguments rather than his personal opinions about Muslims. In his comment K3 called Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslims jihadis and showed he agreed with the anti-Muslim views expressed by Savarakar.
2. But Kautilya3 shows even more history in displaying prejudicial views This comment is particularly telling [[51]]
Here he remarks ' ' These Muslims might think that running around with guns is their birthright. We, in civilized world, don't think so' ' .
3. Here [[52]] he describes large numbers of Muslims as 'treacherous'.
4. And unfortunately this anti-Muslim prejudice has carried over into his editing. He calls reputable political scientist 'Christopher Snedden' a 'biased source'. Therefore, he not only discounts his views but demands to do research (something outside the scope of wikipedia editors).
5. Here [[53]] Kautilya3 claims Regarding the larger Kashmir dispute that you are talking about, let me just say that I am a Wikipedian and my job is to inform. It is not my place to make judgements on any party, nor to identify with them as being a part of "we". You should not do it either because it is prohibited under ARBIPA sanctions
a) Unfortunately he fails to live up to this standard. (example: attempting another round of original research: [[54]]
b) You can see this through his above linked anti-Muslim comments and also on the rest of the comments on his talk page which is basically original research where he picks sources suiting his prejudices to form views which later impact on how articles such as 1947 Jammu massacres and 1947 Poonch Rebellion were written.
c) You can also see this failure to live up to the standard he quoted through reading his comment here [[55]] which reads ' 'And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them.' '
In other words K3 cares not about NPOV and describing the scholarly literature but judging it himself per his own prejudices.
d i ) He fails this standard once again in his comment here, where he rejects 'most studies' because of his own personal opinion [[56]] Here he says ' 'Most studies of Kashmir also think of the Maharaja as a dimwit. But I don't think he was. He knew exactly what was happening in the State and was taking defensive measures. ' '
d ii)Once again in this same comment he shows a prejudice towards a scholar such as Christopher Snedden due to relying on Azad Kashmiri sources even though he himself had no problem with calling a RSS-citing scholar a 'reliable source' whom he freely cited on 1947 Jammu massacres.
e) Kautilya repeats this behaviour here [[57]]
Kautilya3 is doing original research and discounting scholarly opinions where it does not suit him in total disregard of NPOV policy. (Kautilya3 says ' 'We have practically no information available about it except for Sardar Ibrahim's memoirs. All the scholars have been basciall repackaging what he wrote' ') Again judging scholars and not describing viewpoints per NPOV.
5. Kautilya3 was also warned by a respectable senior editor Fowler&fowler to not engage in such behaviour here[[58]]
a) Kautilya responded against what he termed as the'Muslim POV gripe' [[59]]
b) Fowler&fowler told him not to compare unequal sources [[60]]
c) Folwer&fowler also expressed concern at what Kautilya3 had been doing to the page [[61]] and also castigated his use of low-quality Hindu nationalist sources on the Kashmir page [[62]]
6. Kautilya3 forms 'judgements' prejudicial not only to Muslims but also against the British. In one comment he goes to the extent of mocking the death of a British citizen. (Kautilya3 says that he ' 'paid for his sins' ') [[63]]
a) Even his friend TylerDurden, a blocked sock master, noted Kautilya3's comment as strong [[64]] He says ' 'So I feel we shouldn't say that he deserved his early death at 35 years. Just saying. :) ' '
Kautilya3 does not even then deny that he floated over someone's death.
7, Here [[65]] he claims a figure of '30,000 and '20,000' Hindus and Sikhs killed by Muslims. When user Mar4d pointed out that the source for the '20,000' figure comes from a RSS activist being cited in a scholarly book Kautilya3 responded ' 'I am afraid you are second-guessing a reliable source. If we were basing our information on Balraj Madhok, we would definitely attribute it. But we are basing it on Das Gupta. How he gets information and what he finds reliable and what he doesn't, is not our business. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts the information, it is not proper to question it.' '
a) So according to Kautilya3 when a scholar conveys Hindu/Sikh casualties from a RSS source it should not be asked where a scholar gets their information from. [[66]] But when a scholar backs a Muslim perspective then Kautilya3 will even declare that reputable scholar such as Christopher Snedden as 'biased' because they used 'Muslim' or 'Azad Kashmiri' sources.[[67]] and [[68]]
b) I will quote his comment about scholar Christopher Snedden from the second diff here: ' ' If you look at his book, the majority of his sources are Muslim Conference sources, in particular Sardar Ibrahim's book. He only uses the State government sources for confirmation. He ignores the British government sources. For example, the British High Commissioner's evidence, covered by Rakesh Ankit, is found nowhere in his book. So, I maintain that his book is a biased source. It cannot be treated as neutral third party source. ' '
8. So as you can see Kautilya3 is a POV pusher due to his treatment of scholarly sources as 'biased' or 'reliable' as per his own opinions. He picks and chooses opinions of his own liking. Just like Fowler&fowler said about his use of Hindu nationalist sources.
c) Even his friend the blocked sock master Tyler Durden had noticed Kautilya3's convenient discounting of sources if they are linked to Pakistan [[69]]
d) While here [[70]] Kautilya3 has discounted a writer who works for Pakistan he has no problem relying for content in the name of 'neutrality' on someone linked with the Indian state [[71]]
e) Again Kautilya3 makes a comment where he refuses to countenance Richard Symonds for being pro-Pakistan according to Indian Prime Minister Nehru.[[72]]
But he himself takes seriously sources from the Indian Government [[73]]
9. It becomes even more obvious when checking this discussion between Kautilya3 and Tyler Durden that Kautilya3 is here on a pro-India agenda, discussing on what India should have 'done', how scholars are regurgitating a perspective they do not like (again contradicts with Kautilya3's own comment that reliable sources should not be second-guessed).
The comment by Kautilya was ' ' What can you do outside Wikipedia? Well, you can do a Ph.D. on it and write high-quality journal articles. Then we will be able to cover them in Wikipedia.' '
In other words for K3 is not about describing scholarly opinions but making them. Now compare these words to what he said about ARBIPA sanctions to Tyler about not making judgements.
Basically its all personal research and conclusions (last link) which they plan to somehow enter into wikpedia (see Kautilya3's comments in first link). Since they are not happy with what the 'scholars' (RS) and 'most studies' say they are clearly here on wiki with an agenda to influence scholarly opinion and and have abused the writing of wikipedia articles with biased treatment of sources
10. Again this comment here [[78]] also shows us Kautilya3's pro-India editing. It's an obvious fact from his skewed editing and skewed treatment of sources and his comments that he is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Sardeeph (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not actionable. Two brand new editors proposing a block and a topic ban in one our most contentious areas? Rather fishy. The diffs provided above seem to be an attempt to sling enough mud that something sticks. Sardeeph really needs to read WP:TLDR. Those diffs that I've reviewed are not a problem; at worst, Kautilya is engaging in off-topic discussions, which isn't remotely a block-able or ban-able offence. These diffs aside, I've worked with Kautilya for many years now, and he is among the few folks demanding fealty to reliable sources in a topic that is ridden with POV pushing, socking, vandalism, and many other forms of disruption. The fact that he is accused of being anti-Muslim more or less as often as he is accused of being anti-Hindu is a sign that he is doing things right. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia no editor is indispensable. It does not matter how many years K3 has been here. His edits are full of discreet POV pushing and these comments are open proof of that. Do not overlook that he has publicly floated over the death of a Briton here, besides saying prejudicial things to Muslims, calling them jihadis and treacherous and what not. Sardeeph (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought. [[79]]Which shows me that if he has not improved in so many years he won't be getting better anytime soon.
Here Kautilya3 says But I myself think that there is an inherent "clash of civilisations" in the Hindu-Muslim relations and I believe this would have happened sooner or later no matter how the history went.
Vanamonde93 should take a glance at what other respectable senior editors such as Fowler&fowler and Vice regent have experienced with the same user.
Also read this [[80]] should experience hold so much meaning to you.
Wikipedia is also not a place for nationalistic propaganda. [[81]].13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Sardeeph. To anybody with any experience here, it is fairly obvious that your allegations that hold no merit. To clear this up once and for all, though, let's take an example out of that wall of text. Can you please explain how this edit demonstrates prejudice, as you claim above ("I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought.")? Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think Kautilya3 has recruited friendly users to come and support him. One can find many badge stars being given by these users to each other (Vanamode and Joshua and Kautilya). Their talk page histories reveal a great deal of closeness to each other, which explains why these two are here defending bigoted comments.
Bigoted comments such as gloating over a European's death, [[86]] (which even his sock
Aster friend could see [[87]] ) raising doubts on the credibility of British scholars,[[88]] implying Muslims are uncivilised [[89]], saying that Muslims are treacherous[[90]] and are jihadi[[91]]. He also even defends the Hindu extremist group RSS. K3's supporters (or friends) are also ignoring respectable senior editor Fowler&fowler 'a experience that K3 uses low quality Hindu nationalist sources[[92]] and then tries to equalise them with better sources. [[93]]
It would be more suitable for editors not close to Kautilya3 to examine this pile of evidence and leave a comment.
It also seems Kautilya3 has recruited an IP sock[[94]] just to close this thread.
Any editors or admins concerned about the allegations of "anti-Muslim", "anti-Kashmir" or "anti-Pakistan" are welcome to check my edit history at pages like Violence against Muslims in India, Jammu and Kashmir,
Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir conflict,
Pakistan, and see if they can detect any such prejudices. I have even defended several Kashmiri editors against admin actions [95], [96], [97] and tried to support them [98] when they were facing sanctions. Even the user PAKHIGHWAY, whom Sardeeph has summoned to testify against me, had my support recently. I can safely say that I have good working relationships with well-meaning editors of all nationalities.
The specific context from which Sardeeph took most of the examples of alleged prejudices is that of the highly contentious subjects 1947 Poonch Rebellion and 1947 Jammu massacres, which were significant events in Kashmir in 1947 before its accession to India. There was a news blackout in Kashmir at that time and the information we have about what happened then is very limited, mostly coming from anecdotal evidence. But Christopher Snedden, an Australian scholar who did his PhD in 2001 and then expanded it into a book published in 2013, wrote about them, and it caused a sensation. I wrote the article on Snedden, bought and read his book, and brought it as a source on Wikipedia. On these two topics, however, I stayed away because I knew that the information was limited. Snedden's book, titled The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, was on history of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-controlled Kashmir), but most of his research was done in Azad Kashmir and all his sources were either Azad Kashmiri or Pakistani. He didn't harmonise it with information available from elsewhere. His second book, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris is broader and more balanced. Meanwhile, the two contentious pages got created without my involvement. Then Tyler Durden came marching in and wanted to expand them with more detail from Snedden, which I countered. Long discussions followed on my talk page and his talk page, during which we unearthed many sources and tried to find a balance between them. The end result is the articles you see. I believe they represent the best information on these topics available anywhere, and I am proud of what we have achieved. The free-wheeling discussions that happened on our talk pages were quite essential for getting there. They determined what we would keep and what we would leave out.
I notice that Sardeeph hasn't produced any evidence of any problems in the two articles. Neither has he contributed to the articles or to any discussions on the talk pages. He merely wants to throw stones from the peanut gallery while other people do the work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I just read your response. But I am sorry to say I find in it obfuscation. Making good edits does not preclude one from bad editing and POV pushing. I have found many examples which clearly show that you push your POV discreetly and your anti-Muslim comments as well as your grave-dancing over a British man's death are clear proof of that. The diffs are posted above for all to see.
Here in your chat with Human3015 is another proof of how you push POV discreetly. Your discreet style of tendentious editing now stands exposed. [[99]] To achieve your aims you have even manipulated the very definition of a non-biased editor.Sardeeph (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This report seems to be a very flimsy wall of text, Sardeeph, Unless you're able to extract from it a small number of recent diffs and provide a proper explanation of why they are problematic, I'd beware of a boomerang because this just looks like an attempt at mudslinging. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot of argumentation about sources and what they say. I don't see the islamophobia that is being claimed. If it's there, we need more context to see it. And by "more context", I don't mean a wall of text. Because that's what we've got now and it's entirely unhelpful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious? Implying that Muslims are uncivilised, calling them jihadis and treacherous is not Islamopjobia to you? Relevant links are posted under diffs in points 1-3.
There is plenty more of evidence that this user hates Islam.
If you see this archive talkpage K3's buddy @VictoriaGrayson: makes hate comments against Islam (says Islam is the 'problem') and Kautilya3 discusses it with him without condemning or disagreeing with the anti-Islam statements [[101]]
Full quote The problem is Islam, not Hindu nationalism.VictoriaGraysonTalk14:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Same difference! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
How then can people collaborate with him to make good edits when he has such a prejudiced view in Ye backdrop of his biased editing? But of course he is not here to collaborate.
There's an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from K3 towards edits in these diffs. These diffs show Kautilya3's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Basically K3 added content from Primary sources on Mirpur massacres page. Those sources were then tagged unverifiable. When his mate TylerDurden ran to him for help, then In these diffs K3 basically concedes that he adds content and references with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
[[102]] In this diff K3 views an edit by someone else as 'propaganda war'. [[103]] Then his buddy Tyler asks him how to counter the other POV, to shock K3 says not to worry, he has plenty of sources. This is a battleground rather than collaborative attitude towards Wikipedia editing.
You have also ignored that he has expressed pleasure over someone's early death. (See point 6) Such people should not be allowed to spread more hate on Wikipedia. Pinging @Xinjao: and @Rigley:to take a look. Sardeeph (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've read most of this and my immediate reaction is that Sardeeph is not here to improve an encyclopedia. In their short editing career they've made a few edits and spent the rest of the time trying to get people blocked or topic banned (with, so far, a spectacular lack of success). Why are they here? Certainly not for any useful purpose. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk)07:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Red herring. I will only really be able to start 'improving' the encyclopaedia once I am sure that the experienced troublemakers on the pages I want to edit are no longer allowed to cause disruption through discreet tendentious activities. Sardeeph (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's a consensus that none of the editors you are complaining about are doing much wrong, so given that, how are you intending to edit going forward? Black Kite (talk)10:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Black Kite. I was planning on proposing some restrictions based on this conclusion, but I'm afraid I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment. I concur that Sardeeph is NOTHERE. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
When I read this last night (well, in the early hours of this morning), I was thinking what we need is a boomerang block here - but I was getting too tired to rely on my judgment. I've seen User:Kautilya3 doing lots of good work in the India/Pakistan area over the years and dealing well with the troublesome partisan editors who turn up so frequently. I haven't looked at all of the diffs in that great wall of text up there, but I looked at some and I saw nothing wrong with them. I support a WP:NOTHERE block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I just want to add that I've examined this a bit more, looking specifically at the allegations that have been repeated. What I see is User:Kautilya3 and others thrashing out the arguments and feelings that were apposite at the time, which does not seem unreasonable to me, and not any personal animosity towards Muslims or towards Pakistan. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree - nothing in the above is actually "islamophobic" - it's showing the proper encyclopedic attitude towards sources that are possibly biased. The OP appears to be trying to run off the "opposition" which is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and shows they are not here for the actual purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have had my differences with Kautilya3 and had very heated debates in the past, of which I was almost banned twice. However, the allegations here against Kautilya are simply ridiculous. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems this discussion has devolved to me and there's been a total disregard of the diffs.
Perhaps Kautilya3's supporters would like to read some of his comments again?
1. No doubt the Muslims of Pakistan are still a threat to the Indian state. The jihadism only increased with time. The Muslims of Kashmir are still fighting the Indian state. In Hyderabad, Akbaruddin Owaisi is prone to declare war against all Hindus. So, Savarkar would seem to be at least half right. from [[104]]
A good editor @Vice regent: could see [[105]] what K3 supporters cannot
2. These Muslims might think that running around with guns is their birthright. We, in civilized world, don't think so from [[106]]
3. As far as I can see, compared to a lot of these states, Kashmir was a lot better. It had a Legislative Assembly, regular elections since 1934, with Muslim representation, even Muslim minisers (Mirza Afzal Beg was a minister before Sheikh Abdullah pulled him out and declared "Quit Kashmir"). I see that the position of Muslims got better during his rule. Even his army, which you are fond of calling a "Dogra army" parroting the Pakistani propagandists, was one-third Muslim. And almost all these Muslims rebelled when the time came. Yes, he supported the RSS. But the RSS was thought of by vast numbers of Hindus at that time as a necessary militia for defending Hindus. Given a state that was 80% Muslim, where vast numbers of Muslims were armed, militant, rebellious and even treacherous, from [[107]]
4. Here he expresses joy at the death of a person. A disgusting thing to do Do you think he was really holidaying in Kashmir, or was he gathering data for Pakistan? He evidently paid for his sins:
FREDERICK PAUL MAINPRICE. THE early death of Mr. F. P. Mainprice at the age of 35 from a sudden attack of poliomyelitis, which occurred at Rawal Pindi on October 28, 1950, is a great loss to all interested in the North-west Frontier of India...
Svsn his sockmaster friend Tyler could see what people here cannot [[108]]
5. Here he is busy discussing and not even disagreeing with someone who hates Islam The problem is Islam, not Hindu nationalism.VictoriaGraysonTalk14:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Same difference! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC) from [[109]] Sardeeph (talk) 13:51, 20 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
For a few months I and a few other editors have been dealing with issues related to 67.165.17.94(talk·contribs·WHOIS) including sockpuppetry, repeated insertion of erroneous information, and repeated insertion of unreferenced or improperly referenced content on articles related to elections and political parties on Wikipedia, and so far have been unable to bring a stop to such disruptive behavior despite attempts to direct them to stop. There's countless examples of this, but as an example, these include:
Insertion and restoration of erroneous information on articles
The latest incident involves the color of the Peter Pilz List – they keep attempting to restore what they call the "correct" color for the list, despite the fact that the light green used in the polling graph/article was literally my own arbitrary addition which I since realized was erroneous given that the party's paraphernalia is white/gray and it's mostly represented with white/gray in media sources. Despite this, they're insisting that that same light green is somehow the "correct" color – despite my acknowledgement that my own addition of light green on Wikipedia was in fact my error and that the party color is white/gray. (I've previously ignored 3RR in similar cases with this IP with the same justification that their edits were blatantly incorrect, despite their repeated attempts to restore them.) Mélencron (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6. All of the cases will be stale, but it might be worth looking at them and seeing if it quacks to you as well. RolandR (talk)19:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a group of teens on reddit who do this as a form of graffiti and time-sinks. Just teenage hi-jinks. Nothing to worry about. Nof9 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How about a topic ban on politics? It's obvious this IP isnt going to do anything useful there. TomBarker23 (talk)#~
I agree that some form of action needs to be taken as the IP is being repetitive and consistent in their disruptive edits. In fairness the edits to Bundestag today looked like good faith to me, but the information was overly simplistic and didn't take into account nuances regarding the demissionary cabinet and the official status of Die Blauen. The fact that they don't read their talk page makes me wonder if a topic ban would actually be noticed and acknowledged (as opposed to them just being confused as to why their edits are not being acknowledged). I suspect there's more than one person editing from this IP and would instead suggest the IP is blocked with editors at that address being encouraged to create an account. My experience with most colleges and schools is that IPs are blocked there and consequently I need to log in. Is there any way to determine whether this is a shared IP (internet cafe, school, college) or a home PC? Maswimelleu (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the article Donald B. Smith is causing this problem. Obvious WP:NLT is obvious, and Cbssport17 should have discussed this rather than making a threat. Possible WP:COI or WP:AUTOPROB here as well. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot use first hand knowledge and has to rely on what secondary sources have said.-♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I was trying to update the article with Smith's wife's death using his official county bio, through edit conflicts. I have also condensed the lawsuit material and added a second news source. There was no need for a threat at all, so silly. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't agree here. Cbssport17 removed the investigation info and replaced it with election info. here left a misleading ES not mentioning the removal. Jim1138 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that particular edit. That's about the upcoming election; I was trying to find results of the last one, which is what's encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hence I added that he was cleared. I don't want to overload the article with references to this matter, and I cut it back considerably on BLP grounds as well as pure UNDUE, but I've searched for references to the elections he's won, to use as counterbalancing refs, and haven't found any, just repeated statements that he has been reelected each time. I hope more experienced BLP/political editors will further balance the article. I just dove in. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: Yes, I'd noticed, since in 2013 that editor also uploaded a slew of images to Commons that I was getting up the courage to mass nominate as likely copyvio/inadequate licence: commons:Category:Donald B. Smith. The other Cbssport accounts either have not edited or seem to me to have no relevant edits. Maybe a lost password situation; to supplement your ping I'm going to message Cbssport7 on their user talk. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
All of their image uploads on Commons are now up for deletion, most of them in a group nomination. It's blatantly evident they were just uploading images they found on the Internet for most of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A downside; in that nomination, we're going to lose File:Sheriff Don Smith 14.jpg. This would be a correct deletion, as we can't confirm the provenance of the image. I'm quite certain it came from the U.S. Army, but I can't prove it. Also; regardless of the legal threat, it appears Cbssport17/Cbssport7 has a direct conflict of interest and is likely in violation of WP:PAID. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me tell you what's going on with this article. This is about a multi-term elected sheriff in New York state that is up for re-election this fall. The sheriff made false allegations against the local District Attorney, which resulted in lawsuits back and forth, covered in the press, ending with the sheriff making an abject apology for having made the accusation in the first place and retraction, covered in the press, and paying out $25K out of pocket, leaving the rest of the six figure settlement to country taxpayers (their insurance company). Now, reelection coming, this little detail is being scrubbed from the biography for political reasons. Here is what should happen: (1) This article should remain semi-protected through the election, because it is under attack from IPs for clearly political reasons; (2) CBSSports17 should be either topic-banned off this article or banned outright as wP:NOTHERE. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've corrected CBSSports17 to Cbssport17. I'm not one to change someone else's posting, but felt it had to be done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think a topic ban is necessary, as the account has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Even if they come back from that, it's clear they and their old User:Cbssport7 account are (a) single purpose accounts, (b) almost certainly have a direct conflict of interest, and (c) are quite possibly in violation of our terms of service, as laid out at WP:PAID. It's doubtful this editor is coming back from all that. We need to watch the article for sockpuppet/IP abuses, at least until the election is over. A topic ban won't help much in this case. IF they come back from the NLT violation, IF they come back the COI problems, IF they need and do comply with PAID, then yeah a topic ban might be warranted. Not now though. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The NLT block is easily ended by retracting the threat. It's a far stretch to call this a "paid" editor, it pretty clearly is a political actor, not a commercial actor. This account needs to be shut away from this topic, whether there is a standing NLT block or not. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether they are compensated for their contributions or not isn't my call to make. Should they come back from the legal threat, I will make sure they are given a {{uw-paid}} warning, as I believe there is a possibility they are being paid for their contributions. If they aren't, fine. Also, [110][111] broke the name again :( --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Reporting Gugi2001 for edit-warring and disruptive editing
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Problems started with a sweeping change by Gugi2001(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to the Enis Bytyqi article ( link) with the edit summary being "Correction!". It was full of issues: typos, broken grammar, unexplained removal of references, addition of broken links. For that reason, I reverted the change before successively implementing constructive changes from the user's massive edit (1, 2, 3).
Gugi2001's next revert ("Correction the apps and goals!") occurred another ten days later
Since then an IP editor has twice (1, 2) tried to reinstate Gugi2001's changes. I don't think it is too far a stretch to assume this is the same user: Gugi2001 last edited three days ago, the IP made changes a day later.
I realise I should probably have reported this much earlier, and to the edit-warring noticeboard. I am also aware of the fact that I reverted more often than I should have.
I am now reporting Gugi2001 here for multiple issues:
Edit-warring, at the same time lack of any communication, no response to attempts to discuss changes on Talk pages
Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
I am here to report Bachcell, an occasional editor who needs to be warned about inappropriately asserting his POV at talk pages and AFD. Some of my diffs may be older but Bachcell only edits maybe once or twice a month. However, during that brief time he expresses political beliefs and opinions almost never based on policy.
(Non-administrator comment): these aren't article edits, which is where we're concerned about POV. These are talk page discussions and deletion discussions, where we expect editors to have their own points of view about what is important. Having someone suggest that new guidelines should exist is not objectionable; that's where we get guidelines from. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Nat on this one. Those are venues where we generally expect people to have an opinion and express it. For AFD's its up to the closer to disregard and weight the !votes according to their backing in policy. As an aside, 'All politically motivated terrorist attacks are notable' is way down the list of 'stupid reasons to keep articles' as at least a politically motivated terrorist attack will have media coverage. Even the minor ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I think Bachcell's behaviour is of concern. Some of their behaviour suggests WP:NOTHERE namely "Treating editing as a battleground" and using Wikipedia for advocacy and propaganda contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. I'm not suggesting a block, but I think some of this behaviour is problematic and needs to be watched. AfD and other discussions are not for expressing personal opinions, but policy-based judgement. Also, accusing other editors of being "apologists" for terrorism is incredibly uncivil. AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I have also been active at this AfD. And I want to point that it is a highly POV AfD on a hotly disputed topic (the French authorities are widely accused by journalists and politicians of diverting the adjudication of possibly terrorism-related crimes by administrative rulings of mental health causation. This is also an academic conversation. As the article cited by Icewhiz puts it, writing about the case at this AfD: "when confirmed diagnosis were present, there was a tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether." What I am here to say is that there is a potential WP:BOOMERANG here because while Bachcell's opinion was POV, it is arguably not more POV than the TheGracefulSlick's nomination and AusLondoner's iVote, both of which make inaccurate assertions about the article, incident and sourcing that can be read as misleadingly POV. Not to mention the fact that this is one of a long series of AfDs by TheGracefulSlick that administrators have described as being WP:POINTy. Full disclosure, I have a POV on terrorism at variance with that expressed by GracefulSlick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That "article" was published by a military thinktank, E.M.Gregory. Please take those conspiracy theories elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we stop trying to make this about a petty content dispute? If anyone has issues with an AFD with a fully relevant nomination statement, take it to my talk page. If I was incorrect in believing Bachcell's behavior is problematic a neutral (preferably admin) user can close this. But consider this: Bachcell's inaccurate, often insulting, opinions taint neutral talk page discussions, and I am not the first editor to point this out to him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that WP:FORUM applies to edits such as this, and let's not forget that WP:NOT applies across the board, to all spaces, though not always in equal measure everywhere. An AfD doesn't run for much longer than a week, usually, so disruption is limited, as opposed to article talk pages. If I were closing an AfD like this, and I think I speak for most admins here, I would just utterly disregard that rather ridiculous post (we have enough conspiracy theories already) since it presents no argument based on policy. I am not sure that The Graceful Slick is making a good case here, but in principle, if this is what Bachcell does on Wikipedia, at some point there's been enough soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW apply to practically all of Bachcell's edits. I first became aware of this editor nearly 2-1/2 years ago because of their incessant fighting to add unsourced and poorly sourced incidents to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bachcell appears to be unable to unwilling to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, three "core" content policies. Sadly, personal attacks such as this one are typical of their m.o. I recommend a close perusal of their talk page, their contribution history, and a perma-block. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I am troubled by the fact that each of the editors arguing here for blocking Bachcell holds strong political views opposed to those held by Bachcell. When we humans find a fellow human's political opinions wholly inimical, we find it exceedingly hard to judge that individual fairly. I suspect that we are hardwired that way. But the arguments being made here would be more persuasive if this were not so politically fraught, and not being advocated by individuals with such strong political opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually E.M.Gregory you are the one trying to create a political divide here. I honestly do not give a damn about his political beliefs; he can keep them to himself. My complaint was filed in light of Bachcell's comments applying to WP:FORUM and creating a non-neutral atmosphere for discussion. His personal (often inaccurate and uncivil) opinions display a severe WP:COMPETENCY issue and motives beyond being here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it amusing, and sad, that there is complaining here about Bachcell «completely ignored the fact that the incident is considered a case of mental illness». This, by itself, is proof that this Notice is POV, and POINTy. Look: we have a professor at the University of Queensland saying that Dijon "followed in the wake" of "an Islamic State online fatwa in September."[1]. We have the University of Leyden's Terrorism Research Initiative Perspectives on Terrorism (Vol. 10 N˚2) saying «a series of strange “lone wolf” attacks followed on three consecutive days, the perpetrators declaring “God is Great” in Arabic. Three policemen were stabbed in Joué-lès-Tours, and vehicles were used to run over eleven pedestrians in Dijon».[2]. So look, people don't like the content of Bachcell's highly competent entry, vote for deletion on an AfD that results in no deletion, and then continue advocacy against Bachcell here at the Noticeboard, through other means. Perhaps I should point out I abstained from participating in the AfD from which the unfair accusations against Bachcell arise. XavierItzm (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Block Theats From Editors Who Consistently Delete Terrorist Articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia community should be concerned that this case of Bachcell's POV editing and E.M. Gregory clearly illustrates that now merely advocating that terrorist attacks and victims should be notable, not a matter of "not news" calling creating articles about terror attacks and opposing AFDs on terrorist attack articles "disruptive" and pointing out and naming editors whose primary contribution to Wikipedia as resource on terrorist attcks is to remove or minimize articles to eliminate one point of view when policy is a NEUTRAL point of view which balances two or more points of view is called "uncivil" can result in calling for topic block and Malik Shabazz is calling for a perma-block. I have avoided editing article contents because of constant threats and harassment. It used to be that disruptive editing of an article justified a block, now merely registering an opposing opinion and pointing out a pattern of disruptive deletions on AFD talk pages has editors calling for threats and blocks. Deletion of topics with wide media coverage does not support both views that incidents may or may not be terrorist in nature. It is remarkable that one editor who only once or twice a month registers a complaint merits this amount of action from TheGracefulSlick, AusLondonder, drmies, when it is the work of deletionists which threatens the quality of the encyclopedia on terrorism and crime topics. It is not a matter of "civility" to point out a pattern of deletion, what is uncivil is to threaten blocks and question RGW, FORUM, COMPETENCE when the matter at hand is to preserve information on terrorist and terrorist-like attacks which is certainly relevant to creation of an encyclopedia which is one of the leading reference works on terrorist attacks. The matter has come to such and extreme that editors are calling for blocks for merely opposing AFD and other deletionist activity on talk pages. E.M.Gregory should be recognized for the hero that he is for tirelessly contributing and defending content of great value to counterterrorist efforts against detractors who make it difficult for researchers to use wikipedia to understand the problem of terrorist and equivalent random mental illness attacks when they can't even find information as basic as the name of the girlfriend of the Las Vegas attacks gunman. Bachcell (talk) 14:25, 28 October 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 anonymous user from Australia with the i.p number of 121.214.123.72 keep reverting in the template insisting that the Indians are a 'nationwide' minority in Malaysia, despite they formed less than 1% in 2/3 of the territories in Malaysia.
To be exact, the Indians formed 0.3% in the Malaysian Borneo state of Sarawak (an area that sized 124,000km) and 0.3% in Sabah (74,000km), together with the east coast of the Peninsular - 0.3% in Kelantan (15,000km) and 0.2% in Terengganu (13,000km), collectively the areas formed 2/3 of the Malaysian territory. The Indians are smaller than the ingenious Bornean ethnic groups, despite they are also can be found nationwide. The map can be accessed below.
The situation in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo can be accessed this article from the local Indian POV and from the official release by the Department of Statistic, Malaysia, here.
The anonymous user agreed the Indians formed less than 1% of the population in these states, but he asserted that it is quite relevant to consider them as a nationwide ethnic group. But on the other hand, virtually all of the ethnic groups in Malaysia i.e. the native Bornean, Japanese, Koreans, Pakistanis, local-born Portuguese-eurations can be found throughout the country, this would led that every each ethnic group to be listed as a nationwide people, despite the fact that the schedule have a separate schedule for "region with a significant population".
The situation is similar to the indigenous Borneo ethnic group, despite they are larger than the Indians and can be found nationwide, they are only represented in the schedule in east Malaysia - a region with a significant native population - similar to how the Indians are only significantly found only in the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
This is a content dispute, and cannot be resolveded here. Discussion about it should be held on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk)
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 never reported anybody, as I do not like to escalate. But today is the day, because today my quite sleepy talkpage was suddenly bombarded by a few comments, that I consider openly insulting. Then I discovered it was not only about me. Sorry, if I miss some formalities, I'll explain as I can.
1) Personal attack. The user concerned, Ninjaoust, seems to have been very dissatisfied that I deleted quite insignificant and dubious addition to Romanization of Persian. So he created a sockpuppet and tried to insinuate me of lacking of civility on my talk page[121]. Then he saw it was not enough, and started, as an IP, to openly insult me[122]. Finally he decided to do formalities, and left a "warning"[123]. And again he could not help but indirectly insult me, that is he did what he tried to accuse me of. All three messages I see quite impolite and insulting. I am not sure whether it was the same person (need to be investigated, but the duck test is enough for me for now), or Ninjoust just campaigned his friends to do so. The latter would be even worse, as it would look like a deliberate group attack on me. In any way, I see such attention towards my persona as unnerving and such comments as quite unpleasant.
2) Sockpuppetry. As per above. I suppose I need to open an investigation?
3) Disruptive editing. As another user quite showed, Ninjoust is known for many disruptive edits, particularly creating and promoting hoax transliterations/alphabets.
I'm not sure what has to be done, I never reported on the AN. I just felt that it had to be reported. Insults I can stand, but issue #3 clearly has to be addressed some way. Of course, I could have talk to the user myself on this issue, but I'm hesitant. My feeling he won't understand and won't listen to me.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I can save a little time here. The sockpuppet is confirmed as Ninjoust's sockpuppet (no comment on the IP addresses). I've not blocked the main account yet - I would have gone for a short block, but I'll leave that for others to have a look at the alleged disruptive edits. Oh, and you should ignore the latest post your talk page, as that was someone else entirely. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this hasn't addressed the disruptive editing behaviour of the editor in question, nor the slow, but ongoing, content additions to multiple national anthem articles where there are no reliable sources for the anthems, and certainly no sourcing for the transliterations which don't follow any known universal system I'm aware of. Every time there's an edit, multiple IPs and other meat(?) come out to reformat the articles, etc. Since when is Wikipedia a circular source for anybody to translate a primary source in a language other than English (that's just the few instances where there is even some form of reliable primary source)... most particularly small language groups that can't be WP:V? That's all the stuff of Wiki Source, anyhow. I've been meaning to report this activity for some time, but just haven't had the energy. I can go on reverting until the cows come home, but the hub of activity keeps kicking in and I've reached the end of my tether. Apologies: I'm not trying to pout, but I'm going through chemo and my input has been limited recently (not in it for the sympathy, either !)... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 October 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.
Looks like Brown's page is now protected - maybe do the same for Connolly's for a week and see what happens. Hopefully they'll go away (I think it's half-term this week in the UK too...) LugnutsFire Walk with Me17:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Page has trolling contents by anti social elements who tries to insult the celebrities of this Movie.. Kindly unlock this which is locked by bot.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabu0 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not seeing any of what this user is describing, but there is pretty much constant vandalism over box office returns, among other issues, which has occurred despite semi-protection. Perhaps time to up the protection level? ansh66605:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the username has now been suppressed, and the block log shows to me as "11:22, 17 October 2017 Alex Shih (talk | contribs | block) (log details removed) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy)". Presumably only admins can see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
He/she also keeps adding entries to Deaths in 2017 in non-alphabetical order, despite being told not to. This person doesn't seem to interact and adhere to instruction.
It was created (innocently I would assume) using OneClickArchiver (a script that's a bit problematical as it's very widely used but there's no support for it at present). It's now redirected to the parent page, not by me but that seems like the best idea. WT:AIVis archived (so far only to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1). Our software etc doesn't handle his very well; Viewing the talk page archive now offers a Project page link that redirects back to WP:AIV. But that's probably adequate and best we can reasonably do right now. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Certainly there's cause for concern that User:他删之石 is not communicating with other editors. However, the part about adding the next day too early seems a very minor point. Yes, he's been referred to the FAQ, but the FAQ does not say "don't add a day before it has begun in the Eastern Hemisphere". It's a bit more equivocal than that. Further, when editing Deaths in 2017, there is nothing in the very long (longest I've ever seen embedded in an article) set of instructions in the comments at the top of the page...that says nothing about when to add a day. Also, if you directly edit October, such instructions are not displayed in the edit window because they're at the top of the page, not in each month. Even if you did copy the instructions to every month, an editor might not see them because they could edit day 19 and add day 20 without every seeing the instructions.
I took a look at Deaths in 2015, and that page has a page notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2015). There's also one for 2014 and 2013. 2016 and 2017 do not have one. Also, if you look at 2016#Deaths, it has "Main article: Deaths in 2016". That takes you to Lists_of_deaths_by_year#2016, where it has "See also: 2016 § Deaths" which is a circular redirect back to 2016#Deaths. Just a cursory review of this seems like how these pages are managed is a bit random and unclear to the outsider. I'm not surprised that 他删之石 at least appears to have not known when to add days. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair points, although the FAQ does say "A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere." That, in my view, implies "not before" the new day starts. But I agree that it can be made more clear. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The alphabetical order issue is now, in my view, even more problematic. In previous edits the user generally added new persons at the top of each day's list. In the latest edit [125], he/she added the person at the bottom, when it actually should have been added at the top... --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And that edit postdates the notice of this thread. @他删之石: you need to respond to this thread please. Ignoring this thread and continuing as you have before is NOT an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A few editors (not me!) have worked on an RfC about the use of Wikidata in infoboxes on enwiki (the previous RfC on this dates from 2013, since then there have been scattered discussions). For a number of reasons I feel it is rather urgent that this RfC is held, as a number of issues have surfaced (or been spotted) recently. I have posted my reasons at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft#Time to start phase 1 of this RfC.
What I would like is some experienced editors (admins and non-admins) going over the RfC question to make sure that the question is as neutral, clear and adequate as possible, and then when they are happy with it to post it. I prefer not to edit the actual RfC or if possible post it because I have a rather outspoken position and don't want the RfC to appear slanted before it has even started. I will obviously provide background and my opinion at the RfC, what did you expect? ;-) More info, if needed, can also be found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and its talk page. Thank you! Fram (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I can't file any SPI without knowing the sockmaster account. He says I am an old user who has taken special admin's (yunshui) permission to edit from this alternate account.@Yunshui:statesI would therefore appreciate it it if you would remove the claim that I have given you "permission" to edit from this account, since I have not done so. --MarvellousSpider-Man05:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% happy about the phrasing of the "permission" thing on their userpage, but KA$HMIR has now disclosed their former account to me via email - they are not under any sanctions, have not violated the multiple accounts policy, and are using this account in line with the privacy provision of WP:SOCKLEGIT. I've therefore unblocked the account. Yunshui雲水13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Natural gas is a Chinese invention. Fascinating story, well recorded contemporaneously in the West, but China was exploiting and even drilling for natural gas centuries ago.
The "invention by country" categories are a problem. They're a magnet for nationalistic trolls. They're unworkable per WP sourcing rules, I favour deleting the lot. But as that isn't happening (CfDs passim), we're stuck with trying to agree criteria for them via Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology#National_invention_categories. Fruitlessly as yet.
Today they reply, with a TL;DR wall of text (dumped needlessly onto my user talk too). But this isn't about what they think (or what I think), it's about what consensus has landed at - and for the country invention cats, we're using (and have used for a long time) a definition including both inventions and discoveries. So China is there for natural gas.
When reverted, they (unsurprisingly) edit-war, but then start getting nasty and adding obvious untruths to unrelated articles. This was added by another IP, and I reverted it as either vandalism or extreme lack of clue (the 2015 final retirement of Avro VulcanXH558 was a massive story in UK airspotting. It did not fly again in 2016, it is not flying again this year.). To re-add such a thing isn't about content accuracy, it's just trying to wind me up personally. See ANI above. I am tired of this sort of rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
TL:DR!?!? @Andy Dingley: I am insulted that you didn't read. It's not a "wall of text" it is reason explained! I took the time to vebosely explain to Andy Dingley the difference between discovery and invention and how in the context of technology there may be some confusion. I suspect bigotry, and I don't think that Andy Dingley is unique as a bigot against Wikipedians who choose, for one reason or another, to edit without formally registering for an account. The fact of the matter is whether if it's Jimbo Wales, an unregistered (AKA IP editor) or a rabid turtle that submits edits, all edit submissions should be judged on their own merit.
I read all of your vast screed (which you have dumped in three places) and found it equally confused in all three. You seem to think that being "natural" prevents natural gas from being an "invention", thus not belonging in the category. As you have been told repeatedly, it is included there as a discovery, not as an invention. This is our established practice for these categories.
I agree with you, it is better if I read your screeds rather than ignoring them; and so I do so. That does not make your inability to express yourself concisely any better.
I object to being termed a bigot and I see that as another personal attack from you today. In particular, none of my reaction to you as an IP has differed at all from how I would treat you as a registered editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User blocked for that unwarranted attack. And suffice it to say this behaviour reminds me strongly of a particular user who disrupts national invention/discovery categories and casts aspersions as to the racial motivations of editors who revert them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
There are so many disruptive editors focussed on national invention categories (one of which is from the same geographical area as this editor) that I simply can't think which one of the many candidates it might be. But they're usually trying to include the tenuous, not exclude the obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't check WHOIS or geolocation before blocking, calling people "deficient" and "bigot" is enough for me. The one from the same geographical area as this user is the one this reminds me of, though I haven't seen him edit from this city or this ISP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy for the IP's position. (I don't know whether it's literally true, but the point is still valid even if Lincoln didn't say it “No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”) If we have a category that's demonstrably incorrect, we ought to fix it and not castigate people who make the "mistake" of assuming that words have meaning. How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? It's tiresome to have to explain to readers that what Wikipedia means by notable isn't what is meant in general usage but at least those terms are close enough that confusion is understandable. If we now have to explain to readers that "inventions" doesn't really mean "inventions", we are reducing our own credibility.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a pretty well known issue that these categories are problematic, and yeah there have been discussions seeking solutions for quite some time. That's all well and good; I believe Andy posted a link to one of the recent discussions somewhere above. I don't necessarily agree that the "invention" categories also include scientific (or other) discoveries, and at any rate the treatment is highly inconsistent, but I believe Andy is referring to the various "list of fooian inventions and discoveries", in which inventions and discoveries are pretty much always lumped together. It's not optimal, it's confusing, and it's a mess, but none of that warrants calling someone a bigot because they disagreed with an edit you made. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Switch the status of the players and the outcome becomes "Yes, the remark was inappropriate, but they were in the right as to the content issue so let's forgive the remark. Some editors need to grow thicker skins." I am bewildered that the double standard is so hard for reasonable people to see. ―Mandruss☎20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? "
Literally, because one of the warring socks (the pro-German one) advocated it, and it seems the most workable approach. The set of most interest is the set of both inventions and discoveries, so we us that as our basis. If you dislike the category names as "inventions" alone, then that's a choice which has been made, possibly as a de facto, but it's how it is and there is no advocacy on the Technology or Inventions projects to change it. IMHO, it's better to have such a linguistic discrepancy (which isn't unusual) than to have an over-verbose set of category names.
For this specific case, it was explained on the Talk:Natural gas page a month ago (unresponded to) and trailed to the longer discussion on the project page. The IP editor was welcome to discuss that, but they didn't: instead they just kept arguing that the agreement simply wasn't in place and reverting regardless.
Finally I would ask people commenting (and I cannot understand what Mandruss is on about) to read this ANI post: it's not about this categories issue (ANI doesn't do content) it's about an angry editor switching to obvious vandalism to re-insert an unsourced and challenged untruth on an unrelated article. That's just deliberate disruption, and that is an ANI issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a new VPN IP: I was trying to submitted a minor edit to a wikipedia page and I got some error page. I reset my VPN connection and it worked. But, in hindsight I remembered seeing the word "blocked". When I check out the history of my previous IP it shows that @Ivanvector: has "executed administrative privilege" for an alleged attack. Let me be clear about two things: Firstly, let me be perfectly clear: my new IP was NOT a result of any attempt to circumvent an administrative ban and the edit I made was completely unrelated. Secondly, I make NO personal attacks! Please let me clarify: I call noone bigot! I specifically implied that it is possible that there is bigotry on Wikipedia and I honestly suspect this is so, but I don't know of any current specific examples! I explicitly stated that I did not think that Andy Dingley was a unique bigot who opposed so call "IP Users". I even explained on Andy Dingley's talk page that I, as a matter of practice, I assume good faith. (I clarified here that I, also, do suspect that not all act in good faith).
With regard to the article Natural gas, I thought it's clear that something that existed before humans could not have been invented by humans. I removed the "Chinese invention" category and not only made a note in the edit summary, but also explained on the talk page. Andy Dingley reverted my removal of the category they added without seeking consensus.
Long story short (maybe TL;DR?) If someone has an ally with admin privileges, it doesn't even matter right or wrong because the "IP" (derogatory for 'unregistered user') is going to get banned. --IPEditor (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 135.23.235.144 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Sphilbrick - I agree with you regarding the IPs position and I completely understand the frustration that the IP feels regarding this issue - no doubt. I mean, yeah, calling "natural gas" an invention (in a way) does seem silly, even perhaps ridiculous to some. While I do make civility blocks for repeated personal attacks and agree with the civility block here, that does not mean that I don't see their viewpoint and understand why people who are frustrated over things (such as this category usage dispute) and resort to such behaviors. It's when users come to a noticeboard and begin becoming overly combative that makes me feel that there's a line between this understanding and where we have a responsibility to put an end to combative and disruptive uncivil behaviors if it's clear that it will only just continue. As it is fair to see calling natural gas an invention as silly, it's equally fair to see someone's incivility, personal attacks toward others, and their combative response here and over something like a category placement on a page - as equally silly (and also disruptive, against policy, and when it will only aim a discussion that should be or was originally on the pathway to consensus - to hostility and destructive reasoning). This is where I believe that the line between being understanding of the IP's frustration and incivility and attempting to help and defuse the heated situation ends, and the responsibility we have to reasonably take action to enforce Wikipedia's civility policies and put a stop to open and combative behavior and allow the other editors involved to stop being sucked into a toxic discussion environment begins. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Then you, or the original IP, are welcome to discuss this on the Technology talk: project page, where I have been trying to tidy up these categories for months now, with little interest from others.
Is inventing the natural gas more or less inventive than inventing the concept of night market ? Instead of being shocked and defaulting into incivility, the IP should have taken this discussion seriously. Any more letter soup ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well natural gas exists (naturally) and does not need to be 'invented', as opposed to night market, whatever that is. I'm surprised (and worried) that you don't see the distinction. --Begoon12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
IMO, this is an invention: it's just that the invention here is the application of natural gas as a fuel source, rather than natural gas itself. "Natural gas" is just being used as a convenient shorthand for that. Seems reasonable to me. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂18:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Editor creating poor machine translations of French articles with no attribution
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
بلهواري محمد فيصل (talk·contribs) has created 22 articles, almost all if not all being very bad translations from the French Wikipedia. I posted details of how to fix this on the 15th, asking them to stop creating articles and fix the old ones first. User:Mathglot made a similar request in French. Unfortunately these requests were ignored. Two of the 22 articles have been deleted, one after the editor blanked it and the other as an expired Prod added by User:Cabayi. That one was prodded as gibberish, eg "He made a long journey towards consecration. They were very efficient and fought with a valiant heart and an exemplary correction. Today, the face marked by the trial and the challenge, he returns to the news of the ring that has so much capsized the hearts of Algerians." and "The Algerian pugilate had just discovered a charming slugger, a baby-face without any sprain. A headliner which raised a clamor to the rhythm of a December 1960. A euphemism that the legend has put back on the carpet after the famous fight Maxschmilling-Joe Louis before the Führer."
The longer this is left the more cleanup will be required. If anyone has a solution other than a block, I'd like to hear it. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk20:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to add the observations that their sole talk page edit so far has been this one which looks like a misplaced attempt at article creation. They have used no non-auto-generated edit summaries and have not yet appeared to be interested in communicating with other editors, despite attempts by others to communicate in English, French, and Arabic on their talk page. For whatever that observation is worth to any passing admin. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In the terms of the question as posed by Doug Weller, for the duration of ACTRIAL, stripping the user of autoconfirmed would have the desired effect BUT I don't think it's the right thing to do.
The user's contributions, though incomprehensible, are obviously well-intentioned. They are clearly the result of having insufficient grasp of English to polish up the machine translation, or even to spot that the machine translation is meaningless.
The user's failure to respond on their talk page is either a refusal to collaborate, or the result of insufficient English skills to realise that collaboration is required. The second explanation would seem more in keeping with the general pattern.
Stripping autoconfirmed and forcing (permitting?) the user to create drafts which are unusable and, on past experience, beyond rescue, is a cruel misuse of their time which could be better and more fruitfully used on the French or Arabic wikis.
Just for clarity, does that mean, "They appear to have now started responding on ar.wiki" or, "They appear to have previously started their editing pattern on ar.wiki?". Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the timeline, the poor communications, the unattributed copying, and the reported similar conduct on other wikis, I have blocked indefinitely. I thank Doug Weller for bringing this up. --John (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think there are grounds for simply deleting the articles created, but they are extremely badly written. I guess stub and there must be a template for the talk page about the translation? Doug Wellertalk12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Translated page. Basically: {{translated page|fr|<title in French>}} - if they are indeed translations from French Wikipedia. I started with the earliest and didn't see much resemblance, myself, although I didn't check for earlier versions of the French articles. Note that a regular cleanup tag, as I see being used on these articles, does little good and can lead to inaccuracies as people try to guess what was intended. The proper procedure is to report these in the rough translations section of Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English; there is a template to put at the top of the article and then you list it under "Translated pages that could still use some cleanup". However, raw machine translations are deletable, because they do more harm than good. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment This case is but a small drop in the larger bucket of editors using machine translation to rapidly create articles, each one of which may take conscientious translator/editors and administrators significant manual effort to clean up or undo. (Most of the time they are never cleaned up.) While there has been significant gnashing of teeth among translators about this issue in various forums including at WP:PNT, in the wake of the ContentTranslation tool debacle, the feeling among translators is, I believe, that this problem has not been sufficiently addressed yet by the larger community. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 mentions it but has an escape clause that makes it useless for all but the purest gibberish.) In my view, beyond the problem of article quality, the more serious problem engendered by the perceived lack of attention to this issue is the disillusionment among translator/editors leading some with relatively rare skills to abandon the project. This whole issue is a large one and if there is significant interest we should adjourn to WT:Translation to discuss it, but this seemed like an opportune moment to bring it up. Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Faulty grammar 'corrections', combative behavior from SoCal IP user
On August 18, this person was searching Wikipedia for the misspellings "whote" and "wite" for the purpose of correcting them. Thesetwo corrections are quite wrong, and they are within the first dozen edits.
The same day, TheOldJacobite started defending against a swarm of this person's poor quality edits at the Zero Dark Thirty article, eventually using 11 different IP6 addresses, all starting with 2605:E000:9161:A500 in the recent months (back in April it was 2605:E000:9152:8F00.) After ten days of the nonsense, Scribolt worked to repair the damage. Unfortunately, this IP6 editor has worn out the patience of the page watchers, and the plot section now suffers for it.
It's only today that I became aware of this editor when they attempted to fix the grammar at some music articles. When I reverted the poor quality changes, I noticed that they were immediately restored with hostile comments in edit summaries and on talk pages. I looked further and saw that this person has been spoiling for a fight at the Ishqbaaaz talk page at which Cyphoidbomb said, "In the future if you could avoid adding multiple edit requests as you did, that would be appreciated." The angry reaction by this person was to add 12 new edit requests.
If there is a protect on an article it is not my fault what means I have to suggested edits. I am not aware that every suggestion has to be acted upon. And the suggestion that has been repeatedly made by so many other WP editors was that a registered user name be established. Again, is it oir is nit not the policy of WP to not look upon non-registered user name participants as just as legitimate as registered who tend to be more long term users and editors of WP. This just goes to my original contention that there exists in WP a two-phere mentality particularly when it comes to contentious actions such as the matter of this board. That in the long run people who use registered user names are perceived differently than non-registered user named.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
At my user page, this person admitted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point when they wrote, "I always put something in to see just how unwelding can someone be about their position. Sometimes it is presenting a format out of kilter and sometimes it is a misspelled word."[138]
Please be advised that your characterization is incorrect. It was a test to better understand your personality and how it manifests. That is not the same as being disruptive but you are the status quo so I imagine that will have more influence that whatever position I could take.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think communication with this person could be focused more clearly if a rangeblock were set in place on 2605:E000:9161:A500/64, while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Thanks, Binksternet. Interestingly (to me), this appears to be the same person who has been busting Drmargi's chops over at Talk:Victoria (TV series), dropping voluminous diatribes that don't genuinely seem focused on arriving at an understanding, rather, it seems like they're stonewalling improvements by draining editors of their time with a lot of confusing, linguistic dick-waving. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me know when you have calmed down from your venting of anger because that language really is not even in an anonymous environment suitable. I would think that you as what I perceive your image to be portrayed as a seasoned WP contributor would know that. I hope you do not take this wrongly. Maybe, you had a bad week or day.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
For an example of which, see this thread on my talk page. After this gobbledegoop I took a look at some of the IPs edits, and reverted some of them, and the IP retaliated by making bullshit edits to an article I've done a lot of work on. This was 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6, the first on Binksternet's list.Thanks to Binksternet for chasing down the other IP numbers this person is using. They're obviously NOTHERE and should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I originally thought the editor was using a complaint letter generator to respond to Drmargi. I had second thoughts about that, but the language is so bizarre. It's like someone was trying to write lawyer-speak in their native tongue, then mechanically translating it to English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me understand if this is correct. I am being held responsible for the manner in which the technology works with WP in regard to how an IP address is recognized by WP? Because it is no great conspiracy on my part about how that functions. I enter the sight and whatever it recognizes it does on its own. I believe it is recognized by WP that users do not have to register to be a contributor? Or by the surprise about the number of "IP's" that this is not true? I have held on to this ability and now it seems I am being accused of being to proud and combative not to register a username? A review of actions by this board show that this trait seems to be prevalent with those that find fault with others. I recognize that within those that have a very high interest in WP find that a blasphemous statement but I cannot help what is prevalent and had no improved over the years despite WP stating that a contributor or even a user must register a username to be part of this community. There seems to be a cookie cutter app used by many at WP that seems to believe that registering a user name is the answer to the situation? How can on the one hand say it is official WP policy and guideline not to require a registered username yet on the other hand such as in this situation because of the technology of WP issue multiple IP's then turn around and say that there seems to be some thing wrongs with that many IP's? And it is merely the technology in motion? I guess there may be a finer point to this that you may be angry that this has happened? Again, that is not my responsibility and something I have absolutely no control. If there is anger about that it should be directed at WP's technology. But that may be immaterial as you all seem to be upset. And nothing will change that.Or is that going to be interpreted as a statement of being challenging to the status quo?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The complaints have been about your edits and your comments, not about the number of IP addresses used - those are presented simply so that a range block can be made to stop you from editing further, if that is the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion. And thanks very much for presenting precisely the problem with your language, which is nearly incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
sp suppose = supposed?(For the onlooker: the IP came to my talk page, quoted a 2 year and 4 month old comment I had made in which I had misspelled "security", and asked "sp securty=security?" Soon after the IP was making retaliatory edits to an article I've edited heavily.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting addition to this proceeding. Is that often done? Although he came from over the hill can never said that I found the man all that appealing. paranoid, yes. And to think that his "official presidential papers" will probably never be housed at his presidential library because of his legal problems. Now will someone else be adding a pic of Raygun?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I would find that someone saying the issue is totally over edits rather than IP's failing to recognize that within WP is an element that prides itself not on letting people function without registered usernames name but someone perceiving that the use of a registered username solves the problem at hand. Now this may have something to do with the availability of more experienced WP users using the app that uses canned language. When you combine someone's experienced as expressed on the pages that this person creates (not the articles) listing their accomplishment with this "command" as set forth by this canned language there does tend to be presented an air of authority. And as such wrapped around the content of that canned language that a registered user name somehow obliterates any perceived misunderstand is really someone not understanding the full impact of just what it is that they have done. Either you know that it is going on or oblivious to that fact which then calls question to your ability to evaluate and respond. Now, again, to the status quo that is blasphemous. There is a potential conflict there that you may not be aware that is going on and as a more advanced WP user you should just as you expect less expereicned WP users not to step on your toes. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's about your problematic edits and your combative behavior. The only thing a registered username would do in this instance is to make it slightly easier to block you. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Remember that you are speaking for the status quo. You see nothing wrong with your approach or behavior. Do you truly understand the impact of canned apps? The reaction makes it appear you see nothing wrong with the status quo? And again, bringing up that statement is to the status quo blasphemous. How dare you say that there is something wrong with us when we are the authority>2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me understand this, Zero Dark Forty is faulty despite when the original issue was raised another editor complimented the tight expression? Could you recognize the inherently wrong direction the plot was going before its current status? Can it be recognized that when someone does not understand the context of a subject many times puffery makes it presence. The excess of detail shows that many who worked on this plot before could not wrap their understanding around how understanding the non-westerners was the means to understanding the plot of this film and getting rid of puffery. But instead all this other stuff that is detail, something experienced by the westerners and thus understandable was getting in the way to a -700 word plot. When the issue was raised about plot content another WP editor praised the tightness of the expression. All the detail was there to be used but not the detail that would give a -700 word plot. What was being missed was the experience through the non-western eye. At one time in the plot there was expressed in the same statement that someone was being followed yet were not identified as a suspect although it was clear that they traced the person all the way from being in a position to receive and send messages and being at the compound. Yet all this stuff about spy-craft puffery emerged without getting to the point that cultural and personal habits were key to getting a -700 word plot. If you are unwilling to accept that the approach taken is not the best yet when someone else insists it is there fault for you being upset? It seems that all the responsibility is being placed on the newbie instead of the more seasoned WP user relying on the canned apps. It sounds like there is a serious culture problem within WP as how to approach people. But then again, in the land of status quo, that is blasphemous. You get reprimanded for that. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment - took a look through the ranges and it doesn't seem like anyone else is using 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 or 2605:E000:9152:8F00/64, so a rangeblock on both should hopefully put a stop to it. That said, I'm not going to do it since...well...I don't know how yet, among other reasons. ansh66606:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
A review of dealings with even suspected sock puppies etc seems to bring people out of the woodwork as if there is some conspiracy to undermine WP. Just because the internet is the love of those that love anonymity does not mean that they are set out to act against anyone's interests and to have postulated that thought is just part and parcel to the other forms of character assassination used at WP.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not my responsibility how WP technology works. You do not seem to accept that? And how do you base you assessment? Perception because you certainly have yet to provide except through that one action naturally would have followed thr other. I know that will make you upset but that is not my responsibility. Do us a favor in d=these discussions. Show up to give examples rather than mere mud throwing. Your other compatriate have done that well enough. We do not need people to come out of the wood work and using these avenues to vent anger only shows how bsse one can be in an anonymous environment. It is not as if you as my neighbor show up at a community meeting to say to my face what is it that you feel is the problem. Venting anger is really counter productive to these presumably civil and courteous proceedings. You have failed the mark. Would you like to return to your venting to clarify what you can cite as examples of support?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Without commenting on the validity or need for a block, it seems like a rangeblock for 2605:e000:9161:a500:0:0:0:0/64 would take care of this. Based on edits since Sept. 1, 2017, this was the only (or at least primary) range used. Edit: Looks like Ansh666 beat me to the punch. See their comment above. EvergreenFir(talk)07:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Our brief user talk interaction[140][141] seems relevant to this thread, as it goes to the IP's mind-set vis-a-vis collaboration. I don't feel my request was unreasonable - your mileage may vary. ―Mandruss☎08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess now I am going to ever be the more contentious because WP's forms are not user friendly? On the one hand I am deemed incompetent and yet on the other competent enough to do what is wanted by the status quo. WP really needs to determine just what it want to achieve. Slapping the person on one side of the face is not productive for having done something and then slapped on the other for not having done something?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Since they are still doing their so-called grammar edits, all of which have to be checked to see that they haven't added errors where none existed (or substituted new errors for old ones), a block sooner rather than later would be good. They are a time sink, and it doesn't really matter whether they are incapable of understanding people's advice and pointers to policy, or if they merely choose to ignore what other editors say. The non sequitur answers here don't help. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The underlying situation here is that when it comes to blaming someone that usually goes toward the lesser experienced WP participants because the status quo is unwilling to let WP's reputation faulter. Just now, I have found that a seasoned WP editor justified their reverting of a grammatical correction that I made based on the wrong assumption that I had imposed a spelling error when in fact if that editor had reviewed what had been done before hitting the revert app they would have known that I had nothing to do with the misspelling of "released". Just as it has been said time and time again within this forum, WP is not a place for innovation and even within other discussion on this very page it has been said that actions have been taken to protect WP, not find the truth but protect WP. This is what comes from an organization that promotes ONLY from within. Talk about stifling debate. But then that is a blasphemous statement coming from the non-status quo. All the dancing that the status c=quo wants to do will not change that perception.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I get the idea from the latest immediate attention to edits I have made that I am not welcomed but at least get off the auto revert app and read what is it that you are reverting especially when you reintroducre misspellings.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Mark, you are indiscriminately reverting everything without regard to what has been corrected which includes the misspellings that you reintroduce. I am suppose to present a defense dealing with these bizarre personalities? The guy trhows at me the 3r rule in response to him indiscrimately reverting as if the world is coming to an end. Boy, it really does not take much to ruffle the feather in this pillow case. This is so bizarre and you all call yourself sane. Well, that explains one missing glue bottle.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2605, the Wikipedia project's goal is supposedly to give everyone in the world an encyclopedia in their own language, but for some reason the English Wikipedia has almost(?) as much content as the rest of the world's language's Wikipedia's put together. Meanwhile, the other languages are badly underrepresented so we're missing our goal of serving the readers of those languages. Could I suggest that if your native language is not English, that you contribute to your own language's Wikipedia? That way you'd be helping the global Wikipedia effort in a way that monoglot English speakers (most of us here) cannot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that turned into a circus. MarkSewath started reverting all the gnomish work that the IP6 person had been performing, with the reverts speeding along at about nine per minute, a speed which makes it impossible to see if you are helping to build the encyclopedia. Mark also accused the IP6 person of being a sockpuppet of Gabucho181,[142] which seems unlikely to me. Callanecc then blocked the IP for two days, which raised a storm of righteous protest from that person, and 90 minutes later Yamla revoked talk page access. To me, this action does not address the core concern which is that our IP6 editor from SoCal is a boorish timesink, making an unknown number of faulty changes to grammar and spelling, and provoking conflict in every interaction with other editors. The style of Gabucho181 is completely different than that. I would be happy to see a block placed on the IP6 range while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this is not Gabucho181. Gabucho181 is located in South America, does not respond with wallsoftext, and does not have this level of English proficiency. Moreover, Gabucho181 likes to troll directly, antagonizing users and purposefully vandalizing pages. They perseverate typically on cartoons like Dan Vs. or Gravity Falls and have not been known to make grammar changes like this.
Goodness. I read this late last night and there were a couple comments, now it's all taken off. I'm not sure there's much I can contribute other than putting a few thoughts on the record just in case they may be needed in future. My encounter with the now-blocked IP was at Victoria (TV series). In its first episode, a court lady-in-waiting is forced to undergo a gynecological exam by court physicians when the Queen is lead to believe the lady is pregnant by an adversary of the Queen. Despite the fact the lady had no choice in the matter, and events followed which portrayed her as submitting under force, the IP removed the word force from the episode description, claiming that absent physical force in the manner of slaves, she wasn't forced to undergo the examination. I provided the Oxford dictionary (given this is a British show) definition of force, which includes action against will, and he let loose the dogs of war in a series of walls of text that are substantively unreadable. He adopts some lawyer-esque strategies that lead me to think he's either a para-legal worker of some sort or perhaps a law student who knows just enough to be dangerous: everything is on the attack, but at it's heart, simply says, "I'm going to limit the definition of force to a specific sort of physical force, and preclude the description of what happened to Lady Flora as force." As I noted at the time, this materially alters the motivation for the sequence of events that followed, and mis-represents what was done to the lady. His response was simply more words, and the addition of two additional threads picking at additional verbal nits.
My thanks to Cyphoidbomb for his help. I was told this might be an IP from the UK (despite the geolocation to the U.S., the IP uses some British English) who has argued against similar assaults on women, but apparently, that's not the case. Cyphoid stepped in when I hit a wall trying to get the issue resolved once it became apparent the IP was not discussing in good faith but simply playing word games. I'd also add, BMK, that User:2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 made one post in the thread, but the rest came from the IP above. Oh, and whoever thinks he's an academic, not on your Nelly. I'm an academic and this guy isn't playing in anything like the same pool. Oh, and one last odd thing: depending upon which geolocation site is used, the IP resolves to either Los Angeles County or Herndon, Virginia via Time Warner Cable. There's probably a reasonable explanation why, but I suspect he's actually in VA, since that location is more precise. ----Dr.Margi✉18:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmargi:: Thanks, I realized my error some time late last night, after the IP had been blocked. I also agree that when I went through Gabucho181's LTA page last night, it didn't seem much like this IP's behavior at all. Still, the IP did need to be blocked as an obvious troll and a timesink, despite the small percentage of their edits which were helpful. A net negative for sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the person's tendency to prefer British English, I believe this comes from learning English in India. Many of the articles that interest the person are related to Indian culture. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny you say that; I suspected the same thing just based on his syntax and word choice. ----Dr.Margi✉20:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Can someone check into WP technology to understand why is it that I am bale to edit? I would not want people to think that I have somehow cracked the system. This is how I have access WP all along with all the varied assigned IP's. See Mark--no conspiracy.2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You truly do not get it? I am doing absolutely nothing differne than in the past several months when editing WP. I go onto the website and this is what happens. It issues me a new account with a clean contiubtions list page. You make it out to sound as if I hav cracked the system. WP needs to lok ointo their syetm because there is a failure! Are you all conspiratorical idiots?
As the user is evading a block, I have applied a /64 range block for the same length of time as the block on the single IP address. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I was a latecomer to this, I’m afraid; the block evasion was obvious so... Having looked at this wall of text more closely, I see that the user has been disruptive and a block is warranted on those grounds. No comment on whether this is Gabucho181. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S. A note for those who reverted this user’s edits here for ‘evading a block’, the block had in fact expired at 12:45 today. Nonetheless it was further disruptive behaviour hence the further 72 hours rangeblock (which expires on 15:18, 12 October). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I read about this "discussion" on the internet and could not believe that it was true; is the proper way that Wikipedia deals with people that it feels are threat? That seams rather limited in your scope to exclude someone from defending themselves and at the same time being label contentious. It would seem that if you accuse someone then you have to leave the system open for rebuttal.76.169.36.143 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Rangeblocked cannot edit other ranges vandalizing originality Gabucho181 like vandalism, block evasion and trolling account. --MarkSewath (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
MarkSewath has been CU-Blocked so I guess we can discount his input here. That does not resolve the IPs disruptive behaviour however. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To the blocked IP: You are laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. When an editor is blocked, if they have an account, that account is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are using a single IP, that IP is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are what we refer to as an "IP-hopper" -- that is, someone who is either deliberately or through the action of their ISP-provider, using a different IP every time they log on, then a range-block can be applied to mechanically prevent IPs in a particular range from editing. However, the block is not for the specific account, IP, or IP range, the block is for the person doing the editing, which is this case is you. If, through no fault of your own, or by your deliberate machinations (it doesn't matter which), you are able to log on and find that you are not mechanically prevented from editing, you have a moral obligation not to take advantage of that situation. That is, you, yourself should restrict yourself from editing.
Now, if you are actually interested in helping Wikipedia, you will follow this restriction, because by evading your block (which is what editing when you're blocked but not mechanically prevented from editing is called), you risk longer sanctions, up to and including eventually being banned from the site, in which case any edit you make can be reverted at any time by any editor regardless of its value. If you want to participate here, you must honor your block.
If, however, you're only interested in trolling and being disruptive, one of the best ways to show that is not to honor your block by continuing to evade it simply because there are holes in the system. You may believe that it's our responsibility to physically prevent you from editing when blocked, but it's actually your responsibility to show the Wikipedia community that you value being a part of it enough to follow the community's rules and policies.
So, the ball is entirely in your court. I have no doubt that you can continue to find ways of editing here illicitly, but by doing so you are sending a gigantic "Screw you" message to every editor here who endeavors to follow the rules to the best of their abilities. Such behavior will inevitably end up with your being banned, either by name or by description as a "Long Term Abuser." It may take a while, since Wikipedians are notorious for being fair-minded and giving editors many more breaks than I, personally, would give them, but it will happen.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is a question that is best answered by those that offer their dick-waving to support those that accuse others of their dick-waving as so expressed by Cyphoidbomb. Personally, I find it impossible to dick-wave or even come close to it having been the end result of baying for blood that comes from the civil disturbances that have been experienced in Africa. Gender-reassignment is just a continued inconvenience to make things look pretty as the human mind is probably the last that we will truly understand what caused hurt that has no scare.
And then there are the countless who say that they never said anything. And that statement is absolutely true--they said absolutely nothing about how inappropriate some expressions used to thrust their accusations into the minds of others. Does WikiMedia want its subordinate bodies to reflect so badly upon the mother organization and its corporate sponsors. I guess there is a wisdom to having an organization of volunteers that no one person has to take responsibility for letting things get out of hand and making it adamantly absolutely that slights of character assassination are not appropriate forms of logic that weight the course of the organization. And that an organization that is unable to let stand the irritant of a paper cut so that people do not have to be mindlessly sacrificed.
So much for those that offered themselves up as the greatest accumulation of the human mind since Dr. Frankenstein; and the other part that allowed themselves to be welcomed into the fold without overt declaration. But information that evolves from boasting is so much easier to find its own faulty base. Maybe, you all were not expecting that is how the cards got played. Let us hear it again from those that prefer emotion.2605:E000:9161:A500:4916:5F95:A9A5:D8C8 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You wouldn't be the first libertarian dick waver to point out how embarrassingly easy it has been for rancid libertarian front groups to convince those on the Left that the event is fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups [who stand] in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in. What hasn't been revealed until now, however, is how the libertarians got so good at waving their lefty leaning dicks to fool earnest leftists, liberals and hippies into supporting their cause. If you really believe that this failed encyclopedia project is about promoting freedom and humanitarianism, you're going to be even more disturbed by what libertarians had to say about conning liberals in their more unguarded moments. A paradox most libertarians (if not all) are acutely aware of is the gap between the self-evidence of libertarianism, on the one hand, and the difficulty of communicating it to nonlibertarians on the other hand. The fact that the free market is the only economic-political system which makes human existence possible—as human existence—seems to be very easily demonstrable. But alas, the sheeple are too thick to grasp what a wonderfully liberating experience the free market offers to non-millionaires, since by its very definition, libertarian politics will never catch on with a public brought up on majority rule—not unless you trick them as the Wikipedia cabals (oh, but there is no cabal you whisper out of terror for the dread dark winds behind your back) have been doing since time immemorial (or since at least 2001). Vedicant (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion
Somebody using IPs from the east part of the UK (around Norfolk) has been disrupting film articles for more than a year. This person edit-wars about the country of production as listed in the infobox. The vandal is currently blocked as Special:Contributions/94.185.135.206 and globally blocked as Special:Contributions/81.106.30.36, but many more IPs are involved. A fine selection of IPs showing the pattern of multiple reverts may be seen at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World – a film article that this person keeps returning to.
In August, this person edit-warred from France using Special:Contributions/46.218.99.78. Later that month they returned to the Norfolk area.
So the question is how do we stop this person? A a handful of rangeblocks could be set in place but there would be collateral damage, I think. Any ideas? Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You aren't going to be able to use rangeblocks here. These are BT Broadband ranges, the biggest provider in the UK. Even blocking a /24 would have collateral and as you can see these aren't on the same /16 (or even the same /8!), let alone /24. They're also very dynamic - my BT IP flips around all of those 81x and 86x ranges as well as a couple of others. If the vandalism has a set pattern I'd suggest an edit filter at WP:EFR. Black Kite (talk)20:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
As a UK person, I know geolocation does not work in the UK - all you get is the location of the ISP office, not the editor. My IP would suggest South London, when I'm in North Lancashire. Ronhjones (Talk)21:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends on the website used, the provider, and the type of connection. The two used on the Geolocate links on IP talk pages are this one, which has my current IP spot on to a couple of miles, and this one, which is 200 miles off. However if all of those IPs above are (or were, as they're dynamic) coming up with a similar location, it's probably likely to be fairly accurate. Black Kite (talk)22:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
A minor aside, but both the links you provide are hopelessly inaccurate for my IP. One is 60 miles out, the other is 150 miles out. --DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Targeting specific, anonymous vandals can turn out to be impossible. Have you thought about adding some protection to the recently vandalized articles? Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, BT customers are often allocated IP addresses from a large pool of /23s and /24s. You certainly can't range block a /16 from a BT, but these smaller ranges are sometimes clear of collateral damage. At a glance, 86.157.160.0/23(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 86.157.161.0/24(talk·contribs·WHOIS), and 86.157.135.0/24(talk·contribs·WHOIS) look like him. 81.156.136.0/23(talk·contribs·WHOIS) looks like him, too, but it's stale. The others are harder to nail down, but they're likely /24s. I guess if it keeps up, I could probably do a series of range blocks. The problems I see are that 1) he doesn't seem to edit all that often (only on two days this month so far?), 2) it could potentially take a large number of range blocks to even be useful, and 3) page protection might be a better choice if specific articles are being regularly targeted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
What NRP means here by 'collateral damage' is not that range blocks wouldn't block a large amount of IPs, it means that there is little editing currently in those ranges. As NRP points out, to be effective you would need a number of range blocks covering a huge amount of potential IP's given the UK ISP's method of allocation. And BT is more problematic than most, given how often it changes around its broadband allocation (on a whim sometimes). We don't really want to be blocking indefinitely huge amounts of IP's just because currently there is little activity. We arnt talking a school block here. Some form of edit filter would be better if possible, if not, its something that might need to be lived with until the point where ENWP makes it compulsory to register to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
More to the point, BT Broadband operates on the principle of every subscriber's router being available for every other subscriber to use if they're out of range of their home router, to create seamless nationwide wi-fi coverage, so provided you switch your home router (to which your system will default) off, your IP address will literally change every few seconds. A workable rangeblock on a BT range means knocking out the entire country. ‑ Iridescent09:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha, I forgot about that 'feature'. Makes successfully prosecuting software pirates in the UK impossible (if you are a BT user). 'Wasn't me guv, was someone else using my wifi innit'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Won't XFF filtering/targetting work here if BT can be persuaded to come onboard ? Or has that 2013 program been abandoned? Nof9 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not a proxy system. Nor does it work quite as described by Iridescent. You can only connect through BT routers within range, which is typically a small number if you are stationary. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Well, no promise was forthcoming; but we're not at school (most of us!) and actions speak louder than words. 184.X has not edited for the last few hours, and probably knows that a return to previous form will be noticed very quickly. There being no longer on-going disruption, this report can be withdrawn as no longer needing action. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna17:35, 21 October 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.
With unwarranted uw-vandalism templates (see total contributions) in violation of WP:OWNTALK. Warned- with a personlaized explanation- but only response is to blank the page. Also fine of course (and ironicaly they clearly feel free to do what they won't let others do!), but their lack of willingness to communicate makes a noitceboard inevitable. AIV perhaps? Meh, "not blatant vandalism" would be a 50/50. — fortunavelut luna14:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If you promise to stop templating Users @The Diaz and Bitmapped:, this can be closed with no action. But you should understand why your actions have been perceived as they have been: the same right that you have to blank your page of user-warnings applies to all. — fortunavelut luna14:55, 21 October 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.
Done feel free to update the page again using your source (assuming it is reliable) in your own words and giving reference credit. — xaosfluxTalk16:34, 21 October 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noticed two edits from IP user 216.186.156.207 (who has two total edits) containing vandalism. First is on Ben McAdoo from 26 September 2017 with addition of "He is by far the worst head coach in NFL history." (Edit has since been undone.) Second is on Mark Carlson (umpire) from 18 October 2017 with addition of "He's an awful umpire who MLB tasked to fix game seven of the American League Championship Series." (I undid edit.) User clearly intends to use account to vandalize as evidenced from 100% of edits containing vandalism. I do not know how to take action as I am not a regular editor but I feel the need to mention it to somebody who knows what they're doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillmanlanyi (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Since it was obvious vandalism, I gave a warning to the IP. See WP:UW and WP:WARN for information on how you can do this yourself. Warning templates go from level 1 to level 4, and normally must be issued in order. If the editor keeps making disruptive edits past the fourth warning, you can make a simple report to WP:AIV, where a passing administrator can issue a block. Usually it's much more convenient than a full-blown ANI report. Thanks for letting us know! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the past few days, an anonymous user (or users) posting from a range of IP addresses (listed below) has reverted at least one article with prior consensus, and claimed that volunteer editors are secretly being paid by me (a disclosed paid contributor) to approve changes I have proposed on talk pages, among other lesser and equally spurious charges. To be very clear, these allegations are false, without evidence, and disruptive to normal processes.
Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel and a current client, where the IP has derailed an edit request I posted just yesterday; see Talk:Brian Krzanich
As purported evidence, the IP editor points to rather unhinged threads on Reddit's WikiInAction, including here and here. Finally, the IP editor also has a similar argumentative style and claims that my work violates EU disclosure laws as did the indef'd Inlinetext, who had previously tried to derail my proposed edits to the Mandell page in April (see here) although I have no way to know if there is in fact a connection.
Here are the IP addresses that have so far engaged in this behavior:
I (quite purposefully) do not spend much time at AN/I, so I am not quite sure what to do here. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Response : I am not connected to what is published on Reddit. I am not IP 103.xxx or the other user he has named. I have strong objections founded in policy to the way WWB_Too is conducting his paid editing business by using unsuspecting Wikipedians who insert his content in good faith. I agree with the Reddit poster that User:GabeIglesias was paid to insert content on behalf of WWB_Too after all established editors avoided doing so. Such behaviour on Wikipedia only demeans the article subjects and highlights that they are using paid editors to overcome the strong anti-paid editing sentiment of the ordinary unpaid volunteers who are the backbone of this movement. If at all I am to be blocked, let DocJames block me. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Think this is yet another example of a Public Promotion company subcontracting WP editing to a cheap Indian firm. Block IP range. Aspro (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What exactly are you implying here ? Which is the Public promotion company ? Who has subcontracted WP editing to a cheap Indian firm ? Which is that cheap Indian firm ? These are serious allegations designed to belittle editors of Wikipedia who opt not to open accounts. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on beyond simple harassment of a disclosed paid editor, but I merged the new draft for Brian Krzanich's article, after making a couple of content changes to maintain some controversial yet noteworthy information. My comments are on the talk page. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no harassment of WWB_Too. Apparently he used an undisclosed paid editor to insert his paid content draft on Robert A. Mandell which another IP 103.30.143.51 objected to and reverted. Are we to assume that it is now policy that drafts suggested by disclosed paid editors can be directly inserted into articles without achieving consensus on talk pages first ? Do such drafts by disclosed paid editors get some special status under policy ? If so, why not just handover all editing activiy to paid editors so that unpaid volunteers can all go home. Also, I am an Intel stock holder and I would like to know if Intel is indulging in such kind of manipulative activities on Wikipedia ? 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I will let the smart people address all this talk of servers and whatnot. In the meantime, I reverted the IP and reinstated the new/merged version of the Krzanich article, with thanks to timtempleton. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment - No. As presented at WP:DRN, it was a conduct dispute involving allegations of undisclosed paid editing. DRN is not a forum for such disputes. WP:COIN is, and this noticeboard is. The thread at DRN was closed as a conduct dispute. Besides, DRN does not accept disputes that are also pending here. Deal with it here (or don't deal with it). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh really. And you just happened to be passing through India when you decided to troll and harass editors here. Your easy familiarity with the Wiki suggests to me that you have history here; do you have, or have you had in the past, an account here? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Is 'Oh really' a statement or a question ? Yes, I just happen to be travelling around India just now. No, I did not decide to troll and harass editors here. I have no history here. As a Wikipedia administrator surely you have complete access to Wikipedia's history records from which you can answer your own questions (which in any case I am not obliged to respond to under very strong EU privacy regime). Instead of throwing around terms like "harass", "troll" and "disruptive" why not address the issue of how Wikipedia administrators see Wikipedia's European readers are protected against ghostwritten paid content on Wikipedia articles. Why is there no in-article disclosure under WP:COVERT, or are we Europeans expected to go about reading user and talk pages to discover commercial affiliations of American content writers ? What is the evidence for this paid editor's mischievous allegation that I am associated with Wikiinaction ? What is the evidence that WWB_Too is acting on behalf of Brian Krzanich (as distinguished from Intel) ? For regulatory anti-trust reasons I flatly state It is not conceivable that Brian Krzanich has authorised WWB_Too to rewrite his Wikipedia article. It is a very serious issue for Brian Krzanich if he has done so. Accordingly I state that WWB_Too is lying if he states he is acting for Brian Krzanich. If other admins like "Drmies" (who never went to law school to understand the issue I highlight) are now openly inserting paid edits from Mr. Krzanich by "demanding cuts" and "at least a week in the condo on the Gulf Coast" from the paid editors, it is a serious issue for us dour Europeans. In case of Mr. Krazanich (BTW did I mention I am an Intel stakeholder) I believe that the blatantly advertising text inserted is supplied by Intel (not Krzanich) via North of Nine Communications, and the copyright of the text probably vests in Intel. Accordingly, I had asked WWB_Too for a copy of all the contracts involved which he has refused to provide. Instead WMF's user "Drmies", who claims to to be a senior administrator / arbitrator (without a law degree), was induced to add Intel's copyrighted material against expectations of reward. Usually when "pump and dump" scams take place by rewriting Wikipedia entries it implies that the corporate behind it is in deep (usually regulatory) trouble. NB: "INTEL" is not listed by Nof9 as their client on the North of Nine Communications website, further evidence that WWB_Too is lying (or puffing himself up). 101.57.254.247 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a attempt by Intel's new PR company to misuse the Brian Krzanich article to spin doctor Intel's numerous controversies like his role in systematically using conflict minerals to lower costs till it became illegal to do so in 2010. Nof9 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I blocked this Nof9 user earlier (following "Probable impersonation and disruptive behavior by new user "Nof9"", below on this page), and they then proceeded to out me and accuse me of being on the take--for Intel, maybe, and I assume I get paid in those magic minerals. Oshwah cleaned up and removed talk page access. Anyway, these IPs mentioned above are worth keeping an eye on, since I think that this person spouting this idiotic nonsense seems to be obsessed. For the record I do indeed claim I don't have a law degree. Correctly! Drmies (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Evidence of an actual COI : (removed hat). The seminal issue is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Examples of Schleichwerbung (covert advertising) COI statements inserted by Intel into Brian Krzanich article are Intel removed conflict minerals from its microprocessors while Krzanich was in charge of the company's supply chain. He cited moral obligation as the reason to take action, and said the issue was "very important and personal" to him. Intel worked to use conflict-free minerals for all microprocessors by 2014 and all products by 2016, and Krzanich was included in the documentary film Merci Congo (2016) which have been protested by a sockpuppet of the banned User:Singora. In terms of WP:COVERT the article itself should prominently disclose to European readers that this commercially advantageous to Intel content originates from Intel, talk page disclosure is not sufficient for Europe. It is reiterated that Brian Krzanich/Intel cannot have authorised this for insertion into a Wikipedia article knowing it will be read in Europe by their consumers there, and Mr. Beutler is lying if he says so. Beutler's silence speaks volumes. 101.62.209.122 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
WP isn't subject to EU laws so give it a rest. Can anyone suggest what action's needed to resolve this? EEng 11:19, 21 October 2017
Wikipedia is subject to laws of each and every country where parties exist. If a Wikipedia reader in EU is deceived by stealth advertising inserted by Intel in USA, he can certainly sue Intel, WMF and WMF's users in his own country. Clause 13 of WMF's Terms of Use would be brushed off by any local court as standard boilerplate. Although the FTC is notoriously lax in the US, several EU member states act swiftly on private motions and EU courts impose hefty fines for deceptive commercial speech. Because the present case is a clear one involving stealth promotion where the CEO of Intel has "personally confirmed" the impugned text objected by IP 101.x for insertion into his Wikipedia article it is provably Intel's promotional content and not TimeTempleTin's. These basics are well known to IP lawyers in all jurisdictions, ex. US law professor Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown LawDo you know it’s an ad? Would a reasonable consumer understand that someone has been paid or rewarded to get this message to you? When you say it that way it’s immediately clear that Wikipedia is not different.” Tushnet predicted that a hypothetical FTC case wouldn’t be brought against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, but rather would be directed toward the entities that paid for the edits to be made.. Because the article does not make it clear that Intel has written and inserted those lines, expect heavy damages to follow to any EU'an who can show loss. Lawyer2018 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it curious that you are requesting Drmies who is the Wikipedia user who inserted the controversial text diff. Intel's controversial text restored by him is provably incorrect. Intel does not categorically declare on its own website (relevant link, link) that it only manufactures "conflict-free" devices and does not use "conflict minerals". Both these terms are highly qualified on Intel's website. What Intel actually says on their website is quite different from what their CEO say at semiconductor marketing conventions.
Important Note about the Limits of Due Diligence
Intel uses a process called due diligence in responsibly sourcing conflict minerals. The design of our due diligence process conforms to the internationally recognized guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and involves many steps, including gathering information from our suppliers about the origins of the conflict minerals contained in the materials they supply to us.
Due diligence can only provide reasonable – not absolute – assurance about the origin of the conflict minerals in our products. Because Intel is many steps removed in the supply chain from the mining of conflict minerals, we depend on supply chain information provided by our direct suppliers. We also rely on independent third party audit programs, such as the Conflict Free Smelter Program (CFSP), which audit smelters and refiners that process conflict minerals and identify those facilities that have systems in place to reasonably assure their products are "conflict-free". The information we receive from our suppliers may be inaccurate, and illegal acts like fraud or mineral smuggling could undermine the conclusions of independent third party audit programs and therefore the conflict-free conclusions made by Intel.
It is evident that the citations (low grade journals quoting Krzanich's own statements at marketing shows) supplied by Intel's paid contractor BEUTLER INK to support Intel's sales gimmick are deceptive, self-serving and that Wikipedia users like Drmies are not conflict-free either. Intel's PR agency should explain why contrary news stories from reliable news sources disputing Intel's conflict-free marketing hype have not been included. Lawyer2018 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The jester has a colorful blocklog so forgive him his ignorances. PC-World : Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules on the other (usually overlooked) Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart judgment of 2013. While Wikimedia does not have to check beforehand whether the contents of a Wikipedia article are true, it has a duty to check if somebody complains about the article and if necessary remove the passages, the court ruled. Wikimedia was ordered to delete the false passages. If it does not comply, a punishment procedure can be brought against the company, court spokesman Schüler said. Wikimedia Germany did not respond to a request for comment. 101.61.27.162 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Private aside
I get the block-log thing now and then so I have a canned response for it: You must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --
Last week I posted here about an IP editor who had been engaging in disruptive behavior on a few articles, including the biography for Intel's CEO, Brian Krzanich. As disclosed at Talk:Brian Krzanich, Intel is a client of mine through an intermediary PR firm, North of Nine Communications. Following this, Drmies and Timtempleton stepped in and the issue seemed to be settled. Now a new user account, registered only yesterday, has commented in the thread linked above (live here, until archived) and also in a series of confusing, argumentative posts at Talk:Brian Krzanich echoing those of the IP editor. This account makes some incoherent arguments about the article content, and accuses me of lying about Krzanich being a client, but the reason I bring it up is because the account name they are using is Nof9 which seems to me an obvious effort to impersonate North of Nine (whose website is nof9.com). If nothing else, this account can surely be blocked under WP:ORGNAME. I also suggest this article continue to be closely watched, as whomever is behind the chaos doesn't seem ready to give it up yet. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny timing, I was just finishing a response to this user at a deletion discussion I initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris, where the user is making a peculiar argument against BLP1E, then happened to see the same username in the newest entry on this page. There is rally strange editing history here, such as the seemingly disjointed nonsense text at User:Nof9/sandbox, which btw was the users first edit, then the afd, then this Brian Krzanich article. ValarianB (talk)
OK, we are dealing with ongoing disruption here. The arguments brought up on the Krzanich talk page and in that AfD are pure nonsense. Plus, and BU Rob can confirm this, there is...well, whatever we want to call it. Then there is the matter of the user name, of course: it is clear to me that a block per NOTHERE is warranted.
Now, lest it be argued that I have some sort of interest here, because I supported Timtempleton's edit on the article, I have no interest in this person, and the careful reader will see I de-fluffed it some, but I invite your scrutiny. I also think that this user has some sort of obsession with the subject, and so we'll need to keep an eye on it. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it's like what Clapton said about the greatest guitar player in the world--there's one in every crowd. Same with assholes. I suppose EEng discovered Reddit, and someone needs to give them a barnstar for this, "WTF are you ranting about? EEng". Bravo! Now, they are certainly incorrect when they say, "Drmies is an irrelevance, he's just in it for the glory"--I'm not in it for the glory, I'm waiting on my cut, WWB Too. My PayPal account is still the same. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is this other discussion moved here when the main discussion is going on above it ? Is it a device to disrupt and derail the discussion on certain conflicted edits by Intel through User:WWB_Too which he is not prepared to respond to ? 101.61.27.162 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a device to highlight that a small group of obsessives won't stop beating the dead horse. Can someone PLEASE close this, directing the content dispute (if any further be needed) back to the article talk page? EEng17:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that's some admission. Glad we seem to agree that it was always a content dispute, and the article talk pages are the proper place for it. 101.61.27.162 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 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.
Letters from the Portuguese (actually, Brazil) an/i version
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Last night (my time) I saw a series of user pages in Portuguese with link spam. Deleted per U5. Blocked the accounts as spambots.
I was going to add to spam blacklist, but have never done it before and the instructions say not to if unfamiliar, so I bring it all here. I formatted it with summary templates, but don't know how that will work here.
Nothing that can be done using rangeblocks here. Telefonica DE has a massive range of IPs and it would take such wide ranges as to cause huge amounts of collateral damage. Black Kite (talk)11:58, 20 October 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 not sure if I'm at the right place, if not, could someone direct me please. For the last few weeks I (and @SovalValtos: on occasion) have repeatedly asked User talk:Jeremy9930 to refrain from adding unsourced info to to music related articles. While I am prepared to overlook unsourced album run-times and personnel credits, my issue stems from their constant addition of unsupported release dates, recording dates, genre's and recording venues. Below are just some recent examples that I have not yet reverted, but you only need to look further back to see the pattern. He ignores warnings on his talk page and makes no attempt to engage there or leave an explanatory edit summary after these edits.
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.
WP:NOTHERE and was stale-archived from AIV. Unsourced tendentious editing (ethnicity/language pseudohistory related), trolling and personal attacks when reverted (see editor's talk page), admin talk page harrassment (Oshwah's). Possibly LTA sock/evasion, I'll let others determine. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
comment feels like one of Oshwah's many sock-evading "fans". The edits are not particularly productive, and my gut reaction is to block the sock, but I don't know which of Oshwah's many "admirers" it is. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
General Ization, I blocked for 31 hours expecting one of two things to happen: Idealistically, I hoped that the editor would cease to their disruption following my warning, or I thought that a sockpuppet investigation would come back positive, resulting in an indefinite block. The second thing happened. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:03, 23 October 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.
Thank you, I later noticed comments about previous such threats using other addresses on the article's talk page (in the WikiProject templates). It's unclear to me if those comments should be expanded/updated. —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I generally concur with this DOLT analysis. My only caveat would be that the near-complete focus on the subject's anti-vaxxer connections makes me wonder about WP:UNDUE. Not saying this is the case: I didn't look at any sources or anything to see if the subject does or is known for anything else, but the picture of the subject I get is of someone who primarily focuses on vaccines. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the article and sources, the negative materiel was well sourced, but the exact same sources also mention other researchers, including those who had pointed out flaws in his studies, saying that the source of his funding was ok and that UBC defended his academic integrity, none of which was in the wikipedia article. It looked like info could have been cherry-picked from the sources to make him look dishonest, rather then just wrong. I think I fixed the neutrality issues in the vaccine section. But I don't understand why the lead says he mostly studies ALS but the whole rest of the article is about vaccines (and not about vaccines in relation to ALS), so either the lead is wrong, or the article gives undue weight to the vaccine studies. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering about A7, this seems like it may be a case of recent news coverage of an otherwise non-notable person, who will not be notable after the news coverage fades. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
We could even attempt good faith AfD if that fails (and if that fails, notability will have been assessed by more eyes)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:53, 22 October 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 am inclined to believe you just haven't got the creative I.Q. to get it to make sense. I could enlighten you but I doubt it will matter. Does that make you a troll... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badkittydemon (talk • contribs)
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Wikipedia was recently the subject of a major attack of porn vandalism by 172.58.121.10 (blocked 60 hours), this is an LTA who adds porn, this has happened before from the same IP range. My question is whether a rangeblock is necessary, the last time I was told that the collateral was too high, is this still the case?
It is a huge block (/11, 2097150 potential addresses), by large provider T-Mobile. It's possible that complaints at these coordinates with logs (the timestamps are important) could cause the subscriber to receive a complaint and/or get their service cut... —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Are wikipedia editors really supposed to try to get peoples internet service cut?? I thought we just block people from editing wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
We're no different from any other consumer on the bad end of Internet misbehavior. A report can be made and the ISP does what it decides to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
We used to do this at WP:ABUSE when there was a particularly bad IP or group of IPs. My understanding is that it usually didn't accomplish much, and seemed to work best with smaller networks like secondary schools and small corporate offices, rather than ISPs themselves. Anyway, I just looked at what the IP that OP listed actually did, and I think it's pretty likely an edit filter could cover this. If there are more examples it might be more helpful. If there are specific images the vandal is using, it may be worth requesting their addition to MediaWiki:Bad image list. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I can say from experience that filters and the Bad image list are unlikely to be effective. These ranges are not as large as they look. T-Mobile users typically operate in one or two small-ish /23 ranges, so a range block is usually a possibility. Two data points are little insufficient for me to block, but if it returns drop me a note. -- zzuuzz(talk)13:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije:@Black Kite:@Zzuuzz: I agree with not rangeblocking for 2 instances, but I should point out that in August, when I caught 172.58.136.31 adding porn, Vanjagenije told me this is a known IP hopper who adds porn. Does anyone know what other IPs this vandal has used? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If a long-term rangeblock is not feasible, what about an edit filter programmed to disallow any addition of an image by a 172.5X.XXX.XX IP from Chicago? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at recent large edits, both additions and removals, made to William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (most by anonymous accounts)? This is not my area and I can't tell how legit the info is. The repeated phrase "restoring truth to power" in the edit summaries seems awfully biased, if not an indicator of vandalism. Thank you, and if this request should be posted elsewhere, please let me know. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a content dispute. The IP is restoring material that has been removed twice recently by SPAs. The material is not obviously vandalism, but I can see why people would argue over it. Both sides need to take to talk, in my opinion. --John (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's definitely a content dispute, but given the nature of the content it's one that raises BLP concerns. I'm not saying it's false or defamatory material, but it looks to focus on news coverage of a scandal or scandals. Our coverage of that coverage should be careful. As such, WP:BLPN might be a good place to bring this issue up. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Multiple copyright violations and inappropriate page creations (the talk page alone should show an interesting history). I sent a teahouse invitation hoping that the editor would request help there but no attempt so far. Appears to be a young boy. May be salvageable if encouraged to discuss. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to communicate in non-template-ese terms. It looks like they are plagiarizing stuff indiscriminately so if that communication attempt doesn't work blocks will have to be tried. I notice that one page was created earlier by a sockpuppet but see no similarity in the edit patterns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment a NOTHERE block may be needed, but if an admin could remove auto-confirmed, that would prevent new page creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth: judging by the YouTube account he was trying to promote on his now-deleted userpage, the editor in question is just a kid. This is not me arguing against a block if it comes to that, just saying that some patience may be required. ATraintalk21:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For quite some time user:特克斯特 is editing the "I am a singer" series of articles (and related articles). These articles are often poorly sourced or sourced with related sources. I am not entirely sure if this is a case of Conflict of Interest or that 特克斯特 just has no clue what he is doing here.
Especially this edit where he claims to know the results of the competition without it being broadcast or sourced, gives me the idea that he is operating on inside information.
I have multiple times requested him to explain if, and if so, how he is related to the show. No answer at all. An earlier block and discussion (I had asked administrator Drmies for advice), did not help at all.
The shows are clearly notable, but in the present state are too bad to be a serious asset to the encyclopaedia. Improvement is difficult, due to the lack of understanding of 特克斯特 and my failure to be knowledgeable in the Chinese language. It is even more difficult, as 特克斯特 claims/claimed to follow the guidelines of ZH-wiki, what is of no value here. Due to his/her lack of competence and possibly a Conflict of Interest, the encyclopaedia should be protected in some way against this user. The Bannertalk10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks almost like someone's using Google Translate or similar. These articles are bordering on incomprehensible, honestly. I'm not so sure about the COI question but there's definitely something wrong here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
As the user's response indicates, there's all kinds of problems--from edit warring, lack of sourcing, violating MOS, lacking basic English skills. On top of that, they are arrogant and exhibit serious ownership issues. As Banner said, there's more at COIN. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I have looked at only a few of their edits, and all of them were problematic in terms of language and adding unsourced/speculative content. Here, for instance, they wrote about a contest that's being broadcast next year in the past tense, and also added unintelligible phrases such as "Thus, － is the last of this episode directly eliminated, regard scramble fail." And it looks like they don't even understand why sources are necessary in the article... A lack of competence in areas like language use combined with a lack of willingness to discuss their edits is never a good sign. --bonadeacontributionstalk14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I reported this user at AIV for removing an inline maintenance template after a level 4 warning, and the admin sent me here to complain. How about we just block this editor and be done with it? I think this community has made enough good-faith efforts to communicate and for naught. Chris Troutman (talk)15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Please block. I've followed this at COIN and other than providing some levity, the whole interaction has been a complete waste of time. Complete lack of clue further demonstrated today in this edit summary : "if you want the source, you can ask me". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems, to me, that this particular user does not understand English. His refusal of communication is probably rather an incomprehension of whatever is going on here. In addition, I checked his page in Chinese wikipedia, he was also warned there for similar behaviors.----損齋 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, well done. I was wondering if it was just a language issue or something else. If this editor is running afoul of policies on his or her native language variant of Wikipedia, then this becomes an easier case to resolve. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am communicating with the user on Chinese Wikipedia after placing the indefinite block, and I've reached a similar conclusion. Alex ShihTalk16:14, 21 October 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 history of this account shows that its purpose seems to be to right great wrongs, but it isn’t clear what the wrongs are. They seem to include some issue involving female genital mutilation.
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago135 comments28 people in discussion
I hope it's okay for me to close this per WP:IAR, as I did make one short comment advocating for the closure of this thread, which has been receiving some support from a number of editors involved in the original case. There's little point to have the same arguments being restated again, which is seemingly where this thread is heading. There is unlikely going to be anything useful nor any action that would come from the result of this discussion. The original poster has been advised in another thread on where to lodge a complaint should they wish to move this forward. Alex Shih (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm boldly closing this (was going to). I've made exactly three passing comments in this entire ordeal, and one of them was calling for a close. If that makes me an involved editor then please undo this close, but please do not undo simply because you would like to continue arguing.
If you wan't to call John out for misuse of the tools, then this is not the venue. Please take that to ArbCom. If you would like to pass out trouts then trout away.
If you have a problem with the way that AE notices come of as offensive, then take that up in the appropriate forum and change it. I agree. They probably need fixed in that regard. But this is equally not the venue for that either.
The problem, at the heart of this, is approaching editing as combat, and you cannot plead ignorance when you refuse to listen to those who try to correct you. That is at the very core of what we do here, because we all learned to be right by being publicly wrong, having someone correct us, and being receptive to that criticism. If you don't understand discretionary sanctions, then ask. If you don't understand why poor quality sources are not permitted on biographies of living persons, then ask. And be receptive to the answer.
Most of this argument has officially gone on longer than the block it is about, and the best case scenario is that users take this as a learning opportunity, don't continue to argue until they either get blocked, or blocked again, and follow the Dispute Resolution Process to resolve their issues, because that's how you build a better encyclopedia. GMGtalk23:17, 23 October 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 am currently involved in a dispute on the page Tim Loughton. This discussion has turned sour and I have now disengaged from the discussion. There are though now new editors who have never edited the page before and have begun to defend one single position on the page. I feel that there could be offline canvassing going on, as the edits are being made to defend the position of a specific user, and are seemingly co-ordinated. I would like some advice on what to do on this issue. I would also like to know what to do if offline canvassing is going on to push a certain POV. I know I will be accused of paranoia, but this is coming across as orchestrated, add not spontaneous. Please also direct me to the correct place if i am in the wrong place.
User:SPECIFICO and User:Cassianto, have suddenly appeared on the page and are defending the and furthering the desired edits of User:Martinevans123. I probably have no way of proving offline canvassing. As they will go its just coincidence. It does though come across as being very unusual on such an issue, and for this page to have this kind of activity. Sport and politics (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Would a more likely scenario not be that you're in the wrong? It's seems more parsimonious than nefarious off-wiki canvassing, especially when you accuse others of "hiding behind admins" "having a paddy and trying to squabble" whilst telling them to "grow a backbone". This sounds like a situation where the discussion wasn't going your way so you're trying to fling some mud about. I don't see anything requiring admin action here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't take too kindly to you, Sport and politics, stoking up drama here when all this requires is a bit of discussion on the relevant talk page. But no, seeing as you were already at 2rr, and me pointing out that should you continue to edit war, I'd be reporting you, perhaps you rather pathetically chose to come here in order to deflect the blame onto someone else? CassiantoTalk18:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
And while we're here, perhaps you could evidence the "off-wiki canvassing" you mention? Or perhaps you'd like to apologise for making baseless accusations? CassiantoTalk18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment this is a content dispute regarding a British politician who was recently involved in a bizarre and widely-reported story. I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects show up, "offline canvassing" is the least likely explanation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You edit a lot of UK articles, SPECIFICO edits a lot of politics articles, and neither of you are afraid of controversial topics. I'm happy to admit that I only participated on the talk page as a result of this ANI thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you could point me towards another "controversial topic" I seem to do a lot of hanging out around? I don't particularly like your assertion that I'm a usual suspect around controversy. I'm not. CassiantoTalk19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There are indeed fewer than I thought. But ANI is probably enough on its own for my statement to be technically correct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologise if it is coming across that way. The issue here is that two completely random users jumped in, and then begin exclusively defending the position of one user, on the talk page, and did not engage in any talk page discussion on the issue. The two users have never edited the page before, AFAICT, and both began their editing at the around the same time. This is more than me winning or losing. If anything I was engaging in discussion on the issue, but withdrew when it became solely about everything but the issue at hand. I had added multiple sources for the information, and cleaned up the language. It seems very odd that it devolved into a complete removal of the information without discussion, with threats being thrown around, and the position on MartinEvans123 being pushed through, by these two brand new users to this article. Right or wrong on either side aside. The fact the two new users jumped in comes across as more than coincidence, and that they only dealt with the issue of concern to MartinEvans123 by furthering that position exclusively and to the hilt. I also find the response of Cassianto to be telling. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this because you are defending the use of the Daily Mirror - red top tabloid trash - as a suitable source in a BLP? And edit warred to try and force it back in? That's not good on any level. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly not making any progress, newspapers and their merits are for another place. tabloid or broadsheet. I am formally withdrawing this discussion. This clearly shows a wider issue here. If certain newspapers are taboo and unacceptable, then that policy must be made clearly and widely known. If that had happened then this would never have occurred. I consider this matter ended and closed. Sport and politics (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For your information, and to nip this stupid accusation of off-wiki canvassing in the arse, I watch Martin's talk page. It is highly unlikely of him to engage in a dispute; moreover, your aggressive initial thread opener caused me to look in where I indeed saw the problem. I didn't realise you owned the article. CassiantoTalk19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sport and politics, you don't get to decide when the matter ends, I'm afraid: if you open a thread at ANI, every aspect of the matter is looked at, including the behaviour of the opening party; see WP:BOOMERANG. Now, you've been edit warring to force a tabloid source into a BLP article? And if you want to see that status of tabloids in BLPs, see WP:BLPSOURCES. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@SchroCat: It's likely, although not certain, that yes, they didn't know the Mirror isn't a good source. (To be fair, Wikipedia accepted certain levels of sourcing to tabloids for a very long time.) To quote this again, "If certain newspapers are taboo and unacceptable, then that policy must be made clearly and widely known" seems to be them saying they didn't know but now do know that these papers aren't reliable sources. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Martin has more than 150 talk page watchers, and it's possible, just maybe, that posting a thread entitled "Hiding behind Admins", may have raised a few eyebrows on a few watchlists. GMGtalk19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinged - Well I suspect that a bristly and boisterous editor like Martinevans123 has many talk page watchers. He is on my watchlist because I visited his page some time ago on an unrelated matter. And apparently everyone who's seen mention of the current content dispute has reached the same conclusion as to the merits. Not a coincidence at all. It's the network effect in action to improve WP, in this case by deleting the UNDUE BLP content. SPECIFICOtalk19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Sport and politics was advised about all this by Admin John and myself yesterday regarding the Mail and Mirror, but the fact that the issue is still being argued (by them, at least) 30 hours later suggests that they are increasingly hard of hearing. There was very little understanding (or at least so it seemed) of the relevant policies which they were themselves quoting, and their response was to abruptly refactorJohn's post] (contrary to WP:TPO), and soon after "close" loads of discussions on their talk, even whilst they going on. Which they allowed to do: but, equally allowable, of course, is for editors to draw the conclusion from them doing so that they just do not want to know- and such actions take the whole thing from the realms of a content dispute to one of (their own) behaviour. — fortunavelut luna19:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, off-line canvassing is likely near impossible to prove. I've found over the years, that liked minded editors tend to keep a close eye (watchlisting) on the same articles. As a result, making changes that such like-minded watchers will oppose, is likely going to result in 'no' changes being made. In the end, if enough editors argue that red is blue? then the article will say - red is blue. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Sport and politics for 48 hours. I want to stress that this is not a boomerang block, and nor is it for breaking WP:TPO on their talk. It's for this revert; such reverts are not allowed on a BLP and I had previously alerted them to this. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This was originally to be a new section. But in the collation of the interminable diffs, I realised that it was already on ANI, and so I'm posting it as a sub-section instead.
John is well known hereabouts. He is known as the author of the absolute ban on the use of the Daily Mail as a source for WP articles (except that clearly it isn't - see how many articles are still reliant upon it). He is also (in his own mind at least) the author of similar bans on the mention of all other UK "tabloid" newspapers.
He is also a bully.
He is one of the worst of WP admins, and the absolute exemplar of what is wrong with WP: its acceptance of a bullying clique who back themselves up with invented pseudo-policies and pursue the lesser editors who are outside the nomenklatura.
There is a minor news story around Tim Loughton, around the perennial subject of UK MP's expenses. It is a very minor issue. S&P has been editing this article for a while (maybe he's their local MP? I don't know) Whale7 (talk·contribs) (who plays no further part in this story) added a recent note, that this MP had claimed a substantial amount of taxpayer's dollars for their bathwater (yes, their bathwater). This was removed as "sorry, but need a better source than The Mirror" and restored by S&P as " Mirror is a reliable source, simply disliking does not equate to a 'better source needed' what next the sun and mail are rejected?" Both of these are reasonable actions. The Daily Mirror is a UK tabloid newspaper, meaning that it is printed with small words on small paper. There is no WP sanction in place against it as RS. This was (as is always the pathetically predictable behaviour hereabouts) reverted, then re-added by S&P with more refs.
This is how WP is constituted to work. I don't give a flying Farage what John reckons to the substance of bathwatergate, but when both the Guardian and the BBC are covering a story, WP is so constituted that we see that as meeting WP:N.
At which point John steps in. With his regular (he dispenses this to everyone) "mandatory notice" [148]. This is a piece of obsolete bullshit purporting to be an Arbcom ruling with great specificity as to the particular article, editor and author involved. In fact it is nothing of the sort. It is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (2008), where the interested reader might realise that it was actually rescinded in 2014 and replaced with [149] - which I think paraphrases quite neatly as, "BLP applies to BLPs". A sentiment that no-one here seems to disagree with.
This "mandatory notice" is flannel. It carries no meaning, other than for John to bully other editors with.
Back to Tim Loughton. Where we see another two-step of removing the Daily Mirror ref: " unnecessary" / "selective removal based on persona; bias". Again, perfectly acceptable WP editing. At most one might ask S&P mildly to "comment on the edits not the editor". Note that the challenged content is still sourced to two other unchallenged non-tabloid RS.
The usual mess ensues. S&P ends up blocked and the (sourced) content is removed as "Delete per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS -- see whether this is discussed a year hence?"
Same old, same old (and read the various Talk: pages). So what are the problems here?
S&P sourced the content to multiple RS That is what they are required to do. This is what we ask of editors, we do not ask much more than that, this is what they did.
As I see this, this is John bullying editors again. That is a long-running problem. It is why John is unfit to be an admin.
Specifically, this is part of John's crusade mentality against UK tabloids. Now, he's allowed to do that. He's allowed to advocate changing policy such that sources are considered non-RS and some are considered so far beyond the pale that they mustn't appear anywhere at all. Perhaps the WP:DAILYMAIL has reached that stage, although WP is still clearly heavily dependent upon it. But this wasn't the Daily Mail, it was the Daily Mirror. And I don't see WP:DAILYMIRROR anywhere in our policies. Until such time as it is, it is wrong of John to act as if the Daily Mirror is a proscribed journal.
S&P was asked to provide better sources, and they did so. That is what we ask of editors. We should not block editors for doing the very things that we ask of them. Nor should we then persecute them as a result.
Should there have been three sources or two? Well, as there were two RS and the Daily Mirror, we can lose the Daily Mirror. But disagreement over that is not a blocking offence, and it is certainly not a blocking offence citing some nonsense claiming to be the holy writ of Arbcom!
Does this pass WP:UNDUE? Maybe, maybe not. But again, that is no blocking offence. And with two RS behind it, I think it's incumbent upon those removing it to show that both the Grauniad and the Beeb have been excessive in their coverage. Again, this is no blocking offence, and it is no reason to cite some rescinded Arbcom motion from a decade ago.
Just to clarify, I took the above at face value and noted that the WP:BLPBAN had indeed been struck out, and unblocked S&P. However, I then noticed that it had been replaced by WP:NEWBLPBAN (listed further down the same page) which appears to continue to give admins the right to impose discretionary. As a result, I've had to undo my unblock as it seems to have been in error. I would say that a clearer link to that section from the struck out bit would have been helpful and probably prevented me making this mistake. Number5700:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
So just what is the BLP-blockable action that has taken place here? Some (let's say "uncomplimentary") claims have been made about a LP, and they have been sourced to multiple RS. How does that breach WP policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Andy, I am not going to comment on the topic of your subsection here, but your mention of WP:N above seems to be mistaken. Perhaps you would take the time to review the policy, please, and consider how and whether it applies to questions about the inclusion of material in articles whose existence ("notability" in our terms) is not disputed. MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but just which part of this depends upon WP:N? The disputed content would seem to meet WP:N (Such that Bathwatergate would not be a Snow Delete at AfD), but the relevant criteria for inclusion would actually be WP:UNDUE (which is still up for reasonable debate, if anyone will permit that without threat of summary blocks). But I find it hard to see how something meets WP:N, and yet is claimed to be such an obvious rejection for WP:UNDUE that we shouldn't even discuss it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"Such lengths"? I have barely mentioned WP:N. Only inasmuch as that an issue which gets mentions in two RS, and the Daily Mirror too, can be reasonably assumed to be meeting it, and thus meeting WP:UNDUE. This isn't absolute, it's still up for debate, but it's an indication that it's likely to be so. Why are you so focussed on WP:N, in what is really an issue about admin bullying? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
So perhaps it is WP:UNDUE that you need to re-read. That section of WP:NPOV does not mention WP:N at all. A sub-section of it, though, does say "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". MPS1992 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's UNDUE, then you're welcome to discuss that on the article talk: page. I'm undecided - could be either way. It is not obvious, one way or the other. But the point here is that a question of UNDUE shouldn't be settled by blocking the editor you disagree with under dire penalties of Arbcom. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't bring up WP:UNDUE -- you did. I didn't bring up WP:N -- you did. If the issue is the bullying block and the travelling circus accompanying it, then you would have been better off sticking to a neutral description of what was done and why it was unreasonable, not rambling round multiple policies that are irrelevant to the issues at hand and ending up with a twenty-paragraph report complete with allusions to Pokemon. If you'd stuck with such a neutral description of the issues at hand, one might hope your report would have been better received here than it has been. MPS1992 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
What a lot of unneccessary twaddle (riddled with inaccuracies and laced with spite. UK red top tabloids are utterly unsuitable gutter fodder for BLPs (and much encyclopaedic content too). They are inherently unreliable and not just "small words on small pages: that's a misrepresentation of what the tabloid press is in the UK. It's why there is a mention in WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." The Mirror should never have been used as a source in the first place and S&P should never have edit warred to keep replacing it.
After you take away the inherently unreliable tabloid sources, we're left with what should have been used in the first place: the citations to the Guardian and BBC. Just because something appears in sources does not mean we have to use it, and anydiscussion should not have been edit warred in after removal, but discussed on the talk page. WP:WEIGHT would seem to be a useful one to read here, and to consider whether this will be noteworthy in. A month, let alone passing a five-year test, so WP:RECENTISM would also be one to look at. Either way, if S&P had used the talk page when challenged rather than edit warred (over BLP tabloid sourcing, for goodness sake), much of this, including this I'll-advised grouch thread, would have been avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
When WP:DAILYMIRROR becomes policy, then you and John might have a point. Until then, there is no blanket ban on the use of the Daily Mirror as a source. Of course we should be careful with it, but the DMirror is not the same as the DMail.
What does that mean here? Well it means that S&P's use of the Mirror is permissible and up for discussion, as usual (it might then get removed, but they shouldn't be punished for advocating it). It is not subject to John's Arbcom threats (citing a long-rescinded Arbcom motion, which is another problem) and summary blocking. I don't agree with S&P here - we don't want the Daily Mirror and we don't need the Daily Mirror, we have two RS instead. But they still get to make that case, not just get blocked on sight.
There is a heavy Arbcom motion to enforce BLP. That might be applicable if this was a case of content only sourced to a non-RS. But that's not what's happening here: the content is anyway sourced to two RS and we're only arguing about a non-RS on top of that. The punitive blocking imposed here is not justified by that issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. And if you think a UK red top is a justifiable source for a BLP, you have a very different view than I of what a reliable source is; it's exactly why we have BLPSOURCES, and edit warring to force in a reference from the gutter press is wrong on several levels. I am sorry you cannot see just how poor the tabloids are in relation to their standards of factual reporting. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I am not advocating the use of the Mirror as a source here. I disagree with S&P's use of it. But I cannot see the Arbcom penalty against unsourced BLP being used simply against the additional use of a non-RS source (which is anyway RS-sourced). If S&P wants to advocate this, they get to do so and we discuss it, they are not summarily blocked for it.
And again, WP:DAILYMAIL is neither WP:DAILYMIRROR, nor is it even implemented on WP (there are still many ongoing uses of the Mail). If you and John want to act as if it is, then you have to get agreement to impose such a blanket ban first, not just block editors who are still within policy because you think that there ought to be such a ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have misrepresented nothing, so please don't start smearing me too. I suggest you read carefully what I have written next time. I also suggest you strike the PAs in your long opening statement, and correct the errors in fact you have allowed to creep in. Repeating the straw man argument isn't helping your case either. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
May we just treat Dingley like the mad uncle at the Christmas party who talks before he speaks and who’s had a touch too much Potato Wine. He clearly has an axe to grind and he needs to go and grind it somewhere else. Now toddle off Andy... CassiantoTalk07:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Propose a trout to John for the clearly-bad block, part of a long-term pattern of bullying and bad blocks and to you for blame-the-victim support of his bullying. This has not yet risen to the level of an ARBCOM de-sysop case but it appears headed that way unless John starts taking WP:AGF more seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up: Perhaps predictably, John responded to this by bullying me on my talk page. John, you requested that I post diffs backing up what I said: here's a diff. Again, you need to learn to take WP:AGF more seriously, and take adminship as a mop to help you clean up content rather than a bully club to make people respect you. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"Blame the victim"? What bloody rubbish. Edit warring to use a tabloid trash source in a BLP is a crass and stupid thing to do, particularly while ignoring the talk page for part of that time. S&P was warned not to do it and the continued to do so: they put themselves in a blockable position and are not a "victim" in any sense of the word. (And that's without looking at their very poor approach to striking comments from others on their talk page, which is a blockable offence in its own right). - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No, they are allowed to remove them (thus showing that they have been read). Striking should be done by the author (WP:STRIKE, and) see WP:SIGCLEAN "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." In any case, OWNTALK actually states " User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier"- a primary purpose which it hard to see fulfilled in the striking of others' comments and hatting discussions mid-conversation, as S&P did. — fortunavelut luna14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
No, David Eppstein: very wrong. As per the above, editing other people's comments (which is what striking is), is categorically not allowed. OWNTALK does not say anything about allowing the editing other people's comments. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that I misread "strike" in its meaning of remove rather than the more technical "mark up as strikeout" that appears to have happened. I agree, modifying but not removing others' comments is not allowed, but at best this warrants a warning (that the comments should be removed altogether rather than reformatted) rather than anything more serious, at least unless the issue is much more persistent (I have blocked someone within the last months for modifying comments on their own talk, but there it was more persistent). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
By "persistent", I meant persisting after a clear statement on his talk that this is an inappropriate thing to do. The edit summary "why u strike my post?" is not that statement. So, when and how often was he warned not to do that? Because I didn't see it on a quick scan through the edit summaries of his recent talk page changes, but the talk page has been very active so I could easily have missed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Ignorance is no defence. On WP, as in RL, not everything needs to be warned. I'll clarify, however: I am not advocating a new block for S&P, but given the many notices and warnings on their talk page, and their edits of other people's comments (I really don't see the need for a warning - we're into 'bloody obvious' territry), I do have concerns over their approach. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
For the more arcane and bureaucratic of our rules, ignorance absolutely is a defense — we should be guiding our users to behave better, not looking out for minor misbehaviors, throwing incomprehensible notices on their talk pages as a cover, and then blocking them when they fail to understand the notices. A block should be a last resort when we have tried repeatedly and failed to persuade an editor to behave better, not the first thing we think of when we see them disobeying a rule that we know about and they don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Editing other people's talk page comments is not in any way one of "the more arcane and bureaucratic of our rules". As to the rest of what you have written, I think you are either conflating different parts of the conversation, or you failed to read the bit where I said that I am not advocating a block. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Eppstein, you an Admin, presumably know that the Sanctions template says that it's not an accusation of wrongdoing and states, "Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." -- Hardly anything to get one's knickers in a knot. If an editor finds that "incomprehensible", it raises serious questions about the editor's competence. SPECIFICOtalk22:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Propose trout for Dingley and the OP; continued block of the OP; and the speedy closure of this rather boring thread -- this is quickly tuning into a peanut gallery and I think we should all go about our business. CassiantoTalk20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to unblock Sport and Politics as a) I have no confidence they won't go straight back and reinsert the Mirror source that consensus has already said should not be put in, and b) it would be wheel warring. I suggest everyone takes a deep breath and remembers that the best thing to do when you see a citation to The Sun or The Mirror is find a better source first, if you can, and if somebody takes it out, don't fight over it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Support block A boomerang block would have been perfectly justified here, the bending of WP:TPO less so. But ultimately the editor concerned has acted in a sufficiently WP:BATTLEGROUND manner- on both the article talk and their own user talk- that blocking is demonstratably preventative; as R333 touches on above, there is absolutely no indication that S&P wouldn't revert to their previous behavioural pattern. — fortunavelut luna12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Support block - we should not tolerate poor sourcing anywhere; we should descend upon it like a ton of bricks in BLPs. Edit warring it back in? Well that's inexcusable. --Begoon12:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
But this is not about poor sourcing. There are already two RS in there. For Manny Pacquiao there were five or six.
We cannot justify the punishment for unsourced BLP in a case that's a far more minor issue about using a poor source just in addition. That's not even a 3RR issue, certainly not BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. Have we gotten around to talk of blocking Dingley yet, or are we still just circling around while S+P watches the show? It's a BLP. The WP:BURDEN was on the editor who wanted to include the undue content. The DS notice is longstanding widespread practice. The attack on the Admin is what the Brits call rubbish. SPECIFICOtalk13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you talking about UNDUE or V? Because BURDEN refers to Verifiability, not UNDUE. S&P had met this already, by giving the Guardian and BBC sources. Use of the Mirror source is outside this.
We can still question UNDUE - but that's a subjective editorial decision. But there is no wiggle room left: RS was met, V was met, BURDEN was met. It is wrong to block S&P with an unref-BLP scale punishment when they did no such thing, and all they did was to minorly edit-war over adding an additional (but poor) source. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting question. I think we're mostly past that kind of nonsense now, and have moved on to topics like Elkie Brooks and wine tasting. Funny place, ANI. Perhaps nobody agrees with you? --Begoon14:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's just the same old one I read days ago, when this story broke and I read it over coffee - the Graun is my usual newspaper. If you want it on paper it was in the Metro on the train too (can't remember if they said £662 or £622). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Please refresh yourself on WP:BURDEN specifically superscript 2: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." SPECIFICOtalk17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This seems to miss the point -- the edit in question did not add disputed material back, it only added an (additional) source for material that already remained in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No. The point is he escalated to this board with a startlingly ridiculous suspicion after every other editor disagreed with him and I removed the offending nonsense from the article of this exemplarily well-groomed MP. SPECIFICOtalk20:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
So they were blocked for raising this at ANI? And that's supposed to be OK?
If they were blocked for any other reason than adding unsourced BLP (as the cited Arbcom motion warns against), then this is a bad block. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Sport and politics has contested the block. Usually such unblock requests should be discussed at WP:AE or WP:AN, but since we already have a discussion about it here, opening another one seems redundant. Here's the request from their talk page. Huon (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware of what Arbitration Committee decision is being referred to here. I am also unaware of why this block has been imposed as a result. The reason seem to be very vague. There is also an AN/I discussion which has petered out and resulted in at the time of writing a warning. Some context, and information, on firstly the decision being referred to. A boilerplate warning which was posted here as a result of a content dispute with another editor, was inflammatory, and not explained. It was just a boilerplate, without explanation. This also appears to be one editor acting as judge and jury without oversight. The issue being referred to is very unclear in a context manner, and they are now acting outside of an on ongoing An/I. This feels unexplained, and confusing. A few words of non-boiler plate explanation on the issues, other than going you are editing an issue which has issues, would be appreciated. The confusion levels here are through the roof. The content in dispute had six sources, of which one appears to be in contention. Until about 3 hours ago I had no idea that there was such a blanket ban on its use. This feels to be as if I am being punished for going about and doing something which I was previously free to do. In this case add the source, and the rules were changed and no notice of this change was given. This does not help explain the block, or why it has been given. It has simply just been given. Some words of explanation, other than "familiarise yourself", contained in a boilerplate are needed. As familiarise yourself could mean anything. There was also no indication of where to find the information to familiarirse oneself. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no blanket ban on The Mirror. But it's not a great source, so it was reasonable for the other editors to disagree with its inclusion for that reason. You should have taken the issue to the talk page of the article (where it is now under discussion) rather than reverting two times, but an appropriate response to your reverts would have been to warn you for WP:3RR and wait until you had done so four times before blocking. And your request for an explanation is not only reasonable, but requires a response under WP:ADMINACCT, and the response you got was clearly (from your still-evident bewilderment here) inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
He was informed about a decision about unsourced information to BLPs. What he was doing that was apparently objectionable was re-adding one disputed newspaper source to a statement in the article that already had two other better newspaper sources. In what way is the arbcom notice germane to that dispute or informative about what course of action he should have taken? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh? He was informed the article is subject to discretionary sanctions due to being a BLP - with the standard template linking to the case where the topic area was made subject to discretionary sanctions. At that point if you continue to revert in disputed content, you are subject to a block at a minimum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing that they didn't do that.
This block was issued for this and this edit. Not for re-adding content, but re-adding an additional ref from a newspaper source that the blocking admin has a long-running crusade against. The content was also already sourced to a number of other RS sources at the time, which remain unchallenged.
The content itself was removed some hours before the block was issued, thus this block was punitive, not preventive.
The action for which the block was issued did not change the content of the BLP, thus was outside the scope of the Arbcom motion.
The linked Arbcom motion is so unclear (actually it was rescinded years ago) that several editors and at least one admin have been unable to make sense of it.
Close - It doesn't do anyone any good to argue for 72 hours over a 48 hour block. If someone doesn't like a block as an AE enforcement action, then pick one of no shortage of other reasons to justify a short block, not least of which is the fact that this user had fundamentally become unhinged from AGF in any form. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but being obstinately and copiously wrong in the face of people attempting to explain your wrongness is not the way we build an encyclopedia. They can come back tomorrow and decide whether they want to continue down that path. Hopefully they don't. GMGtalk21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I also support closure of this thread/subsection, but before doing so, I want to make sure everyone passing by is comfortable with the kind of situation here, which for me is somewhat unnecessarily inflammatory regardless of the context. Thanks. Alex ShihTalk23:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "comfortable" here. But I read that thread very much as the playground bully showing up to say "'Ere, don't you call me a bully, you've got 24 hours to retract that or else." and their friends standing around egging them on. Then they literally start counting down the 24 hours! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No objection to closure, although far from "comfortable". I think both David and Andy have issues that go beyond the scope of the original thread. With Andy's latest link, it seems even the original matter may not be fully resolved, but would be far better addressed at Talk:Tim Loughton. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Does he think that the more threats he makes, the more important he is? What a sad little person. Perhaps needs some assistance. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You do know you can receive a block for a personal attack a time ANI? Can I suggest you strike your insult. (And not try to put back the PA in the thread header, per talk page guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you now trying to throw insults at others saying people have double standards? Good grief.... It's still probably best if you were more careful in your wording. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Diffs, laddie, are you afraid of diffs? I just gave you two. You can throw insults wherever you like, you'll still look silly. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't "laddie" me, MPS1992. I don't need to give you diffs as I'm replying to you about the comment you just made. I've made no insults so in addition to being more careful in your wording, it's probably best if you actually read what has been written and think about what has been said, then think again about what you are going to say. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Diffs, diffs, diffs, of course you don't need to provide diffs, you splendid example you. I give you two and you fall apart in a heap. ("actualy"?) Carry on laddie. MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to close. All the complaints here seem to be based on the premise that a group of unrelated editors could not possibly reject the accusations of S+P, Dingley, and Eppstein unless the unrelated editors were all in cahoots meatpuppets or maybe (coming attractions?) sockpuppets of Martinevans123. Stay tuned. As the early comments indicated, there are so many simpler explanations. SPECIFICOtalk00:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Close nothing except for WP:TROUT is needed at this point. I don't think John's WP:AC/DS block was a good idea, but it was clearly permitted by WP:AC/DS, and would have been a reasonable result based on this discussion. Everyone should eat their fish and move on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot has been said about me and what I did and did not know. I am writing this to clarify my position. A lot of conjecture, and assumptions have been made regarding what I did and did not know, and what I was and was not thinking. All off which reads like an out of body experience. Most of it is simply way off the mark.
I would first like to start with the "mandatory notice", placed on my talk page by John. I am intentionally using quotation marks in relation to that notice, as I believe it is deficient and not fit for purpose boilerplate. The notice was placed on my talk page with no initial or subsequent explanation. It was simply dumped on my talk page without description as to why it was placed on my talk page. John simply acted after being prompted to the talk page by Martinevans123. See this diff. "I wonder what John has to say". A statement of that kind does not come across as constructive, or that User John is going to be impartial. It is a veiled threat from MarthEvans123. I am aware this will almost certainly be disputed, but it is a threat pure and simple. It is also "calling an administrator", which can easily be construed as WP:canvass. The canvassing page in a nutshell states "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!" Martinevans123 clearly pre-selected John as they knew John would most likely act in a way desired by Martinevans123.
The next issue I shall to cover is the claim of an "ongoing edit war". This is not the case. I had stopped editing the page, and had stopped engaging on the talk page. I had withdrawn and walked away from the discussion. Please see this diff as confirmation I had disengaged
I shall now address claims of explanations and understandings of the issues John was concerned with. Any claims of explanation or knowledge of the issues John was concerned about are simply untrue. The issues were never made clear by John, and the notice posted was and is insufficient. The linked to ArbCom decision, does not at any point mention tabloid newspapers, it is about general BLP issues. John should have at the very least made clear what the issue at hand was. Instead John simply expected knowledge of what was in their issue was without explanation. An issue of this seriousness, as John see's it, should have been made abundantly and expressly clear, explicitly. It should not have been vague or open to any interpretation. The ArbCom decision in the notice is very general, and I fail to see how that is sufficient to justify John's block rationale. This issue at hand hereis a reliable sources issue at heart, specifically is the Daily Mirror is a reliable source.
The claims regarding knowledge that all tabloids were banned from all BLP's, shall now be addressed. I would first like to begin by stating that I was not aware of such a blanket prohibition on all tabloids, and have yet to be shown that all tabloids are banned in all circumstances. I have only been made aware explicitly of the prohibition on the Daily Mail. I have though not been made aware of such a 100% blanket prohibition on the use of all tabloids in all circumstances on BLP's. John will claim they have made this clear. They have not. I invite John to provide evidence that they have made it explicitly clear that all tabloids are 100% banned from all BLP articles, and that they made this known directly to me.
Next I will move on to the block itself. John has acted in a number of ways which I take serious issue with. I shall set them out as follows.
A 48 hour block is a steep punishment, all for inserting a once previously acceptable source into an article. This is their sole and only reason given form imposing the block. There are many less restrictive, and less punitive measures which John could have imposed. John could have imposed an article ban on myself, for the Tim Loughton article. John could have imposed an interaction ban between myself and the other editors involved in the dispute. John could have imposed a topic ban≈ on UK politicians or BLP articles. John did none of these. John imposed in the first instance a 48 Hour hard block. John has in my opinion not acted proportionately but has in my opinion acted punitively. John has not acted proportionately or in a manner to educate on the issue at hand.
I also have serious issues with the procedure of the issuance of the block, by John. John simply placed a block notice on my talk page. They did not at any point and have not at any point placed on my talk page the reasoning for their imposing of the block. John only posted their reason to this noticeboard. I find this very discourteous at best and disdain towards me at worse. In all i believe john has fallen very short of what is required of him as an administrator, as can be found at WP:ADMINCOND. I also specifically draw the communities attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Use_of_administrator_tools_in_disputes, as incorporated into WP:TOOLMISUSE. I believe John is using their role as an administrator to further their position against the use of tabloids as a source.
I do sincerely hope that this is taken seriously, individuals remain calm, and there no attempts to engage in anything other than constructive discussions on this serious matter. I am hoping for a fresh slate to this, with everything previous being water under the bridge. I also hope this is taken seriously by all users. I was hoping not to bring this to WP:AN/I, but it appears as if no fora exists to make a formal complaint against the action of an administrator, other than going straight to either a request to de-sysop, or the arbitration committee.
" I believe it is deficient and not fit for purpose boilerplate." - whatever else comes out of this, I very much agree with that point and would hope that this notice gets clarified and its links fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Sport and politics, I certainly will dispute that any message by me to you at Talk:Tim Loughtonor anywhere else was "a threat pure and simple" or was in any way intended to be "WP:canvass." I can assure you I had no idea how John "would most likely act." Over the years I've seen him act in a variety of ways to contentious sources. I named him as someone with a lot of experience in dealing with tabloid sources. And I only chose to name and link anyone at all as I didn't seem to be getting very far discussing the matter with you. As far as I was aware, John had shown no previous interest in that article and so I assumed he'd be neutral in his view of it. But I didn't take kindly to the comments you made about me "hiding behind Admins" or of your suggestion "Give it up and grow your own backbone." I also found it a little frustrating that you simply closed down my discussion on your own Talk page (where, incidentally, you branded me "a troll") with a hat box saying "The following discussion is archived ... Please do not modify it." And by the way, you've still not answered my question about how those six other "good" sources actually supported the material you added to the Tim Loughton article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Any discussions regarding the Tim Loughton page can be directed there. I am not prepared to allow for this discussion to be de-railed from the issues surrounding the actions of John and his actions, along with the tangential actions of Martinevans123. The actions taken by me have been raked over and it is not worth going over again, the block has drawn a line under that. I also believe that the point made by Martinevans123, regarding
I certainly will dispute that any message by me to you at Talk:Tim Loughton was "a threat pure and simple" or was in any way intended to be "WP:canvass."
Was not on the Tim Loughton page but was on my talk page, as was shown by the diff provided. This shows that Matrtinevans123 has not read the discussion posted in full or looked at the diffs provided in detail. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"The actions taken by me have been raked over and it is not worth going over again, the block has drawn a line under that". The actions on all sides have been raked over and it's not worth going over any of it again. As can be seen from the long thread above there isn't a consensus for action to be taken against John and the last !vote was to close the thread. Time to drop the stick and find something better to do. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Fact Check The block-worthy behavior is evident starting at [150] and continuing on this ANI complaint. Routine DS template, self-explanatory. Minimal wake-up block. Nothing to see here. SPECIFICOtalk19:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If the "routine DS template" has been found wanting, then some effort needs to be put into making it more readily comprehensible to the average editor. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not surprised one iota to see the users that are calling to close this thread down, as the ones doing so. I was expecting them to be the ones to do so. I firmly believe John and the ancillary actions associated from other user need to be looked at. I urge the community to dismiss the calls to close this discussion from the expected suspects, and look at the issues at hand, in particular relating to Johns actions on this matter. I urge the flailing f the users asking for closure of this thread to be ignored, as it is all smoke to stop the issues being discussed, as shown by SPECIFICO and their response claiming "fact check". I urge the community to look beyond these users, and look at the issues. Multiple users have come here independently to state there are issues at the very least with John, if not the other users calling for this tread to be closed. Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you now suggesting that there are "ancillary actions associated" with me that "need to be looked at?" If so could you please tell us what they are? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Then I think I've wasted enough time with what was, to start with, a totally trivial matter. Expecting any kind of compromise or agreement with you seems to be expecting too much. I wish the other parties in the dispute good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's just remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, collaboratively. You may be upset by other people disagreeing with you, but please try to keep it under control. MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 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:Plutophane - fake userpage, signing post with false date
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
User:Plutophane's first edit was on August 17th to create a userpage dated June 25 2007 with a list of varous qualifications and a confirmed identity. Today they edited a talk page[151] and dated it October 10th. The userpage is copied from User:Plutophanes who hasn't edited since 2016. It's possible that they are the same person, but the fake date added today to a talk page is worrying, and the fact that the original userpage was lasted edited on 2010 and is identical to the one the new account added in August, including current activities, is pretty conclusive evidence that they are not. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hoary: I'm not sure I believe all of those either. However, 7 years ago that page said "I am currently a Guest Student studying Psycholinguistics at Philipps-Universität Marburg toward my studies of Autism Spectrum Disorders." And today the new page says the same thing. And he is still an associate analyst at this Canadian company. 7 years is a long time to not get promoted and to still be a "guest student", although I presume that means he just has permission to audit classes. Doug Wellertalk12:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you think the user page is still current. If Plutophanes last edited their userpage in 2010 and last edited in 2016 that means the user page was already very outdated when they last edited. Plenty of people do not keep their user pages updated. I'm assuming this part at least comes as no surprise to you? If an editor loses access to their account, or simply abandons it for some reason, I don't think it's particularly uncommon for them to simply copy over their old userpage, no matter how outdated it is. The act of copying the page may trigger the impulse to update the page but it may not. I mean the userpage itself is effectively signed 2007 as you yourself said. I agree that the apparently fake date in the talk page comment is concerning, but I'm not seeing strong evidence here that the editor either is or isn't the original Plutophanes. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed [152]. I wouldn't be completely surprised if the person who wrote the above is the same person as the one who wrote the linked comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I don't think the user page is still current, but I still think it's odd that they added material to the new page that obviously isn't. Looking again at the contributions, there is a slight overlap, one commenting at Graham Hancock's talk page, the other editing at Fringe science. I've concluded that there really is nothing to do here now. Doug Wellertalk13:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
POV / BLP editing on Linda Perry and Sara Gilbert
Sara Gilbert and Linda Perry are a married lesbian couple living in the state of California. California law "The spouse of a woman who gives birth is legally a parent" See not on talk:Sara Gilbert#Parentage for legal reference.
Though adminly action has already been initiated, I'll mention that Talk:Sara Gilbert#Parentage is directed at that editor in particular, yet that editor has not bothered to participate in the talky-talk, suggesting inflexibility and POV-driven editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 23 October 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 behavior described in the previous report had resumed. Diffs: [153], [154]. This user's POV appears to be causing disruptive editing (removing relevant text, removing sourced text, adding insured text in its place), specifically the removal of mentions of Christianity from White supremacists related article.
This user seems to be a constructive editor on music article. Perhaps a topic ban around Christianity or race would be better than a block?
Relevant discussion of interest. The POV editing is quite obvious and should be sanctioned; it's interesting to note it might not effective though, seeing the user has seemingly never engaged in any kind of communication (100% of 349 edits are in the mainspace). Alex ShihTalk06:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the complete absence of communication I don't think it's unreasonable to block the user until they agree to start collaborating. Communication is not optional. ATraintalk07:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Reasonable, but this editor has never responded to anything, including the previous ANI report. IMHO, if they edit again without responding, admin action would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think we should consider a t-ban. EvergreenFir(talk)18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Sorry, didn't mean to keep you waiting. As the last AN/I was inconclusive, it's difficult to take any action if the user chooses to not edit (which I understand is what happened last time also). If no further input can be expected from this report, I will make it clear that any next edit from this editor without any attempt to communicate and address issues raised should result in immediate preventative block until the user starts to collaborate. I have left a note for the user. Alex ShihTalk06:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: works for me! I'll keep an eye on their contribs too. Last time they took a while to edit again. But if they cannot communicate and continue this unambiguous disruption, I think a block is warranted as you suggest. EvergreenFir(talk)06:40, 22 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello: Some five years ago I added additional information to the wiki record of an Escort Robbery in 1853 in Australia and the sinking of the ship Madagascar in 1853. I had completed extensive research to support my findings and included the references to that research in my edits. Today I discovered that someone had taken it upon themselves to remove my entries and to totally delete my research and to therefore change the historical record. I checked the page and found that a person who did that is now blocked from editing. When this happens the dishonest persons edits should be reversed so that the historical accuracy of the entry is returned. This is a really important matter as destroying the past destroys the importance of history. Can wiki reverse these pages to predate these inaccurate and dishonest edits?
Anything that can be done by one editor can be undone by another (or perhaps with admin assistance). Deleted content either exists in the article-history and can be revived, or whole pages can be undeleted if the article no longer exists at all. It sounds like you know what article it is and what edits undid your work, so you can "simply" re-do your edits. Either look at the old edition and copy from there to the current, or revive the article as its former state (undoing all edits since then). With some detail, we can probably provide some thoughts about which way to go. But on its face, this is just a content issue--you note the other editor has already gotten administratively blocked--not an administrator-related incident. So maybe the article talk-page would be a better place to discuss it? Careful though...just because an editor was later blocked doesn't mean all his edits prior to that are invalid. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Next time please link to the article and the specific edit. If you mean this [155] then it was removed as "bold assertion based on dead link" and I am inclined to agree with the removal. The proper link was probably intended to be http://www.thesilentmoon.com/ , but that's a self-published book and is very unlikely to be considered to be a reliable source (see WP:RS). Unless Geoff Stewart is recognized expert in this field (and it is unlikely such an expert would publish his work as an e-book) this is just one person's opinion and does not belong in the article. Meters (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Material added to a Wikipedia article must be supportable by independent reliable sources as described at WP:RS, and your own self-published ebook is not an acceptable source. You are effectively adding your own original research, which is forbidden by WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I should also add that this is a content issue and not an administration issue, and so admins can do nothing about it anyway. The correct venue is the talk page of the article, where you should seek a consensus regarding the inclusion (or not) of your content. If that fails, then the dispute resolution steps at WP:DR should be considered. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in 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.
There has been repeated vandalism on this page adding Star Wars references recently. It's probably a good candidate for semi-protect.
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.
Hello,
A user uses multiple accounts and IP address to remove my edits about North Korea and historian Bruce Cumings :
Several times, he didn't directly reverted my edits (I would have received a notification) but he used the "edit source", which is not very loyal.--Lescandinave (talk) 22:02, 24 October 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.
See: any of the wikilinks at Ham... haven't figured out which template is affected yet, more eyes would be appreciated. OTRS suggests the same issue was occurring at Intel earlier today, though that article seems okay now. Yunshui雲水13:20, 25 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have been in discussion with a user at @68.129.15.71: for months now on not adding specific content to articles. This ranges from minor errors to improper italics, to suggestions of ignoring needing sources and poorly sourced content ranging from adding content and citing sources to do not claim it, not noting their edit summary, adding sources with IMDb as a source (against WP:RS/IMDb), and addition of unsourced content after a user can not find sources. After months of discussion on the users talk page and extra explanation of rules and what we can and can not add to wikipages, I've reached a wits end in trying to keep articles up to code. Discussion does not seem to help with the user who seems to dislike the rules, but wants to continue editing. How do we resolve this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment There is an extensive catalog of warnings on his talk page from many different editors on unconnected articles. This clearly isn't an isolated dispute between two editors but an ongoing problem with a particular editor's approach to Wikipedia. An escalating series of short blocks wouldn't be out of order here to try and modify the editor's conduct. He should be encouraged to create an account too and to enter into a mentor program. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Betty Logan:. Yes, I've basically tried to be civil and explain rules and even suggest where to try and change rules when suggested, but have not really found any real breaking rules to suggest otherwise. Its just I'm not really getting through to the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not completely objective here. I got involved in a dispute with this editor at Talk:Deep_Red#Additional_of_other_works. It was obvious to me he was well intentioned and hard-working but what came through was a general unwillingness to observe sourcing policy, MOS:FILM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. He has a lot of enthusiasm for a neglected area of articles but at the moment he is creating a lot of work for editors who end up cleaning up after him. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted them again. While the tweet MIGHT be something to add as a note in the article (if this "controversy" gains any steam in the media), the extra comments are certainly BLP violations. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:49, 24 October 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.
Gnocchi posted my personal information and falsely accused me of "targeted harassment" and "slander" on rationalwiki, [167], [168], he was blocked from the site as a result, [169], When I asked him on his page about why he did it, He deleted my message and claimed that I was the one at fault and then he deleted all of his old messages to cover his tracks. [170][171]. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Jaydogg1994, people are allowed to delete whatever they want from their user talk page per WP:OWNTALK. Rationalwiki has no relationship with this website. There is no policy violation here. What are you looking to have happen here? John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, did you somehow miss the big red box at the top of this page that tells you you must inform any editor you report here? No worries, I did it for you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
When he erased my message he gaslighted me by accusing me of "doxing and harassment.", When it was he who doxed and harassed me and that's why he's permabanned from Rationalwiki, Me posting a message asking how he found my personal information and identity and linking to his blocked account on rationalwiki (Which does not contain his real name or address) is not doxing or harassment. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Rationalwiki, and we don't care in the least about what arguments you may or may not have had on another website. If you and Gnocchi can't get on, then stay off each other's talk pages. ‑ Iridescent07:44, 25 October 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.
See: any of the wikilinks at Ham... haven't figured out which template is affected yet, more eyes would be appreciated. OTRS suggests the same issue was occurring at Intel earlier today, though that article seems okay now. Yunshui雲水13:20, 25 October 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.
For whatever reason, the previous thread on this issue was archived without any resolution. Bachcell is still exhibiting a behavior against WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:CIVIL with these edits.[172][173][174] He has continuously accused editors of "whitewashing" terrorist articles and inserting his own POV at AFD, talk pages, etc for an issue that is highly controversial for some. My previous complaint demonstrated he has been doing this for months. This needs to be taken care of either with a WP:NOTTHERE block or topic ban from terror-related articles and talk pages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick is still exhibiting a behavior threatening an editor with a block or topic ban merely for objecting to deletion of terror and terrorist attack articles. This cannot be the basis for a topic ban, other the other hand participating in a coordinated effort to delete or minimize terrorist attacks should be a matter for community concern. Consider this editor to be formally intimiated and discouraged from participating in AFD questions from now on until the WP:CIVIL threats cease. Bachcell (talk)
Do you mean "intimidated"? I hope not because that certainly sounds like a veiled threat. This entire response basically summarizes the issue with your behavior; who is participating in this "coordinated effort"? Serious allegations like that require serious evidence. And I do not care if you object at an AFD as long as you apply a policy-based reason. But you never do; in fact you simply accuse editors of "whitewashing" and assert your own POV on the issue rather than objectively handling the discussion. In a topic area that necessitates neutrality, almost more than any other area, your provocactive and subjective behavior means you either are not there or cannot develop a rationale response at AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, "intimidated" would not be a threat in that sentence, veiled or otherwise, but rather a statement that you are threatening to him. And given your ongoing efforts to silence him through these channels, I cannot say that I blame him. How about retracting that claim and apologizing for it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
NatGertler no I will not but thanks for the offer. Had he said "Consider this editor to be formally intimiating me..." your explanation would have convinced me. And I have no desire to silence him but his ongoing behavior does need attention. Editors from the previous thread began to agree with me before it was archived.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph so you believe Bachcell accusing editors of "whitewashing" and planning a coordinated conspiracy to delete articles is beneficial to AFD and talk page discussion. Can you elaborate on that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Noting that the OP apparently wants to withdraw the complaint [175], though it should be left to someone else to close. 20:23, 24 October 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.
People that are accused of being sockpuppets Diabedia for editing national anthems
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed that there are many people who aren't Diabideia are blocked by the admins because of the similar edits but only difference is that some have lyrics that are actually true. This result in the removal of the national anthem lyrics such as the Kazakh national anthem and the Turkmen national anthem. They are being marked as WP:NOTLYRICS when according to official sources such as government websites, they are lyrics. Some users such as are accused of being sockpuppets of Diabedia, this is an example of WP:TOOLMISUSE. Please investigate this. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If I've understood you correctly, that is precisely the point. WP:NOTLYRICS says that we should not act as a lyrics database, in articles wher the majority of the article is purely lyrics. The article is a case in point: almost solely composed of lyrics. So if those anthems are defined as lyics, clearly they should be removed. In any case, it's not strictly just lyrics; your poems, too, no less, would be as equally vulnerable. As for the socking: perhaps WP:MEAT is more applicable...? — fortunavelut luna14:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Lyrics are most often used in song articles where there is historical information, such as lyrics changing over time and/or specific references within the lyrics which need explanation. For just straight lyrics, that's what Wikisource is for. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
When I checked it out, I noticed this edit, which I reverted as a purely personal attack.
I then posted a 4im warning about personal attacks on BoundaryLayer's talk page.
I decided to look at some of his other recent edits, and wound up reverting something unrelated over a sourcing issue (it's since been put back; I'm not overly concerned with this one)
BoundaryLayer has now accused me of hounding and other nefarious activity and issued me a custom-ish warning on my talk page with these 2 (unsigned) edits: [176], and [177]
Yeah, calling another editor "schizophrenic" and making personal attacks claiming the other editor has a psychiatric disorder is bad news. Your last two diffs made me think that BoundaryLayer was a new or inexperienced editor (fake template warnings being something that I've seen new editors do on occasion), but I note that BL has been around for over seven years and has over 5000 edits. Looks like there's also an old SPI on BoundaryLayer, and quite a few warnings and disputes spanning the last five years. I'm not terribly concerned about the warning on your user talk, Deacon; it looks pretty blatantly bogus. But we can't have the personal attacks. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Though strangely, Deacon Vorbis did not feel it relevant to communicate any of this context to you? Why would they not think this relevent? Is it really a personal attack to call a comedic spin-doctor, who is babbling about lizards, a schizo? Seems pretty measured to me.
Moreover why would Deacon Vorbis then go hounding into my edit history or as they put it, just innocently "wound up" removing a reference penned by [Barry Brooks Ph.D]? If they weren't engaged in Hounding, then why revert? |Why remove this encyclopedia building edit of mine? Though of course now Deacon Vorbis is "not overly concerned with this one"...Of course they're not, they recognise that they're hounding and they're now trying to save face. As we're all really reassured that you're not "overly concerned" with references written by Ph.Ds. Really nicely reassured?
With respect to the PA, it's a PA because the statement was used to attack the other editor. Regardless of whether it was serious or sarcastic, it's inappropriate to call another editor schizophrenic as an insult. That the other editors were being facetious doesn't really excuse it. As to the content dispute aspect of your response, honestly, I don't think it's relevant, particularly given this is ANI. We don't do content disputes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Though how exactly is it an "attack" or an "insult", when the other editor is intentionally babbling about "lizards in the center of the earth" in order to derail the talk page into absurdity? Listen, I like describing things and talk of "lizards in the center of earth" is schizo and inappropriate for wikipedia. So this is quite literally farcical. Just stop for a second and take in the fact that - we're on an admin board over how 2 editors used the tactic of reductio ad-absurdum when their political leanings were pointed out. Their strategy to divert attention away from their political advocacy, has really worked a slick treat, hasn't it?
What this noticeboard would be greenlighting in troublingly deeming this a PA, is that the Chewbacca defense works here. Specifically, if you Babble about lizards => get called a schizo => feign being attacked with crocodile tears, you get to punish the bad "insulting" man. Is this really the precedent you want to start setting?
When you call another editor a schizophrenic and tell him that he needs to go seek psychiatric help, you're commenting on the person rather than the merits of the dispute you're in. Even if you were the recipient of personal attacks yourself, your statement would be sanctionable. And honestly, this isn't setting any precedent: This is straightforward application of longstanding Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Do not attack other editors. Comment on the content, not the contributor. You've been here for seven years. You should know better by now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you actually being serious? "Comment on the content, not the contributor". The content is intentionally schizophrenic. It's after all, the Chewbacca defense for heavens sake. Anyone that uses it, throws out any-and-all expectancy of courtesy as it is quite literally schizophrenic and those who deploy it, are well aware of that fact. So again, how is it an insult or attack to call someone who is facetiously engaged in turning a discussion into a farce - a schizo who needs help?
Secondly, if you must stick to the letter of the PC laws, & to prevent this from truly becoming a precedent of absolutely farcical proportions. You have acknowledged that "even if you were [1st] the recipient of personal attacks yourself". Yet where are their "sanctionable" ANI discussions? No where. So should not the 2 other editors similarly receive "sanctionable" treatment? After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes, I'm actually being serious. You called the person a schizophrenic and told him to seek psychiatric help. That's inappropriate. As to whether the other editors merit sanctions, I haven't looked into that. What I saw at a glance didn't look like a personal attack; it just looked facetious. Not the best behavior but I don't think it's disruptive enough to be sanctionable. Using "schizophrenic" as a pejorative is not only a personal attack, but it is arguably demeaning to people who actually suffer from schizophrenia. This is Wikipedia, it is not 4chan. You can't just go around using a disability as a slur. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are actually being dead serious, then I hope you realize just how farcical your whole spiel is. For one, schizophrenic is not a pejorative nor is suggesting someone go get help, it is a precisely accurate appraisal and reply to someone waffling about "lizards within the center of the earth" and what they need. For two, you can take your crocodile tears about schizophrenics back to 4chan, a place I didn't even know existed until now. You can take your whole fantasy filled yarn of "PA, demeaning to schizophrenics etc" there, as that is truly the Troll place for it, because if you actually knew a single genuine schizophrenic, you'd be well aware that people being 2-faced and timid about pointing out crazy behavior, is actually one of the primary things that ticks them off. A spade is a spade, regardless of if it has feelings and believes it is a butterfly. So in no uncertain terms, I find your entire standpoint as farcically empty of learning as it is trying to be laughably "well intentioned".
This is like calling someone a "retard" in an online argument and then arguing that it's not offensive because you genuinely believe the person you called a "retard" to suffer from a learning disability, and that it was therefore an accurate assessment. You used the term as a pejorative and deserve censure for it. But even if you had not, it is highly inappropriate to speculate about another editor having a psychiatric disorder, and you would merit censure for that. Far more serious is your refusal to acknowledge and take ownership of your improper conduct. I urge you to rethink your position while you are still permitted to edit here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mendaliv thanks for reminding everyone of the conspiratorial Sockpuppet charges dreamt up by an opposing "editor" in 2012, who was caught copy-pasting material from anti-nuclear pamplets in Australia and wanted to similarly divert attention away from their actions, so surprise-suprise, they started that farcical "investigation". Thanks for reminding us of them. It's really always a great reminder that the admin-board is frequently used by opponents with political agendas. Reminds me of the type of "editors" I oh-so frequently have the displeasure of dealing with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)
But two socks were blocked as a result of that investigation. Are you suggesting that these weren't yours? --John (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh funny it's John in here all of a sudden, But 2 socks weren't blocked as a result of that investigation and you know it. All that investigation revealed was that particular anti-nuclear copy-pasters will do anything to try and revert attention away from their own conduct. Instead, what you are referring to is, the later events following the similarly farcical charge that I was allegedly a big-time trans-atlantic lawyer, a story which I do love to retell. At which point a particular admin, that's you if I'm not mistaken? Funny coincidence there. You in particular tried to frame a narrative of he's a "lawyer ba ZOMGA"! Which resulted in a permanent ban. To correct this madness I then had to create the intentionally obvious sock of "Boundarylayerlives" to ask on a talk page, what in the hell is going on...though you are obviously facetiously aware of all thism as soon it resulted in my account being reinstated and correct me if I'm wrong but your "permanent ban" was deemed somewhat of an abuse of power? If I'm not mistaken. Perhaps also would be this pretty coy attempt to raise it again?
I had forgotten that I blocked you for making legal threats five years ago, and it seems like you have forgotten what happened too. It's still on your talk page, have a look. You accused another editor of "libel" and I blocked you under WP:NLT. You were unblocked when you promised not to do it again. I don't think any abuse of power was suggested; if it was it isn't evident on your talk page. And here we are five years later and you're defending calling another editor "schizophrenic". Any reason you shouldn't just be blocked again? --John (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I was honestly on the verge of proposing an indef anyway. Boundarylayer looks to have been attacking people in virtually every dispute he's been in. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No I actually did not accuse another editor of "libel". If you indeed have a look at my talk page. Another editor pointed all that out. Where did the blocking admin seek to clarify the issue before blocking as mentioned at WP:NLT to make certain it was an actual legal threat? Considering Johns very strong criticism of Boundarylayers editing [179] etc, the block should never have been made by him. He is clearly involved. User:IRWolfie User talk:IRWolfie-|talk 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This makes it more than twice now that you have been "involved" in an effort to WP:HOUND, in breach of the rules. Any reason why you shouldn't be reprimanded for this, again?
Apart from the facts that it isn't true and concerns your misbehaviour from five years ago you mean? You said at the time (using your acknowledged sock account) I was a bit bewildered at the initial ban and so I had to look through my edits to see where I had made the legal threats, having found what I think is the offending section. I think it a bit extreme but would obviously re-word False and libel to simply false and misleading if given the opportunity to do so. As jpgordon mentioned I didn't know the rule against using the word libel, and I didn't intend, nor do I intend, any legal action. So were you mistaken then or are you mistaken now? --John (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'm unfortunately convinced that most people refused to read the whole noticeboard (or talk page) rants further than a few paragraphs. I would recommend writing concise and short posts in the future to make communication feasible. Even if completely reading a wall of text, it remains unclear what the main concern is in the haystack. —PaleoNeonate – 02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
User talk:PaleoNeonate, your comments don't really seem relevant to this noticeboard? Though for the sake of completeness, or to "rant" as you courteously put it & clear out the whole hayshed for you, the FTN noticeboard, to boil it down, is simply a case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS. On that point, please give your 2 cents on the talk page.
[[User:PaleoNeonate...and I knew what you meant, so I boiled it down for you? To reiterate. It's a simple case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS, now if you genuinely do not have the time to devout yourself to improving the encyclopedia by giving your 2 cents about that very narrow topic, seemingly prefering instead to write 2 off-topic paragraphs here about how you "don't want to be involved, honestly, don't want to be involved", "walls of text" etc. Then you don't have to keep saying that, we believe you. That's your decision. Best of luck with your future editing priorities.
I recently posted a note about the issue at WT:MED, in case it could gather the attention of editors experienced in medicine topics. I'm sorry if the wall of text criticism was difficult to receive. —PaleoNeonate – 17:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Not at all man, I didn't receive it harshly, I knew it was long so I am in the process of altering it for easier digestion.
@Boundarylayer: are you missing something important here? The important thing is, do you realize that your mention of schizophrenia was inappropriate, and do you apologize for making that comment and do you undertake not to behave like that in the future? MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
From the current unblock request: Secondly this block as it stands now is preventing me from responding to an ongoing noticeboard discussion of which I am a part. So it's pretty ill-timed. Or am I to understand, that is the whole point? Doubling down on the aspersions is not a great move. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Seems to me this user is dead-set to push an agenda that seeks to skew an article in favor of their political position, and if that is to be done by beating people over the head with their intransigence, it seems that the user is set to do this. I would recommend not closing this in spite of the 31-hour block in order to see what the user's actions are after block expiration. I would hope a move on to other things (boundary layers, perhaps? We could use with a better article on that subject) would be done. jps (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm the person who BoundaryLayer called a schizophrenic. Yes I did make a joke response when BL claimed to know my politics. At that stage of the conversation, and now, I think BL is not a serious editor, at least in this topic, so they didn't deserve a serious reply. You can see the discussion on the talk page for all the falsehoods that BL was adding, repeating arguments from campaign groups on one side. BL made outlandish claims that might sound good ("There's no source in 2013 or later to back this up"), 10 minutes of searching produces ~10 counter examples. etc etc They are outright lying on this article, and continue to try to push their agenda with these long skreeds. ____Ebelular (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
This is a weird situation that I have noticed. I don't even know it if is necessarily bad behavior, just strange. But if you look at the edit history of Elminster dating back to about February of this year, it seems like there have been a whole lot of accounts editing it, most of whose sole purpose seems to be to make one edit or two to the article and then stop. Many of the names of those SPAs are also very similar to each other. I have to think that they are all just one person making new accounts over and over. It doesn't seem like they are doing anything wrong per se, aside from linking to common terms. Is this anything worth reporting anywhere, or am I just being silly? (And yes, silly is an appropriate answer.) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It is weird, yes, and probably the same person or at least the same few people (considering some of the edits overwrite each other), but the edits themselves seem to be benign and not breaking any policy or anything. FWIW, the account names are all just standard fantasy fake names. ansh66619:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There are ones with more than one edit, and I saw at least one come back to make an edit after another account got used. It almost looks like they're being generated automatically. Recently there were a bunch ending in "(vowel)th". Some of the others are very similar. But I agree, it just looks creepy right now. If there's something nefarious happening, unless someone else has seen this before and knows what the game is, we'll have to wait and see. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Many of the early user names are anagrams of ethanol, so perhaps its some kind of drinking game for bots or botlike wordgamers. :) 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 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.
It's been over 48 hours since this IP has made any edits, so a block is essentially moot at this point. If this IP continues to be disruptive, add a report to WP:AIV; this is the appropriate place to report disruption like this and an admin can take action from there. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP violations on Princess Marie-Esméralda of Belgium
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.
Instead of coming to ANI, you should first have tried to discuss this with the editors on their talk page or on the article talk page. Their additions, while unsourced, don't seem to be malicious at all (in fact, they seem to be correct and informative, though probably a bit lengthy). Please first try discussion with and education of the editor involved before requesting admin intervention. Fram (talk) 07:04, 25 October 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 started running into Samsbanned(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), and each time I do I'm struck with the sense that this user's entire purpose on Wikipedia is a mixture of condemnation of the project and its editors, and promotion of vegetarianism and some other viewpoints, mostly relating to India. The user will brook no criticism or correction of any kind, plays WP:ICANTHEARYOU when policies and guidelines are cited, and simply attacks people, singly and site-wide. I think this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR problem. (User page indicates this is an Australian, vegetarian, Gaudiya Vaishnavist, and long-term member of International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which may explain some of the PoV positions being taken.)
Civility problems and anti-Wikipedia sentiment:
"Nasty Wikipedians: Really there are some horrible, disrespectful, demoniac lowlifes out there. ... the attacks come from malicious people .... atheists, agnostics, and one-eyed religious fanatics delight in hurting others. ... This is no place for a gentleman" [180]. In Samsbanned's defense, there was rudeness from one editor, who criticized Samsbanned's first-article attempt in unnecessarily insulting terms [181]. But this seems to have set Samsbanned off in a "screw Wikipedia and everyone on it" direction). And Samsband appears to be bringing severe personal prejudices to bear; maligning agnostics, atheists, and followers of religio-spiritual beliefs other than the editor's own as people who "delight in hurting others" is unacceptable.
Reiterates claim that anyone who suspects Samsbanned for wrongdoing is "demoniac" [182].
"Wankipedia", "I'm so over wikipedia and I'm outa here" [184]
"Wankerpedia control freaks", "smart arse", "have your head screwed on one way" [185].
"Showing your ignorance" [186] (no ignorance is in evidence; it's just a dismissive insult and a revert-warring refusal to engage in discussion already opened).
Puts "encyclopedia" in "scare quotes" when referring to Wikipedia (when not referring to its editors as wonks and wankers) [190].
See also "typical Wikiporn" below.
Generalized baseless accusations ("Perhaps ... had an agenda ie xenophobia, big pharma, etc") [191] against editors who removed (per WP:MEDRS) poorly sourced medical claims from Curry tree. Samsbanned mass-reverted all edits at the article from 29 May 2016 through 23 March 2017, without consensus [192].
Weird insults (and presuming to speak for the subject) at Talk:Aqualung (Jethro Tull album) "you need to get up to speed on Ian Anderson's intellect ... Or are you one of those thick as a brick experts that Ian Anderson despises?" [193]
More insults, in furtherance of defense of astrology as legitimate: "is the Wikipedian responsible for [a chart's inclusion] doing so in an attempt to mock astrology, or are they merely innocent of their misuse of technique, through lack of understanding ...?" [194]
Flatly disagrees with Wikipedia's entire editing model (written by anyone, no credentials required) and does not take the project seriously [195]. Numerous diffs below, and another here include statements that WP cannot be taken seriously, is unreliable, is worthless, etc., etc. The editor has been consistently maintaining this position since at least 2014 ("I'm so over wikipedia and I'm outa here" diff [196], among others from that year), so why is Samsbanned still here? Helping WP achieve its goals doesn't appear to be it.
"Tell someone who cares" response, when being asked to read and follow WP's policies and to abide by the WP:ARBIPA ArbCom ruling [197].
Changes neutral "WP:ARBPIA Notification" heading to "Wikibullying", and accuses the editor who posted this (ArbCom-required) template of being "some bully ... trying to scare me", and of having a white-supremacist agenda.
The overall pattern emerging is defiance against what WP is and how it operates, and bad-faith assumption that anyone who disagrees with Samsbanned is stupid, ignorant, an arsehole, a demon, or part of a conspiracy (specifically a white-supremacist one) with ulterior motives, and couldn't possibly have a reasoned rationale for disagreeing with this editor.
Vegetarianism and "cruelty-free" WP:SOAPBOXing, and other PoV problems:
[199], [200] (PoV-pushing about vegetarianism and leather in the article on billiards cue sticks.
Did it again, despite already being told why this wasn't appropriate [201] and agreeing (testily) they wouldn't do it again [202],
This user talk post makes it clear what the motivation is, and it is not encyclopedic but activistic. (The WP:NOR problem inherent in these edits has also been explained to this editor, now for a second time).
This article talk post makes it even clearer: This is all about vegetarians' "needs" to promote their philosophy, even to the point of injecting nonsense original research about the reason synthetic cue tips exist (nothing to do with veganism, all about the playing characteristics of the materials).
Goes after historical (1890) painting in Mahabharata as "typical Wikiporn" [203] just because if you look closely there's a visible nipple in it; modern Indian decorum seems to be the rationale.
Addition of unsourced, ungrammatical "Aryan"-related stuff at International Society for Krishna Consciousness[204]. The editor's replacement (in edit summary) of the organization's short name, ISKCon, with "It'sgone" indicates a clear antagonistic viewpoint with regard to ISKCon's current leadership and publications, in contrast to how it was in the past (also found in user talk [205]). This is reinforced in this article talk post, reiterating "It's Gone", and adding an accusation that ISKCon today is "a pedophile ring of fake gurus". That comment may have have to be removed as defamatory, per WP:BLP policy.
That stuff's focus on "Hinduisation" changes to a scriptural work is mirrored by some of this editors' work-in-progress source gathering [206] on changes to other works in Hinduism and related faiths; the indication in that material that Wikipedia itself is involved in the conflict (see 2nd source in list) is troubling, and suggests external WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:TRUTH activism being brought to Wikipedia.
See also defiant WP:FRINGE-promoting response here and [207] about the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Editor rejects policy and ArbCom decisions, and just cares about advancing "my contrary beliefs" that "Aryan" is just a state of mind or something. It's unclear what point Samsbanned is trying to make, really, but it is clear that it's not backed by reliable sources, and the editor seems proud of this (see below).
More of this "Aryan" stuff comes up here; the editors' view is that as a practitioner of an Asian esoteric practice what one was traditionally taught must be in the article and that what scholars have to say about the history of Yuga is just a "Eurocentric White Supremacist interpretation". The editor was simply asked to cite sources and not insert a personal interpretation.
This is essentially repeated in user talk [208], problematic in other ways noted above, and including a claim that having to follow WP policies is a "Eurocentric" affront to the editor's "native dignity".
This diff (which echoes this one) sums up the issue pretty well: Samsbanned is convinced that WP is not a "reliable source" on spiritual beliefs that cannot be scientifically or historically proven, and that the solution to this is to force in the viewpoint of the subject (spiritual organization, guru, religion, etc.) as Truth.
Seems to be on a mission to discredit gurus of the 1960s–1970s more generally ("Popular Gurus of the Hippie Era : Spot the Charlatan") [209].
Also states he's here to revert "blasphemous" edits to the ISKCon article [210], whatever that means. Defending ISKCon's honor seems to be what Samsband is here for [211]. Samsbanned is an ISKCon Life Member (since 1978) [212] and thus probably shouldn't be editing articles related to it at all, per WP:COI.
Addition of lots of unsourced emotive stuff ("those idyllic conditions are now seldom found, as if they have almost disappeared forever", and so on, including what amounts to a condemnation of non-local surfers) at First Reef, an article the editor created. Just look over the short history of the page. Most of this was reverted by someone [213], and pared down further later.
Insertion of personal viewpoint about an album, including contradiction of sources that it is a "concept album" [214] (see related "thick as a brick experts that Ian Anderson despises" talkpage thread cited above).
Advocacy of deletion of material even though editor admits lack of knowledge of and sources for what the truth is, and is just ruminating about the editor's own nose [215][216].
In at least five of the diffs above, the editor says "I give up" or essentially the same sentiment in slight different wording, when confronted with the fact that their personal opinion cannot be used in lieu of reliable sources and neutral text. Yet Samsbanned does not give up, and just bides time, only to return to the same PoV-pushing and defiance of WP's purpose and expectations a short while later.
I warned the editor that continuing in this vein would not end well [217], but they kept at it, with that latest "Wankerpedians" and aspersions-of-ignorance-and-nefarious-motives post [218]. I am not the first to try to address such issues with this editor; see e.g. [219] and WP:ARPIPA notices like this one.
PS: There was one WP:SSI report (here), probably triggered by the suspicious username; it was not investigated, as the reporter got indeffed for something else before providing evidence (however, another such accusation was made by another editor; I found that in the history of Samsbanned's talk page somewhere). Looking over the edit histories, the suspected sockmaster appears an unlikely candidate to begin with. I'm skeptical this is a sockpuppet of anyone at all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Boy, that is one thorough ANI report, McC. This user is highly tendentious and clearly frustrating to collaborate with. What do you propose? Will a topic(s) ban suffice? If so, what topics? Can you link up the most recent attempt to get the editor to play nicely with others? ATraintalk14:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I've learned not to come to ANI, AN, AE, or RFARB without doing thorough diffing. I also didn't presume to demand a specific community response; I don't spend enough time on drama boards to know what the typical community response is to which sorts of problems these days. At a bare minimum, I would expect to see an administrative admonition 1) against verbally attacking other editors or groups/classes of editors (for being Wikipedians, for having different religious beliefs, for citing policy, for disagreeing with the editor, or for any other reason), including aspersions about their mentality or motives; and 2) to abide by WP:POLICY pages (policies and guidelines) and to engage with editors who raise POLICY concerns, rather than editwarring. Beyond that, my vague sense is maybe a topic ban from Indian spirituality topics; the vegetarianism stuff has been confined to a single article and might not recur, while the PoV-pushing about ISKCon and other Hinduism-interfacing (but not entirely inclusive-within-Hinduism) topics is a longer-running and broader pattern, and clearly an actual pattern. However, all the condemnation of Wikipedia itself and Wikipedians as a meta-class, and the dismissal of all editors who don't share this persons' belief system, as "demoniac" racist conspirators who "delight in hurting others", may indicate just banning or indeffing Samsbanned as generally incompatible with the project (WP:CIR).
I concur. While I am not completely convinced on the charge of NOTHERE, SMcCandlish has presented a strong case that Samsbanned is a tendentious editor with serious POV pushing and CIR issues. I would like to hear from Samsbanned prior to forming any definitive judgements. But the evidence presented appears compelling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't completely convinced myself when I started this ANI (initially just about the civility matters), but in the course of diff-researching it, I see a pattern of a) constructive editing that is almost nothing but very sporadic trivial typo fixing; b) a single article creation the vast majority of which had to be deleted as non-encyclopedic, non-neutral, unsourced personal testimonial and editorial material; and c) lots of anti-collaborative behavior, mostly in furtherance of: c1) denigrating the project and its participants; or c2) clearly declared intent to pursue some agendas: c2a) to advance the "needs" of vegetarians in a promotional and off-topic manner, c2b) to root out "blasphemy" and "pedophile ... fake gurus" and "charlatans", and c2c) to address the WP:TRUTH and WP:GREATWRONGS of changes to Indian spiritual works over time; with both c2b and c2c focusing at least initially on ISKCon, to which the editor is directly connected and has a conflict of interest. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't sound to me like a topic ban is going to be of any use here. Basically, the behavior falls under WP:NOTHERE, and my only question is whether their upside is significant enough to start with a block of significant length, or if we should go directly to an indefinite site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Blocked. I don't see any point in fiddling about with topic bans for an editor who is this disruptive and unreasonable. Indeffed for persistent personal attacks, attacks against groups of editors, and unreasonableness. Bishonen | talk22:42, 25 October 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.
Back on the sixth I posted to Giangkiefer's talk page regarding all of their uploads being copyright violations. They were uploaded as public domain images when they very clearly were not. Now, since they all fell under fair use I asked them to go back and fix their images so others don't have to clean up their mess. I left them the templates they needed to use as well to try to quicken the process (and to hopefully avoid the issue in the future). None of that occurred and they recently uploaded another image and placed it under public domain when it clearly isn't. I'm at a loss here. They don't seem to be getting it, they won't respond to their talk page, and now I'm afraid I need some administrative assistance in this matter. --Majora (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of using a block to get a user's attention. I wonder if we could come up with a smarter alternative. For example, a step that would allow the user to continue editing (as there are no allegations that the edits are problematic), but disallow uploads of images. That might get the user's attention, without the stain of a block record. (To Majora: Apologies I realize my suggestion does nothing to solve the problem you identified.)--S Philbrick(Talk)00:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like 44 uploads since last August. Looks like Giangkiefer started using fair use tags for a couple uploads on the 8th, but has gone back to tagging as PD. And a bunch of the most recent ones are still improperly tagged as PD. I don't feel as bad about a block to get Giangkiefer's attention. The way I see it, Giangkiefer got a {{uw-copyright}} on the 5th, and got the more specific warning from Majora on the 8th, but kept it up despite that. I guess we could do a more concise final warning, like "If you upload another file with an improper license, you may be blocked without further notice." But... at some point we've gotta say enough is enough. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a technical way to strip someone of their "upload" flag, although, there have been multiple times in the past when I wished there was. I'm really hoping that the post here gets some sort of response. If that is what it takes so be it. And no, their edits don't seem to be a problem. Just their uploads. And those would be fine if they just start doing them correctly. At this point it is just cleaning up after them that has become problematic. As for staining their block log, that ship sailed in February. --Majora (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Last I looked at a user management screen there isn't a way to technically strip someone of their autoconfirm flag. Edit filters can technically do so but that feature is not active on enwiki and automated removal of rights is a contentious topic that won't likely gain consensus. In any case, even if admins could remove autoconfirm, that level contains a lot more flags than just upload. Which is the main problem here. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I just kindof figured you could remove it like any other right. And it would certainly have unintended consequences, like preventing the user from creating new articles, but would be preferable to a block and if implemented could be reinstated once the user... you know... learns how to use a talk page. Anyway, I suppose if it's not technically doable then no point talking about it much. GMGtalk13:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Two options here, Final warning with an indef should another copyvio image be uploaded following said final warning; or a CBAN on uploading any images to en-Wiki, with an indef should it be ignored. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I would probably prefer a final warning and an indef pending an unblock request at least acknowledging that there is a problem here and how they intend to fix it. They appear to know how to use a talk page when it suits them, and they know how to use a fair use rationale. They're simply choosing not to, and that's not really okay. Plus a CBAN just seems like an unnecessary use of time, given that any uninvolved admin could have already imposed a block for repeated copyvio, and probably would have were it not for their otherwise productive contributions. GMGtalk14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Final warning works for me. @Mjroots: would you mind issuing it as an "official" admin action. Giangkiefer obviously doesn't want to participate in this thread as they have edited since it began. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring over temperature in rome and vandalism on Matthew Hk's Userpage. War has been happening for a while now and has been mainly over information on Romes temperature. Matthew Hk has has opened an ARV against Marco but it seems better to bring this here. -glove- (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Matthew_hk accused me of being a "vandal only account, create hoax climate data" and of having violated the terms and conditions. All of this is untrue: as you can see, I only made edits on his wrong climate data, and I have 2 valuable sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the source. You were right about that, I put the wrong source on Ramacca's article without realizing it. Now, though, everything is fixed and justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have verified that Marco010101 (a) has been adding content which contradicts sources, even sources which he himself has provided in the very edits where he has added that content, (b) has made edits which contradict one another, in a way that looks like just making up data as he goes along, and (c) has been edit warring. I have blocked the account for three days, which I regard as a token short block in the hope of persuading him to change. If he does not change I will be willing to consider a much longer block, perhaps indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The mention of long term abuse brought back to my mind another case exactly like this, with an editor who posted false climate data to numerous articles, using fake references to sites that did not support the data he or she was posting. Unfortunately it was a long time ago, and I don't remember much about it. I don't even remember whether the vandalism related to places in Italy. The "suspiciously similar account" that EvergreenFir refers to is OFF26, which is tagged on Italian Wikipedia as a possible sockpuppet of Meteorologo1. Meteorologo1 has edited only on Italian Wikipedia, OFF26 in Italian and English Wikipedias. Meteorologo1 was indefintiely blocked on Italian Wikipedia in February 2015 for block evasion, which suggests the existence of one or more accounts from earlier than that, as does the reference to "Long-term abuse" in the global lock log for OFF26.
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
The named IP has now been blocked for a second time. I recommend that admins concerned about bad IP edits of the year articles (like 1993) should periodically review Special:Contributions/124.106.240.0/20 to see if the pattern begins again. Regarding a possible rangeblock of the /20, there seems to be too much collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 26 October 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.
IP makes a number of edits to year articles, most have at least one absurd component. Some warnings were [220], and a detailed description of some of the things he has been doing wrong are here. He has made so many errors that I don't feel like listing them. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin – I don’t mean to be disruptive there Arthur, but I don’t want to keep up with the IP’s behaviour of changing all people from the U.K. to British without justification. Another example would be when that when there was previous IPs with the 124.106 as the first two and the rest just whatever, he changed everyone from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, etc. to Soviet (despite all of them being under the USSR) and it ticks me off with images too. But at times, I don’t know what to do anymore. Like removing Pat Nixon’s image in the 1993 article is unacceptable unless there was no room and I don’t understand why the IP didn’t want that image. I restored it and he removed it. I can’t win. Gar (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
He added the "Italian-born" actor again in 1993. I've already reverted him 3 times in that article. All I could do is "vandalize" the entry to make it correct. — Arthur Rubin(talk)01:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me look at this. I have semi-protected 1930, 1939, 1993, and temporarily blocked the IP for 24 hours, and hopefully they will start to communicate through edit summaries or responding to these final warnings. Alex Shih (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There was an IP I call the 'prime minister numbering vandal' who was blocked at AN3 back in June, but with a different IP. The present IP, 124.106.252.87, is busy attaching numbers to prime ministers in this edit to Afonso Acosta. Both of these IPs have most of their edits tagged 'Mobile edit, mobile web edit'. It could be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
They differ by more than just the last set of numbers: the guy from AN3 was 96.54.184.11 (Nanaimo Canada) and this one is 124.106.252.87 (Philippines). If you want to look through a /20 range to find other Philippine IPs who could be the same guy, you could look at Special:Contributions/124.106.240.0/20. I suggest a possible block of this range. This guy does about 50 edits a day, about half of them to year articles. He changes IPs at least once a week. He still constantly makes unsourced changes to the numbering of the prime ministers from various countries. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 October 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.
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 wish to register a complaint! On two different occasions I have had extremely bad experiences with this user, even though she was apparently once editor of the week. These incidents revolve around the demand for proof. However, my complaint is that lacking proof she immediately deletes the information regardless of the alternatives.
She always brings up WP:PROVEIT - but that article for example also says:
"In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
What I object to is the needless uphill struggle after that to prove a single (and non-essential) word like "succesfull" or "international". User, unable to let go, then questioned the US airing of Age of Kings in that page's summary, even though that had its own section, with reference, immediately below (#1.1): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Age_of_Kings&type=revision&diff=807068239&oldid=806766004
Eventually she got off an edit war charge, because faced with references she amended "and North America" to "and the US". So the page is more or less OK now. The problem however is that it took a frustrating amount of editing to get there, because these two edits both started with said user not reading information that was clearly visible in the articles.
Then there is WP:COMMONSENSE. If a statement is probably true but not easy to prove, especially like the two examples above, and has relatively little impact on the page anyway, is it really constructive to immediately delete? User simply becomes obsessive after initial rebuttal and then decides to go extremely strict on the burden of proof - all the time without any attempt to correct/help/give time. I.e. unable to face "defeat", she went from the Spread of the Eagle page on to the other page to find a target there.
I will leave out the similar incident on a Blackadder page longer ago which revolved around whether a sketch available on youtube was allowed to be acknowledged if there was no reference. But I would like to point out that this is no way to behave for a long time editor, especially when it's a new article anyway by someone who does not have such a long track record. So my complaint is rule abuse, vindictiveness, and destructive behaviour (through deleting without any attempt to fix). Spiny Norman (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Have to say, this series of edits ([221][222][223][224]) is pretty poor on MarnetteD's part. Seems to be a case of feeling the need to prove something after being proved wrong. But as BD2412 notes, it's not really worthy of any action, but hopefully something to learn from. Number5712:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I do admit I have not been continuously friendly myself; all the same, "can't you read" is at some level actually a heartfelt comment - after all, existing information, AND the guideline advice to fix rather than remove, seemed to be staring in the face. (PS The exact exchange is spread over a few Edit summaries and talk pages. I did longer ago post a suggestion on her talk page but this was dismissed out of hand as trolling - all in all I had not much confidence that there'd be agreement.) Spiny Norman (talk) 14:00, 26 October 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.
Long term abuse from Department of Veterans Affairs IP addresses
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Disingenuous request; provided diffs demonstrate that the situation is nowhere near as described, given the inclusion of the government source Stars and Stripes and publications from the other side of the aisle such as NBC News. You almost got blocked yourself for attempting to use administrative sanctions to present only one side of the story. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 26 October 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.
These and possibly other IP addresses that are tied to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington DC have been used since 2010 for a campaign of unimaginatively partisan edits to US politics related articles. The edits consistently cherry pick sources from highly biased sources such as Breitbart, the National Review, RT.com, the Washington Times, and Fox News. See
A half dozen warnings have been given at 152.130.15.30 related to the recent NPOV issues, and another dozen or so at 152.130.15.14 which were primarily over personal attacks and copyrights.
Talk page discussions have not helped. The person has shown no indication they grasp what the issues are, or that, while Fox News may be minimally reliable for some kinds of general news, they are well recognized as hopelessly biased with regard to US politics. See
It's great to have editors from a range of points of view collaborate on articles to find some kind of balance, but this level of tone-deaf POV pushing is simply disruptive. The talk page discussions with this person are not productive, and their edits are reverted entirely more than 9 times out of ten. Their attitude after months to years of warnings and discussion, has not improved at all and they don't seem capable or willing to understand what neutrality is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A WHOIS comes back with an address pool with a very wide range (152.132.0.0/15, 152.128.0.0/14, 152.124.0.0/14, or 152.124.0.0 - 152.133.255.255 for those who aren't familiar with CIDR notation). Looking at the contribution history for 152.130.15.0/24 comes back with edits to both the mainspace and the talk space (see here). I'm not against blocking these IP addresses (or a smaller sub-range of these IP addresses, such as 152.130.15.0/24), but I want to get input from others first. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This might be one of those situations where it would be better to first contact the VA and see if this can be handled internally. The Feds do (at least in theory) have guidelines covering acceptable use of their computers and internet connections. I am not sanguine that a range block would be effective in this case unless it were quite expansive as Oshwa notes. And there is potential here for significant collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 26 October 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 investigated, not simply closed. I have found twoexamples of this user inserting unsourced negative claims about a living person into talkpage space; at the very least this user needs a strong warning about the BLP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Policy breaches and disruptive editing by User Graemp
In seven years of editing (five from this account) this is the first time that I have felt it necessary to report another user.
Over recent days User Graemp ('the user') has engaged in disruptive editing including breaches of WP naming conventions, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:3RR, and failure to respect a consensus arising from a discussion in which he was originally involved.
The user has a history of over 21,000 edits. Very many consist of inserting individuals' middle names into articles (principally relating to candidates in British elections recent and historical), by cutting and pasting forenames from biographical articles into piped links within other WP articles, adding multiple forenames for non-notable people mentioned within articles, and adding multiple forenames into red links for the potentially notable. Here[231] is an example of the significant effect such edits can have on the appearance of an article.
In the spring concerns were raised about edits such as this by several editors, leading to discussion on the UK Politics WikiProject Talk Page (here). The same matter has been discussed before (such as here and here).
The clear consensus arising from the March 2017 discussion was:
*1) Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box.
*2) In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence (if there are two sources available for names and one shows use of name plus surname, that is prefered to the source using the full name)
*3) In all cases, titles should not be used, per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Rt Hon, and others.
During this discussion I also referred to the implications of WP:BLPPRIVACY.
Additionally it is clear from existing WP:REDYES that editors should not create red links that do not conform to WP naming conventions, and that the red link should be a valid title of a page.
Unfortunately the user has recently resumed disregarding this consensus and returned to his previous habit of inserting middle names into articles wherever he can. This can easily create errors - such as a new red link for someone already articled under their common name[232] (Neil Shields) - or a second red page title for someone already red linked elsewhere under their common name.[233] That these existing pages and links are very easily found by a WP or Google search suggests either that the user is not troubling to research individuals' common names at all before making his edits, or is aware of the common name but wilfully ignoring WP naming conventions. At very best this approach to editing is irresponsible and unprofessional - editors' responsibilities to make checks prior to such edits is set out, for example, within WP:REDYES.
Some of the user's recent edits oppose the consensus position directly - for example re-introducing a title[234], and claiming that a full-name source should override one that establishes commonname[235]. Even where someone has published a book with their common name on the front cover the user reverted an edit because the source somehow does not meet his approval[236].
WP:BLPPRIVACY directs editors not to publish full names of living people except where already "widely published by reliable sources", with a "presumption in favour of privacy" especially for the not notable, because of risk of identity theft. The user has nevertheless introduced full names for non-notable individuals into various pages, where the people concerned are highly likely to be alive and without any evidence of pre-existing wide publication. Here are just a few examples[237][238][239]. In his edit summary the user expresses his view BLPPRIVACY not relevant as these edits are not edits to biographies of living persons - a position that would exempt every non-notable person from this policy (except in other people's bios), since none has by definition a WP biography, directly contrary to both the stated intention of protecting against identity theft and the clear statement in the policy lead that it relates to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (the any italicised in the policy article for emphasis).
To 'defend' his full name edits, including those of not notable living people whose full name is most unlikely otherwise to be widely published, the user has repeatedly reverted edits in clear breach of WPP:3RR - just some examples from yesterday: four reverts within several hours here[240][241][242][243], here [244][245][246][247] and here [248][249][250][251]. Other repeated reverts yesterday in breach of WP:3RR are as per his [edit history]. I have not edited these articles further after my third revert, and hence the full names of people within these articles are currently being published by WP.
The user's series of edits and reverts is preventing the consensus position and commonname convention from being consistently applied, and generating a stream of workload correcting errors and endeavouring to protect people who may only have stood for election the one time from having their full name published by WP. Such people are perhaps particularly vulnerable as, although the media will mostly have used their commonname, during an election it is common for media also to report someone's age, occupation, details of where they live and of any family. Putting their full name into the public domain is unnecessary.
The involvement of an Administrator is sought to consider what action is appropriate in respect of any policy breaches here. It would also be helpful if clarification could be given about the BLPPRIVACY provisions applying to all articles within WP without exception, and about the expectation that editors will respect a consensus decision (for more than just a few months), particularly if they participated in the original discussion and therefore have no excuse to claim lack of awareness. MapReader (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any Admin comment I would intend to edit out the full names from these non-notable people from WP tomorrow. The intent of BLPPRIVACY in directing against publication of such details for non-notable people appears unambiguous to me. MapReader (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The following is a list of questions with answers relating to edits User mapreader has made since the UK politics project discussed the issue of how names should be presented. If he can follow this guidance, we should not encounter any further problems.
In election tables, should non-linked candidates names be listed in full?Yes. This is the consensus that arose from the UK politics project discussion.
But what if we know their common name, shouldn't that be what appears instead?No. By putting the name in full we provide the reader with more information, that can not be made available elsewhere on wikipedia.
But what about if it is possible that a candidates may be alive, does this not contravene wp:blpprivacy?No. BLPprivacy is a policy relating to Biographies of Living People and what we are talking about here has nothing to do with that.
Should we remove the red links for candidates in election tables?No. These will be important links to preserve for those notable MPs or candidates who are yet to have their page created. For more information see WP:REDYES.
Should red-linked candidates names be listed in full?Yes, in most cases, as we won't have any evidence through citation of any other correct way to present the name.
What format should we use in election tables for blue linked candidates?The project consensus was to use common name if known and full name if not known. The clearest indicator of this will come from that individual's biographical article.
Many biographical articles list the full name rather than a common name. When it comes to their entry in election tables, should we automatically asign their first and last listed names as their common name?No. If we don't know their correct common name, we should not make guesses. It is possible that their second name will be their common name. It is also possible that their second to last name is also part of their family name. If we don't know, leave it in full.
In what circumstances can we change the name of a biographical article from full name to a common name?Only if there is clear evidence in support of a particular form of the name. This evidence will need to be supported by the citations used in the reference section.
What if I find acceptable common name evidence elsewhere on the internet, can I change it then?Yes, so long as you use the citations and they are listed in the references section.
What sort of evidence is acceptable, a single book cover showing the individual's pen name for instance?No. Evidence needs to be more reliable than that. An author's pen name is their pen name and no guarantee of any common name.
What about if I find evidence that an individual had two different common names, can I just pick one and change the name of the article to that?No. If we can not be certain of any correct common name, we should continue to use the full name in the article title.
What about by-election articles. When we describe a candidate in the body of the article what form of the name should be used?It is a common style of article writing to use an individual's name in full, on the first occasion they are mentioned in the article and then by shortened forms, usually just the family name, on subsequent mentions.Graemp (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Some administrator input would be very useful here. As you can see from the above, this user does appear to think that he is somehow responsible for writing 'rules' for other editors, despite being happy to ignore WP conventions and consensus himself. My understanding is that BLPPRIVACY applies to all pages, not just biographies, and therefore his third 'answer' above is incorrect. My reading of WP:REDYES is that red links should follow normal WP naming conventions and link to valid article titles, usually Commonname plus appropriate disambiguation, and therefore his fifth 'answer' is also incorrect. His penultimate 'answer' conflicts with the consensus achieved by UK politics wiki project editors in March (itself a response to his disruptive editing) which was that where there is a conflict in sources, a first-last name source takes precedence over a full name source. His final 'answer' conflicts with my understanding of usual WP style which is to refer to people blue-linked to their biographical article by their Commonname on other WP pages (the full name for first reference applies to their bio). Sadly it seems this editor is determined to follow his own rules and revert in breach of 3RR when others don't follow them. MapReader (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment The response given above from Graemp is truly astounding and completely tone-deaf. Graemp has written several blatant lies. The consensus reached at the UK Politics WikiProject was:
1) Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box.
2) In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence.
3) In all cases, titles should not be used, per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Rt Hon, and others.
Graemp chose to participate in that discussion and his arguments were near-unanimously rejected. Graemp above arrogantly listed some questions and answers for other editors to follow so we do "not encounter any further problems" (i.e. so we stop challenging their behaviour). Yet the instructions he gave to other editors were absolutely directly contrary to the consensus. Graemp says "In election tables, should non-linked candidates names be listed in full? Yes. This is the consensus that arose from the UK politics project discussion." But that is a complete lie. The consensus was in fact "Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box. In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence." This is a textbook case of WP:NOTLISTENING and WP:NOTHERE. Graemp's complete failure to understand the applicability of WP:BLP project-wide ("BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts") even after all this time is an enormous concern. Given Graemp's long-standing refusal to respect editor consensus and accept policy and consistent pattern of disruptive editing, I believe a lengthy block is now required to prevent further ongoing disruption and to prevent more editor time being wasted. AusLondonder (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As the complainant I didn't feel it was my position to suggest to our Admin what action they might take. But I too found this user's response above somewhat arrogant and patronising to other editors. Like you I remain mystified as to how any sensible person could think that a policy intended to protect people's privacy could possibly apply only to some WP pages and not others, even without the very clear statement in the policy intro. Most editors would see adding middle names pointlessly into articles as "trivial clutter" (to use the exact words of an experienced editor who posted this week on the film wikiproject talk page), rather than a valuable use of anyone's time. Meanwhile the workload in restoring a sensible and readable presentation to many WP UK politics pages is considerable. I appreciate that this isn't a simple easy-to-deal-with case of vandalism or abuse, but this user's long-term mission to introduce as much cruft as possible into every UK politics page is nevertheless a form of insidious damage to our encyclopedia that has had the consequence of leaving many of our politics pages looking ridiculous to the reader. It would be appreciated if an admin could give this topic, posted last Friday, some attention? Thanks in anticipation MapReader (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
User:61.69.198.231 persistently adding uncited material
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
This user is a recurring Iranian cross-wiki IP hopper targeting the articles about e.g. Violet Brown, Nabi Tajima and Chiyo Miyako. IP addresses include (but there may be hundreds of them):
I think that's a good temporary solution (due to the fact that the block duration is very short); I avoid blocks of wide ranges like this due to the potential and likelihood for collateral damage to occur - especially given the information I'm getting back from the WHOIS. Have there been edits made globally that call for a global block to be placed? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It appears that an AN3 was filed with the result of "No violation" (see here). It looks like the user hasn't edited Highland Clearances since October 19th, but has continued to participate on the article's talk page since then (through the 23rd of October). I can see that their responses aren't entirely in relation to the article itself. I do see something going on about "filibuster" and statements like "The user has shown himself unable to engage in consensus creation without indulging in vast changes", and "Until any user can respond without the filibuster POV rants that demand complete response or nothing at all the user is unlikely to reach consensus". I suggest that both of you cease editing the article until some sort of agreement is made on the article's talk page. So long as the discussion stays civil and it doesn't spill onto the article with edit warring, I don't see a reason to take action right now; it would do no good and only exacerbate the problem, not resolve it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
143.231.249.138 is the subject of a recent Gizmodo article found here. Essentially user is editing pages to deliver a message through their contribution page. User has prior history of vandalism and blocks. I don't really know if this constitutes vandalism, just thought I'd bring it to attention. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 03:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see vandalism here (yet). The edits are mostly minor punctuation and copy editing. Editing pages with certian titles is not actionable, but given past history it is worth watching, especially as it is a shared IP and others might use publicity to perform their own operations. Pinguinn🐧04:09, 26 October 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.
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:Johnny Brockman was recently blocked for a month for adding unsourced content to articles. It appears they are now trying to evade the block by using an IP Address (39.7.50.152) [260]. The IP edited the page in a similar fashion to Johnny Brockman [261]. The page in question is Bids for Olympic Games. Can someone please take a look at this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This does look like block evasion. They are a fairly new editor already blocked for a month, so I'm going to cut them some slack, just once. But they are seriously starting to look like more trouble then they are worth and are about one step from an indef. Final Warning posted on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 28 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Persistent promotional edits by multiple new registered accounts. Oversight for promotional content, COI and possible use of multiple accounts will be appreciated. Thanks. JNW (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
JNW - Sure, I'll take a look. Also, if you need anything suppressed by an Oversighter, you should not ask publicly. Contact the Oversight team privately (see the directions at the top of the page using the link I gave you) for those matters. I've redacted part of your discussion message to remove information from public viewing and your privacy. I'll take care of that portion of your request, and look into the disruption as well. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Oshwah. I was not literally referring to the oversight team, merely asking for more attention to the article. I’m traveling a lot, and am not inclined to open an SPI report with my phone. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Lots of newbies editing at Wiener Nationals. They may be completely unrelated or some kind of college class project, but it seems very odd and all 5 have similar patterns. I watch the dog recent changes, and don't think I've seen this article in the past year, then boom. White Arabian FillyNeigh21:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate is probably right and I'm not going to file an SPI without more evidence. The patterns are a) all of them suddenly began editing the same article at about the same time, b) all made similar edit summaries and c) all the edits are written in the same style. I do think now that they're probably a class, but I wanted a second opinion because the only SPI I've been involved with was very similar, and that one was proven to be sockpuppeting. White Arabian FillyNeigh18:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
I have recently been accused of "vandalizing" the page Media in Albuquerque, New Mexico in which my most recent edit mostly updated the websites of a few local stations. However this was reverted on the claim that it was "unsourced" although the links connect to each stations website as I had made certain before posting the edit. I had an earlier accusation regarding the network affiliation of KTVS-LD but after reverting the page back to my earlier edit I was able to provide a link to the Facebook page of the sister station that made the announcement and it has not been changed since. If it is possible can an administrator review my edit of Media in Albuquerque, New Mexico to find any evidence of vandalism or disruptive editing? I am trying to prevent my account from being blocked and right now I do not want to make any more edits since it could lead to another accusation resulting in my account being blocked. I have been editing here since 2006 and had not had any vandalism accusations before. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Rj24 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered talking to the users directly and asking them why they feel that your edits are vandalism? You should also consider starting a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the users so that the concerns can be discussed... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, you did not leave a notice on anyone's user talk page notifying them of this discussion. I assume that this discussion involves the warning left by Jeff G.; I left a notice on their talk page for you. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Jeff G.: Given that the edit you just linked to shows no sign of meeting Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, I suggest that you review WP:VANDALISM and then, if you cannot find a way in which the edit fits that definition, retract the accusation. That someone accused him of vandalism in the past does not make your case, particularly when that accusation was bounced off of the noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I agree with Nat, and will go further with this; Rj24 absolutely did not vandalize this article and both Jeff G. and Mvcg66b3r clearly did not read through and compare the edits at all to the individual television station articles and ABQ TV template, where it's clearly sourced what has changed (QVC+ has changed their name to QVC2, for instance, and KTVS indeed carries Light TV on two channels, which they have confirmed themselves). I have restored all of Rj24's changes as good-faith and completely easily sourceable through the information we have through the station's websites and their own articles, and in addition removed brandings and websites from the article in each of the grids as duplicative promotional information already found on individual station articles (per WP:LINKFARM). There was no disruptive editing here, and I advise both Jeff and Mvcg to moderate what their personal definition of "vandalism" is; it's not what I found here.
Also taking into mind that Rj24 has been the major editor to the article going back years (their first edit here being in 2007), I assume they're a native of the ABQ market and definitely know much more about their market than either Jeff or Mvcg, so calling their edits suddenly "vandalism" after ten years of editing without incident looks petty and bad faith. Let our editors in their own markets show their proven knowledge, please. Nate•(chatter)23:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Origin of the persistence of installing this edit is seen in the added Note by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat since 12 September 2017 by [270]. They then try and validate this with arguments like this [271], when in fact, they had already added the alleged false cited text themselves! Clearly evidence of both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. (Worst in reply, they stated to me "Are you even blind?"[272], then go off on another tangent claiming yet another source.[273]
This is very clear evidence of WP:TE - Tendentious editing. Their current active sandbox[274] is seemingly pushing WP:OR exclusively to this narrow subject and promoting themselves as an expert.
The problems has been openly explained thoroughly here [275] and discussion here [276], lastly here[277] or as seen many times in the edit comments. JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat just ignores all of it, and just adds another dubious source or states numbers with further unfounded or wrong assumptions. e.g. With justifications like.[278]
Other past editors have tried to engage with the problems with the size of this star before [279], explaining similar logic and reasoning, so it it not new.
They also have been involved with a recent WP:3RR investigation[285] with ZaperaWiki44 as explained here.[286], caused the page List of largest stars to need by Primefac page protection under WP:PREFER and has required administration access only. [287].
Just looking at the Revision history of List of largest stars[288] shows the extent of the need for protection. (This action is about to expire.)
It does appear that this editor has several disruptive issues which have not been able to be resolved. Even after repeated warnings, guidance, they continue poor behaviour and persist in their unwise editing practices. In this case, some form of WP:TBAN maybe wise, either for some the short or long-term especially on 'Sizes of stars', Antares or List of largest starsArianewiki1 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This editor is persisting with disruptive edits in List of largest stars[289][290][291], under which page protection WP:PREFER was required with administration access only[292], then recently lifted. The said "I promise that I will stop my disruptive editing." [293] and were (yet again) advised why their non-consensus edits are problematic. Some form of WP:TBAN is required, else this problem continues or even escalates. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Action is needed to prevent further disruptions.....we should not have to lockup a page multiple times because one editor is "not here. After looking at this account further......I see links on their userpage indictating they are14 years old....not that age matters to edit here. .....but.....competency may be a factor here...behavioral maturity and the knowledge needed to edit the topic may be the main problems. --Moxy (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I left a message on their talk page regarding their editing. I've held off from a block at the moment, but made it clear that if they continued, a block was all but certain. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not the same person as Niyet'. That is enough. I am about to quit Wikipedia because of you. Go ban me if you want. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL(Talk/Contribs)05:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
So 3 more reverts.....guess no one can take any action.....will just ask the page to be protected for the third time.--Moxy (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
User:Joppa Chong acts disruptively on Center for Family and Human Rights. In 2015 they were banned for 24 hours due to edit warring on that page over mentioning that the Southern Poverty Law Center describes the article subject as a hate group ([294]). And more recently they've been edit-warring to remove references to the catholic church from the page (discussion here). And they've also said "... as the promotion of an LGBT agenda within Wikipedia by some editors is an open secret"[295] which indicates that they're inherently biassed on this topic, in favor of anti-LGBT hate groups.
The last edit that Joppa Chong made to Center for Family and Human Rights was on October 12, about two weeks ago. He's been discussing the dispute on the article's talk page ever since (albeit the discussion looks to have drifted from being about the content and toward being about each other). ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
But now [296]. That said I'm not sure this single edit is a worry considering that the edit warring seems to have died down since earlier in the month. As said, there seems to be discussion on the article talk page. Not without problems, but I'm not sure it's the level that would need any sort of administrative attention. It seems to be that it would instead be helpful to use some form of WP:Dispute resolution, especially since I'm only seeing 2 editors involved in it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I confirmed that single IP address is a proxy so have blocked it. I think this issue requires an admin with substantially more time than I have at the moment, to investigate. Additionally, note that Apollo the Logician is known to lie about use of sockpuppets. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 27 October 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 assumption of good faith is becoming harder and harder to maintain when it comes to User:Aggiefan47. Their edits have always been erratic, but until recently, some of them were good contributions to WP:BASEBALL. The other edits are reverted not long after they are made, usually by myself, @Yankees10:, @Spanneraol:, @Muboshgu:, @EricEnfermero:, and others. Aggiefan47 often changes their pattern of edits, removing something from pages one day and then adding it to others the next day. They have been asked to explain themselves in the past, and usually delete the talk page posts not long after they're made. They've been warned several times in the past, and those too are deleted. On October 23, Aggiefan47 removed all sources from Coco Crisp, Jackie Bradley Jr., and Mookie Betts without explanation. On the 25th, they removed all sourcing from Heinie Zimmerman, Peanuts Lowrey, Dwight Smith Jr., Todd Hollandsworth, Chris Coghlan, and Jorge Soler. Interspersed in those are several edits to player pages that removed some sourcing. Each of the edits is unexplained ("edited player biography" isn't an explanation for why sourcing was removed).
In my opinion, Aggiefan47 has become a thorn in the side of WP:BASEBALL (and Wikipedia as a whole) that can no longer be ignored or tolerated. Their useful edits are not frequent enough to warrant them being able to contribute to the project, and their unwillingness to explain themselves leads me to believe that they are no longer here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to that, other than that I don't believe Aggiefan47 has ever engaged in talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a huge percentage of the edits don't affect the article output (taking out extra spaces from the infobox fields, putting extra spaces back in the infobox fields, changing the BDA template from an uppercase B to lowercase, moving the DOB/place of birth fields up or down, etc), but the editor also has a tendency to introduce mistakes, so the constant pointless tinkering creates headaches when we're trying to review the edits for accuracy. Here's a recent example similar to what User:Trut-h-urts_man describes. The user edited Will Middlebrooks on August 22. Among other things, the user added a piped link to run batted in. Only a few weeks later, he is taking out that RBI piped link on the same article. Depending on how bored this editor gets, this stuff could go on endlessly if we let it. He is definitely not a talk page guy; he has reached out to me once via email to tell me to stop reverting his edits, but even after I explained the issues, he didn't alter his editing behavior. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, that is because the user routinelyremoves messages from other users who are attempting to engage. Look at the talk page history.
Apologies. I really should know better and should have checked that. Sorry I'm at work stuck on another late night due to production failure and on Wiki to keep me awake. Canterbury Tailtalk00:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur that Aggies' behaviour is problematic and I have great sympathy with the editors who have been trying to reason with a completely uncommunicative editor for so long. Unless anyone objects, I will apply an indef block to Aggies for the sole purpose of getting their attention. I will lift the block immediately upon Aggies agreeing to start using talk pages and to meaningfully collaborate with other editors. ATraintalk23:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A Train - that sounds like a reasonable and appropriate way to stress the importance of collaboration to the user. Can I ask what the plan would be if they later resume their disruptive edits? Is this a "three strikes, you're out" situation of gradually increasing blocks or is this their "last chance"? I would prefer the latter, mostly because I don't presently believe they are willing to collaborate or adhere to the guidelines already in place. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is why I suggested an ANI report this morning at AIV: now there's a lot of sunshine on this problem. If Aggies continues to be completely uncommunicative after this remedy has been attempted, you will have taken every reasonable step. You guys can hit me up in that event and I'll apply an indef block, with the community's support. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. ATraintalk23:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to report that Aggiefan47's reaction to all this was to remove talk page messages imploring him/her to start communicating, without comment. I have adjusted the block to remove Aggiefan's talk page editing privileges and they will now have to use UTRS if they are so inclined. ATraintalk10:07, 28 October 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.
Persistent use of fansites at snooker player articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
I pulled the trigger on the blacklisting request per prevailing opinions in this discussion (no opinion on the sites), and disabled the links in this section to allow archiving —Dirk BeetstraTC15:48, 30 October 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 would like to get advice/recommendations/suggestions to help resolve the impasse at snooker player articles which use fansites to source career statistics. The biggest problem is occurring at Ronnie O'Sullivan. The problem we face is that snooker's governing body doesn't maintain a centralised record of career statistics, so we are often dependent on the media and event broadcasters to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately many blanks still remain so fansites attempt to fill them in themselves. Most of the controversy revolves around prize money and century counts, so significant statistics in snooker. Unfortunately these fansites are not consistent and often contradict more reliable sources where they exist. I am just going to highlight the problem at the O'Sullivan article because this is where it is at its worst, and that article is GA rated. I appreciate my report is long and most of your have better things to do, but it does involve biographies of living people so it is important that the issue at least gets a fair hearing.
The sites
These are the fansites that the data is often cribbed from:
Now, some of these sites are very good, especially Cue Tracker which has an excellent database of match results. The problem with these websites though is that their records are often incomplete and also it is not immediately clear which matches "count" towards the stats so discrepencies inevitably creep in. Here are just some examples of anomalies, and there are countless others:
Prior to being overtaken by Ronnie O'Sullivan, Stephen Hendry held the century count (775) record upon retirement. This is well documented by the BBC, [www.worldsnooker.com/players/stephen-hendry/ World Snooker] (the official governing body), The Guardian and Guinness World Records. Yet [cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time CueTracker] persists with sticking Hendry on 772 century breaks.
There is also an inconsistency between Eurosport and [cuetracker.net/players/ronnie-osullivan/career-total-statistics CueTracker] over the amount of prize money O'Sullivan has won. Eurosport maintains it is £8.5 million while CueTracker states £9 million. This is important because CueTracker's figure would hand O'Sullivan the record, but no other site or publisher is reporting this. If O'Sullivan had taken the reord it probably would have been reported elsewhere.
[snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries Snooker.info] has Steve Davis listed on 338 century breaks, contradicting [www.worldsnooker.com/steve-davis-retires-from-snooker/ World Snooker] and the BBC that he retired on 355 centuries. Snooker.info is particularly problematic because errors instigated here at Wikipedia have transferred to Snooker.info in the past. I don't have an example of this but I have noticed it while updating articles, which means that Snooker.info is using Wikipedia as a source.
The problems at Snooker.info transfer to [www.prosnookerblog.com/centuries/ Pro Snooker Blog], which uses Snooker.info as a source (as acknowledged in the blurb).
Clearly this is why we don't allow self-published sites in the first place except in extremely limited circumstances. If the sites were all consistent I might be able to overlook it, but the inconsistencies mean it is not clear who is right and who is wrong. It makes the stats in our articles essentially worthless.
In September the O'Sullivan article was semi-protected by Ritchie333 for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". After coming out of protection the pushing of fansite stats has resumed:
I requested further protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ronnie_O.27Sullivan yesterday but it hasn't been picked up. The background is complicated so I understand why an admin wouldn't want to just wade in and lock up an article, but the deadlock on this issue needs to be broken. An RFC, talk page discussion and semi-protection does not seem to have had any impact as yet. I am on the verge of taking the article off my watchlist because I have grown weary of the issue, so this is a last ditch attempt to try and find some sort of solution.
I made a similar point at Talk:Mark Williams (snooker player) on 6 October. No response (as expected). My suspicion was that this was in some way affecting betting odds. The geolocation to Poland might well be a complete re-herring, of course. 13:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Martinevans123 (talk)
The problem is prevalent on many snooker player articles. I have highlighted the issue at the O'Sullivan article because it is GA rated and the discussions have mostly taken place on this article's talk page. CueTracker.com and Snooker.info are both listed at User:XLinkBot/RevertList, but this only reverts once and if not at all if the link is used as a reference. I think adding the four sites to a general blacklist might be a sensible next step. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I was suggesting bypassing XLinkBot in this case and going straight to the blacklist, and didn't even check whether these sites were already listed. Yes, blacklist is the next logical step. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I know little about sport and nothing about snooker. But thank you for the long but clear and readable exposition of the problem, which I think I understand. Two questions for y'all (and especially Betty Logan). First, would it ever be beneficial to cite any of the fan websites mentioned above? Secondly, if editors weren't able to cite any of them, are there a pile of other, similar websites among which they could choose? If the answer to both is no, then since the problem spans many pages and an unlimited range of IP numbers and is spammish, I'd suggest simply blacklisting the relevant web domains. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless they are reliable sources, and they don't seem to be, they shouldn't be cited. This may not stop the IPs updating the pages with statistics from these sites, just from citing them as the source.
I'm taking that attitude that if our information from reliable sources is incomplete, we shouldn't fill the gaps from less reliable sources, particularly if on other matters these less than reliable sources are contradicted by better ones. Andrewa (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The arguments here show a good case for semiprotection of Ronnie O'Sullivan independent of whether the fansites are blacklisted, so I've gone ahead with six months of semiprotection. If there are other high-ranking snooker players that are also affected by the fansite issue, I imagine they should be looked at as well to see if semiprotection is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no centralised pool of data, which is partly the reason editors have resorted to using fansites. World Snooker periodically announce stats when records are broken, and the BBC often provide a statistical breakdown when they broadcast tournaments (three times per year). Obviously there are long periods inbetween when the statistics are out of date. It is frustrating so I understand why these articles have become reliant on fansites. As for the sites themselves, they vary in quality: Snooker.info should be definitely blacklisted given the fact it sometimes uses Wikipedia a source (and there is an argument for blacklisting Pro Snooker Blog too given that it uses Snooker.info as a source). I know very little about snookerstatistics.webs.com but it offers no more than the other sites do, while CueTracker is easily the best but still contains inaccuracies. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for the snooker project: by allowing these sites we end up with more incorrect data in the articles, but by banning them we end up with less accurate data too. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I should have expressed myself more clearly. Aside from their statistics (whether true or false), would it ever be beneficial to cite any of the fan websites mentioned above? I mean, does any of them also have material that's clearly reliable and encyclopedic and not also found in sources that are more obviously reliable? If not, then adding each to the blacklist would have no downside, and doing so would save a lot of time for conscientious editors. (If anyone here is unfamiliar with the blacklist, it's not merely a list of domain names [etc] that clearly should not be added, it's a list of domain names [etc] to which adding links [or even retaining links] is impossible.) ¶ And a question. You (Betty Logan) say that by banning (blacklisting?) these websites "we end up with less accurate data". Do you mean that, their age aside, the data in Wikipedia would be less reliable? (I'd have thought that it would be better for a Wikipedia article to say that the BBC wrote in November 2015 that A was the case than to say that Dubiously Credible Website X wrote in September 2017 that Y was the case.) Or do you have something else in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC) rephrased Hoary (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
By "ending up with less accurate data" I simply meant we would end up with out-of-date data which would be updated less frequently than it is now. I suppose that in itself isn't really a problem in the long-term because ultimately real-time updates are not essential to providing enyclopedic coverage of a person's career. I would also contend that far from being "beneficial", the citing of these websites is actually counter-productive to maintaining a standard that is on par with reputable encylopedias. When our data doesn't match that of the BBC or World Snooker itself then that is a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Then I still recommend blacklisting. NB the rules for this are strict. We're told: There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (Actually I don't understand the second half of that: something in the sentence seems to have got garbled.) What's clear is that this is not something to be done merely because you expect that not doing it will, in the medium/long term, be more of a pain; so only those websites that have already been persistently and deleteriously linked to are fair game. It could be that blacklisting these will lead to more linking to other, similarly worthless websites; IFF that happens, the latter can be added to the blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment It's great that we have enthusiastic contributors here, but (as a person entirely unfamiliar with snooker) the page seems to have an excessive amount of detail. Can't some of this detail be on a Wiki other than Wikipedia? Either one run by a fansite, or Wikia, or a theoretical en.wikialmanac.org? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Especially if some of this excessive amount of detail is unsourced or sourced only from less-than-reliable sources, and some of it is even contrary to the detail in reliable sources, which seems to be the case here. Wikipedia would IMO be definitely improved by removal of all of this unsourced and/or poorly sourced detail, which would be entirely consistent with policy and anyone can do it. Wikipedia would then IMO be probably improved by the further removal of the remaining gappy data that is adequately sourced but incomplete and likely to remain so. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment The prevailing opinion in the above discussion seems to be that blacklisting the listed websites is a sensible way forward. I have had to unarchive this incident report because the discussion seems to have fizzled out so is there any chance we can wrap this up formally? Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 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 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.
Good god, Guy, can't you and Medeis discuss these things with each other rather than open yet another thread about the poxy Reference Desk and its internal squabbles? As you've pointed out, we already have a perfectly good open thread regarding Medeis. I'm getting more and more tempted to dust off Special:Nuke and point it in the general direction of the Reference Desk; even DYK doesn't generate this level of squabble overspillage. ‑ Iridescent23:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Please don't make absurd recommendations that you plainly know will go nowhere for the sole purpose of shutting this up. I'm not saying Guy Macon has a convincing case, but we all know that Guy Macon discussing this with Medeis isn't going to be productive. Guy said they'd take it to Arbcom - if that's their plan, then they should get right on it.--v/r - TP23:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What we need to do there is a) Get everyone to agree or agree to disagree that we're going to elect a few editors in different time zone's who are sufficiently active to perform these sorts of tasks, and then b) Go ahead and get a few of these editors elected. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous, Guy. See the discussion at User_talk:Kudpung as well as the discussion of StuRat above. Many editors, including User:Legacypac, who had closed the discussions, have questioned why these were allowed in the first place. My reverting back to his closure, then hatting without deleting the comments StuRat had made after the closures (since he protested) are hardly problematic. There's no violation of TPOC here. Frankly, this is harassment buy Guy Macon, and I do wish he would take the matter to arbcom. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
When was the last RFC on the purpose of the reference desks? I see one open about closing them down, but I mean specifically about what kind of questions they support and when is a good time to close a thread.--v/r - TP00:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I closed those threads after comments by the above users, as well as User:Godric on Leave and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi as well as the apparent consensus in the StuRat thread open above. So basically consensus is a basis for closing, as is simple WP policy and guidelines like WP:DISCLAIMER which says we don't give financial or other professional advice (like how to open a computer store in Gibraltar) or WP:NOTAHOWTO. Every policy that applies to mainspace like OR, CRYSTAL, etc., applies to the Ref Desks. There are even rather clear guidelines at the top of the page that say users need to do research on their own, not rely on us for creative ideas, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just part of Guy Macon's ongoing crusade. Clearly a complaint meant to bootstrap his attempt on AN to restrict Medeis' actions on the Ref Desks, which he most lately threatened to take to ArbCom if he didn't get the result he wanted. This is just building "evidence" for that case request. Guy Macon really needs to be topic banned from requesting sanctions on other editors anywhere on Wikipedia, because it's getting to be pretty disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Support close or withdrawal per one perceived RD problem at a time. This will require some community tolerance for a series of discussions about perceived RD problems, as RD is too sick to be cured overnight. Oppose ad hominem labels and unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith, as always. ―Mandruss☎00:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Macon's actions demonstrate what I'm saying. He has appointed himself the dictator of the ref desks, by deciding what its rules are. And "not talking to" anyone who dares to challenge him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
He and I have had our share of heated disagreements; the earliest interaction I recall with him was unpleasant. Somehow he still talks to me, and somehow I don't take every opportunity I can find to attack him. Please stop talking to me about Guy Macon. ―Mandruss☎01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The ref desk is out of control. We should not be giving advice on how to open a computer store in Gibraltar or how to rewire User:StuRat’s house. The Admin that reverted my closes has some explaining to do - they better have a VERY good policy reason for overriding my policy based closes. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 30 October 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.
Neutral - Since it is apparently the consensus of the Wikipedia community that we need Reference Desks, removing this contributor is simply a diddle. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrongly based on lies - and the editor started that is now IBANed from bothering me. That has zero to do with this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 30 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
What can we do to improve it? It is not an autobiography, although my student did use my account as he doesn't have one. As you can see, there is very similar page in Macedonian dedicated to me years ago, and this one is an improvement. Yes, by my graduate student who knows me well, but this is not an autobiography and there is not biased praise. All information is ACCURATELY REFERENCED!15:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Kkolozova (talk)
I don't think ANI is the place for this (and you don't need to place the notice here, don't worry!)- but before it gets closed, I have to say I have trimmed your article, Katerina Kolozova, of various bloat and cruft. If you want to promote your works and career, there are better places to do this. And regardless of whther you wrote it yourself, it does come under our policy regarding living people, which is rather strict, and requires serious referencing to support all claims made. The article fails to do so. Unfortunately- contrariwise to what you have suggested above- it is not ACCURATELY REFERENCED." — fortunavelut luna15:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but this user's admittance of allowing their 'student' to use their account counts as as a compromised account does it not? --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically yes, but in this case, there could be some good faith applied, perhaps, and advise Kkolozova that their student needs to register for account. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly a compromised account if it's an admin account, and letting someone else have access to your account is no defense to vandalism or other intentionally disruptive behavior. Are you asserting that either's the case here? Ravenswing 08:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
They have been warned not to do so, the student(s) ha(s/ve) created their own account(s), and there is no on-going disruption. So the question is somewhat moot. — fortunavelut luna08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Could I borrow a couple eyeballs on the Snopes page?
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
this dif, complete with its accusations of edit-warring and threats of warnings, and a few backwards tell the whole story. I'd ask at AN3, but there really does seem to be something else going on, @Leitmotiv: has reverted something as uncited when it is followed by a cite just this side of plagiarism. Anmccaff (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::From page 285 of American Carnival, the work which is cited immediately following the material you [i.e. Leitmotiv] removed: "the most widely known resource for validating or debunking rumors...."
I see we have a conspiracy theorist here. No, I simply reverted your unnecessary edit of "widely". I reverted and that's it. To proactively add that Snopes.com is "widely" viewed accomplishes nothing except leading the reader into thinking that that is a benefit or a positive attribute as if to validate its authority. Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral. If your goal is to show how much its viewed, then it was already accomplished by the number of views in the last line of the lede. That also means you're being redundant, another reason to revert. It may be obvious as the "sky is blue" but the obvious doesn't need to be stated twice, nor perhaps at all. Neutrality is the name of the game here, we don't need to lead the reader. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the source's "the most widely known X" does not imply "a widely known X", which has some unknown absolute scale unlike the source's comparative. I use snopes, but from my friends' and relatives' reactions when I do, I'd say it's not really "widely known" to the broader audience. So maybe that's what's up there. Changing it to quote the source more closely ("the most widely known") would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That's one of my main reasons for deleting "widely". Between editors, I get that it's the biggest debunker of urban myths, but that doesn't change the fact that it's leading the viewer as one would lead a witness in a court of law. It's also redundant and therefore unnecessary. Wish washy through and through as far as I'm concerned. The article doesn't benefit from having it and it does just fine without it. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I agree it is bad form to insinuate that there "really does seem to be something else going on here", suggesting another editor has an ulterior motive, just as much as suggesting one is a conspiracy theorist. And hence the joke over something so mundane. Sometimes you have to point this stuff out though when the original editor does not assume good faith and the reason for my light-hearted joke. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be missed that my original edit was to remove the words "widely-used" when everyone here seems to be arguing over "widely known". Why we are arguing over widely known is unknown to me, because what I edited out was widely used. Still, it's a weasel word when Wikipedia has higher standards of being neutral even if a citation supports it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I edited it to exactly conform with the source to widely known here; you reverted 4 times afterwards. The fact that you are obviously not reading the works cited is one of the many other issues with your editting.
Another problem is that you describe the ordinary BRD cycle -a single revert of a controversial edit, to be followed by discussion - as "edit warring", as you do here. A single reversion, for what everyone else downthread and here felt was at least arguable, should not be reverted with stop edit warring. That either means a deep confusion of what edit warring is, taking it to simply mean disagreeing with you, or an attempt to poison the well.
And again, both Leitmotiv's edits on Snopes and here seem slightly confused about what strictures apply to Wiki writers, and which apply to sources. It would be a bad idea for some wikitor to call someone the "the Greatest" out of thin air, but he can use Frank Deford's use of it without qualms, or even quotes. If the source calls Snopes widely known, and no other sources substantively disagree, then removing it smells of POV pushing.
@Dicklyon:'s point that something can be widely known within an interest group, a professional group, and so forth, and yet not as well known to the public at large can be legitimate, but that's easier solved with "best known among..." construction. I think given the amount of unwanted attention Snopes received from the Frogboys lately, I suspect this is moot now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
PS:Could any passing closer please leave it open long enough for the (blocked) subject to respond? That's a real problem around here. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl (talk·contribs) has full protected for a week. As you might expect as a direct consequence, Talk:Catalonia has lit up with protected edit requests, ranging from appropriate spelling and grammar issues to outright POV pushing. All admins may need to chip in on the talk page, as I don't think the traffic is going to die down any time soon. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This is certainly not policy, but my inclination would be to leave Catalan Republic (2017) (which has almost no incoming links, given that it was only just created) unprotected and direct all the nationalists on both sides there to duke it out, to keep the instability out of those articles to which people may actually be coming for information. We did something similar with Guy Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot, in creating Gunpowder Plot in popular culture and pointing anyone wanting to rant about V For Vendetta and Anonymous there, and it worked fairly well. ‑ Iridescent17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I tagged this article as WP:CSD#A10 earlier today (just after it was created and immediately before my news feed lit up with the independence declaration in earnest), but now I'm with Iridescent - while I personally wish the nationalists would just go to Wikinews or start a blog, I think they're going to have to have somewhere to slug it out (although the article has already been semi-protected). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) That's an attractive suggestion. To really keep the POV warriors busy and away from established articles, we should lift the prohibition on 3RR on that one article as well. (It might sound like I'm sarcastically snarking at Iri, but I'm actually semi-serious. This philosophy has a lot of potential in numerous places, the more I think about it. Maybe a noticeboard where you can make accusations without evidence, can edit war over archiving the thread, say "fuck" as often as you want, and don't have to notify anyone, but which can never result in any actual action being taken? WP:AN/Honeypot? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
During these coming uncertain hours & days, I think we should work with the premise that Catalonia is still a part of Spain, when dealing with these incoming edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that's the only sane option, and we need to stress it's simply because in a fluid dispute like this, the status quo should remain, not because we are all Mariano Rajoy fanboys. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
What we need to keep in mind here is that Spain will end up taking control of the physical infrastructure of Catalonia, but the Catalans, at least the fraction of them who support the move to become independent will end up setting up an alternative government that only exists on Cyberspace. Spain will try to crack down on that alternative cyber government and Wikipedia will then find itself in the crossfire of that Cyberwar. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that this could turn into an NPOV trainwreck lasting for weeks or longer. Perhaps we should request the community (here) or via Arbcom, grant a temporary authorization for uninvolved admins to impose editing restrictions including 1RR on articles relating to Catalonia and its purported secession from Spain. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, it appears to me that the Spanish Wikipedia and Catalan Wikipedia articles, while busy and with more than their fair share of reverts, are not even semi-protected (with 2-3 exceptions I eventually found). Not sure if that's due to the size of the respective editing communities, the relative power admins may or may not have in all 3 communities, a relatively higher maturity level in their community, it's just more fun to argue in English, or what. But it's interesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) although to be fair, they both have the equivalent article to Catalonia protected. But articles about the vote, the claimed republic, the referendum... those don't seem to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There are even more listed at the ongoing ITN discussion. Most have issues that for now prevent them from being linked on the main page. On a side note; it seems like we have a few too many articles dealing with essentially the same subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems par for the course here - creating new content (especially on an important topic) is fun, retrospectively fixing sourcing and POV pushing on somebody else's work is less so. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with full protection here. ExtConf, perhaps, but I don't see the disruption that justifies shutting down all editing, as we don't usually do that as a preventative measure. It is overkill. We have hot topics all the time and allow editors to edit them with either semi or extprot in place, I would suggest the same here. Policy seems to back me on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Just going to obliviously pop in here with a somewhat related question. On October 27, Catalonia declared independence and it was added to that day's article's events list. That was removed by User:Rlbarton, who might be in the right but definitely should have chosen a less contentious edit summary than "Removed not notable event." It has since been restored via a pending edit I approved. I can't say for sure if it belongs and I definitely don't want to ask at any of these battleground talk pages. (And that said, October 27 looks like another candidate for semiprotection because of this.) Stay? Go? CityOfSilver22:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought it said California declared independence, and said to myself, "Wow, the fallout from Trump never ends!" EEng23:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: If I wanted to write one of those fake news Facebook articles about California seceding, what notes would I have to hit? Hammer and sickle on the flag, one-party Communist rule, all military members either get deported or go in the stocks to get pelted with tomatoes... CityOfSilver23:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This is why these pages should let me add gifs. I need to add the one of Fred Armisen as the old-timey drummer on SNL. Ba dum PSSH. CityOfSilver23:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The user has been disruptively editing Syriac Christian-related articles for a while now. Back in January, he boldly (unanimously) redirectedSyriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East), an article about the ethno-religious community, to Syriac Orthodox Church, the church body. Next, he removed sourced content about how the church leaders viewed of themselves and other ethnic and religious groups (commenting "Superfluous and wrong section"). He continued to revert, and again (this time commenting "Rv POV. Quotes reduntant and irrelevant in history-section, "identity" of specific people irrelevant and not verifiable"). He seems to be following the Assyrian nationalist view that all Syriac groups are Assyrians (POV). This is made clear by the user's intent to merge the article, which has been discussed before and rejected. The user calls the article a fork, which obviously is not the case. I warned him, twice. He removed reliably sourced content which is directly discussing the article Terms for Syriac Christians (very interestingly, with the comment "Discuss first. Wrong section. POV." Do I need to stress that all of my content at said articles follow Wikipedia guidelines of RS and NPOV? I am here to contribute, not remove. And he calls my edits "controversial"... --Zoupan23:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
First of all, back in January, I wrote on the talk page several times. Of course, I should have directly notified involved users, which I stated even back then. Zoupan, I have been the one wanting to discuss these issues. But I have not got any response regarding the particular edits. This version is not neutral, while this one is. But again, you have not commented the actual edits on the talk page, even though I have been asking some pretty basic stuff. You are only refering to the "removal of sourced content", while you are doing the same thing. The difference is that my version is neutral, while you are cherry picking. As for the quotes, they are irrelevant to the history section and belongs to the articles discussing the terms. But even there, quotes favoring both identites, were deleted by Monochrome Monitor, for being redundant. If you can't agree that your edits are controversial, then you have not been following the discussions at Talk:Assyrian people, were special guidelines have been set up. You are even using sources whose reliability have been questioned there. You should take some time reading through the consensus there first. Shmayo (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Here Zoupan is removing a link to the Assyrian people page for no reason, linking it to ACOE. What is your obsession with that? Shmayo (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You have not made much of a discussion. You claim that it is a fork, when I have made my stance clear already last year. Your questions have little or nothing to do with the actual dispute on the talk page. As for the massacres, sources explicitly identify victims as Nestorians=members of the ACOE.--Zoupan01:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked you the same questions back in January, without any answers again. My questions are very relevant for what you are actually reporting me for. Shmayo (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This user is being disruptive. I was just inserting harmless jokes into wikipedia that i was going to self-revert after 5 minutes. Then this user starts giving me warnings for “vandalism” when that’s not what i was doing. They keep reinstating them even though i’m allowed to blank my own talk page. -- 161.202.81.220 (talk·contribs)
Not quite - the OP is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, and restoring them was not appropriate. However, the OP's claims that his vandalisms were not vandalisms is where the boomerang comes in. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I am chiefly concerned with the "harmless joke" business - I agree that they can blank their talkpage, but a better course is to simply stop messing with the encyclopedia, rather than wasting everybody else's time. Acroterion(talk)01:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The OP should be put on ice for a reasonable interval, and the only possible action to be taken against the subject of the OP's complaint is a gentle wake-up that user's are allowed to delete most stuff from their own talk pages. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Blocked with a note of If you're familiar with WP:BLANKING, [the "allowed" link at the top of this thread] you're familiar enough with our policies to know that inserting jokes is not permitted.Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 29 October 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 a pervasive problem on these terrorism list articles. Given the lack of communication and the persistence of the disruptive behavior despite warnings and attempts to communicate, I am requesting the use be blocked for a bit to prevent further disruption. EvergreenFir(talk)18:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have asked him to source his edits properly and not add his own claims. I would like to discuss it, but he seems least interested in responding. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller or other admins, the editing has resumed with sources that don't support list entries. Still no communication. 3 of the 4 entries in the previous link aren't supported by source.
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Reported users are blocked and the article is now semi-protected. If disruption continues after the protection expires, file a report and the protection can be re-evaluated. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:40, 31 October 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.
Just a quick update, after the block User:Reidernater reappeared making similar threats. They were blocked and the page semi-protected by Oshwah. Per WP:DOLT, someone seems to be making sure everything there is well sourced and complies with BLP. (Eventually reverting to a version before the mysterious IPs appeared.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the IP's history of edits shows they were editing the same article a month ago, and given that the IP is static [320], I think we can expect this IP to try again. I'll add it to my watchlist. I hope others do as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it also. The article is a lot better than it was but is still a bit jumbled chronologically. fish&karate09:15, 30 October 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 looked at the article space edits (to SBNO, Standing but not operating and Roller Coaster DataBase) and reinstated them; the only disruptive thing about them were the inappropriate edit summaries. Still, a name change is needed here as noted in previous discussions; I thought this thread was some attempt at harassing Hawkeye7 at first and almost did something very unpleasant. I don't object to the user retaining the name "Hawkeye" but the number definitely needs to change. 78.28.45.124 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
First off, I'd like to say that James could of discussed the issue on my talk page which is one of the suggestions on the ANI page. I haven't seen James on Wikipedia for a good 8 months? So it's a been of a shock that he would just nominate me on the ANI without any conversation. Second, regarding the 2 edits that James mentioned. The first diff that James mentioned, yes maybe the edit summary was too far, but the edit was correct. The IP user was using WP:R#PLA as a rule, when clearly it was not being used correctly. I already mentioned on this diff the reasoning behind why it was wrong. Then the next day, the same IP user reverted their own changes which just cancels out the whole argument. Third, for James' second diff, I'm not sure what's wrong with that. The IP user went over to Anna's talk page to discuss my edits and then expected me to go over to my talk page. I was just getting frustrated because there have been like 4 different IP's regarding this whole thing and I'm not sure if they are the same person or not, and it's getting difficult to tell each user apart. I'm not sure if they are experienced or not, or what the whole deal is. Here are the 4 IP user's [323], [324], [325] and [326]. I think I have made good contributions recently such as this edit and I wish to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Hawkeye75(talk)18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are one of those other IP's, but regardless I appreciate your opinion and I do agree that my edit summaries were a bit out of place out of frustration. Hawkeye7 has said in the past that he is okay with my name I think and if that were to change, then I would change my name. Hawkeye75(talk)18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is not the quality of the edits but the conduct towards other editors. This is not a good-faith reply to polite questions regarding a content dispute. And this? An editor is actively editing without replying within five minutes to a comment that didn't ping them (not sure if IP editors even can be pinged), and that indicates... evasiveness? Sockpuppetry? Hawkeye75 never took the time to answer the IP editor's questions, but he did have the time to repeatedly insist that the IP editor create an account before he'd be willing to discuss. IP editors are people too. Trying to resolve the dispute by getting the other editor blocked is highly inappropriate. I do not think this battleground mentality and unwillingness to discuss the merits of his own actions on request is appropriate for Wikipedia, and it does not agree with what they promised when their indefinite block was lifted: I will not start reverting wars or get angry at the reverted, but rather have a simple conservation about the revert on the talk page or just agree with the revert if it's justified. Thus I will reinstate the indefinite block. I don't think a community ban is warranted at this point, though. I expect they'll find it rather difficult to get the block lifted either way. Huon (talk) 20:09, 28 October 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.
Mathapatirachayya has only been editing since 2nd October 2017. In the last month, they have created around 4 unreferenced articles a day, about 100 in total. These all now require other editors' hard work to read through the long articles and try to verify all the information. Mathapatirachayya has been politely asked to slow down and source on several occasions. Several editors all had our messages ignored, although I was clear that WP:Communication is required. There have been nine messages in the last week expressing concerns about their editing. They are mainly on Indian villages and mainly have an 'External links' section - I have contacted Mathapatirachayya and asked if the external link is actually the source and just misnamed, but no response. I have given several warnings, but they continue to create unreferenced articles - many of them - and not respond. I'm coming here in the hope we can get Mathapatirachayya to engage. Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
My 'suspicion', if that's the right word, was based on the topics that were being created so rapidly, and the rationale for them. They seemed informative, useful, neutral, and possibly put together from some form of database or list of geographic information (sadly whose sources remain uncited). So I felt that, coming from such a very new user, these articles might potentially have been created by someone experienced, well-meaning, and possibly commissioned or employed to improve awareness of the Karnataka region of southern India. That was a gut feeling, not an accusation, but it looked like a single-purpose account to me, worthy of a WP:CHECK too, so I felt the question merited asking under the circumstances. (I hope I followed procedure by raising this in a civil manner on their talk page - that was my intent). I'm quite happy seeing good pages created on geographic areas such as these, but not if they remain uncited. It therefore seemed a question worth inviting the user to answer - though sadly there seems to be a difficulty in getting any response. ( I should add that I started drafting my comment on their talk page prior to your own warning message being placed there, but, being busy elsewhere, left it unfinished for 24hrs before posting. I didn't feel the need to flag up the edit confict at the time) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the lack of sources, copyvio may be an issue too. Diannaa's already warned re copyvios, I haven't yet checked the rest, but if this behavior continues further then a block is in order. —SpacemanSpiff13:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Directly after this ANI was started, the editor created another unreferenced article, Tajapur H, and despite clearly being on Wikipedia at the time, has not responded here or to SpacemanStiff's recent warning. Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
As Mathapatirachayya have made zero attempt to communicate after nearly one month and 340 edits, I have temporarily deleted all 104 pages (spot check indicates they all share similar issues or being possibly copy and pasted and unreferenced) created by this user until we receive some kind of response from this user. Alex Shih (talk) 16:29, 28 October 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.
There has been an extensive discussion at the Spanish Empire talk page regarding the maps on the page, including a productive RfC. Nevertheless, JavierNF96(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has repeatedly added maps to the page that have been rejected in the discussions, in some cases because the detail on the maps cannot be read. JavierNF96 added rejected maps six times in two weeks, without engaging in the discussion, and while arguing in edit summaries over topics being addressed in the RfC (see 1, 2). (He was blocked during some of that period as well, and he sometimes edits unlogged, as IP 90.94.208.147, which he has been warned about.) He has been asked in edit summaries and on his talk page to discuss but he refuses. He instead stated that he “will not enter into the absurd discussion.” Today he has changed the map four more times, each time reverted by different editors. This is textbook distruptive editing. We have talk page discussions and RfCs specifically to avoid fruitless edit summary arguments. JavierNF96 disregards the discussion, refuses to engage, and continues to make disruptive edits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Javier decided to nail his flag to the mast using JavierANF (talk·contribs) as well. I have blocked the sock indefinitely, and a CheckUser has disposed of the IP. As for the master, I have blocked him for a week, that may have been an act of inappropriate leniency, considering the prompt appearance of 37.29.237.226(talk·contribs·WHOIS). Beginning to look like WP:NOTHERE. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 28 October 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.
This user will not follow policies and guidelines and is abusive when folks try to explain what they are doing wrong. In my view they need a long time out.
After several bad interactions, I posted the following on their Talk page at the end of July:
Looking at your edit count you have made 617 edits to Wikipedia. You have used an article talk page only 3 times, and user talk pages 29 times. Almost all of those talk page remarks have been abusive.
If you cannot adapt to this basic requirement of working here, you are going to find your privileges (and they are privileges, not a right) to edit Wikipedia restricted or completely removed. I am providing a set of diffs below, showing that you have been failing to work collaboratively with others thus far.
Please take this as an unambiguous warning, that you need to change your approach to working with others.
22:57, 4 December 2015 dif, you added content sourced to primary source to an article about a drug, and it was reverted
13:29, 8 December 2015 diff insult at user talk page: why would you possibly revert science referenced research? If you didn't like it then edit it, don't just delete (censor) it.
13:33, 8 December 2015 diff reverted with no edit note, which was again reverted
19:19, 8 December 2015 diffI don't know if I'm dealing with Alexbrn or Zephr but the overly brief and meaningless comment of "poorly sourced" hardly applies to peer reviewed medical literature that I referenced. Edit what I did instead of reverting (censoring?) it.
17:44, 13 November 2016 diff you added some detail to an article, and it was reverted.
15:28, 16 November 2016 diff you restored your remark at the top I don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is senseless, which was misplaced, inappropriate, and was reverted.
13:58, 18 November 2016 diff at the top of a user talk page, don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is senseless. I am still waiting for response; this was moved to the bottom of the page, per convention.
diff - you were given a very long response to your note, to which you never replied.
14:40, 19 November 2016 diff you again wrote at the top of the page I don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is vague and senseless - I am still waiting for clarification what specifically you mean? What wording would you find acceptable for adding that little bit of information?
16:48, 26 November 2016 diff you restored the content to the article, writing "does not fit" is hardly a reason
00:02, 27 December 2016 diff"speedy" deletion of Gynura was un-necessary and DESTRUCTIVE by you
00:05, 27 December 2016 diffspeedy deletion?? what for? that was destructive of you - losing significant information - I leave it for you to repair by renewing it
16:51, 19 July 2017 diff comment left in the middle of someone else's section at my talk page. PANS page requests pharmacology expert and as PhD in that subject I added something. What is your expertise for reverting?
17:55, 19 July 2017 dif, edit warring restoration with edit note: I am pharmacology expert providing useful info and citation - your edit would be appreciated but undo is NOT
18:32, 19 July 2017 at talk diff insult at the article Talk page section I opened.
22:22, 20 July 2017 diff, revert with no edit note
17:42, 21 July 2017 diff revert, edit note Revert destruction instead of edit is unacceptable behavior
11:37, 22 July 2017 diff, comment at my talk page in someone else's section: talk page?? I don't know where the fuck you're talking about but you keep destructively reverting useful information which violates everything about wikipedis
They replied with this: DON'T shrink me. I gave you NO authority to examine my editing record to psychoanalyze me. You abused your position. It is obvious now that you were perfectly capable of editing my edit WITHOUT reverting, and the fact that you reverted repeatedly proves that YOU instigated this edit war, not I. YOU are the abuser, and I am disgusted with your abusive manipulative behavior. (unsigned, no indents) there on their talk page, and at my talk page with things like this, randomly inserted: When a page advises need for pharmacology expertise then my question about your expertise is VERY appropriate, and you show how wierd you are to revert me and refuse to show expertise. For you to be snooping through my past is wrong in so many ways and for you to not realize it shows how corrupt you are.
a week later they responded with this to a standard notice from User:Doc James about using MEDRS refs: you can't kill an idea no matter how theoretical and new; you could have edited this instead of reverting and with this to a followup by User:TylerDurden8823L so why am I seeing an increase of lazy numb-headed reverts in place of editing to improve things?? and with this: I see the same quote over and over: "disruptive editing. this does not belong here. unncessary anyway. Undid revision". That makes it lazy and numb-headed; also autocratic and impossible to talk-reason with. Reflects descent and degeneration and bureaucratization of the whole management and idea of wikipedia.
today more of the same. again at their talk page in response to Doc James: That was a high quality PRIMARY source. You are mistaken in calling it secondary. Your reversions are NON collaborative. The wiki way is FIXING things instead of ERASING. So I expect you to put my peer reviewed reference back in. EDIT if you want but no more blunt reversions. There is a reason they are seeing people respond to them over and over with requests to stop be disruptive. and at Doc James talk page: your statement to use higher quality secondary sources is nonsense. I provided a PRIMARY source PEER reviewed journal that is as high quality as possible. You can edit for clarity but do NOT revert for nonsense excuse..... You need to express better what your real reason for reverting was because your claim is FALSE. ... answering with a question is NOT an answer. you are VIOLATING the wikipedia way in REFUSING to answer how you would accuse a primary peer review journal report as being secondary nonsense???
Support block I agree with the overall sentiment of this post that there is clearly a problematic pattern of behavior despite numerous attempts to help Soaringbear. As James states above, unless Soaringbear demonstrates a clear willingness to start interacting in a meaningful way with other Wikipedia users and adhere to using high-quality secondary sources, I support a block as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Nonvote it's pretty clear where this is headed and doesn't need pile-on. Just wanted to say that I tried to help, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Soaringbear: Wikipedia needs pharmacology experts, but a topic expert is not much use here unless they are able to follow standard procedures, and willing to take the effort to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Demand for clinical RCT data is simply unrealistic in a world of billions of separate chemicals. We can all wish for it all we want, but it simply ain't happening. I will suggest that there is possibly an element of professional conflict here, between him as physician and me as pharmacologist. I have training and experience in evaluating pre-clinical, non-human studies, that Doc James lacks.
It is unfortunate he cannot respect science outside of his profession of human studies, and thinks he can revert with useless abrasive comments like "nonsense" and rapidly escalating to calling me "abusive" and "several bad interactions" that "need a long time out". In other words he lacks capacity to oversee other scientists and is abusing his authority.
So there are two main issues here. Chrysin is a page that is nearly empty and contains speculation (*under lab research" and bodybuilding) that is far weaker than the reference I added and my edit is just a spark revealing a process conflict that is much bigger. Bear
P.S. I will add that part of the process problem is how ready you are to convict when you hadn't heard from me yet.
Soaringbear, those pages you linked to above are essays reflecting the personal opinions of some editors and those pages most certainly are not policies and guidelines. Doc James has tried quite hard to get you to understand that we insist on sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you must accept that and internalize it and follow it 100% of the time. And you need to start collaborating and communicating better. Are you prepared to accept that?
As for "convict", this is not court of law. It is a project to build an encyclopedia. You were notified of this conversation on your talk page as soon as it started and I told you about it on Doc James's talk page as well. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Even reliable sources are being deleted? The part "It is primarily found in honey, propolis, and the passion flowers Passiflora caerulea and Passiflora incarnata, and in Oroxylum indicum.[1]" was sourced to this citation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I am shocked how you denigrate those wikipedia pages as being just "personal opinions of some", since I have nothing else to go on, and neither do you (or you would have pointed me to other pages supporting your conviction). That puts you in the miserable position of opposing other editors. Your one sided argumentativeness is unbecoming of a fair and level discussion, and is a sign of bias and prejudgment of me. There can be no argument as to the serious intent of those sensible guidelines about smothering and reverting. They are there for very good reason and it is improper for you to convict me while denigrating other editors and very sensible policies. Clearly a review of this whole matter is needed at a higher level than among bickering editors.
I see you ignored my point about the limitation of MEDRS, which indeed is useful for the world of some food ingredients and 7000 approved drugs that do have a lot of information (MD's are familiar with this). On the other hand, the great majority of billions of separate chemicals lacking data, require holding to a lower level (that pharmacologists and chemists are familiar with). Same dilemma environmental protection and toxicology agencies struggle with. The lower level of MEDRS was already met by my attempted addition of a report of physiological effect from a prime peer-reviewed research journal, so should not have been reverted. As for attracting pharmacology experts, your nonsense rules for doctors and drugs will NEVER attract those who can handle data gaps of millions of other chemical compounds.
I see you ignored my point that prosecutor Doc James protects that page (smothering) for his own personal kind of unsupported speculation (*under lab research" and bodybuilding) that fails MEDRS, so is only selectively using MEDRS as basis of reverting. By the way, the citation I attempted to add falls very much within the sphere of "under lab research" that Doc James is otherwise protecting.
I was only notified of the initial prosecutor's statement, not of any subsequent remarks. So far this conversation is scattered out over multiple pages (chrysin, DocJames, mine, admin) and it's hard knowing where else. Several people voted to support block with no sign of seeing editing history nor my position, so there is a fundamental lack of fairness, which each of you will have to come to terms with. You are ganging up on me and you do no favors for wikipedia doing that.
I have had long commitment to the wikipedia concept of Jimmy Wales, and when you get in the way by overly restrictive reverting, and violate sensible wikipedia guidelines, then I will challenge you as falling into a bureaucracy nightmare. If censorship is your tool for scientific disagreement then you fail the ideals. No matter how challenging and exasperating I am, I am not undermining. If you're not prepared to revert EVERY ONE of my hundreds of editing contributions over the years then you have no business blocking me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs)
Soaringbear, MEDRS may not be as limited as you think. Compare your edit to my edit. You have to read many reviews, including PDF files to expand the content. It takes time and patience. QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 29 October 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago206 comments32 people in discussion
I contributed to this discussion, but I feel okay to close this given the responses. The discussion regarding how to handle this situation came with very wide and diverse input, but given the discussion as a whole, there is no consensus in regards to what community action to impose upon Magioladitis (other than a large "trout"). I wish both Magioladitis and BU Rob13 well, and that we as a community can move on from this (as well as the other recent events) peacefully. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:14, 31 October 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.
Latest example here: [327]. Please protect me. Rob has commented in all my BRFA's, my BAG membership and in many more places. Usually, he is the first to comment. I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others. I have evidence that he has been contacting others offwiki about me to others. -- Magioladitis (talk) Note: I corrected my statement after explanations given Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Original statement restored and struck, per retraction. —DoRD (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
...then post that evidence. It simply hasn't happened, and the unsupported accusation is a blatant personal attack. This is only being filed because I said 3 minutes ago that I planned to take this to ANI tonight when I get to a computer. He wanted my name in the section header instead of his. Magioladitis has been wikihounding me blatantly for weeks since he was desysopped. I've tried to have little contact with him, but that hasn't worked. I'll post a comprehensive list of evidence (actual evidence, with diffs and stuff) when I get home tonight. ~ Rob13Talk22:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Rob said for me be removed from BAG member "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016, emphasis is mine). [328]
Rob comments about me: "The behavior over half a decade is far below what's expected of any editor on the project" (20:04, 19 January 2017, emhasis is mine). [329]
Rob comments in a BRFA 2 minutes after I placed the time stamp: [330].
I am not that familiar with the context, but I don't think it is necessary stalking if valid points are being raised. Since both editors work with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, overlaps should be expected, and I think it would be wrong to look away if there are pressing concerns. Alex ShihTalk01:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, Magioladitis' own presentation of evidence here reinforces the impression that there's something wrong with his judgment and needs monitoring: first on his list of complaints above is that BU Rob opposed his reconfirmation as a member of BAG, which you might think was a mean thing for Rob to do until you read the discussion Magioladitis himself links, in which eight out of eight editors commenting shared BU Rob's opinion, citing behavior by Magioladitis which, in the context of a bot operator, is downright frightening. One little passage is especially telling. Someone asked:
Two questions:
Why are you running an unapproved bot from your account to make edits like this?
The questions are unrelated to my BAG nomination. BAG checks mainly the technical part of the story. The question asked here is if have the technical skills and related knowledge to be part of BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No, Magioladitis, it's not just your technical skills that are at issue, it's your judgment (and, to be blunt, your ability to communicate in the English language, from my long observation). And Exhibit A is that you apparently think that, in considering you for membership in the Bot Approvals Group (whose members individually are empowered to approve bot tasks), we should simply ignore the apparent fact that, at the very moment of your application, you were running an unapproved bot. That's shocking.
EEng I am not complaining on negative commenting. I am complaining on constant commenting'. Robs has supported some of my bot tasks but he has commented in all of them. I thing that I do not like because I feel exposed to a specific person online. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others.[331]If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.[332]@Magioladitis: It has been over 36 hours since you opened this complaint. You need to provide evidence for this claim, or you need to retract it. —DoRD (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
DoRD I retracted. It was explained to me that the communication was via the IRC admin channel. Still offwiki but not via emails. I sincerely apologise. If this has been explained to me earlier I would not have written anything about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not a retraction, it's an after-the-fact refactoring of your original complaint, so I've corrected it. —DoRD (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I initially wrote up a long thing refuting what Magioladitis wrote about me stalking, but instead, I'll just refer you to "past me". These claims go back months, and I wrote a very detailed explanation of the interactions I had with Magioladitis in the past. You can find that here. As a brief summary: We interact about the normal amount of times for those editing the same area. I've only ever started a single discussion related to Magioladitis, as I intentionally avoid him whenever possible. I've initiated zero interactions with him since the second ArbCom. Every time I've criticized him, the community has agreed with my criticisms. I think that about sums it up. Now onto the evidence that Magioladitis has been continuously harassing me, as promised:
In April 2017, he started a discussion about one of my bot approvals without even discussing the concern with me, in apparent retaliation for my criticism of an unrelated third-party bot task that was violating the bot policy. (link) The community concluded that I could fix the bug in my task as normal and Magioladitis was warned by a BAG member (Headbomb) that he shouldn't retaliate against me in that manner.
In May 2017, he started another discussion about the same bug in the same bot task, despite me not running that bot task at all in between the two discussions. (link) The section was speedily closed with a warning not to harass me.
In June 2017, he started a discussion claiming (falsely) that I gave incorrect advice to a bot operator. (link) Other BAG members have since stated my advice was correct based on the information available in the bug report at the time.
During the second ArbCom case, two arbitration clerks had to redact large portions of his evidence section because he made unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, including the "off-wiki coordination"/email accusation he made above. See here and here.
At the risk of trivializing things, up until this point, we have "run-of-the-mill" incivility, abuse of process to harass, etc. After the second ArbCom case, it was ratcheted up quite a bit to wikihounding me everywhere I go.
In September 2017, he suddenly popped up on my talk page to demand an apology and retraction for a comment I made during the first ArbCom case. I stand by my original comment, which was supported by the findings of facts in the case. See here. This proves Magioladitis was literally going through 9-month-old edits and contributions to find something to hound me about.
In October 2017, Magioladitis removed a PROD I placed on a file (now deleted, so I can't show the diff); File:Seleccionada3.JPG. This was his first edit to the file namespace since August 2017, when he (ironically) accidentally rolled back one of my edits on another random file, showing he was going through my contribs at that time as well ([334]). This is an editor who so infrequently edits the file namespace that if you try to retrieve his last 100 file namespace edits, the site returns an error. A discussion on his talk page made clear he had no legitimate rationale for removing the PROD [335].
I'm philosophically opposed to interaction bans, especially one-sided ones. At this point, I just want his harassment to stop. I think a site ban is appropriate given the history here. Magioladitis has had many last chances. ~ Rob13Talk02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It saddens me to be editing this response right now... I can understand how disheartened and perhaps frustrated or angry that Magioladitis is feeling since the ArbCom case that recently closed, but I can't help but be honest here... I feel that these problematic accusations by Magioladitis are only going to continue until action is taken and we (the community) put a stop to it. We've gone through complaints and discussions on different talk pages, numerous ANI discussions, two ArbCom cases - how far do we allow this to go? When is enough enough? Do these continued and repeated discussions involving Magioladitis' behavior show that perhaps we've reached a point where he's stopped becoming net positive for the project? I'm not sure how to feel... it's just truly sad and disappointing... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless there's a serious reason to believe an IBAN would not work, besides any objections anyone personally has to the concept of IBANs, I don't see why we don't try one. Magioladitis and BU Rob13 each claim to want to be left alone. It seems the perfect candidate for an IBAN. So let's do it. If one or the other is the instigator of harassment, then the IBAN will lead us to the culprit far faster than more arbitration, and more empirically than an ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please. It's clear that Rob's replies cause me stress in all cases. I don't even want to have positive comments in my BRFA's from him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If Rob13 is "philosophically opposed to interaction bans", both of them work in the small world of Wikipedia bots, Rob13's actions on BRFAs are to validly point out horrific bot-related misbehavior on the part of Magioladitis, and Magioladitis welcomes the removal of Rob13 from BRFAs, that doesn't seem like a very constructive solution to me. It might be possible if we simultaneously ban Magioladitis from anything bot-related, broadly construed, but otherwise no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein on the bots area we have a cease fire. I am banned from bot policy related discussions and Rob said won't do any BAG action on CHECKWIKI anymore. We have no conflicts there anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Who cares what benefits either of these individuals bring to the Wikipedia bots world? If they can't work together, and the trouble their interactions cause outweighs the benefits of their work in the bots realm, then why should we give a damn about the benefits of their work with bots? I see no reason to put on kid gloves with respect to either. Things do not simply get this bad and stay this bad for so long based on the unilateral misconduct of a single person, the removal of whom would fairly resolve. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well actually quite a lot of people care about the benefits Rob brings given there has been no downside. They don't care about the benefits Mag can potentially bring because he comes with a history of negatives which have had a huge amount of community involvement even before it got to Arbcom in order to get him to change his ways. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. To disregard all the previous dealings with Magioladitis inability to abide by ENWP's requirements on editing behavior with a hand wavy 'well other people are at fault too' is ludicrous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. Bullshit. ArbCom or the community would have banned Magioladitis ages ago if this were so simple. Neither ArbCom nor the community is so stupid as you are painting them to be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
'It takes two to tango' being the best you can come up with to smear another editor? 'Where there is smoke there is fire' is another good one. So as much evidence as Mag has presented then got it. Do you have any actual evidence other than clichés that 'well everyone is at fault' despite the overwhelming extended evidence to the contrary? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What? Where you stated I said the community or arbcom were stupid? When I did no such thing? I tend to ignore complete bullshit. The community and Arbcom have wasted far more time on Magioladitis than they are worth in good faith. That does not make them stupid, it makes them extremely tolerant. There is a limit. You on the other hand are implying that tolerance means that there must be other people at fault because they have not decided to outright ban Mag yet. Which is again, ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways! You indicate below that ArbCom and AN/ANI are extremely effective at topic banning and sitebanning disruptive individuals when it's merited. You indicate above that things could stay this bad for so long purely because of the conduct of a single editor. Magioladitis has been before ArbCom twice and at these boards who knows how many times. Now you say the reason Magioladitis is still around is because of tolerance. But why be tolerant when, as you say, AN/ANI or ArbCom could effectively be rid of the intolerable conduct wrought solely by Magioladitis against innocent bystanders? These claims are not consistent with one another unless you admit that Magioladitis is not solely at fault, or unless you are calling the community stupid. I'll assume good faith on your part, however, and assume you mean to say that Magioladitis is not solely at fault. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be having trouble reading and comprehending what I wrote. This is the second time you have said I said something that I clearly did not. There will not be a third. To explain further - I said AN/ANI and Arbcom do have a history of cutting editors loose who cause too much disruption. In Magioladitis case they have extended time and again various options in order to keep them around. These are obviously not mutually exclusive positions - the willingness of the community to keep an editor editing is in line with the amount of good work it feels can be extracted from them. The willingness of editors to extend (an overly generous imho) effort to keep Mag editing does not mean it thinks that anyone else is at fault - it merely means Mag has not become disruptive enough yet to be banned. If you actually look at all the past discussions, sanctions, arbcom etc, you will find almost no indication that any other editor has caused any issues regarding Magioladitis other than Mag themselves. You on the other hand seem to think that because they have not been banned so far, someone else must be the problem. This has been a staple of Magioladitis defense for the past few years 'I am not the problem, everyone else is, leave me alone to do what I want to do'. And this has been soundly rejected time and again. You have used ridiculous cliché's like 'it takes two to tango' to suggest sanctioning a productive editor who is currently being harassed by another with a history of bad behaviour. Because an interaction ban *is* a sanction on an editor and requires evidence to justify it. Not 'well it cant just be Mag's fault'. So please in the form of diffs, provide evidence that BU Rob should be sanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Stow the attitude. I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability. I don't agree with your analysis and I'm showing the logical inconsistencies in your argumentation. I'm not misreading what you're saying. I understand full well the draconian outcome you're trying to rationalize. As for me, I would rather work for the good of the community and greater peace in the long term, and the way forward is through a mutual IBAN.Both Rob and Magioladitis have stated they want to be left alone. Let's have them leave each other alone. Preserving the atmosphere of collegiality takes precedence over whatever improvements any of us individually could make to the encyclopedia, especially those improvements that could be made at a later date. At the core of your argument seems to be the spurious claim that we shouldn't make an IBAN mutual because it would be an indignity to Rob. This really isn't a credible concern. We're not punishing, we're preventing. If we were punishing, we would care about things like culpability, and the indignity of punishing the target of one user's bad behavior.In any event, by your own characterization of Magioladitis there shouldn't be much of a delay between the implementation of an IBAN and Magioladitis receiving the indef block or community ban you appear to think is necessary. Honestly, this is where I am a bit confused about your position: Do you not believe Magioladitis would violate the IBAN in short order? If so, then what's there to lose? If not—that is, if Magioladitis complies with the IBAN—then how could you argue the IBAN wouldn't work? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
"I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability." Yes you are. You have repeatedly. You have suggested sanctioning another editor based on clichés and zero evidence. You have deliberately twice stated I said something I didn't. So any 'attitude' you receive, like Mag, is entirely of your own doing. Since you decline to provide any evidence another editor deserves sanctioning, I can safely assume there is no evidence that anyone else is at fault. Thanks for confirming it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Um, no. I'm not arguing culpability. I'm suggesting applying a nonpunitive IBAN to two editors who can't get along. Culpability isn't required for a sanction, only that the sanction will cure the underlying behavior. Nor do I have to provide evidence that Rob is disruptive: The disruption caused by their interactions, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, is evidence enough. You've not provided one substantive reason why a mutual IBAN is improper here, while I've provided numerous arguments why one would work great. All you've done is said it's unfair to punish Rob with an IBAN, but as I've explained, that's flat out wrong. This is not punitive. Moreover, any sanction that Magioladitis receives won't be to provide relief to Rob, but to protect the community. You can go on denying that if you like, of course. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Only in death what ways do you want me to change? The ArbCom case examined the part of my editing and my contact with people. I had no issues with my edits or whatsever after that. I have only one request: The community to find a way that Rob and me do not inteact for a while. Any try to have interaction has gone bad. Maybe it's my fault or I don't know. Rob does not seem to understand that a while I do not want any comments from him in my talk page or in the areas I am trying to contribute. To be honest, I have tried to interact in various occassions but it seems my actions are understood as impollite the same way I understand Rob's actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You are an editor who has no intention of desisting from editing in the BOT area, asking the community to prevent one of the other experienced editors in the BOT area from interacting with you when you have an extended history of causing issues is ridiculous. Per WP:HOUND given your history, every editor with even a passing interest in the bot area could watch you like a hawk and it would be justified by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Only in death I already have a ban in the bot related area which I respect so any action here is not related to bots and bot policies. I have not even made an automated edit the last month (and perhaps more). I pursuit to change area and switch back to things I 've been doing before bot work. This includes all types of gnome editing, template standardsation and participating in xFD discussions. I already found a compromise with Rob on some parts. I do not discuss bot policy, he does not get heavily involved in CHECKWIKI project. I think we should and can extend that. I think there is field of communication. There is bad faith on the air but we need to find a way (even if it technical in the beginning) to work it out. Something like "no comments to other's talk page" would suit me. It's not the first time I write this. Rob needs to give me space. There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. I have tried and you didn't like me discussing matters with you, to the point where you ignored and refused to answer questions I put to you, then complained that I might have had your talk page on my watchlist. (The background here is that Rob expressed a concern that Magioladitis behaviour might have been stalking, so I offered to ask). I arrived at your talk page, asked a series of questions to try and get to the bottom of the issue, and I'm still waiting for answers concerning your behaviour, but since we're here and talking about your behaviour - I'll ask again, how exactly did you find the edits Rob had made to some old images proposing their deletion if you weren't stalking his edits ? The reality, as I see it now, is that you don't want anybody to discuss anything with you, you want carte blanche to continue your disruptive behaviour, that you've gone rogue and are now a loose cannon on deck. If you intend to avoid a site ban, you need to think fast and explain now what you're going to do to change your behaviour. Nick (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick I think I replied to all your questions. Check my talk page. The fact that I arrived to this image it was an unlucky coincidence. I stated my comments in the FfD. I offered my email to you for further communication exactly because it was a concern about the Magio-Rob interaction. I am willing to reply to any questions about everything and I never denied an discussion with you at any point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe a short break on your part would be useful. It should not be a way to avoid an interaction ban or other sanction however. Nick (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It's quite clear that Magioladitis behaviour is now at the boundary of net positive/net negative to the project. The behaviour on-wiki is clearly a net negative for the project but is offset by outreach and technical contributions to the wider Wikimedia project. I support an interaction ban but I'm also not opposed to a straight site ban (of fixed duration - 6 months to 1 year in the first instance). This behaviour cannot be permitted further. Nick (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick the interaction ban is the first step to take. If this does not work we will have to think of stronger enforcements. But I am confident interaction ban will work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick I do not have good interctions with Rob. I don't critise the comments themselves but the fact that I get so many comments by him and that he keeps writing on my talk page even to third-parties. Do you think it's normal that he replies to others in my talk page after all this things that have happened? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Support one-way I-ban--Notwithstanding Magio's outright false accusations, his terrible on-wiki behaviour and the fact that two ArBCom cases coupled with the general views of the community about his actions have not eased things up, I feel we could give him one very last opputunity before we seek to site-ban him.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No opinion on I-ban; site ban doesn't seem justified. Supportive of a bot operation / high speed editing ban on the general principle that running bots is outside of our "anyone can edit" principle, so people who do it should be held to high standards. I wrote some similar things in the discussion sections of Mag's two arb cases if anyone cares. It's also perfectly fine to be a bot developer without operating the bots on the live server. Test the bot on an article or two or in some userspace pages, then let someone else do the production runs. That's how most real-life system software works anyway (the programmers and the operators are separate sets of people). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the overlap an I-ban is worthless and implies that Rob actually should be restricted in some way - anything that would restrict him from the good work he does regarding bots should be shot down. I would support anything from a one-way I-ban for Mag, up to and including a complete ban from bot-related editing, or even a site ban at this point. Its clear from the evidence presented he has been stalking Rob's edits in order to harass him and is just the last in a long list of anti-social behavior. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Only in death where is shown that I am stalking his edits? On the contrary Rob has been even commeting my ta page addressing to others: [336]. My talk page is clarly in his watchlist. What is part of my behavior? I feel that I am being stalked and I came directly to the community. --- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Rob has presented evidence in the form of diffs that indicate you have been going through his past edits - and linked to the relevant discussions where your concerns were investigated and found to have no legitimate reason to do so. You on the other hand have presented.... what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As I state above, if these two cannot get along professionally, and their interactions are so damaging to the community as to outweigh the benefits of their contributions to any particular area of Wikipedia, then who cares what benefits either provides to bots? IBAN them from each other. If one or the other is gaming it to lock the other out of bots, then that person will be sanctioned. The logical leap that an IBAN means that Rob would somehow be restricted from doing "good work" on bots goes too far. Rather, this would let Rob get back to work. I am unconvinced that any overlap here is actually a problem. These are intelligent individuals. If one is obsessed with the other, then that one will violate the IBAN in pretty short order. The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no issue with the two of them getting along professionally. There is an issue with Magioladitis stalking another editor's edits in a vindictive attempt to get revenge for being blocked from playing with his favorite toy. "The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia." Well you clearly have not paid attention, Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. "Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides." Ah the Donald Trump 'both sides' approach. Yeah that argument has no basis in fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I think we have a new version of Godwin's Law being born here. I'm weirdly honored. Anyway, to get to the logical inconsistencies in your response, compare Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. with the facts. Neither AN/ANI nor ArbCom have taken the step of "cutting out" any particularly disruptive editor here, nor has there been any cure it would seem. As I said before, if these two editors cannot get along professionally, then require them to stop interacting. If Magioladitis is the panting, drooling, unhinged monster you make them out to be, then the IBAN will be violated in very short order, and we'll move to a proper siteban. Honestly, even for ANI, I am stunned with how quickly the torches and pitchforks came out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or you genuinely are unable to read an archive. You do know AN/ANI has handled hundreds of site ban discussions for disruptive editors right? Likewise Arbcom over the years has often site-banned editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As I say above, you can't have it both ways. AN/ANI and ArbCom can't be so effective at handling disruptive editors as you claim, yet impotent to handle what you are painting as a clear-cut, one-sided, obvious case. Come on now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed. This will resolve the interaction issues, as this is the topic area that the interactions were being made from. The community has clearly, repeatedly, and continuously expressed their frustrations, concerns, and their lack of confidence with Magioladitis' judgment in this topic area, as well as exhausted community resources and time (including numerous talk discussions on many pages, multiple ANI discussions, and two ArbCom cases - and to no avail), and this topic ban will resolve the concerns and put and end to it completely. Most importantly, this topic ban will allow Magioladitis to remain a member of the project (a logical and fair alternative to a full site ban) and give him the chance to contribute positively and be a net positive in other topic areas, while prohibiting him from the topic area that we agree will cause him to become a net negative. This will also place the ball completely in his court; either things will go well and we won't have any more problems, or they wont - and we'll know that the writing is clearly on the wall. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to put on record that, as a Software Engineer myself and as someone who has a passion for computers, code, scripts, and automation (that probably cannot be matched with the level of passion that Magioladitis has for the same thing)........... this was very very hard for me to write. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As I have said in several other venues, technical ability without the ability to work with other people is useless. --Rschen775402:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah I recently had interactions with Rob in an FfD and in a rights request. This is outside the automation area. It turns we iinteract in more areas than expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment apart from a possible boomerang for Magioladitis for filing a completely frivolous case in his section, I don't see anything actionable here. Magioladitis should possibly be admonished, but unless you're willing to agree to a two-way IBAN I don't see anything else that can be done. It's clear you don't like each other, is it possible for you to not like each other without involving ANI in it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This shows that the intearaction is not limited in one area. I am requesting i-ban for months now. -- Magioladitis (talk)
I found that template because you showed up in my watchlist converting many pages to use {{Official website}} instead of a regular hyperlink, with some of those changes resulting in errors due to bad data on Wikidata. Your edits were highly visible because you did a large number of them from a non-bot-flagged account, something editors have been trying to get you not to do for years; that's on you. I quietly reverted the erroneous addition to the documentation because I thought that was the path-of-least-drama; the alternative would be to start an ANI or something to get others to do it. As for "off-wiki communication", WP:INVOLVED states to pass issues to uninvolved admins as necessary, which is what I did; I posted openly in #wikipedia-en-admins on IRC, a channel available to every enwiki admin, asking someone to look at the de-PROD. I suggested no particular action for them to take, just asked for eyes on it. This is what the policy tells me to do. I have never privately communicated with anyone off-wiki about Magioladitis' behavior, such as by email, as Magioladitis has claimed (except to the Arbitration clerks when asking them to look at the personal-attack-riddled evidence section). I did it where any admin could see. I was trying to avoid the drama of ANI, though I'll just take it here in the future, given how severe things have become. ~ Rob13Talk12:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I will refrain from any comments in your talk page. Please, respect me and do the same. I don't want to avoid control of my editing. I only ask you to limit your interactions with me to the minimum. Is that not possible? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem doing that, mostly because I've been doing it already. The totality of interactions with you since the second ArbCom case have been you coming to my talk page to complain about a 9-month-old comment, you de-PRODing a file I PRODed for no apparent reason, and my intentionally brief oppose to your request for template editor (where you responded by personally attacking me). Where in that do you see a lot of unnecessary interaction on my part? ~ Rob13Talk14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For the first: I believe that you tried to defame my work outside the frame of the ArbCom scope since my work is much more than just the bot editing. I think your comments were negative and unjustified. For the second: I had a reason because I worked in a smiliar way that we do not speedy delete redirects that are too old because of incoming links, etc. The FfD was the right route and as you see I did not pursuit further. The third one was only an echoing of that unfortunate situation. I have good intentions and I really would like that we discuss in a better environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment what is this supposed to be evidence of? There is no existing IBAN, and this behavior is generally fine without one. Most of these diffs are very stale, and [339] is a very weak argument; I would expect somebody familiar with the case could figure out everything Nick said without detailed off-wiki conversation. @Magioladitis:, apart from the single comment at WP:PERM, do you have any diffs from September or October that are relevant? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki I am not sure if there are more diffs since I have done little editing the past 2 months due to my busy schedule. The thing that annoys me is that after my topic ban to bot policy I decided to switch back to other areas I have been editing for long time (xFds, template standardidation, Wikidata transition, etc.) and I still find Rob in all the forums I try to comment or act. So I do not want to see more drama with this person and I would like to protect myself somehow. Seeing the same person commenting in every BRFA I submitted, replying to people in my talk page it's too much. I do not want to see that happening again; at least for a while. Even his nomination for BAG member had a specific mention to CHEKCWIKI, a project I 've been running for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've seen enough. The last BRFA he interacted with you on was in August. Your only interaction with BU_Rob13 at XfD appears to be a response to a file he nominated, after you declined a PROD. This obviously isn't stalking or hounding on his part. I think you're acting in bad faith with this complaint, and after two ARBCOM cases I see no reason to give you more time. I Support any sanction up to a site ban of Magioladitis if this farce continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki The de-prod led to a complain and then there was on more interaction in the rights page but there is a long history of comments in the past. Rob, I think, has agreed to stay away from my talk page and I'll stay away from his. I think we are finding a solution here. Some other misunderstandings have also been discussed in this thread. Don't you think that the situation de-escalates via this disscussion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment There is no doubt that BURob has been very active in putting the case against Magioladitis in a number of fora in recent years. I think we may also accept without cavil that Magioladitis sees this as going beyond "just happening to be involved in that area", and that even if wrong, this is not an unreasonable belief.
Therefore it would be wise of BURob to avoid this sort of behaviour, unless we are to believe that no other editor is ready, willing and able to present the other side of the coin to that proposed by Magioladitis. I am pleased to see from the above comments that he is trying to disengage, though I have to admit it comes as a surprise given history of these interactions.
I've voiced my opinion, certainly, but I must insist on noting that I have started a grand total of one discussion about Magioladitis ever. This is compared to Magioladitis starting at least four discussions about me this year alone (two attempts at revoking one of my bot approvals, this discussion, and a discussion falsely claiming I gave false advice about bots). Ever since Magioladitis openly speculated about my location on-wiki, I have not felt particularly safe interacting with him, and so I have taken quite a bit of personal attacks, harassment, etc. from him without comment. It would have been possible/reasonable to take him to ANI after just about any of the incidents I noted above, but I never did, because I don't want to deal with the ensuing interactions. I've tried the "Ignore him and he'll go away" strategy from grade school pretty much since the beginning. No luck so far, although I remain hopeful. ~ Rob13Talk19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The location comment came from my will to meet you in person and de-escalate any misunderstandings that have happenned on-wiki. If you check by that time many people were discussing who and how they go to Wikimania. If you think this was insulting or outing attempt, you can request the hide the edit in question. I apologise if you felt that way but my intention is to descalate any situation that has happened with you and not the opposite. I have met many of the people participating in the project offline and I always try to meet the people who contribute to the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be very opposed to a two-way interaction ban here. Besides the fact that legitimate criticism != harassment and that BURob13 has done nothing wrong here, it sets the precedent that all someone has to do is cry "harassment!!!!" and the admin is sanctioned at ANI. I would support a site ban for Magioladitis. I just don't think he understands or will listen to criticism. --Rschen775402:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Since Rob has said that he won't comment in my talk page (in addition to the fact that he has already walked away from CHECKWIKI bot related discussions), I am OK satisfied that we are finding a way to cooperate in a solution here. From my side we can close the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread was filed against me 3 minutes after I said I had reached my breaking point and was going to file something when I got home. I also don't think it's a coincidence the person filing this ANI desperately requesting protection against something that wasn't even happening is suddenly happy to pack up and go home as soon as it's clear the community isn't buying the baseless accusations. Personally, I'm very tired of this, and I'd like an actual solution. This very thread is the latest attempt to target me, and so I just don't buy that this will go away if nothing is done. It's about two ArbCom cases and a half dozen ANI threads late for another chance. ~ Rob13Talk03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have told you that I am going to seek solution even before the second ArbCom. I am not sure why you want to have so much intearction with me. You have commented in all my BRFAs. What was the reason to even reply to others in my talk page? E.g. [340] and one minute later this: [341]. And these examples were during the cases. Do not you think this causes extra stress to me? Can you please name me another person you had so much interaction as with me? Were you just trying to help? Here you commented in m BRFA 1 minute after I posted. Here: [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348] (and in many other places) you were the first to comment and all comments were within less than an hour. Here within 2 minutes: [349]. Sometimes you comment to me that fast you had to reconsider: [350]. Some things I do may seem to be outdated (like my comments about trying to defame me etc) but this is because of my workload. I am trying to find a way to cooperate with you but for reason it fails. I do not try to limit your actions as admin and I would like to find a solution that you keep commenting when necessary but we do not interact that much. Sometimes with your comments you seem to want me out of the project. I have told you already that your actions, whether you wanted it or not, led others outside the project. We would not be doing this. Doing your admins tasks is not a reason to comment that much in the places I comment and participate. Wikipedia has many admins to control. I do not try to defame your work but sometimes you seem to act too much when it comes to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
Those diffs from the BRFAs come less than week after all of Magioladitis' bot approvals were revoked for cause. He chose to file 25 BRFAs within 48 hours, which was extremely noticeable, since it caused the WP:BRFA page to basically break. Since the issues with the past bot approvals that led to revocation were mostly caused by lack of oversight, yes, I went through as many as I had time to check and evaluated them. I supported many and opposed a few or asked for more details. I think I commented on about half of the 25, which is consistent with the number of BRFAs I comment on generally – I am, after all, a BAG member. That's what the community wanted to happen when the bot approvals were revoked. The only reason there's so many diffs is because he spammed the bot approval process. This was way back in February, for the record, not recent at all. ~ Rob13Talk14:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This may get me an SPI but I agree with Magioladitis, in part. You've stressed him out a lot, and two of you used this API to argue with each other (ahem, Only in death and Mendaliv, that's not what we do on the Administrators Noticeboard.). I hate to be the voice of doom, but nobody else has commented for hours now. We've had a result already.This API is dead, let's close it. Sorry if this tone offends anybody, it's not intentional. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it "offends anybody", but I do have to confess that I don't have much idea what you're talking about here. --Begoon11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This is perhaps the harshest criticism of ANI that I've ever seen; if we don't implement a sanction without thinking within hours, the whole thread is dead? Harsh (but possibly accurate). In any event, multiple editors have called for a site ban. At this point, if nothing is done, I'll probably kick it to ArbCom as a dispute the community is unable to solve. ~ Rob13Talk13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to go back to ArbCom honestly. I'm very uncomfortable with the torches-and-pitchforks attitude that has dominated this discussion, as well as the "It's 100% Magioladitis" attitude, which strikes me as hopelessly simplistic. We should seek a nuanced outcome, and the Committee at least provides a structure in which nuance can exist. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The diffs in Magioladitis's post of 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) are all pretty stale. The most recent one is from July 10, and most of the remainder are from February 2017. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Diannaa Yes. In my first attempts to do something else after 2 months of rarely editing I had two bad interactions after months of a lot of interctions with Rob. That's why I came here. If I want to edit I just need less stress from Rob. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors have supported various outcomes above. Can we come to some consensus to avoid having to return to ArbCom for Magioladitis 3? ~ Rob13Talk20:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose any outcome here. This case belongs at ArbCom. All involved deserve a nuanced decision and a careful look at the facts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think a couple of trout would do better. Rob knows that he need not jump in on anything Magioladitis proposes, and that it will cause drama and stress. Magioladitis knows he should not "rise to the bait" as this exacerbates the situation.
Magioladitis is quite responsive to other editors, in the present case he followed Sladen's advice, and the issue is resolved.
I think Rob's evidence of hounding is strong enough that, at a bare minimum, Magioladitis needs to be admonished not to do that. I would prefer stronger outcomes, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment (a) This situation is indeed one-sided; BU Rob has done nothing wrong. (b) Something has to happen here to make Magioladitis realize that he's again wasted a hell of a lot of people's time. Since (other than that) he hasn't done anything recently to piss me off personally, for the moment I'm open to anything from trout on up, and I'd like to hear others' opinions. EEng22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, despite his claim that he does not "initiate" anything, he has initiated this sub-section and initiated a mass ping. He also initiated objections to Magioladitis not being granted TE privileges. That's within the last couple of days. He has also initiated discussions on Magioladitis's BRFAs.
Really BU Rob behaves pretty well elsewhere, but I do find his behaviour WRT Magioladitis lacking.
Of course he's initiated this subsection. Something needs to be done about Magioladitis' nonsense. EEng02:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
And his initiation of this subsection was more editorial than contributory - notice he hasn't put forward a proposal here, just tried to make one place for summations rather than having it interspersed with the discussion. He didn't say, "Ok, how are we going to get Magioladitis punished today?", he asked to see if the community could find a resolution here before kicking to ArbCom. PGWG (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A few suggestions for Magioladitis. (1) Don't pop in on Rob's talk page and demand an apology in September for a remark he made in January. That's ancient history in Internet years. Likewise, when making your case here at ANI, don't pull up stuff from months ago to demonstrate your point. Time to start fresh and let the auld stuff go. Rob certainly seems to be trying to do that. (2) Don't request any added permissions or such for quite a while. You were only recently de-sysopped. (3) Find something fresh to do that is useful and technical yet outside your previous work. Suggestions: formatting citations such as at Category:Wikipedia references cleanup; working on Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request; and the like. Perhaps I'm naive :). Also, see Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment my preferred outcome would be for a voluntary two-way IBAN. And, to suggest a new area, perhaps one of you could try to improve the Government article. Don't both volunteer at once. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: (edit conflict) I agree with User:EEng. There's nothing wrong on Rob's part. For Magioladitis, comments like this (and many others) really confirms they are not hearing anything that's being said. I find User:Diannaa's suggestions very helpful, and I would propose to format these suggestions into formal editing restriction. The idea is to get the user to contribute productively without continuously wasting the time of everybody here in English Wikipedia. Alex ShihTalk03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with EEng, thus:
I strongly opposeany sanction on BU Rob, who has done nothing wrong;
I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis, as suggested by Oshwah, above;
And a warning for Magioladitis: One can be competent as a bot engineer, and incompetent at Wikipedia, and it is increasingly apparent -- to me at least -- that you may well be the latter. Thus, if a discussion like this comes up again, the only sanction I will be strongly supporting is an indef site ban for you. You have clearly crossed the threshold between net positive and net negative, and only your previous contributions prevents me from supporting that sanction right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I still support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis and for the exact reasons I explained above. Having reviewed this ANI discussion in its entirety, as well as the discussions and pages that started this ANI discussion - I find that BU Rob13 has not violated any behavioral policies or guidelines with his interactions or discussions with Magioladitis. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah did you get under consideration and the older diffs from February I added? Rob said that one of the reasons h was doing is that he is BAG member dut he was confirmed as BAG member in July i.e. 4 months later. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding says that "where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I have indicated many places where Rob has interacted with me. For example how does this make any sense? We had multiple interactionsot limited to automation. a) Template documentation b) Policy page c) Multiple interactions in BRFA d) User talk pages e) Rights request f) xFD. And probably other which I forget. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Kick to ArbCom - I largely agree with EEng here and on the face of it I support a time-limited site ban for Magioladitis for what appears to be a long-term and ongoing campaign of harassment, false accusations and presumptions of bad faith, and no sanctions for BU Rob13 who is clearly being harassed and nonetheless has tried to minimize the situation and avoid harm to the project. However, Mag apparently genuinely feels that he's the one being harassed, although to be as civil as I can, he's stunningly failed to make that case. There's a lot of evidence to consider here, plus allegedly offline evidence, and this is just the sort of situation that Arbcom is set up to examine and resolve. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a record on how quickly one has gone from receiving a significant sanction from ArbCom, to appearing in front of ArbCom again? PGWG (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
PGWG Smooth. I also tried to joke today but you know this situation has caused a lot of stress so please be more carfull with these comments. I am trying to find a compromise where I will cooperate with people. I am not perfect but a) Not seeing any of my contribution appreciated hurts (I am referring to older Rob's messages) b) Seeing that someone follows everything I do because he thinks this way implements some "community demands" is not very nice. You know a small talk would help and this is what I am trying. Some people here deny to talk to me and just pose threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)
Magioladitis None of the concerns being raised here are different from concerns raised multiple times in the past, it's just a new set of diff's. Why are you only now trying to find that compromise? This is an honest question, not intended as a slight in any way. I don't think that anyone does not appreciate some of your contributions, I believe I've seen Rob in the past support and complement aspects of your bot work. But the balance of the conversation at hand has occurred in the past (just in smaller venues or with less participants disagreeing with your behaviour), so what is the difference between then and now? As far as my comment, while I do not feel it was out of line I apologise if it caused you additional distress. PGWG (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
PGWG Because after the ArbCom I am trying to make a clean start by moving to areas that have not to do with bots etc. I acted a bit pre-emptive here because I would like to be sure that thy are no hard feelings around and my work from now on won't be judged based on the previous situations. I already have written somewhere that people, including myself, tend to be more impolite when typing an sometimes written text can be read in multiple ways. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm very confused as to what Magioalditis is trying to achieve here. I can understand they are well-intentioned but what I also observe is a total failure to get the point. The entire thread has been a trainwreck, with irrelevant issues getting dragged in and out for no reasons at all. I can understand Rob's frustration here, considering they were not intending to send the WP:HOUNDING message, the point being, they too are well-intentioned here. I believe any kind of sanction on Magioalditis will not hold as of now (except a site ban) due to the lack of competence, and the underlying fact is they are at the end of their rope, so either you hang on to the bit you have or don't. --QEDK (愛 • 海)19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to get a break from the scenario where every time he made a proposal, there was BURob opposing it. Having walked a mile in those shoes, I can sympathise. Let us hope, as BURob says, that it is not intentional, but while he states that he is trying to avoid Magioladitis he was I believe the first to comment on his request for TE rights. He also was instrumental in getting Magioladitis removed from BAG IIRC, where BURob effectively took his seat. He also continued to post, again I believe mainly negatively, on Magioladitis' BRFAs, despite saying that he was recusing as a BAG member, and claimed the remarks were in a "non-hatted" capacity.
Incorrect on all counts. I was the second-to-last to comment on his TE rights, as I only noticed it once another editor also requested TE rights and I saw it on my watchlist. [351] I wrote a simple two sentence oppose to Magioladitis' reconfirmation and was one of the last editors to comment, as opposed to most other editors writing at least a paragraph in opposition. [352] I've repeatedly supported Magioladitis' BRFAs when they've demonstrated consensus and followed the bot policy, as demonstrated by Sladen's diffs below. In the future, please verify your claims and accusations before making them, Rich Farmbrough, as required by WP:NPA. ~ Rob13Talk14:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for funsies here are some some figures that show the some of Rob's involvement with Magioladitis (not all of it negative of course). I think people will understand where Magioladitis is coming from better if they take this into account:
429 edits directed at a single user isn't even remotely funny. When I started editing Wikipedia this would have put you halfway to the most active Wikipedians list on its own. And this doesn't include comments on pages such as AN/I, Arbcom requests for cases, Bots noticeboard, BAG noticeboard etc..
260 of those edits are from a single Arbcom case in which BU Rob was one of the named parties, so it's entirely unsurprising that he'd be commenting repeatedly there. Discount those, and you have a picture of someone who's made 48 talkpage comments and a few comments on BRFAs. You can prove almost anything by running an interaction analysis on two editors who are both active in the same area; using the same methodology, with over thirty thousand matches I can make a far more convincing case that Magioladitis is stalking me. (Note, before someone complains, that I'm not making this allegation; it's just intended to illustrate what a blunt-force approach this is.) ‑ Iridescent21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I could have used a blunt force approach, instead I narrowed the cut to items where indisputably BU ROb is addressing Magioladitis. IF you are running the tool, look also at the min time between edits. With you and Magioladitis that is 6 hours, and rapidly rises. With BU Rob in the above (and many other places) it's seconds to minutes. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC).
(For the record). Clicking and reading the last four BAG links provided by Rich (Yobot 54‒58) gives a date range of five months (25 March 2017‒20 August 2017):
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54"As one of the harshest critics of Magioladitis, I have to say, I think he's being treated extremely unfairly here. …"" (25 March 2017)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55"… I support the use of general fixes in this task provided "Skip if genfixes only" is checked and the edit summary indicates general fixes may be applied. I see no reason to deny the use of general fixes running alongside a main task. …" (24 July 2017)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 57"… I would be very supportive of running this task from the Yobot account manually to both solve the issue of false positives and prevent watchlist spam. This is an obviously beneficial fix." (6 August 2017)
Actually, the majority of my edits on the last case's workshop were directed at Beetstra, not Magioladitis. I tend to swing back and copyedit my own comments, so edit counts are (as always) less than the full story in terms of total interactions. In any event, you've shown that I was active in the two ArbCom cases and that I'm active at BRFAs – both things I am not contesting in any way, and both things that are in no way indicative of hounding. If you look at all the other BRFAs from the same time periods, you'll find I was quite active there as well. The only difference between other bot operators and Magioladitis is that the latter filed 25 requests in 48 hours, resulting in more edits spent reviewing them. ~ Rob13Talk10:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
So there's certainly a history. I agree with the above that numbers alone aren't enough, but this absolutely destroys any arguments that Magioladitis is just roving around attacking anybody. It strikes me that this pretty well supports a conclusion that this is just BAG drama that boiled over because one editor might have been less resilient than the other. This is why I've so firmly opposed ANI action on this: It's clear that this case is far more nuanced than a classic knee-jerk ANI action is capable of appropriately addressing. While I'm typically in favor of people who behave calmly and professionally than those who do not, the attitude I'm seeing among Magioladitis's most vociferous detractors in this thread has more or less balanced the scales in my eyes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Kick to the ArbCom-BAG Joint Subcommittee on Automation-Related Disciplinary Matters. They have the expertise and the time to examine all the evidence and come to the proper conclusion. Smooth alligator (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The incompetence shown again, and again, and again, is just staggering. Looking at his edits today, they make a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Opt-in "Edit source" for new accounts? based on utter bollocks arguments, and continue in the same vein with more nonsense when this is pointed out; and they are "alphabetising" external links to Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter, with the caveat that they don't even know the alphabet apparently: like here (twice) and here, and here. And here, apparently. here they go from the correct alphabetic order to their own idea of it.
Either they are incompetent, or they are running some badly programmed automation on their account which consistently makes the same error (which would also make them incompetent, but at a different level).
In any case, after the above discussion, seeing how they cause problems and show incompetence at nearly everything they do here, I think it is time to just say "enough is enough" and not bother with further topic bans, restrictions, ... and just end this here and now. Fram (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
[353] this is not just moving Twitter to the bottom, it switches Facebook and Instagram as well. This one doesn't even have Twitter in it. You simply can't be trusted to edit or comment correctly, and this has only become worse over the years it seems. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram OK it was a mistake while moving bullets around and having tabs open to update Wikidata at the same time. No need to scretch this that much! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: I've not seen anything in this proposal that actually merits a siteban. Having bad ideas, which is all I can really gather from this proposal, is not and has never been a bannable offense. Even if we factor in some of Magioladitis's more confusing behavior, it's evident from the above discussion that there's something more going on here that merits a more nuanced approach. That is, this case should go back to ArbCom. This is simply not a dispute suitable for resolving with a community ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It may well end up at ArbCom, but I see very few people apart from you notice anyhing "more" going on here apart from problems with Magioladitis' editing. Fram (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As I said above, were this so simple as there being a clear good guy and clear bad guy, ArbCom or the community would have easily removed the bad guy ages ago. I think there's an emergent toxic behavioral dynamic that needs to be addressed. I don't see the point in shrieking about another editor's incompetence over a handful of diffs. Particularly when it's obvious he or she just used the wrong edit summary when updating external links to rely on Wikidata rather than manual entries. I think that's quite a helpful set of edits you list above. Big deal if the edit summary was wrong. That's not bannable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems like circular reasoning: because ANI isn't able to solve this, I oppose ANI solving this. Let's not get into the Wikidata vs. enwiki thing though, we had those issues recently with Magioladitis changing the official website to pull the data from Wikidata, even when the value here was correct and the value at Wikidata was wrong. That aspect of these edits is of debatable value: the actual problem is what I highlighted. In itself, it is a minor issue (though rapidly spreading across a lot of pages, suggesting some script-assisted blunder), but as a symptom of everything that is wrong with the editing o Magioladitis, together with the above discussion and the proposal I linked to, it all indicates an editor who can't be trusted in their regular edits, and who is a waste of time in discussions. Fram (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'd rather not see ANI pull off another pitchforks-and-torches answer to a "problem". And let's not skip over Magioladitis good deeds in order to reach a conclusion of irredeemability. If there's something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to fix it. And if Magioladitis is doing something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to propose some kind of resolution over there. I see nothing wrong with moving official site link information over to Wikidata so it's synced across languages. We did this with interwiki links ages ago. If you have a problem with doing it differently you're welcome to start a discussion to forbid the use of Wikidata on English Wikipedia.I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Magioladitis is doing something with a script. I think it's far more likely that Magioladitis is just copying and pasting the templates from article to article, or from an open Notepad window or some such. I'm not sure if you've done much scripting, but it'd be way easier to just remove everything after the pipe on a line than to remove all the EL templates and replace them with a block of EL templates in a different order. You'd just use a regex and be done with it. So, come on already. All this looks like is you seeing the wrong edit summary and assuming the worst. You were wrong. Admit it and move on. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have made no comments on what Magioladitis does or has done on Wikidata, I don't care, and I have no plans to make any resolution (or any edit at all) over there. Please explain to me where I was wrong in my opening statement? Did they try to alphabetize? Yes. Did they make a total mess of it? Yes. Whether it was script-assisted or totally by hand is not really relevant, the end result is what counts. Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You were wrong in that you said Magioladitis was trying to alphabetize. Magioladitis was switching the EL templates to Wikidata and used the wrong edit summary. It's very likely Magioladitis's browser autofilled the edit summary. Big deal. How is this bannable? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
In a series of edits labeled "alphabetize" he switched the order of the templates, and still you conclude that I was wrong believing that he tried to alphabetize them? I start to understand the exasperation felt above with your debating tactics. Fram (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've actually had a browser autofill the wrong edit summary before. It happens fairly regularly that I have to correct it, and a couple times I've hit "enter" before I caught it. I also see lots and lots of editors using incorrect edit summaries by mistake, I believe because of some builtin gadget that suggests edit summaries. Let's compare that with what you're suggesting: An English speaker who doesn't know the order of letters in the English alphabet. Even if you're right, it's not a bannable offense. This proposal is completely off-base. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram you mainly oppose my proposal(s). This is not a reason for anything. I can't impose VE to anyone. I made a proposal in the form of question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
No: I oppose your false claims against BURob, I oppose your problematic editing, I oppose the false claims in your proposal and the ludicrous (and in one case highly unethical) followup statements you made there, and seeing that the problems with you stretch back for years and only increase in frequency, I see no reason to let you continue editing any longer. Fram (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram convience me that my claims are false. You stated the percentage of VE edits this morning. There is no comparison data given. I wrote an idea in a place people are supposed to post ideas based on my experience with editors with no epxerience writing. You have many options: you can oppose, say "not for now", etc. I wrote an idea in the Villapge Pump that does not meet your ideas. This is not a reason for drama. We have different expriences and opinions of how people would like to use various tools in Wikipedia (Wikidata, VE, bots, etc). Is this a reason for that? I tried to fix some links and improve templates. If I was wrong just contact me and I'll try harder. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
No need to ping me each time, I'm following this discussion. Let's see: you make a claim about VE becoming more and more popular, I show that VE isn't popular even after 5 times, and I am the one having to show you that it was even less popular one, two, three years ago? Ever heard of WP:BURDEN? I made an effort to substantiate my comments with actual figures, while you have done absolutely nothing at all to support any of your statements. You made factual claims to support your idea; you are the one that needs to add evidence for your claims or withdraw them. Instead, you add more nonsense and then ask me to provide more evidence for my numbers? You are simply trolling. Fram (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said: The popularity it's based in my experience discussing with people who told me that VE is now a good tool in comparison to some years ago. I have no strong evidence but you don't see to have neither. In the VisualEditor pages it writes "Presentation from Wikimania 2013: VisualEditor - The present and future of editing our wikis". It was clearly presented as Wikipedia's future. Still, I hear your concerns but this could be done in a calm way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
So you base your claims on anecdotical hearsay and on a promo Wikimania presentation from 2013? The WMF has presented LiquidThreads, Flow, ... countless things as "the future of Wikipedia", relying on that (certainly years later) is worrisome. And in any case, if something is, 5 years after being rolled out and four years after being called the future of Wikipedia, is only being used for less than 5% of the edits, then yes, I see that as strong evidence that the "more and more popular" claim is false. Fram (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For 3 years, VE was incredibly slow and buggy. I think ow it's better. Fram, I made a proposal in the form of question and you know that I am one of wikicode editors and I have used VE only for test reasons. My proposal was honest. I think I understand what user friendly enviroment means and I don't think wikicode is user friendly. Still, I did not even started an RfC. I asked the community their opinion. You can concur my claims on VE's popularity. I would be more than happy to see evidence. Even for academic purposes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What you did was "Should we do this?" (which is a question) "Because of this, this, and this" (which aren't questions but arguments, statements of fact). You are not here because of your proposal, your question, but because you presented some rumors and wishful thinking as fact, and when asked to back these upwith evidence you just started inventing new reasons to support your proposal (and because loads and loads of other things in your editing history, the edits under discussion are just the straws that broke the camel's back). If I asked "should we ban Magioladitis" and then gave as argument "Because he is a reptilian alien" (you may insert a more realistic but baseless PA here, I took a ridiculous one to avoid being seen as calling you anything), no one would accept the defense "but I was just asking a question", and rightly so. You have been banned from discussing e.g. cosmetic edits because your honest proposals were disruptive; the intention of such a ban is not that you start making similar honest proposals on other subjects elsewhere. Your bot and automated editing have been severely restricted; the intention of these restrictions is not that you start making manual series of repetitive but incorrect edits either. Since it has become obvious (from these examples, but also e;g. from the section you started here) that the restrictions you have had so far only move the problems around but don't actually solve them, it is time to bring this to its inevitable conclusion, and ban you. Fram (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram, I used argumets given to me by people and by WMF's presentations. You may disagree with them (you called them "promo") but I support most of the changes propsoed by Mediawiki developers because I trust that they know to build a user friendly enviroment. The funny thing is that instead of holding thiss discussion in the Village Pump we are holding it her under the threat of ban that causes extra stress and drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh what a bunch of garbage. The exact point of an editing restriction is that you expect the editor to do something that isn't covered by the editing restriction. You were dead wrong about the Wikidata edits, and you're dead wrong about this proposal. So what if it's a bad idea? Then say it's a bad idea and then ignore it. This is what I'm talking about elsewhere in this thread about the torches and pitchforks approach. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"The exact point of an editing restriction is that you expect the editor to do something unproblematic that isn't covered by the editing restriction." There, I've corrected your claim, you forgot a word. Oh, speaking of "dead wrong", I didn't say anything about Wikidata edits, like I already told you above. Fram (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Holster the attitude. You talked about Magioladitis's edits regarding Wikidata repeatedly above. That you framed those edits as "alphabetizing" based on Magioladitis erroneously using the wrong edit summary doesn't change that. As for the purpose of editing restrictions, I think you're putting the cart before the horse: A proposal you don't agree with and a few mistaken edit summaries isn't so egregious as to violate any standing editing restrictions. I'm not even sure if what you're proposing is problematic versus simply incorrect. I ask you again, so what? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have not discussed any edits "regarding Wikidata". You invented the "but despite saying alphabetisizing in the edit summary and at the same time changing the order, these edits were not about alphabetisizing and your comment has to be about Wikidata" reasoning. ANd you are trying to have your cake and eat it, it seems: "A proposal you don't agree with and a few mistaken edit summaries isn't so egregious as to violate any standing editing restrictions." No kidding? It's not a complaint about "a proposal I don't agree with" but again, it's easier to frame it like that to make your point of course; but more importantly, I don't claim he is violating his existing editing restrictions, but that if he gets edit restricted, he finds another area to cause trouble in, as can be seen with these edits but also with the section above about BURob. So your reply simply doesn't make sense, just like many of your reasonings on this page so far. We can't solve this on ANI, because we can't solve this on ANI (see your initial oppose here), and because we can't solve it on ANI, there isn't a problem (or at most "it takes two to tango"); and now there can't be a problem with edits outside his editing restrictions, because they don't violate his editing restrictions? It seems to me that whatever arguments are given here, you fill twist logic into some unrecognisable shape to claim that the arguments don't apply because they don't apply, and if they did apply they would have been applied before. I'm done playing that game with you. Fram (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have not discussed any edits "regarding Wikidata".False. It's not a complaint about "a proposal I don't agree with" False: Your complaint centers, quite clearly, on the fact that Magioladitis made a proposal, and it's pretty clear you don't agree with it. I don't claim he is violating his existing editing restrictions Half-true: You heavily insinuate that Magioladitis's conduct violates the editing restrictions in spirit, in a clear attempt to soften your proposal by framing Magioladitis as some kind of hardened troll. We can't solve this on ANI, because we can't solve this on ANI I'm not sure where you came up with that, honestly: We shouldn't handle this at ANI because it's a problem not suited for ANI, and the outcome would not resolve the cause. now there can't be a problem with edits outside his editing restrictions, because they don't violate his editing restrictions? See earlier: You mention the editing restrictions in a way to unfairly and improperly demonize the conduct you seek to be the final straw in this thread: Some edits related to Wikidata and a proposal you don't like. I'm done playing that game with you. As I said above, holster the attitude. You read way too far into the edit summaries on a few edits and somehow blew it up into a reason for a siteban. You being wrong isn't a reason to siteban someone else. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm typing this, but Magioladitis is going to be banned, and it's essentially per WP:CIR. They're just moving from one area to another, causing increasing amounts of damage and disruption. I endorse the suggestion of a site ban. I wouldn't want it to be permanent, but Magioladitis ideas and editing patterns are so out of sync with the rest of the community, their edits of such poor quality, so hurried and disruptive and spread far beyond the areas where he was topic banned from, I don't see what the other options are, unless we could somehow topic ban him from discussing technical aspects of the project, making ludicrous proposals, making semi-automatic (hurried, rushed and atrociously executed) cosmetic edits and, of course, the imposition of the necessary one way I-BAN to prevent him from stalking Rob. It's basically a "we'll not ban you if you only write new content" topic ban. The lack of self-awareness and the terrible judgement in all of this that is staggering, and is the core of this problem. When he was trying to explain away his stalking of Rob, he actually posted this I think it's normal for a person that wants to re-apply for admin to resume working in that area. now he's been through two Arbitration cases as the named party, forcibly de-sysopped, voted off the BAG, subject to community imposed restrictions, has a talk page archive which is complaint after complaint, and yet still thinks (a) he has done nothing wrong and (b) as an extension to that, because he's done nothing wrong, that he's going to pass RfA soon. I'm speechless and shocked at all of this. Nick (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I would point out that the edits Fram complains about above aren't cosmetic, or at least weren't intentionally cosmetic: They were to change pages to use Wikidata for URLs instead of manually-entered data. That Magioladitis's attitude is less than ideal and unrealistic, I can't deny. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I recognise my mistakes thhat;s way I am moving away from things I 've been doing the last years to things I'v been doing before that. In my last comment I did not wirte that I'll run for RfA soon. I have discussed with people about it. Regaining trust needs time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
So, to reinforce my claim of incompetence, you just posted a link to a copyright violating Youtube clip to my talk page[354]? Keep on digging... Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
SupportWP:CIR comes to mind (primarily behavioral competence, not technical), as does WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. One would think all of the community discussions and ArbCom cases would have given him at least some pause in his behaviour or attitude... in the interests of assuming good faith I'm going to assume he isn't deliberately acting in as incendiary a manner as possible... which brings it right into competence territory. I'm not convinced that any topic ban will be effective in the long term, as the attitude and issues seem to move from area to area. 1-way IBANs are destined to fail (in my opinion), and Rob has done absolutely nothing wrong that would justify a 2-way IBAN placed on him. PGWG (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You reasoning that a two-way IBAN requires that both parties be culpable is mistaken. It merely requires that it be a means of resolving a personality dispute. One-way IBANs, you are right, are destined to fail. And honestly, both Rob and Magioladitis have said they want nothing to do with one another, and that they will leave each other alone if left alone themselves. In other words, they've both effectively consented to an IBAN. In many ways, this renders this discussion moot. We should give this agreement time to take effect and see how it works. And, as I've shown in this thread, Magioladitis's Wikidata-related edits and VE-related proposal do not merit a siteban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Fram has some decent arguments to make about Wikidata. This is not the place, nor is attacking a fellow editor the way, to make them. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC).
Strawman much? Mendaliv is the one who started about Wikidata, and is the one who keeps bringing it up. The ban of Magioladitis is for years of problematic editing, spilling over into more and more topics, like his proposal about Visual Editor. Feel free to oppose this ban proposal, but please do so with something relevant. Fram (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude, you misinterpreted the Wikidata edits as ones involving alphabetizing because of an erroneous edit summary. I already pointed that out to you. There is nothing villainous about these edits. You should really just drop this already. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Cmt Mendaliv's suggestion "If there's something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to fix it." is completely off base. People who want to edit Wikidata know where it is. It has its own standards and we have ours. If Wikidata is serving up bad info, the solution from Wikipedia's standpoint is to not use it (WP:RS anyone?), at least without manually checking the info. Interwiki is different: the crosslinks were maintained by bots long before there was such a thing as Wikidata, and they were not part of article content. It's a useful navigation aid even if there are lots of errors, which there are. Google Translate is also very useful but we wouldn't put its output directly into articles. Wikidata isn't useless per se, but we shouldn't be mechanically inserting its contents into our articles.
I can't get behind the siteban proposal because we've always treated that as drastic, but Magioladitis, please, take Fram's criticism seriously. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I've no opinion either way on Wikidata (it has its uses, it has its issues) but it would be useful if Magioladitis (and indeed, everybody) could clearly explain that their edit now includes data from Wikidata, and also indicate that they've checked what's being brought in from Wikidata (as they shouldn't be changing the source of data to Wikidata without checking Wikidata is correct). Nick (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick if you check my Wikidata contributions you will that not only I cheched my edits but I was updating Wikidata at the same time. During checking Social networkd templates, I sent some to TfD and I am updated some so that all social network templates share the same format. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me throw my opinion here: Blocks are for preventing damage to wikipedia, not as a punishment. Bans are also not punishment, they should be only given out when an editor is "Unclearly" acting in bad-faith, basically the mythical WP:WikiKrakenTerrariola09:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That's historically untrue. The community has banned many individuals who are contributing in good-faith but doing a poor job of it to the point that they're a net negative. WP:CIR, etc. ~ Rob13Talk10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
A somewhat biased summary and suggestion for closure:
(1) It does not appear that there is any appreciable support for any kind of sanction against BU Rob13 for "stalking" Magioladitis, the original purpose of this thread.
(2) None of the suggestions for sanctions against Magioladitis made by various editors appear to have anything like consensus-level support. The most that can be said may be that general annoyance with M. has reached what appears to be its highest level to date.
(3) The suggestion to bring this to ArbCom also does not appear to have received consensus, although any editor (preferably one of the two subjects) is certainly free to file a case request at ArbCom whenever they feel it is necessary to do so.
(4) Given (1) and (2), it might be a good idea for an uninvolved admin to close this with as "no consensus", with the possibility of a trout to Magioladitis for bringing what appears to be a baseless accusation to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like this to be closed. There appears to be both consensus that Magioladitis should be sanctioned and no consensus on what that sanction should be (which, of course, makes the consensus that there should be a sanction useless). The community has never been particularly adept at handling hounding issues during my time on the site, so this will need to go to the Arbitration Committee. Hopefully, they can resolve this by motion. ~ Rob13Talk13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I also concur with BMK's assessment of the situation, and with Rob's assessment that there's consensus for sanctions, but no consensus on what the sanctions should be. Nick (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually I don't concur with BMK's assessment, in part at least. Its clear from the above that at a *minimum* editors think Mag should be banned from automation completely.
Nick - Supports interaction ban to Site ban - both of which would restrict him in the automation area heavily.
Blades of Godric - supports one-way iban - given BU Rob's involvement in automation, this would also effectively restrict Mag future editing in that area.
IP 173. - supports automation ban
Myself - Anything up to and including site ban (would settle for one-way or be restricted from automation completely)
Oshwah - Explicitly ban from all automation
Power-enwiki - any sanction up to site ban
Rschen7754 - site ban
BMK - Strongly supports ban on automation
Fram - Site ban
Mendaliv - two-way iban
Rich Farmbrough - no sanction
Dianaa - no comment on restriction - advice to mag
EEng - no comment on restriction - has expressed that it is Mag that is the problem [EEng adds later: After hearing others' comments, I'm totally behind an automation ban as at least a start. EEng06:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)]
Alex Shih - no comment on restriction
Ivanvector - arbcom
QEDK - no explicit support but feels any sanction short of a site ban is justified.
Joefromrand - expletive.
Did I miss anyone? Its clear from the above that apart from Mendaliv, Rich and Mag themselves, everyone else either supports a complete ban from automation or a more serious sanction, with the remaining either no explicit comment but think there are issues. Unless any of those who argued for stronger sanctions are not happy with a less extreme one, I think there is more than enough to support a complete automation ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Your summary of the !voting appears to be right, but I think your finding of consensus is wrong. Obviously, I'd like to agree with you that the automation ban (which I !voted for) has consensus, but when I look at the listing you made, I see no clear consensus at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I would oppose a complete automation ban right now as kind of pointless. The harassment/personal attack issues from Magioladitis haven't been in areas of automation lately. They've been in areas that I'm involved in but Magioladitis is not (e.g. files, my talk page, past arbitration, etc). I'm a bit confused on where the idea about a topic ban from automation even came from given that there's no new disruption since the last ArbCom case even tangentially related to automation. Color me confused. Such a sanction would actually be worse than no sanction, because it makes it look like the community is handling the issue when really they are not. That would prevent this from being kicked to ArbCom. ~ Rob13Talk16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not only is it not a vote, most of those proposals weren't even on the table. Magioladitis had no fair notice of any of these alternative suggestions, and could not have mounted any real, effective defense to these myriad suggestions. All you show here is that there's no real concrete agreement on what should be done, and claim that one common denominator means that we've got consensus for sanctions. That's just not how it works, and you should know better. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
When you're such a stickler for accuracy, you shouldn't make claims like "Magioladitis had no fair notice of any of these alternative suggestions", a I explicitly posted a note on his talk page about my alternative solution, i.e. a full site ban.[355]Fram (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh pish-tosh to that: WP:NOTBURO. Once a sanction is brought up in a discussion such as this, it's on the table: M. doesn't need to get a notification of it by certified mail or something. If he's been following the discussion, then he's had more than fair notice that these ideas were being bandied about; if he hasn't been following it, that's his own fault, since he started it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm talking about notice, not service. What's being suggested here is the equivalent of saying Magioladitis consented to one or the other proposal by dint of not challenging that specific proposal. In reality, Magioladitis could not have realistically challenged any particular proposal because there was no concrete proposal on the table, except for a siteban at one point. It's simply neither fair nor feasible to require Magioladitis to challenge every single alternative proposal that was made if only because it would require a long, meandering response that nobody would read. It sets up a marvelous catch-22. But, as has been noted at ArbCom recently, using catch-22 situations to remove "the unwanteds" appears to have become ANI's trade. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
You seem to want to turn us into a formal legal system, which just isn't going to happen. Again, WP:NOTBURO. Bringing up a possible sanction in the discussion itself is sufficient notification, IMO. 'Nuff said.As for "removing the unwanteds", I'm totally unsympathetic. If the community doesn't want an editor to be here, the editor shouldn't be here. We're a private community in which all of our participation is at the sufference of the WMF and the community of each project. If enough people think Editor X is a royal pain in the ass, Editor X should be given the heave-ho. Editor X can always ask to be reinstated, which happens pretty darn often, with the exception of the worst cases.It must always be remembered that this isn't real life, this is a project to build and improve an online encyclopedia, and anything that gets in the way of that should be gotten rid of, toot sweet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that's an unfortunate understanding of the situation, and contrary both to the longstanding policy of how the community works and the basic rudiments of fairness. If we're going to have civility, a collegial editing environment, and above all, consensus rule, then you can't have an environment where a self-selected group of busybodies (i.e., the ANI brigade) removing people from the project for any reason or no reason. Process is important. Fairness is important. Neither of these are present in the dystopian environment you describe. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not contrary to my understanding of how the community works in the 12 years I've been here. In fact, it is precisely how the community works, and how it should work. We are not a community of lawyers, we are a community of editors, and thank goodness for that. Mag. had more than sufficient due process, notification, service, whatever you want to call it, and was able to participate in the discussion at every point along the way, with no restrictions. If Wikipedia ever becomes a place where hand-wringing about "process" and "fairness" is more important than writing an encyclopedia, we're dead in the water. That's why we have a little thing called WP:IAR.In the meantime, the folks below me are waiting for the information you said was pertinent at the current RFAR. Instead of responding to me again, why don't you provide them with a specific link to that case request that illustrates that "using catch-22 situations to remove 'the unwanteds' appears to have become ANI's trade", which is what you claimed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow, bold and italics? I'm honored. 😂 Sadly, you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. We are a community that prides itself on process, procedure, and fair play. IAR is for situations where the documented processes and procedures would seem to deliver a preposterous, unfair, or outrageous result, and where no reasonable person would find the outcome of those processes to be correct. What's happening here is the typical ANI steamroller effect that is so well documented, so widely acknowledged, that it's become a sitewide joke. Process is unimportant, you claim? Why do we have CSD? Why do we have AfD? Why do we have AIV and the tiered warning levels? Why do we have ArbCom? One can effortlessly point to dozens of processes and procedures that exist and clearly contradict the alternative facts you're putting forth in this situation. But let that get in the way of ANI's purging of someone that ANI doesn't like? God help us all. The walls are going to collapse because fairness and process are holding up a hanging. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
(Don't flatter yourself, I use bold and italics all the time.) "We are a community that prides itself on process, procedure, and fair play." Nope. We are a community that prides itself on having built the best online encyclopedia in history. Everything else is entirely incidental. You, for instance, would do well to make some more contributions to the encyclopedia, and do less lawyerly argumentation, no matter how much you enjoy doing it: your 2:1 ratio of Mainspace to Wikipedia Space edits is pretty poor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Read the current RfAR and the attached statements. And those are only the most recent examples of criticism of ANI's techniques found in statements by and before that body. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
And my statement doesn't purport to be a direct quote of anything at ArbCom. As I said, I'm not playing the "difs pls xD" game. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You're complaining because Magioladitis hasn't been given enough formal warnings about every proposed sanction in this discussion, and because not every proposed sanction had its own dedicated section with all formalities you consider necessary; but when you make some claim and people want some actual evidence for it, you can't be bothered and are not playing that game? Your double standards (and the similarities with the proposal for VE by Magioladitis and the total lack of evidence they produced, vs. the amount of evidence they requested of others) become more and more apparent. I guess that, if there would be a formal uninvolved close of this discussion, your attempts to obstruct this time and again would be dismissed out of hand. Fram (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Some claims don't need evidence. The well-known catastrophe that is ANI when it comes to complex disputes is one of those claims. Sladen tipped his hand with that last response, anyway; it's the old "give me a diff that has those exact words in it" dodge. Both of us know there's no diff with those exact words in it. That wasn't the point of my claim, and it's not my argument. If anything, the responses from Sladen, BMK, and yourself do much more to prove my claim than anything. Look for what appears to be leverage and blast away at it until the discussion has progressed far away enough from the claim that everyone has forgotten it. Well, I'm not doing that.I reiterate my claim that it would have been unfair and infeasible to require Magioladitis to respond to every single alternative proposal that was even hinted at above, or risk any argument against those alternative proposals considered waived. It would have required a wall of text that you and I both know every single reader at ANI would skip over. That is unacceptable and it places Magioladitis at an unacceptable disadvantage when trying to protect himself from the mob rule that presides at ANI.Actually, my learned colleague BMK's response above is far more telling than anything. He seems to argue that fairness does not matter, and that the community should simply be able to remove those individuals that it finds annoying, rather than those who clearly violate well-established norms of conduct. Wikipedia is not an anarchocapitalist society. Our encyclopedia-building community is founded on fairness, respect, civility, collegiality, and cooperation. Your own response, accusing another editor of being an obstructionist when he rises to the defense of another editor who, as here, so clearly cannot adequately defend himself, sums up everything that's wrong with ANI right now. It is shameful what ANI is attempting to do here, and that is why I so seriously want this case sent to the Committee, where it can be presided over with process and procedure.So, no, I will not be providing diffs to prove what an absolute joke ANI is. If you have a problem with that, you are free not to respond further. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Umm, your claims were about a specific Arbcom request which was supposed to be evidence of your general opinion about ANI. That someone (well, multiple people) actually still reads your comments is evidence of the patience and AGF inherent in most editors here; that those people then find your arguments lacking, unconvincing, unsupported by what you claim supports them, is not something that "sums up everything that is wrong with ANI right now", it shows simply what is wrong with your comments here. Your "rising to the defense of another editor" doesn't grant you immunity from the basic rules of discussion or logic. Fram (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia has historically been terrible at automation restrictions: it seems unwilling to write them in a way that they won't either be gamed mercilessly (the long Betacommand saga) or else serve as the pretext for draconian enforcement against perfectly good, low-volume editing (Rich F's 1-year block). There were some proposals in the Betacommand 3 workshop that I liked, but none got passed. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the connection either. Template vandalism is a fairly new thing: it only appeared after we got paranoid about defending against a problem that we didn't have. I edited templates from my IP address all the time before that. I'd go ahead and grant TE to Magio on the theory that it can always be withdrawn if he messes up too much. As long as the volume is reasonable, template errors are mostly easy to revert, unlike when someone gets overenthusiastic with a bot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I agree, It would seem to be foolhardy to give to an editor about whom there have been numerous complaints concerning the accuracy of their work using bots an additional right which would enable them to be similarly inaccurate on templates which may be used in a large number of pages. Template errors may be easy to correct, but, unlike template vandalism, there's no guarantee that they're going to be noticed quickly, and while they exist, they can affect a large number of articles. I would not recommend giving M. template editor status at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with BMK in not agreeing. The problem with M. is that pretty much all he does is gnomish tinkering that at regular intervals does more harm than good. And this, I believe, is to a large degree because he's disconnected from the actual experience of writing and editing content – it's why so often he can't understand why something he's done is pissing off everyday editors. I think he should serve some time not running bots and not tinkering with templates, but just editing actual articles by hand. Then we'll see. EEng19:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but my sense is that no consensus has been reached for any action beyond a WP:TROUT against Magioladitis at this time. As a contributor, I hope both these users will have the sense to leave the other alone. I would also note that the Simple English Wikipedia offers a lot of opportunities to create content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we combine my idea a few posts up (re M. sticking to article editing for a while) with your idea (i.e. that Simple would be a good place for him to do that). EEng19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sladen I am satisfied by the fact that we will both try to avoid unneeded interactions. Some answers I got were satisfying I do not wish to limit any admin actions or any critisism to my actions. I'll stay away from editing for a while longer and I hope this will lead to calme situations. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 30 October 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'sNoTime (to explain) 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Are you seriously trying to turn this into a pissing match over edit count or time since registration? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. This could probably have been done by contacting individual admin though, instead of coming to AN/I. And I am puzzled that you cannot use RFPP without Twinkle. Why? Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Alex ShihTalk 08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
User blocked for that unwarranted attack. And suffice it to say this behaviour reminds me strongly of a particular user who disrupts national invention/discovery categories and casts aspersions as to the racial motivations of editors who revert them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done feel free to update the page again using your source (assuming it is reliable) in your own words and giving reference credit. — xaosflux Talk 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Next time, please file requests at WP:RFPP. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
wikipedia.org (wikipedia quality issues) the OTRS group should be able to help with the issue --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
![[40]](http://i.imgur.com/wS419nx.jpg){kind=link}
![[335]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=804821916&oldid=804821637#File:Seleccionada3.JPG){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg)