I found this article EPayLater (company), it was created by a student editor User:Lastchancej5. Although there are indications that the user is a genuine student editor, editing as part of a course, I feel the article chosen, the way it was picked up(from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics ) and the way it is written is indicative of paid editing. Could someone have a look. Daiyusha (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
My gut reaction is that the writing is more indicative of a student writing, but in a style better suited to a school writing assignment than to an encyclopedia. The company has been listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics for nearly a year without action, so it is plausible that this topic was picked at random from that list. bd2412T 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, although the tone might also indicative of too liberal borrowing from the company's press releases and coverage. Regards SoWhy 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That does seem more likely - reads like they grabbed the top 10 sources, with those generally being positive (unless the company's had really bad news). The individual's course (OLES2129) has been generally been dramatically above the average in general article competence and willingness to engage. The ANI notice was quite hard to see - I've dropped it into its own section. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Myself and multiple other users are concerned about the behaviour of the user behind this range on pages related to
WP:OWNTALK), yet even after the blanking, the behaviour continues. IP range appears dynamic. Jalen D. Folf(talk)
17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
You posted about an IP range. Can you provide a diff of any talk page discussions you have had and which IP accounts are the cause of the disruption? Just a few would help understand your case better. LizRead!Talk! 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Shadegan
Shadegan seems to be away. If they return, they will be expected to adhere to a much higher editing standard than before. El_C 20:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been trying to make him use the talkpage for his unjustified reverts[1][2][3]. I've cleaned up the years long messes in those three articles, but he keeps reverting to a version which is based on dead-links and unattainable references. I can see in the talkpages on various sites that Shadegan has for years now ignored everyone (incl. admins) in his edits. --
talk
) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore,
talk
) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t expect the user to discuss his edits. He’a more interested in conspiracy theories[5] --
talk
) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really following what's happening (haven't had a chance to catch up), but I did protect the articles for three days. I also left Shadegan a warning about explaining their edits better and refraining from casting aspersions. El_C 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I know Shadegan has been around (because they had thanked me for the protection), but they have so far failed to respond to my note. So, I've taken the unusual step of editing the protected pages against their version. Hopefully, that will motivate them to engage in the discussion. El_C 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand your reason for changing some revisions to some pages in order to nudge Shadegan's participation in a relevant discussion regarding the dispute. In fact, I've been tempted to do the same thing on numerous occasions where an editor involved isn't discussing the matter, and editing the involved page would certainly change that (though I've never acted on it and done so). Just be careful; you obviously don't want to be seen as "taking sides" or "favoring one revision over another". ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know what the revisions are about or how they differ from one another, so no risk of that. But what I won't let happen is to have the Kurdish set of articles turn into a sort of free-for-all, which unfortunately, has been the trend lately. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've left a talkback notice that links directly to this discussion, to make responding as easy as possible. If Shadegan still does not respond here, I think the next step is a short block to stop the reverting and allow Shadegan to focus on responding. Jayjg(talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear all, excuse me for my late. I was busy for a while. I am against anarchy and edit warring although I have been involved formerly. During last days I had a lot of communication and reasoning in talk page of disputed pages, excuse me I forgot here!!
A continuous conflict has been between two very interrelated Iranian ethnicities for decades, Kurds and Lurs. They are very similar culturally and lingually. As you know, Kurds are dispersed between some countries but a very strong independence tendency towards them is alive and blazing for decades. To achieve their dreams they are very active physically and in virtual world. Sometimes this includes an emotional-based edits to use it as a propaganda. I have tried in recent years to alleviate these trends. The recent edits by
User:Ahmedo Semsurî is an evident example for this. I apologize for the current trend of edit warring and I hope to come to a good and appropriate conclusion. Best SHADEGAN (talk
) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment One thing is obvious, all these articles are quite weakly sourced and poorly worded, thus, they need a major rewrite. Also, there are many versions about the ethnicities of those peoples, some seeing them as being Kurdish and others disagreeing with this view. When i'll have some more time, i'll try to ask to some experienced editors who are aware of this topic to help me to neutralize that set of articles.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs) 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that there needs to be more admin involvement in
Feylis page by first and foremost 1) removing dead links, 2) unattainable references, i.e. ("فرهنگ ایران زمین، جلد 20، ص 406-409"), and 3) unreliable sources.First edit, 25 May. Thereafter I removed unsourced files[7], removed unsourced segments[8] and started finding academic references which the article really needed[9][10][11]
Still no comments from Shadegan on what is wrong with the academia I have found.
Then we have the actions on Laki language. The user has been looking after this article for a long time, maintaining the claims that it is disputed language/dialect (as in, that academia profoundly disagrees). But this is not the case. Again, most of the info was either based on unattainable sources,[14] dead links,[15] simply unsourced for years[16] or just lies[17]. After a lot of cleaning, I started adding info based on academic sources[18][19][20][21].
I don't know what next step is when Shadegan always calls it 'ethnocentric vandalism' when I ask them to elaborate on the issues they have with the references. Nor does the user reply when I demand sources for his baseless claims[22][23]. Looking at the talkpages, Shadegan has prevented any move towards reliable and sourced articles since 2016 at least[24] And then we have the baseless claims which many users have confronted.
And another revert despite everything being well-sourced. [25] This is nothing but
talk
) 09:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@
Ahmedo Semsurî: I'm afraid with prior edits like [26] you really need to watch your own editing conduct too. This is not an edit indicative of a proper effort to reach consensus-based neutral coverage. Claiming, in Wikipedia's own voice and in the very definition sentence of an article, that something is "the official flag of Kurdistan", when we all know that there isn't any politically constituted "Kurdish nation" represented by any unified political body that could possibly speak for it in an "official" capacity, is clearly tendentious editing on your own part. You need to dial it down, probably as much as the other parties in this dispute. Fut.Perf.☼
09:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 09:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the user reverts everything by everyone, including
talk
) 09:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Future Perfect and others: I had corrected grammar and punctuation in "Flag of Kurdistan"; I understand Ahmedo Semsuri's anxiety that his writing not be corrected, but the unedited article is exceptionally awkward. The sole factual point on which there is disagreement (or incomprehension on the part of a non-native speaker) is the use of "Kurdistani Region" (or "Region of Kurdistan") instead of "Kurdistan". User Ahmedo Semsuri apparently wishes to believe that Kurdistan is an independent nation; much though I may sympathise with him, the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect facts, not sentiments. Firstorm (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahmedo Semsuri failed to notify me that he had complained here. I thought this a simple discourtesy until I read that, 'When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.'
How is this entire issue to be resolved? Firstorm (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 17:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Request for Status?
The filing editor,
topic-ban against Shadegan editing in the area of Kurdish languages will be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk
) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's time for the user to substantiate — demonstrate that they are applying
due weight to the available scholarly and mainstream sources. The forum isn't something I find that important, but maybe give the DRN format a go(?). Whichever, it doesn't really matter. El_C
How can adding templates for unsourced information on Qadam KheyrLursSouthern Lurs be edit war? And you still avoid answering the simple question: What part of the academic sources do you have a problem with? Stop focusing on me but the content. --
talk
) 15:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert. I appreciate you taking the time. I suggest you take Robert up at his offer to mediate at DRN, Shadegan and Ahmedo Semsurî, as my patience with all this has worn a bit thin — I already topic banned, then indefinitely blocked Coron Arol yesterday, for example. Plus, I will be away from Wikipedia for the next two days. I hope (and expect) that when I come back, you'd have made real progress toward resolving these various disputes. Good luck to you all! El_C 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that I removed this flag
talk
) 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is not the place. El_C 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Possible Mediation
Okay. I will also say this at
Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues,although they may make the person making the long statement feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will lead the discussion. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. (If you edit the article, I will request a block.) Okay. I will try to start mediation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk
) 18:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the two users hasn't made a statement at
DRN after 48 hours. It shouldn't be necessary for moderated discussion to consist of long waits for a response followed by lengthy non-productive apologies. I may close the attempt at moderated discussion, which will bring the matter back here as a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk
) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If Shadegan has no intention of defending his points at DRN or be constructive here, how can this be solved? --
talk
) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If one of the editors in a dispute does not engage in constructive discussion and ignores efforts to find consensus, a
topic-ban is the usual sanction. That cannot be imposed at DRN, which is not a conduct forum, but this is a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk
) 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Please list those page/s. So long as the user continues their absence, I am fine with their versions not being up in the interim. El_C 19:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 19:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't nudge them if your version is the last one on all of these, save
I'f I'm the last editor on those articles, it's because I added templates to their version. These are the versions, I hope can nudge Shadegan [31][32][33]. --
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 Rambling Man
I neither know nor care what the hell all this is about, but it's clearly not going anywhere good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As what I think likely to be my last edit on the project, I'll ask that someone do something about this egregious grave-dancing. [34] ~ Rob13Talk 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Not grave-dancing, and I'm glad you've done the right thing. I've struck out my comment relating to my misunderstanding about the retention of those tools. Farewell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Really not ANI-worthy, particularly as it's been struck. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Not as bad as calling someone "an abuser" without evidence. That's bordering on defamatory. CassiantoTalk 21:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
TRM has been on Wikipedia for long enough that they should know by now such statements are uncivil, struck or not.Rivselis (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not uncivil, just your subjective way at looking at it. It was said, pointed out, struck and apologised for. Nothing to see here. CassiantoTalk 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
99 edits and you find your way here? Amazing. But in response to your material concern, see above. Rob was materially offensive and needed to be told. Sysops and even former Arbs need to be corrected from time to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
And just before I permanently leave this discussion, I'd like to thank BU_Rob1_3 for all his endeavours within the project. It's sad to see any prolific content contributor leave: as well all know, we're here to serve our
Nothing to see here, hat this sucker. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Classic TRM behavior: skirt the line and rely on friends/enablers to escape unscathed. He's been doing it for years, folks.
[majestic titan]
01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Skirt the line -- have you seen some of his contributions on the FRAM page? Amazing that the community tolerates this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
ANI is not a place to be defended by other editors. It's for editors to assess conduct in "chronic, intractable disputes". Closing this since there is nothing to be done, as evidenced from the filer's comment. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:16, 12 June 2019 (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.
Your account was created 24 May 2019 (2.5 weeks ago), and you had previously made only 11 edits. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, I'm a sporadic editor. And it's mostly due to stuff like this. That's not really a strong case. Previously unregistered editors make accounts all the time. If you truly believe I'm a sockpuppet, then please open an investigation. All I ask is that I be treated with some bit of respect and to have my opinions heard the same as everyone else. 1F6😎E 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being "sporadic". It's a matter of a 2.5-week old account with 11 edits posting borderline trolling comments on BN. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
How was it trolling? I was stating my opinion that evidence still seems to be missing. If it came off as trolling, then I'm sorry for being an inarticulate idiot. And if there was content in my comment to disagree with, I'd much rather have the opportunity to discuss it where everything else was discussed than being given such a negative label. At this point, the restoration of my comment is much less important to me than the fact that I've been put into one of the worst categories of editor. 1F6😎E 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally I don't see anything wrong with 0x1F60E's comment other than the fact as others said it's always a bit suspicious when completely new editors show up in policy areas. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
He said that Fram's post re: ArbCom was block-worthy and "absolutely reprehensible". Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Others have said the opposite. If we shut out one side simply because we disagree with it, the WMF are just going to ignore anything we say. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(EC/clarification) Heck I will ignore anything that is said. Which gets back to my earlier comment. There is nothing intrinsically wrong from the comment. The only concern is any new editor commenting there is going to be viewed with suspicion. But we have to treat both sides equally. If we allow new editors who feel that Fram's comments were completely okay and the ban was reprehensible, we equally have to allow those who feel the ban was okay and the comments reprehensible. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't think the ban was okay, but I do think the comments were reprehensible. Take this opinion however you want, but I think an appropriate block would have been one done by a local user, at the time of the incident, for like 3 days tops. No way do I agree with a 1 year ban, 5 weeks later, by the foundation. 1F6😎E 10:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(EC) BTW, I think the other issue is that the comments were wider. They pointed out, correctly IMO, that some people seem to be taking this as only a few specific instances were of concern. But the WMF/T&S haven't said that. And a careful reading of Fram's response suggests this probably wasn't the case. From what they said to Fram they appear to be generally concerned about the way Fram engaged here from what they saw at a wider level. It's true that some specific instances were highlighted including the final straw, and editors may reasonably disagree as to whether any of these instances were actually a problem, especially the final straw and so those are completely valid areas of discussion. And I'm definitely I'm not saying the WMF were right, or the way the WMF handled this was right, or that the WMF provided Fram with enough info to help them improve or that the WMF should have gotten involved or anything like that. But it does seem to me that not only is any editor in good standing who isn't socking ultimately allowed to have that opinion you mentioned, the comment served a wider purpose than simply the parts you highlighted namely to emphasise it's fairly likely we still don't have the whole story. So there's IMO even more reason to allow that comment unless we choose to ban anyone who is too new from any comment. I mean it's not like the editor was even all in, they seem to agree that the WMF handled this very poorly and probably shouldn't have gotten involved at all. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
And that's my opinion. Did we read the same comment? I found it to be insulting and aggressive. Having a differing opinion from you doesn't make me a troll. I also said that I didn't believe the block was within WMF jurisdiction. And that I believe the community is still not being seen as an accountable entity by the WMF. Opinions that were echoed in nearly every other statement. If I were afforded the same respect I expected here, we could have been discussing your opinion of my comment on the same page that the rest of the discussion is taking place. Instead, we're here, where my differing opinion is being used as evidence that I'm here to disrupt the project. 1F6😎E 10:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a valid opinion to hold (just not one shared by many others) and Winged Blades of Godric should not have reverted unless they have evidence sockpuppetry. It is not acceptable to silence comments you don't agree with. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ:, Determining master is not necessary, always. Someone, who has been barely auto-confirmed seems to know too much 'bout the place and the page has been already subject to trolling attempts (see revdel-ed entries). I don't buy his version of events but grant the liberty to restore his post. ∯WBGconverse 10:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Then please request a checkuser, so you can see that I'm on a relatively stable, non-proxy IP that has 2 previous edits. 1F6😎E 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would very much like my comment restored, so that we can move discussion of my opinion back the relevant page. I will not restore it myself, as I remain wary. 1F6😎E 11:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to note here that Why don't you request a checkuser? They'll surely tell you all these things checkusers aren't allowed disclose in public. is a pretty strong indicator of a sock of someone who has been CUed multiple times in the past and knows that what they are saying is bullshit, or a troll. If U 0x1F60E were really a sporadic IP editor who recently created their first account, and they were on a stable IP, they would surely be able and willing to disclose that themselves rather than repeating that ancient biblical trolling tactic Pray louder, for mayhaps your CU god is on the toilet and cannot hear you.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"I’ve never been a big community player at Wikipedia, and tend to avoid the posting on the drama boards" coming from someone whose account is 2.5 weeks old? Definitely fishy. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The user admits to being an IP before they crated their account (hell I was). So I am not sure what this proves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Where does he "admit to being an IP before they created their account"? Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Quoting the second sentence of first post in this thread "I already responded to the claim". (The claim being they were socking, so not surprisingly their response was where they said they edited as an IP before.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And I edited as an IP editor for many years before I established this account. And there is nothing wrong with an editor abandoning an account with a lot of baggage and starting a new account as long as they don't overlap and there wasn't a block on the previous account. And don't forget there is
courtesy vanishing or RTV. I think some editors here leap to the worse case scenario instead of waiting for an editor to actually make a serious mistake. We were all newbies once. That doesn't disallow them from having an opinion. However, I do think it is unwise for a new editor (or a new account) to tread into arbitration waters but that's just advice I would give, there is no policy against their participation. LizRead!Talk!
23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you. I knew it would be incredibly unwise. This situation is just so baffling and outrageous (I don’t think anyone will disagree), that I absolutely could not help myself. I have no intentions to comment at the venue further, especially because I think this discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone. 1F6😎E 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Drama will bring out the sock puppets, trolls, curious new editors, people who were previously using their account just to save display preferences, and old-school editors who can't remember their password. Don't cast aspersions, make personal attacks, violate talk page guidelines, or harass new editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And then again, sometimes when people smell smoke, there actually is a fire. [35]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Well that makes my message to them a bit embarrassing... I am still open to any scrutiny, because I am absolutely confident in my truths. 1F6😎E 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I must say I am emotionally satisfied with the support and good faith some of these responses have. While having my comment restored would be nice, I am not going to insist on it, not least of which being that the discussion has long since moved on. I am not sure if any efforts to (dis)associate me with a sockmaster have been made, but I’d like to continue on with the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can feel free to close this now. And hopefully anyone reading this section is inspired to take
WP:AGF one step further than they already have. 1F6😎E
07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I do not wish for any action against Winged Blades of Gothic. I do believe they jumped the gun in their assumptions, but I think they were still doing it with the project’s best interests in mind. There’s enough community drama already, and all I really wanted was help defending myself. Thank you to those who responded kindly, and I apologize for any unintended drama tangent to an already extremely conflagrant situation. 1F6😎E 08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with those who've said that there is no reason to assume sockpuppetry on the part of new editors who "seem to know too much". I've looked over User:U 0x1F60E's contributions and I don't see that they have done anything reprehensible in terms of edits. On the other hand, coming here to complain about someone else was not a good idea; help could have been obtained just by approaching an admin or even through the Teahouse. Can't we just close this down now? Deb (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2019 (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.
Kirkuk
I've reverted most of
talk
) 23:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You removed an actual information, tied to the subject with all required links. You violeted all possible rules and you're using the page as some kind of propaganda machine.I highly suggest to administration to ban Ahmedo Semsurî. --PumbaPumbata (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahmedo's "with reason" had an edit summary of 1) Blogs shouldn't be used as sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability). 2), the Britannica article doesn't mention Kirkuk at all, 3) https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Arab_tribes_in_Iraq looks to be a duplicate of Wikipedia. 1) is definitely correct. 3) Per [39], it's another open wiki, and per [40], Every page from Wikipedia is already here on Everipedia to build on top of and improve. All three points are correct: PumbaPumbata, you mustn't add content from such sources, and Ahmedo improved the article by removing what you added. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
* Britannica doesn't have to mention Kirkuk in particular. That's self explanatory - Abbasid Empire map shows where Arabs in Mesopotamia lived. The point was that this kurdish Goebbels wrote about Arabs like about something new, recent.--PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup. You wrote this correctly. The guy is trying to turn every page on the suject into his little nazi dream about 'kurdishtan'.--PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think a TBAN is in order for this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The user continues to remove sourced information. I believe admins should intervene. [41] --
Not even Iraq considers Peshmerga as militias [42] --
talk
) 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually it is. "Daeshmerga" refused to obey to orders of the Ministry of Defence, which makes them a militia or 'rebels'. Not to mention that you managed to describe an actual branch of Iraq's Military as "militia"(PMU), which always followed orderes. Not to mention your sectarian agenda. --PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to this request for page protection I’ve fully protected the page for 2 days due to content dispute and edit warring. This does not endorse any user’s actions or is it meant to conclude this discussion here on how to handle potential troublesome editing behaviour of individual users. N.J.A. | talk 12:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@PumbaPumbata: welcome to english Wikipedia. The user with whom you are in conflict is on this noticeboard every day and he is in conflict with every other user in these areas. I think a topic ban would be useful for him. I hope the administrators finally react. 91.225.230.5 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed that already. --PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Daeshmerga" refused to obey to orders of the Ministry of Defence, which makes them a militia or 'rebels'.
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 some help from the community and or administrators to get an IBAN in place for Hijiri 88. Hijiri has been following me, and harassing me, accusing me of copyright violations and now accuses me of racism. I do not follow this editor to harass - or stalk the editor’s articles and to vote against the editor's positions. I follow the editor only to defend myself. I do not revert the editors edits. I do not speak to the editor in my afd ivotes or comments, or in my edit summaries. This is a big encyclopedia - yet this editor cannot seem to resist following me, and stepping on my work here and now is casting
WP:ASPERSIONS
). The ANI I opened was closed with no result and after just two days Hijiri 88 came emboldened to immediately follow my edits and make claims about me being a racist. I want to apply for an immediate IBAN.
If I were able to deal with the editor Hijiri's bullying and unfounded accusations alone I would not bring it here to the community. As I pointed out in the last ANI I filed- Hijiri has a long history of this behavior.
Here are Hijiri 88’s follows of me for just one day June 3.
I will need to apply for an IBAN until I get some relief from this editor's
WP:HARASSMENT
.
Support as proposer"
☎
) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Support I fail to see how you are being "racist" by remembering the attack on Pearl Harbour, which was a sneak (unexpected)attack that came to the surprise of pretty much every nation at that time. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Oops I misread that. Better rescind this comment as I clearly have no idea what this is about. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Just gonna note that Lubbad has apparently been going around distributing barnstars to pretty much everyone involved in this and the previous ANI thread. I'm not going to publicly speculate on exactly what the motive for issuing mass thank-yous to everyone, regardless of how minimal their involvement in the thread has been, or which "side" they are on, except to say that it's pretty weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - I say this as someone who's never interacted with either editor. I see Hijiri returning from Wikibreak and jumping into 4 more AfDs Lubbad85 participated in. Oldest / Longest / Kelly / Resistance with the opposite vote each time. There are many articles for deletion, why must Hijiri follow Lubbad85? starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@
Iridescent, Boing! said Zebedee, and Toa Nidhiki05: - what about these incidents? If Hijiri88 had a problem with Lubbad85, they could have attempted something like ANI. But here we have quite clear following. starship.paint (talk
) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
they could have attempted something like ANI I did. Lubbad was told to stop harassing me like he had been doing. He made a single bad-faith feint at "friendship" on my talk page before going right back to harassing me. He then opened an ANI thread and should have been hit with a boomerang for his harassment and personal attacks against me and other editors, but these were ignored because the copyvio (which was already at CCI and so, IMO, didn't need an ANI discussion) was taken as being more serious. After the ANI thread was closed and archived, he immediately went straight back to harassment and personal attacks (not just at me but also at other editors at the AFDs you link to -- at the 6.3 one he took a needless shot at Banner who had already withdrawn their nomination, and at the Gould one he repeatedly made bad-faith canvassing accusations and insinuated that Bearcat was a serial deletionist who was misrepresenting policy). There were already two ANI threads that failed to deal with this issue because of Lubbad's
WP:IDHT attitude toward the advice of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 12:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: - so you took them to ANI on 16 May, but you still followed them on 3 June after you returned from Wikibreak. I don't see 6.3 as a shot at Banner, and even so, 5 others, including you, also commented later, 4 saying keep. Indeed, he shouldn't have commented on Bearcat at the Kelly AfD. So they may have had problematic responses in 1/4 AfDs in my view. Still, you followed them to all 4. starship.paint (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
At the "twins" and "marriages" AFDs Lubbad (and the other "keep" !votes) are arguing for the preservation of pretty blatant OR and SYNTH, and at Gould Lubbad not only argued that his insertion of trivia about how she was uncomfortable cursing on film when she was seven-ish made the article not just a list of films she was in, but said she wasn't "faking her notability", which is either speculating about the subject and her involvement in Wikipedia in a manner that arguably violates BLP, or is accusing the delete !votes of doing the same. I have no intention of arguing with you that I am in the right on the 6.3 article; that's for the AFD closer to decide, and I frankly don't care all that much one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I was party to that first ANI (where I agreed what they had said was a PA) and it did not say "stop harassing" anyone. The close was "stop bringing these petty disputes here" (And as you were the filer it was aimed at you).Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The close, as clearly indicated by the diff above, was "Stop doing that", which was directed at Lubbad, in reference to the blatant personal attack; it probably could have gone further and explicitly said something like "stop baiting Hijiri, and definitely don't stick a bunch of random jabs against the country he chooses to call home on your user page". Yeah, the demand that I no longer bring to ANI harassment and personal attacks like the one Lubbad made in mid-May, and like the ones he's been making in the past few days, did discourage me from opening more ANI threads about, for instance, the bizarre Pearl Harbor references; but it doesn't discount the fact that Lubbad was told to stop harassing me and he did not. Anyway, in the past year I think I've filed a total of three ANI reports on issues involving me (not including random trolls/socks/whatever I noticed and thought ANI was the best way to handle it) so one editor's opinion that I repeatedly bring every little "petty" dispute to ANI is just simply wrong on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The close said not to bring such trivialities to ANI,and for Lubbad85 to make no more comments of that kinds, it says nothing about harassment. Now maybe he has been warned not to harass you elsewhere, but not in that ANI. It says nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I responded to the first, inaccurate, draft of the above on your talk page, before noticing that you'd posted a more accurate accounting here. The above is basically a fair recounting, but it fails to take into account that the opinion that I have been bringing "every tiny little thing" to ANI simply is not backed up by the facts -- heck, it was noted further up by another user arguing against me that I should have used ANI to report the harassment, but frankly I've lost a lot of faith in ANI doing its job, and so have been just "bearing the cross" whenever something like this happens, and waiting for someone to notice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
No it does not, as the point you made was it was telling someone not to harass you, which it does not (thus I take into account all relevant information, and just point out it was not quite as one sided as you imply). Maybe if you had reported them for harassment you might have got the response you did, rather then for PA's (when you did get the response you wanted, they were told not to do it). Indeed I find it odd that having raised a minor issue at ANI (and got the result you should have wanted) you claim there is no poi t in reporting a more serious matter. It is clear form this thread that you would have in fact got what you wanted, you just did not bother.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Anyone reviewing this, have a good read of this thread before going any further. There's considerably more to this than meets the eye; as far as I can see, Hijiri88 spotted Lubbad85 engaging in cut-and-paste plagiarism, called them out on it, and Lubbad85 has spent the subsequent two weeks trying to needle Hijiri88. ‑
Iridescent
14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban for Lubbad85. The copyright violations and the harassment against the editor who remove his violations(making false ANI reports) is enough to get him indeff banned. I don't this editor have made any good faith edits, all are copyright violations. I am not involved in this but I have seen enough of harassment against Hijiri and I think admins should step up and stop this nonsense.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? I said nothing of the kind; what's this per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban nonsense coming from? We don't indef people for being annoying, much as I'd love it if we could; I concur with those below in pleading with you to stop commenting on processes you don't understand as your attitude at ANI is just aggravating editors who are already upset. ‑
Iridescent
20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent—I'm pretty sure SharabSalam meant they "oppose per Iridescent", not "support an indef per Iridescent". It's pretty common for people to misuse commas like this, and now we see why punctuation matters. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!
23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And the diffs links aka "following me" drama, are laughable. ADF discussions. XDDDDDDDDDDDDD. "Following me and speaking to me in edits" wow that's awful, speaking to you in edits??!! How awful-- SharabSalam (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose after reading this thread, and suggest there might be bendy wooden things flying soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder to all participants here that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for editors violating the ban on coy circumlocutions for boomerangs. EEng 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: what are we supposed to infer from the thread you link? It's old, in any case, dating to before the previous ANI report, which was closed without action. I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Mainly that we've seen a very poor attitude from Lubbad85 towards Hijir88, that Lubbad85 responds poorly to civil critique of genuine (and serious) problems, and essentially that there's more backstory here than Lubbad85 is telling us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: My previous request for help at ANI was closed - and one of the reasons was because Hijiri88 claimed to taking a wikibreak and that was mentioned by the closing administrator as a reason to not go farther with the case. Regarding my own editing here on WP, there is no plagiarism... some accidental paraphrasing which has already been fixed. Hijiri88 has accused many editors of copyright violations as I pointed out in the last ANI - it is a useful weapon. None of this gives Hijiri88 the right to call me a racist. My request is for the community or administrators to see that this editor harasses me and then cries victim. In ANI last week Hijiri88 followed and reverted user eggroll97 after a vote in support of my request, and now Hijiri88 has petitioned user kingerikthesecond to change their vote. I am asking the community for protection. Calling me a racist without proof should be reason enough to enforce an IBAN. An IBAN does nothing to hurt the community or Wikipedia.
☎
) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No need to bring me into this again. I already removed myself from this discussion as I misunderstood it entirely. My points are null; I am not in favour of a punishment towards you or Hijiri. I am going to sit on the fence again. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, and this should
WP:BOOMERANG back at Lubbad85. This is verging on harassment of Hijiri88 at this point. ToaNidhiki05
17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose—having read through this and the last one, and the discussion Iridescent links to, it's clear that this is just harassment. I don't know if Lubbad85 should be blocked or banned or anything, but there should be some sort of restriction on them bringing this back up. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 22:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
A 2 way IBAN will not hurt anybody. No harm comes to Wikipedia from a two way IBAN. For my part I do not edit where Hijiri88 edits and I do not interact with the editor in any way. Regarding Hijiri88's claims that I am a copyright violator. The accusation was made by Hijiri88, and now it has stuck to me like glue. Editors have gone through all of my started articles and major contributions - as any other editor is welcome to do. The WP:following behavior started long before Hijiri88's claims of copyright violations. The WP:following by Hijiri88 began when I started helping the Article rescue Squad. As I pointed out in my only other request for help on this forum: Hijiri88 began following me and calling me out in comments, and edits and edit summaries, as soon as I began working with ARS. I ignored the editor until finally Hijiri88 was tendentious on a deletion review - I responded to the editor on the deletion review. Then Hijiri88 came to my talk page to extend their comments, and at that point (on my own talk page) I told Hijiri88 to "get out of the basement and take a walk". These were my first ever words to Hijiri88 after ignoring the editors tendentious editing, commenting and following. Hijiri88 took me to ANI for the comments on my talk page, and the item was speedy closed. Hijiri88 has had issues with other users on Article Rescue Squad. Most recently ARS contributor Dream Focus was granted an IBAN with this editor for the same reasons that I am asking for an IBAN: Hijiri88 accused Dream Focus of Copyvio and harassed and followed Dream focus. I became a target of Hijiri88 at the point that I started on Article Rescue Squad. In conclusion, like all of you here, I do not want to be harassed or to be accused of racism. I do not want to spend my time in here when I could be editing. I do not want to waste time on negativity. I want Hijiri88 to leave me alone, and for my part I will leave Hijiri88 alone. If a two way IBAN can accomplish this, I am all for it.
☎
) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support 2-way IBAN. It is clear these two editors don't get along, and are intent on needling each other - I think there's a strong case that both have not acted well since the last ANI. Hijiri does seem to have
followed Lubbad to the specific AfDs mentioned, given that all !votes were after Lubbad's and Hijiri did not visit any other AfDs on the day in question. But then again, the comment about Pearl Harbour on Lubbad's homepage seems to have been reasonably clearly targeted at Hijiri. These two just need to keep out of each other's way. — Amakuru (talk
) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support 2 way IBAN This has been going on for almost a month now, with one or the other filing ANI's. In all fairness whilst (as far as I know) the initial attack was aimed at Hijiri88 it's also clear they have no backed of either. No harm can come from a 2 way (if wither user genuinely is not going to poke the other), and achieved the aim (I would hope) of ramping down the drama.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - The evidence presented clearly shows that Lubbad is disruptive in more ways than one, and they need to be monitored and coached at best, indeffed at worst. Hijiri's clearly acting in the best interest of the project here, and I'd be inclined to block unilaterally next time this user claims they're being harassed. ~Swarm~{sting} 03:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:IDHT is perhaps the single biggest problem here, which is why I've proposed below that he be issued with a formal final warning that he can't wriggle out of like the last two times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Support – Yes this is the best way to nip the problem at the bud due to issues with both users' editing.Eliteplus (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
[43] ...is it weird that I'm a little creeped out by this string of new editors suddenly showing up to ANI specifically to propose sanctions against me? (Yeah, I know the above account has existed for two years, but the above is its fourth edit outside the mainspace, and its first to the Wikipedia space. There were also those two that showed up last week, one of whom also showed up here again today.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose (any action against Hijiri 88, since it has now become unclear what people are supporting in this section.) No credible evidence is offered of any unacceptable behaviour by Hijiri 88, and quite a lot of evidence of firm, but patient interaction. Marginal hypersensitivity perhaps, but not hounding nor accusing another editor of racism.Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose one-way IBAN against Hijiri because it misses the mark, and also oppose 2-way IBAN because neither editor really wants that, and because both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other in the future. So that's basically a voluntary 2-way IBAN anyway, and I think we should
WP:AGF and give it a shot. Let's see if they voluntarily avoid each other going forward. If not, then we can look at a formal IBAN (one way or two way depending on the evidence, but depending on the evidence from this point forward). – Levivich
01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I assumed this was a two way IBAN, I suspect others have as well.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 1: One-Way IBAN
Something needs to be done, and it is User:Lubbad85 who is causing the disruption.
I propose, as the first, and what I recommend, alternative, which is a one-way
interaction ban without the usual exceptions, so that User:Lubbad85 is absolutely banned from interacting or commenting on User:Hijiri88. This will allow Lubbad85 to continue editing as long as they stay clear of Hijiri88 and recognize that Hijiri88 and other editors take copyright seriously. Robert McClenon (talk
I do not communicate with Hijiri88. Not in my edits, not in edit summaries, not on afds, not on any talk pages, I do not talk with other users about Hijiri88. So a one way ban against me seems like an inappropriate application of IBAN. It is me who asks for an IBAN because the user speaks to me in all of those ways, and now accuses me of racism to others and in public. I do not have a long history here on WP, however my history does not show me to be an editor who requires IBAN - not in this case, nor any other. I ask the administrators to close these two additional proposals and respond to my proposal regarding protection from Hijiri88's racism accusations
☎
) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) IBANS include opening ANI threads, and frankly we're all sick of the endless threads on Hijiri you keep starting. It also probably isn't the wisest idea to try to shut down proposals on a boomerang, but there's no explicit rule against it, so just know that ANI is a two-way street- you opening this thread opens you wide to criticism of your own behavior as well as Hijiri's. -A lad insane(Channel 2) 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Support after all of this, it is now obvious that something should be done to stop Lubbad85 from doing what they are doing. They wasted Hijiri88 time and our time.--SharabSalam (talk)
Support Per SharabSalam. This needs to stop. ToaNidhiki05 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN; as worded, Lubbad85 wouldn't be able to respond if Hijiri88 were to request a
Iridescent
19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't want my name to be mentioned on WP:RESTRICT. I have historically had one-way IBANs with two other editors -- one of them ended with a third party repeatedly claiming it was a two-way IBAN, and reading the singular "they" in the ban's wording as meaning an unrelated TBAN also applied to me, and me having to request the ban be lifted for that reason; the other ended with the banned party complaining how unfair the one-way IBAN was and it being upgraded to a two-way IBAN for basically no other reason. Also, IBANning Lubbad would not actually solve the problem (not just copyright, but also the habitual personal attacks and harassment of anyone who disagrees with him -- see what he's been doing to Bearcat on the Gould AFD), and would only make it easier for him to claim I'm "poking the bear" and making unfair actions to which he can't respond by not withdrawing my CCI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN, as per Iridescent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose one-way IBAN against Lubbad for the same reason as I oppose the proposals above–a one-way IBAN misses the mark here, and since both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other, we should see if that works before burdening the community with imposing a formal sanction. – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:DCV for copyright violations, the editor was warned about copyvio and he constantly reported Hijir who removed his copyvios claiming that Hijiri is harassing him see user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds. this was already suggest in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk
) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Some type of action should probably be taken. Not sure if it should be an indef ban or just a limited amount of time but this user is harassing people and making serious breaches of policy on Wiki pages. ToaNidhiki05 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose None specific sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Support, assuming that, per the definition at
WP:SBAN, Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban, and that a site ban is essentially indistinguishable from a community indef. As I said at last week's ANI thread, I would have supported a final warning that any more copyvio or revenge harassment would result in an indef block. This really should be the last straw. I would also not be opposed to this thread ending in a final warning (not a slap on the wrist like last time but "you're going to be blocked for a long time on your next infraction"), similar to Iridescent's "any more shit" comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support this is getting beyond a joke. Lubbad85 clearly is a disruptive influence on the project, as I said in the previous thread copyvio is a very serious matter and continually bringing Hijiri88 here for having the temerity to call them out on it only doubles down on the probllem and exacerbates it. Site ban Lubbad85 ASAP, please. - Nick Thornetalk 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, as someone described it below, this vague, hand-waivy, "something something off with his head" ban. A site ban is way over the top. Begoon's advice below is excellent. Clear warnings identifying the problematic behavior, issued by an uninvolved experienced editor or admin, followed by closure of this whole thread, would probably be most helpful IMO. – Levivich 03:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Neutral I don't think either editor has conformed themselves to a high standard since the last ANI was closed, and I would support some sort of block for both of them, but, CCI report aside as that's serous and justified, I think the project would be better off at this point if the two editors involved can just agree to stop antagonising each other and wasting our time here. SportingFlyerT·C 03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, because it's not clear what sort of ban individual people are supporting here and there's a general feel of "I support something but I don't know what". It was clarified below by the proposer, but obfuscated again by the "But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction..." addition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support "Editor gets caught violating CCI by second editor and files a retaliatory ANI report full of bunkum as revenge." That pretty well sums up the previous ANI thread, and if things ended there, warnings and "let's do better" closures would be fine. But Lubbad85 has a stick, won't drop it, and is trying to use ANI to bash Hijiri for expecting Lubbad85 to adhere to really basic and significant rules of editing. I don't see how a boomerang isn't justified. Grandpallama (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
You don't see how a community site ban isn't justified for an editor who has never been (as far as I can tell) blocked, sanctioned, or even formally warned? Let me give you one potential reason why that's not justified: because we should try something less than the ultimate sanction as a first step. – Levivich 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I see how someone who has been on Wikipedia for barely seven months is quick to lecture others and discuss the community as if he were a longstanding part of it. I also see how a problematic editor here has engaged in copyright infringement, reacted largely in a very poor manner to being caught, and has repeatedly tried to get the person who caught him "in trouble" by filing numerous reports, which is fundamental bad faith and a serious misuse of these boards that goes beyond the initial CCI issue. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Those might be reasons to issue a warning, or an IBAN, or maybe a TBAN, but a site ban, for someone who's never been sanctioned or even formally warned before, is way over the top. – Levivich 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing over the top for someone who violates copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, since the proposal based solely on the interaction between the two. Now there may be other reasons for banning Lubbad (e.g. I am seeing comments in this section alleging any or all of
WP:NOTHERE on their part; but those are topics to be tackled elsewhere, and I am not commenting on them here). But on the interaction itself, IMHO I see two parties who don't get along and seem intent on trying to wind each other up through oblique references on user talk pages and other prickly comments. But not to the point of warranting punitive action. That's why I recommend an IBAN which would ensure they can both continue to contribute without reference to the other, and be quickly blocked if one or other does infringe again. — Amakuru (talk
) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support, but I'd say the ban should not be indefinite. Maybe six months instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - Something has to be done, and a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions isn't strong enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I have never been in trouble on Wikipedia, and I came here because there was not a resolution last week. My perception was that I still had a problem with the other editor following me. The issue I brought to this ANI is an issue between two editors. I came to ANI because it was the only available process, as I knew it. I did not intend to offend anyone here on ANI. I love to contribute to Wikipedia and I only want to be left to do that in peace. I have a long productive history on Wikipedia. This experience however, has been mind numbing and stomach turning for me. Reading through this ANI board, it seems many complaints often wind up with no consensus and a frustrated administrator who has to weed through the threads.
Here are some guarantees regarding my own behavior which I can make going forward:
I will not perpetuate the problems or the controversies submitted on this ANI.
I will treat ANI regarding the other editor as off limits, My only request is that I am not followed by the other editor.
I will not respond to the other editor and I will not interact with the other editor.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there were copyright violations in the past: it will not happen in the future.
In conclusion, the goal of ANI should be to solve a problem (and it has for my part). If discipline should be required it should be progressive and corrective, not punitive and destructive. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia together and we should ask how a resolution on ANI will contribute to that mission. I hope to work with you all in the future under better circumstances.
I am interested in fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. To that end: A dual IBAN is acceptable to me because it likely fixes the problem between me and the other editor. I sincerely apologize to all concerned, including Hijirii88. 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
☎
)
WP:HOUNDING. The essence of hounding is that it is done largely for the purpose on annoying, not simply that it does annoy. How do we assess intent? Subjectively, whether we think the editor had some legitimate reason to question edits, or was just 'needling' for its own sake. Pincrete (talk
) 18:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - definitely, the wrongdoing as presented here isn't at a level to warrant an immediate site ban, the harshest punishment out there. In this case, escalation is warranted. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. In no way is this merited. Would the person who proposed this please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as draconian and unnecessary, a discretionary indef and the subsequent appeal process should be allowed to work like normal, jumping straight to a proposed CBAN is out of process. ~Swarm~{sting} 03:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 3:One-Way IBAN with Usual Exceptions
Something has to be done. I think a one-way
interaction ban with the usual exceptions may be gamed, but we need to do something. Robert McClenon (talk
@Robert McClenon: - it's likely you're referring to Lubbad… you should explicitly say so. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
My omission. Thank you for calling it to our attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing sufficient to warrant this has been provided or demonstrated. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – per Softlavender and my oppose !votes above–this is unnecessary at this time and we should see if a voluntary separation works first. – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 4: Final warning for Lubbad
As I said above (and said at the previous ANI thread, and thought was implied by the thread before that) I'd support a formal final warning of the kind Lubbad's disruptive behaviour (which consists of violation of copyright on both text and images, bludgeoning AFD discussions, badgering editors who disagree with them, factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports, posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past, generally behaving in an uncollegial manner, and refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) has been noted by the community, and they are placed on notice that they may be blocked without further warning by any uninvolved admin should this behaviour continue. and so I might as well propose it at this juncture. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Support As proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging
User:Iridescent, who said (no diff because the edit has been revdelled because someone posted something they shouldn't have before it, but it's the one time-stamped 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)) who said something similar (I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning). I'm not sure if a broad "any more shit" would work, since I thought that was what he got three weeks ago from Floq, and it's definitely what he should have taken away from last week's ANI, so I think explicitly including a reference to his IDHT behaviour (refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) would be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I'd support this if you voluntarily agree to stay away from them as part of the proposal. After your wikibreak, only !voting opposite the way Lubbad85 voted in, and only picking AfDs that Lubbad85 had previously voted in, didn't help any of this. SportingFlyerT·C 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:If I haven't made my deep-seated desire to do just that clear over the past week, I haven't done my job right. :P
That being said, such an agreement would assume as its primary prerequisite that Lubbad now has more eyes on him, not just regarding the copyright issues but everything else (note that in the AFDs you refer to, Lubbad was engaged in the behaviour alluded to above, and I could have easily seen that because of the ARS posting; I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him). The CCI also needs to remain open (even my critics seem to agree with me there), and if anyone wants to add more diffs (including ones from the permalink to my sandbox, which also includes ones that probably don't need to be added, hence why I never got around to doing it myself) they should feel welcome. Also, if anyone pings me back into the CCI for whatever reason, or Lubbad edits a page on my watchlist (or Lubbad has repeatedly edited a page linked to from a messageboard on my watchlist), and I notice the same pattern of behaviour being repeated with absolutely no change, I might message an uninvolved admin (not, I need to stress, edit the same pages as him just to intimidate him). Under those conditions I wouldn't be violating a voluntary agreement to stay away from him, anyway.
I'm striking the above, since it was meant specifically to get the support of SportingFlyer, who never responded, but my posting the above appears to have confused two or three editors further down into thinking I had accepted a voluntary editing restriction at some indefinite point in the past, and that my "violating" said restriction in ... some manner meant that Lubbad was without fault, and (apparently?) opposed this proposal for that reason alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: - I find this statement of yours extremely questionable: I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him).
(1) If it really would be the case that virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, why is your vote needed? Here's the number of people weighing in before either of you: 7 at Longest, 6 at Oldest, 5 at Kelly, 6 at Resistance. It wasn't as if those AfDs were not receiving attention, you could have simply left them alone if virtually everyone would vote against Lubbad.
(2) It was actually not the case that virtually everyone would have voted the opposite way to Lubbad. Let's see how many editors essentially voted similarly to Lubbad. 4 at Longest, 2 at Oldest, 4 at Kelly, 7 at Resistance. If you're telling me virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, frankly, I expect 0 or 1 to vote Keep. This was never the case here.
As a result of your inaccurate statement, I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly. starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(1) I explicitly said I wouldn't !vote the opposite way to Lubbad if I noticed him !voting disruptively in multiple AFDs going forward, so repeatedly questioning me about my !votes in AFDs that have already been closed or are about to be closed anyway is irrelevant.
(2) The fact that some other disruptive editors who have themselves been called out multiple times for disruptive AFD !votes agreed with Lubbad in those cases is irrelevant. Your repeatedly emphasizing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6.3 Resistance movemnet when I have asked you before to just let it go is noted.
I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly Your personal opinion doesn't matter all that much to me. I don't want anything more to do with Lubbad (or you, for that matter) and have already stated multiple times, including immediately above, that I would be all to happy if he never darkened my doorstep again, so why are you badgering me about how you think I shouldn't be interacting with him?
Support as the least disruptive, most drahamah-free solution. The "last warning" should apply to behaviour such as the "Pearl Harbour" stuff as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey:posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past was meant to specifically cover the "Pearl Harbour" stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for now - not until substantial evidence of every charge listed above is actually provided here (best to collate it in one post, this is a mess), and even so (if such evidence is provided), it should be a package deal with Hijiri88 agreeing to stay away from Lubbad unless there are copyright violations, because Hijiri88 is clearly not faultless in this matter starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Vote will be updated below. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Substantial evidence has been presented; you have ignored it because of some weird hangup you have about believing everything Lubbad says and ignoring everything everyone else says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Collate it please, even as a reply to this very post, and I will check it out. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
violation of copyright on both text and images Do I need to present more evidence of this? I guess the "images" thing hasn't been discussed much. As of January 27 (I was not the first person to raise this issue, by a long shot -- I was just apparently the first to notice that the multiple prior warnings were not working and the pattern was continuing) 11 out of 21 of the threads on his talk page were about orphaned non-free images and other image copyright problems.
badgering editors who disagree with them The above AFDs count, but see also the Kelly Meighen DRV and the previous ANI thread. There's also thisstring of bogus accusations and already-answered questions directed at an AFD closer.
factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports Virtually everything he wrote in the previous ANI thread was bogus. The choicest examples, including the claim that I was still subject to an IBAN that I had successfully appealed in January 2013, are highlighted here. (See also below, where he accuses me of "still needling him" and gives a diff that's a week old, accusing me of addressing him in the edit summary when I did nothing of the sort. 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC))
posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past[44]
generally behaving in an uncollegial mannerThis thread was linked to near the top of this discussion. It shows Lubbad, having been told off for an extremely offensive and unprovoked comment telling me to "get out of the basement", pretending to drop the stick and offer me friendship, me agreeing and offering him some friendly advice, him pretending to take the advice, and then him suddenly, two days later, showing back up and accusing me of not "assuming good faith" (when in fact that was exactly what I was doing -- compiling evidence for a CCI and specifically going out of my way to prevent him from being blocked because of the assumption that the copyvio was a good faith mistake) and then repeatedly escalating things without reason. Then there's encouraging a blatantly NOTHERE troll, apparently because of some
apparently just to make me feel miserable, deliberately misrepresented said experiences as me having been the "bad guy", and claimed I am currently still subject to two bans, one of which was appealed in March 2017 and the other in February 2013.[45][46]
refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters See the above -- I offered him advice, he pretended to take it, and then turned around and repeated the exact same behaviour as before. Also the first ANI thread, where he was told not to do "that" anymore and apparently took a very narrow interpretation of what "that" was, and the previous ANI, where a bunch of editors told him a boomerang would be coming his way, and then he jumped right back here at the first chance he got. Also, his response immediately below indicates he still doesn't recognize any problematic behaviour on his own part, and this pretty flagrant IDHT regarding the copyright problem: I am not a copyright violator.
Please note that if your interpretation of any of the above differs from my own, I'd be happy to hash it out and amend the proposed wording to accommodate you, or to get more evidence to convince you of anything you might be on the fence about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for striking. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Support final warning only for copyvio. Support first warnings for badgering opponents, misrepresenting facts (even if unknowingly), possible offensive content on talk pages, needing to listen to other editors. Support reminders (assuming good faith) to not to bludgeon discussions and to edit collegially. I'd also advise both editors to steer clear of one another, though copyvio is an acceptable exception. starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint, I'm curious, which diffs persuade you a final copyvio warning is needed? – Levivich 05:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: - [47] - showed multiple issues with copyright, whether images or articles. starship.paint (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:CCI#Lubbad85 investigation does not appear to have completed yet, and the reported diffs there are all from September 2018 – January 2019 except for that May 28 one. On the image side, the most-recent (May 23) orphaned fair-use image file is no longer orphaned. Before that are a couple images in April that seemed to have been worked out amicably with Marchjuly (see threads here). Lubbad has said above (on June 6) that "it will not happen in the future". Just the May 28 diff alone may merit a warning, but I was wondering if you had seen something else recent. – Levivich
06:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: - thanks for informing me. Your earlier question actually prompted me to ask Hijiri88 for a more recent diff, and the same diff you provided (which I hadn't seen at the time) was also provided to me by Hijiri88. No, I haven't seen anything else recently, but the earlier behaviour is still concerning. starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I thank Levivich for looking into my recent editing to show that most of my deficiencies have been corrected. Growing as a Wikipedian is my goal! And I want to thank Starship Paint for being thoughtful about my future on the project. I have never been called out as bludgeoning or many of the things listed by the other editor. If reasonable minds think I have been bludgeoning I certainly need to listen to that and will stop. In regard to my discussion on the Jean Mill afd.. that should be called out as straight up ignorance. lol. (regarding the copyvio allegations in the past - a CCI was filed by the other editor so I will be awaiting that). Thanks.
☎
) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The other editor is still needling me as of today. I started an article called -
☎
) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
FTR, I have no idea who wrote that section of the Jean Mill article; the "you" in my edit summary was a generic "you", not specifically address Lubbad. I could say the same for this edit, but that was a week ago. I guess in the spirit of good faith I'll add on to my above promise to steer clear of Lubbad a promise to avoid editing articles I know Lubbad has been involved with in the past to avoid any potential misunderstandings, and that if I absolutely must edit such pages I'll engage in due diligence to make sure I'm not directly reverting one of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The revert of my edits during the last ANI was called out as a bad idea by an admin and my guess is the edit from 6/6/19 would be called "poking the bear" - but I am over this argument. It is less than truthful to say the editor did not know it was my edit. The editor seems to be throwing everything at me to see what sticks. I have apologized for whatever part I have played in this drama and for bringing this thing to ANI. We should ask how is Wikipedia best served. How can a result on this ANI serve the building of this encyclopedia? My assurances to the community are above in one of the many proposals. Regarding the other editor, I am sure that without all of this grinding the other editor must have great value here. Otherwise the other editor would have been banned for the many fights and discipline the editor has received on the project. So I have been steering clear, and will continue to do so. I hope to continue to contribute and grow as a Wikipedian. If the other editor could stop trying to get a pound of my flesh, and agree to a 2 way IBAN will likely solve this problem and serve Wikipedia, maybe we can put this ugly ANI to bed.
☎
) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Hijiri is clearly still messing with Lubbad, in spite of assurances that he wouldn't, as seen in this edit from less than four hours ago. I don't think anything is going to work except either a one-way IBan imposed upon Hijiri, or a two-way IBan. One does have to wonder how and why Hijiri keeps collecting IBans (either one-way or two-way) like a bee collects pollen; clearly there is some problem with the way he interacts with a lot of editors. Wikipedia has very clear procedures for dealing with (and reporting) problem edits; and stalking, hounding, and antagonizing editors are not part of any of them. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I never made any "assurance" -- I offered to voluntarily steer clear of him, assuming this proposal passes; and the edit you are referring to was made not "less than four hours ago" but rather more than thirteen hours before I said that, as can clearly be seen here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Your !vote seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Could you please respond to my above ping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Seriously, the closer's going to ignore your !vote if it is based on a misconception and you have been ignoring repeated pings requesting clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I am not sure it is quite as black and white as is being presented, neither user has made real efforts to steer clear of the other (for example going to a user page to see what they are up to and then commenting on it is not steering clear). I would agree to a warning, but not a final one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Did you mean to post the above in a different section? This proposal has nothing to do with either of us steering clear of each other. I offered to do so as a condition to another user supporting this proposal, but your opposing because, several days ago, I wasn't already adhering to a voluntary self-restriction that I only offered to take on this morning ... doesn't make sense. Yeah, Lubbad and Softlavender (talk·contribs) gave similar seemingly irrelevant oppose rationales further up, but that doesn't justify your doing the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Really? we have already hashed this out in the hatted section, why did you move your comment out of the hated section? All your going to get is the same responses. Nothing has changed, so nothing new can be said.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
Except you are still commenting on them (and indeed proposing sanctions for them) now. Sure you have not intersected with them, or commented on them) of this ANI since this morning. But you in fact did do out of your way to check what they were up to, and this is the cause of this ANI. Thus I can see why they (and to a degree you as well) feel aggrieved. Thus whilst I think a warning is in order, not a final one. As that should be after a series of breaches of prior warnings. They have never been warned as a result of ANI not to stalk or harass you. They were warned to make no more PA's against you, and they appear to have adhered to that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I am "still commenting on them (and indeed proposing sanctions for them) now". Not only would my above-suggested voluntary self-restriction not take effect unless this proposal passes (actually it's not even valid until SportingFlyer explicitly supports the proposal...) but you are actively seeking to undermine the proposal, so why would you expect me to already be subject to it? Moreover, what sanctions have I proposed? This is a warning that Lubbad is expected to abide by the same policies everyone else on the encyclopedia adheres to, or he will be blocked. That's not a sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I am saying that I disagree with a final warning as they have never had any other warnings about this up till now (you do not count, I am talking about formal warnings as a result of community consensus), and that you are in fact not wholly blameless for this situation in the first place. Thus this user should not receive a final warning when (it can be argued) they were at least partially provoked. The fact you agree to do something (if you get your way) but are not doing it now is indicative of this, and why I do not think a one way sanction is workable. I would point out that his Pearl Harbour comment (for example) whilst it might have been aimed at you, might (by the same toke) not have been (its the kind of silliness Yanks make all the time in anything to do with WW2, in fact I am sure I have seen exactly this recently off wiki). You chose to represent it in the worst possible light. Thus I have reason to think that this would mean he could make no comments about Japanese matters without you deciding it was a dig at you. As I said if this is a first warning, fine no issue with that. But we are too keen here to jump at server sanctions for (what is in effect) a first offence (in relation to harassment of you). Its an overreaction, in a situation where neither side is blameless.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The "Irony" is if you were in fact asking for a lesser sanction about other issues (such as copy right violations) you would have got consensus I suspect. As I said this should be either closed now with no action or a Two way IBAN and a new ANI opened discussing Lubbards other issues (with the understanding this would not count as an IBAN violation).Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
they have never had any other warnings about this up till now He has literally received warnings for the copyvio beyond count, from multiple editors, going back to at least January. I am sure I have seen exactly this recently off wiki Umm... citation needed? That's a pretty outrageous claim that demands very strong evidence. Yeah, as CT said, there are a lot of virulent racists who bring up Pearl Harbour every time Japan is in the news, and Japan's emperor did abdicate a month ago: but how is "he might just be a virulent racist" a defense? The bogus D-Day excuse should be clincher that it was meant in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And you wonder why I am suspicious you will misrepresent whatever he says as an attack on you, you are not calling HIM a racist but " virulent racists who bring up Pearl Harbour every time Japan is in the news", no you just imply he might be. I also said "I am talking about formal warnings as a result of As far as I can tell they have had one message about copy right violation in 5 months, and that a[[ears to be overt old issues (and is not even a warning). community consensus", as far as I know his actions (apart form one minor PA) have never been sanctioned as a result of an ANI, not one official warning. All of the other warnings are from January, is there any evidence they did not heed these warnings and continued to add copy righted material? We do not sanction users for stuff they did (and stopped doing) 5 months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have explicitly said numerous times that I don't think it was racist: I think it was just random trolling meant to get a rise out of me. I know the difference, having been the only person in my junior high school who took Japanese: do you not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yet you have on multiple occasions mentioned the fact that it is often racist, which is irrelevant if you accept it was not racist. And I would point out that he did not say it was about you (just as your comments about this being a racist meme are not about him). He said this was not about you, just as you say your comments about this being a racist meme are not about him. Where is the difference, why should I accept your word and not his? Maybe if the pair of you gave the other the same benefit of the doubt you expect this would not be here now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
All of the other warnings are from January, is there any evidence they did not heed these warnings and continued to add copy righted material?[48] Your constant misrepresentation and deflection would be amusing if they weren't so disruptive.
Yet you have on multiple occasions mentioned the fact that it is often racist, which is irrelevant if you accept it was not racist. You said you heard the same thing recently off-wiki. I think whoever you heard it from was a racist reacting to some recent Japanese news by shoehorning in Pearl Harbour. You have failed to refute this but have rather been dodging the question.
Err I think it is clear i said I have seen the link made between D-day and Pearl harbour, not the fact it is racist. And again you continue to say "its a racist term" but you are not calling the person who said it a racist. I do not not have to refute it is racist, you have to prove it is if you want a user sanctioned over it. As to the Warning, it is not a warning, it is advice about policy, it even advises them how to get permission. As I said, I see no WARNINGS issued since January. I see no major issue that needs a sanction more serious then an official (first) warning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to remind you, sanctions are not punitive, they are preventative. So they should never be applied to prevent something that is not occurring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I was unable to find a single edit where he added a substantial amount of original prose that wasn't copyvio: the latest large mainspace edit, that was neither the addition of an infobox nor artificially inflated by long citations, is also the latest copyvio edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So what, it does not matter if he has stopped doing it. So when (I ask again) was the last time he added a copyright violation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So... we should ban him from making substantial prose additions to articles, because when he doesn't make substantial additions to articles he doesn't violate copyright? I'm not seeing the logic there. The last time I have found, as I have now stated several times, was a little over a week ago -- he's been at ANI, with eyes on him, pretty much constantly since then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No, and you are fully aware of that, as I have already opposed any bans (above). As to being at ANI constantly, errr yes mainly reporting you, but he has not been reported TO ANI for any of these things (a point I have also made above). Now I have already said what (at worst) I think can be done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence Slatersteven. Thanks for noticing that I am growing as a Wikipedian!
☎
) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Neutral - Unfortunately, it appears that there is no such thing as a final warning in Wikipedia, because an editor who has been given a final warning will be given another final warning every few months. Maybe a four-day block with a final warning? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – I oppose this as written, for missing the mark. Chiefly, a final warning isn't merited when no previous warnings have been given. An "only warning" isn't merited here because the problematic behavior identified doesn't rise to the level. However, I would support closing this thread with the following warnings:
a warning to Lubbad that future COPYVIO may result in sanctions (this is based on one identified instance of COPYVIO in the last four or five months)
a warning to both editors not to
WP:PEPPER
essay)
a warning to Lubbad against starting ANI threads for matters that are not serious, chronic, or urgent, and where other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried first
a warning to both editors that they should each avoid the other voluntarily, and future problems may result in a one-way or two-way IBAN – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I would support this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Support as long as Hijiri88 agrees to voluntarily steer clear of Lubbad85. Despite their best intentions, Hijiri’s involvement with this user has created more problems than it’s solved, and I think we should thank them for their dedication and let them focus on other matters. Lubbad85 seems to me to really want to help the project, but should be advised that if they cannot do so constructively, civilly, and within policy, they will face further sanctions. —Rutebega (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 5: Two way IBAN
As you can see above, this conflict between the two editors is continuing in spite of many proposed remedies, none of which are getting support. Let's just get this IBAN on the books and get this over with!
Note that the above new editor came along last week and proposed banning me from the site entirely. I would appreciate a one-way IBAN against Thunderchunder whereby he is immediately blocked if he ever comes anywhere near me again (and would also appreciate his user page, which consists almost exclusively of POLEMIC about me, being deleted). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, I was being facetious. That being said, I would like someone to speedy-close this subthread, warn TC about his recent behaviour, and tell him to go build some articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Boomerang 5.6% of ThunderChunder's edits to Wikipedia (2 of 36) have been to try to ban or punish Hijiri88. 11 have been to ANI. Only 5 have been to actual article space. I don't know quite what's going on here, but this seems a crystal clear
*Boomerang As I have said above this seems to be the fairest proposal. Both users have gone out of their way to look at what the other is doing, and comment on it. Oddly I am also leaning towards a boomerang as well, but I dislike one way IBANS. But this is the suggestion of the main thread. So not sure what the boomerang should be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Just to be absolutely clear in terms of the boomerang, I'm advocating for an indef for ThunderChunder on NOTHERE grounds. I'm incredibly skeptical of any user who shows up and jumps straight into the ANI deep end, and I'm incredibly skeptical of a user who has spent more time dedicated to banning another user than they have on helping the project as a whole. SportingFlyerT·C 19:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I took it to be a boomerang of what they had proposed. No I would not support an indef, at least at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
As such I change my vote to Oppose. I have no idea if they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The proposal that is being !voted on in this section is essentially the same one as the one you supported in your comment timestamped 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC): do you mean you oppose a boomerang for the editor who opened this section? If so, you should be more clear; and also maybe not oppose proposals on whose grounds you "have no idea". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said as I understand boomerangs they tend to be the user getting what they asked for (which would be an IBAN). This was clarified to say it was not for that, and so I opposed what it is for (and this was the first mention of an indef). I think there needs to be action over this, and have said what I think it should be, but I cannot say "support" when I do not support what the suggestion is, even if I think something needs to be done (i do not sign blank cheques). This is why I have said before we should not have unspecified sanction, it is all too easy to make assumptions about what they are for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose and support warning boomerang – I think an experienced editor should close this Proposal 5 subthread and place an explicit next-time-you-may-be-sanctioned warning on the editor's talk page. – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose with a trout to the OP. ~Swarm~{sting} 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please block TC? He left for four days, logged on to Wikipedia, checked my contribs from more than 24 hours (17 edits) earlier, and decided to leave a needlessly aggressive/kettley comment.[49][50][51] And of his previous 11 edits all 11 were about me,[52] along with 8 of the previous 20.[53]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 6: Close with warnings
Propose to close with the following warnings:
a warning to both editors that they should each avoid the other voluntarily, and future problems may result in a one-way or two-way
WP:IBAN
a warning to both editors not to
WP:BLUDGEON
discussions
a warning to Lubbad that future
WP:COPYVIO
may result in sanctions
a warning to Lubbad against starting ANI threads for matters that are not serious, chronic, or urgent, and where other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried first
Support as proposer, because:
For #1, both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other in the future, and I think this sort of de facto voluntary 2-way IBAN is preferable to a formal recorded sanction. If a problem develops in the future, conduct from this point forward can be examined at a future ANI thread and any necessary sanction (one-way or two-way) applied at that time.
For #2, this is based on Lubbad's participation at AfDs ([54][55]) and both editors' participation in these ANI threads.
For #3, there were problems in January and earlier but it seems to have improved except for this is based on this May 28 copyvio (source). Lubbad has said in this ANI thread that it won't happen again. There has not been a recent formal warning, and I think one is merited in the circumstances.
#4 is based on opening this thread in the first place; a poor decision, but not one that merits anything more than a warning IMO. – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
So ... you think Slatersteven has been bludgeoning this discussion and I've been responding to him too much? Yeah, I do too: why does your proposal sanction me and not the editor who originally did the bludgeoning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked the "partly redacted" diff and assumed the diffs were all from my interaction with Slatersteven. They're not. I would encourage anyone considering listening to anything more Levivich has to say on this matter to click through the "evidence", and ask themselves how most of the diffs are me "arguing with editors": one of them is me presenting a proposal for a final warning, one of them is me posting on another editor's talk page asking for clarification of their comment ... do I need to go through the rest? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to pick one thing: An editor opposed your proposal, and you pinged them three times[72][73][74]. Go ahead, tell us how that was a good idea. – Levivich 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If someone makes a comment, apparently based on a good-faith misunderstanding, pinging them is standard procedure. Poor Erik, on the other hand, had already retracted his comment and said he wanted nothing more to do with this before Lubbad pinged him back, he reiterated that he wanted nothing to do with this, and then Starship pinged him again and he said he wanted nothing more to do with this again. Softlavender and I have a somewhat mixed history, but I've never known her to make a comment that completely missed the point of the discussion and got the timeline wrong, like the one she did above -- at least not without being willing to retract once her mistake was pointed out. I have no idea why she hasn't responded to my pings, but I'm sure there's good reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - based on the rationale of my previous votes above, and in light of the community's failure to agree to anything else proposed above, I have to support this even if they are weaker actions than I supported previously, because I strongly believe if this fails, no action will be taken at all. Both editors can improve their behaviour. starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - this has been going on for far longer than it needed to. Let's get a close on the books and go from there. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please block the above NOTHERE editor and strike their !vote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I agreed to avoid Lubbad voluntarily on condition that he be placed on notice regarding the rest of his disruption, which he has already been warned about several times in the past. I cannot agree to this proposal that explicitly doesn't do so regarding any of his personal attacks, harassment, "opposition research" (essentially hounding), etc. and instead chooses to punish me for having "bludgeoned" an ANI thread about me by posting X number of times, after having already waited a good nine hours until multiple other editors had already commented. Yes, it is my intention to avoid Lubbad going forward anyway, but only if I can safely assume his abuses will be subject to more scrutiny from the community than they have been, and this proposal is essentially a copy-paste of Levi's above opposition to said scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any action against Hijiri, who did nothing wrong besides deal with a problem user in the interest of the project. ~Swarm~{sting} 03:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There was following by Hijiri, in my view. starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:HOUNDING and following editors one believes, in good faith, to be violating policy.[75] The former is done with the intent of harassment, not dissimilar to what Lubbad subjected me to by going back through my edit history of seven years when he wrote this string of lies, whereas the latter is not only permitted but encouraged by our editing policy: confusing the two is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of our harassment policy, and at worst a deliberate violation of the explicit wording thereof, and contrary to more than a decade of community consensus and statements by the Arbitration Committee. I have been assuming good faith thusfar because on your talkpage and in your responses to Proposal 4 you seemed amiable and rational, but the fact that you are still making statements like the above after numerous attempts by myself and others to explain the policy to you and the other relatively new users who seem to be thronging to this thread is making it hard to keep doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 05:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: - so when I agree with you, I'm amiable and rational, but when I don't 100% align with your views, you're starting to assume bad faith? From your relatively new user, starship.paint (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Where did you ever "100% align with my views"? I was referring to your prior acceptance that Lubbad's behaviour was disruptive and required oversight as amiable and reasonable, as opposed to your above personal attack accusing me of hounding. I don't need to "assume" bad faith: you are clearly either acting in bad faith, or are ignorant of Wikipedia policy and are choosing to ignore the explanations that have been provided to you out of ... what? Laziness? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88 I read the explanations and do not agree. Perhaps, I am more stupid than you think. Perhaps, I just think differently. starship.paint (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia community? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There was following by Hijiri — yes. There was. Following. Of a user who needed to be followed. There's literally nothing wrong with that. That's a good thing. ~Swarm~{sting} 06:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven is more guilty of bludgeoning than I: I have been compelled, not dissimilar to other editors in recent disputes, to defend myself against groundless hounding and NPA accusations, while two sections up SS did the same in a discussion that didn't involve him, with the quite transparent motive of filibustering any proposal that didn't end in me being sanctioned, and baiting me into a long and pointless back-and-forth that could then be used as "evidence" that I was "bludgeoning the discussion". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You did see that part where I said I would support a warning against Lubbard, but mentioned no other action? I came here to comment on the bizarre "I dont know what I want but I want it and I want it now" proposal (and until then I had not taken part, as I said before, maybe if this wasn't such a blatant such a blatant attempt to just get a user banned (for really a non bannable offense) it might have got somewhere a lot quicker. As to me being more guilty of bludgeoning, today alone I count 3 fresh posts from you (one SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ME, and another asking for a user to be blocked, in fact most of them commenting on other users actions). On the other hand I have made 2 (3 if you include this one, a reply to your accusations against me, and my first mention of you today).Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Might I suggest that it would be a good idea for you to spend a bit more time writing articles and less time posting on places like ANI and AE? You've been on the site for less than seven months, but 30% (the largest share) are to the Wikipedia namespace, with ANI alone accounting for 1/12 of your whole edit history. It would be one thing if your input demonstrated a precocious insight into Wikipedia policy, but it seems in both this thread and Tryptofish's ban appeal at AE that your commentary has been creating both heat and light.
(And since I have had to explain this virtually every time I've offered advice like this in the past, I might as well point this out proactively: yes, I to have at various points in my Wikipedia career been a regular ANI contributor, but not until I'd been on the site for about 11 years, amassed well over 10,000 edits to my name, and reported a fair few editors to ANI myself, starting in my eighth year on the project and so already had a pretty good idea of how things worked.)
Even if I had felt this way, I certainly wouldn't have made this comment had I been one of the subjects of an ANI thread. starship.paint (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Umm... it was largely influenced by comments from two admins (and former Arbs) at AE last week, and another comment by Grandpallama further up this thread, as well as another editor whom I won't name but with whom I was communicating off-wiki about the matter and who has been involved in this thread. It appears to be an opinion shared by virtually everyone who isn't willfully ignoring it due to their happening to agree with Levi on the substance (for whatever counter-policy reason might be). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Support For all the reason I have said throughout this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Neutral knowing that final warnings in Wikipedia are just more warnings that will be repeated as final warnings over and over again, and knowing that we will be back here and will provide another final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If the users involved don't already know not to do these, they should be banned. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to warn either user for bludgeoning - a more specific warning would be to Lubbad85 to try not to canvass involved users. SportingFlyerT·C 19:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as utter nonsense, because the fact that Lubbad85 would receive multiple warnings (or warning for multiple issues) makes it so blindingly obvious they're the problematic editor. Not to mention, per Swarm, that following an editor is not the same as hounding an editor, and should not result in any sort of IBAN. This proposal is just the latest in a series of false equivalencies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any action against Hijiri. Otherwise Neutral "knowing that final warnings in Wikipedia are just more warnings that will be repeated as final warnings over and over again, and knowing that we will be back here and will provide another final warning." But even pointless 'raps on the knuckles", should have some logic and Hijiri has nothing actionable. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any action against Hijiri. I think Hijiri has been on the side of Wikipedia's best interests here, and that does not deserve to be punished. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thread discussion
I have no idea what kind of "ban" is being proposed. A limited block? An indefinite block? A community ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't clear. I meant a
community-imposed site ban. But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction that will at least stop Lubbad85 from filing these stupid reports. Robert McClenon (talk
) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Nor me. Could be any of those things, including a topic ban. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It says
ban. I don't know maybe ban from reporting to this ANI. Or for the copyright violations. I don't know what type of bans that a copyright violator deserve see this discussion user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds.--SharabSalam (talk
) 18:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
So you support it but you don't know what it is? --Begoon 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I support a
ban, I don't know how that sanction is imposed but I believe the ban should be applied because it is boomerang. It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction. Whether it is 72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc that's something up to the admins.--SharabSalam (talk
) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok. "the ban should be applied because it is boomerang", but you don't know what ban (or what one is, really) and "It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction". It's an opinion, I guess. Not one I understand, but an opinion, nevertheless. --Begoon 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc" are not bans - if you don't know what a ban is, you should not be supporting one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I thought that a 72 hours is a ban. So I am now puzzled. I think there should be a suitable sanction for all of these reports and the waste of time and copyright violations. Whatever that sanction is. I said 72 hours blocked. Maybe topic banned from this notice board. Or indeff block for copyright violation. In any case I support, just to stop this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
72 hours is a block, not a ban (or, at least, a 72 hour ban from something would be stupid). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG, as you understand it? And how are you specifically "applying" it here to reach a "ban but I don't know what ban (or what one is)" conclusion? --Begoon
19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That an editor is making a report when it's him who should be reported and the sanction will turn against him. In my support vote I said the editor should be sanctioned for copyright violations and for constantly making reports against the same editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You said. "I do know what is
WP:BOOMERANG isn't an offense, it's a description of a common outcome and a reminder that all behaviour will be considered - including a filer's, so how can there be a "sanction against it" (and what is "it") ? --Begoon
19:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the vote for better.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You also said: "I am not really familier with these policies". Given that, do you really think it is a good idea for you to be supporting sanctions on editors? I wonder if you might consider that easing off on your recent, heavy participation at these boards until you are familiar with policy would be a good idea? --Begoon 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I made the vote with a good faith. I read what that policy says and I thought the editor deserve it. I just didn't know what is the suitable sanction. Anyway this discussion is time-sinking and it might make editors not see the survey. I am here to learn about these policies as stated in my userpage. I have been here when the editor made his first report, I saw all of what was happening between them. I knew that the editor who made the report should be sanctioned and then again another report today and again with completely baseless accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
So "no"? Fair enough. Now, please go back to your vote and use strike-through to make it clear what the original comment was, and where you altered it, and never change comments that have been discussed or replied to. Thank you. --Begoon 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the strike-through. Now, I really would be grateful if you'd consider the advice I gave above. There are a couple of reasons. One is that comments on this board have the potential to influence the ability of other editors to edit this site, so commenting here is a serious thing that requires knowledge and experience. When you comment from an ill-informed position it is detrimental to the fair and policy-based discussions and decisions that need to be made here. The second is that if you do this a lot it reflects badly on you, and this board is highly visible. I know you have the best of intentions, but the impression you make on others can be lasting, and it would be a shame if that was a poor impression. Sorry if you found any of this harsh - my genuine intention is to help you. --Begoon 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That I don't know all of the banning and sanctioning policies doesn't mean I shouldn't be here. I would be here voting what I see right. The above vote was corrected. everyone make mistakes, and the rationale of my vote is still the same which is copyright violations. I just didn't know what would the sanction be. That isn't a good reason for me not to be here. Just because I made a wrong comment. Thats asinine. I have made a lot of contributions here. Made a lot of good votes. Now I should be kicked out because of that small issue?. Also it's just these days I am active in this notice board mainly because I am fasting and I wanted to waste my time with something that is effortless.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, please listen to what Begoon is telling you, before you get yourself in trouble. The very fact that you're talking about "voting" shows you don't understand the purpose of ANI. We're neither an electorate nor a judiciary, and we don't do votes, we discuss whether people have violated policies and if so how that violation can be prevented in future. If you don't know the policy on which you're commenting, then by definition we don't care about your opinion on this board. That's certainly not to say that your opinion isn't valuable elsewhere, but ultimately this is the administrators' noticeboard, and uninformed commentary just disrupts us trying to do our job. ‑
Iridescent
20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright, anyway, it's already the end of my fasting but I am interested in this particular case. Editors like Lubbad85 should probably get banned for this type of behaviour. Constantly reporting an editor and harassing them. I have sent to Hijiri wikilove for deleting reverting his copyvios. This is the only case I will be participating in.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I received this message on my talk page. I do not appreciate such a direct message from the subject of an AN/I thread and and feel that it is entirely inappropriate. - Nick Thornetalk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Both users have been posting comments on users talk pages about this ANI. I am not sure either party is exactly whiter then Gabriels knickers here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I messaged you because you made an inaccurate statement above, which implied you had misunderstood the nature of the dispute, and then blanked your own message -- would you have preferred that I restored your message in order to respond to it? The circumstances of me messaging Erik are similar: he owned up to his mistake and struck his comment. That's about it on my end; Lubbad has been systematically messaging everyone.
BTW, anyone considering taking Lubbad's requests for friendship seriously really needs to read up on what happened when he tried to pull the same thing on my talk page: I accepted, offered him friendly advice on how to be a better Wikipedian, he pretended to listen to my advice, and then two days later showed back up and started complaining that I hadn't stopped sweeping his edits for the copyvio he was still engaging in despite my advice.
Mmm so you contact two users who had expressed doubts about your actions, in order to correct them. And Lubbad contacts everyone (regardless of what they said).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Lubbad85 posted a star on my talk page as well, but not as specifically as on Nick Thorne's, though I don't consider the post on my own talk page inappropriate as I did go through to fix any copyright edits they had introduced, see [76]. However, the post along with the fact that Lubbad85 claims "I am not a copyright violator" on Nick Thorne's talk page extremely concerns me, as I looked through the articles they created and the vast majority of them had at least one potential copyright issue, along with some blatant copy-pastes which I fixed. SportingFlyerT·C 03:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I agree something needs to be done, but its clear that solo sanctions for lubbard is not going to swing it. The only thing I can see passing is the Two way IBAN, and continuing to try and find a way to sanction Lubbard alone is just dragging this out without getting anywhere. I think either this needs to be closed now as no action or the Two way is put in place, and we see where it goes from there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I know the intent is good, Robert, but this sort of spamming proposals and seeing what will stick is not a productive means of resolving AN/I threads. ~Swarm~{sting} 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment- did anything come of the CCI? ReykYO! 07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Reyk: It's my understanding that almost nothing ever "comes of" CCI. There's a CCI I filed over a year and a half ago still languishing in the "accepted, and open" section, and another I filed five months ago that's received no attention. The backlog is massive, and receiving hardly any of the attention it needs (I actually noticed a very serious problem once, and emailed the filer, expressing my concern that the filing might have retroactively become bad taste due to events that happened during the years it has been open). Basically what I'm saying is that it doesn't actually mean anything for this ANI thread one way or the other that the request I filed a little over a week ago is still open and awaiting attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Reyk: Before this was filed I looked through several of the user's major contributions, cleaned up some blatant copy-pastes, and rewrote sentences which had been copied and quoted with proper attribution. That being said, there's a huge backlog at CCI - how would one become a clerk? SportingFlyerT·C 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I now note that Lubbard is not on a wikibreak [[77]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: - can we get your proposal in a new subsection? I'd even call it the final proposal, because if that doesn't pass, I don't think anything else will. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Done I slightly re-ordered the list of warnings, and added my reasons for supporting the proposal. I agree with you about "the final proposal" but I just called it #Proposal 6: Close with warnings because I don't want to be presumptuous :-) – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Levivich. I'm thinking of pinging everyone who has participated in this discussion so far, to get input. Would that be encouraged? starship.paint (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint, honestly I have no idea and I wonder the same thing (is is encouraged?). I've seen people ping participants in these situations and it works out great, and I've also seen other instances where it turns into heated allegations of canvassing. I'd love to know what "the answer" is. – Levivich 03:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
God dammit I already said I didn't want to be a part of this. I'll continue to be neutral. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 11:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
rubs eyes, yawns... You pinged? looks around... Oh, this, still? Good grief... tiptoes out hoping nobody noticed him come in... --Begoon 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading the latest responses, and considering only ~2/20 of the above haven't edited since I pinged, I don't think anything will come out of this (maybe boomerang for #5). Have
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.
Community sanctions
As stated by Mike Selinker in his responses to JorgeLaArdilla, as well as by Sasquatch here - this is something that you two can discuss and work out peacefully with one another. :-) There's no need for administrative action. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a humble editor, I have been blocked by Admin as part of a content dispute (Interaction Timeline). This seems to me a clearcut case of
when I now believe that I should have posted on this board and do so now.
WP:DR states "The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." I know how much you guys love your boomerangs and it will be me hit with more sanctions but I really do think that Admin User:Fayenatic london's actions reflect badly on the office. I have informed User:Fayenatic londonhereJorgeLaArdilla (talk
I agree with User:Mike Selinker in that this is something that the two of you should be able to discuss and sort out without community intervention at this point. Sasquatcht|c 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit war over twitter storm
The "edit-warring", if it amounted to that, has stopped. No admin intervention requied yet. Abecedare (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2019 (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.
Oy. El_C 23:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC) What a strange coincidence, I was just talking about these. cygnis insignis 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I am edit warring over the inclusion of a notice toward twitter regarding
I think it is beyond the scope of this site and the related page. I am accused of having an agenda. I expect to be chastised for diffs, I get them. cygnis insignis 23:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
the tweet reply I saw when I got there was "...Aaaand this tweet has been mentioned on enwiki.. [Insert coming storm here]" cygnis insignis 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Obviously the project you're looking to notify is WP:WiR, after all it's their Twitter account. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"I am edit warring". Well yes you are. Please self-report to
There's really not an "edit war", more a "censorship" thing going on. Certainly I made an enquiry over an agenda. I just didn't understand why the external discussion of a Wikipedian including legal accusations in the context of
WP:FRAM needed to be either redacted entirely or moved to a talk page. Whatev's. The Rambling Man (talk
@Abecedare: Thanks, but I have stopped. That is why I brought it here, if someone agrees that should have been suppressed as potentially provocative, they could have acted. The damage is done, it is advertised. cygnis insignis 23:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... You're reporting yourself for edit warring. What do you recommend then? A block? Or just a warning? — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: - In a serious vein, could you explain how external discussion of Fram's ban could be considered not relevant to the page on Fram's ban? There's never been anything that said our discussion must refuse to even mention external viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
In a serious vein, no, my comment would be dripping with sarcasm. cygnis insignis 23:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I've informed Women in Red about this thread, as it does rather concern them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone going to remove the offending item … cygnis insignis 23:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to call this the project's twitter account? It has the same name as the project. And it seems likely that the people who run it are project members. But I don't think it is the case that all project members have access to the twitter account. And investigation of who on Wikipedia is associated with off-Wikipedia pseudonymous accounts is generally severely discouraged, per
WP:OUTING. So I don't think it's appropriate to be complaining about what that twitter account might do in a way that suggests that all project members are responsible for its tweets. —David Eppstein (talk
) 01:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As a notification, I have filed a statement regarding the tweets at the ArbCom case regarding the Fram incident. starship.paint (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2019 (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.
Need a resolution of this ASAP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surtsicna insists on removing the portraits of almost all Popes before the Early Middle Ages, on the grounds that they are "fantasy" portraits. He keeps going through these Popes, removing their images, changing their titles and so on. I have pointed out in a friendly way that employing "fantasy portraits" has been our practice for these popes, for more than a decade, and that multiple books and pages in this very encyclopedia have that practice, but he would not listen and keeps reverting changes without getting a consensus. Here are some of his changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Adrian_I&diff=prev&oldid=902106466 ...
He keeps doing these on several popes. Please, resolve this dispute as best as you can. Thanks. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I have seen those disruptive edits as well, most stubborn and not in good faith. I had a similar situation with the same editor on several other pages (on poets, no less), in which he was quick to threaten me with 3RR while in fact he was patrolling those pages. It seems that little has changed. I hope that this problem will be well resolved. Mm.srb (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, cry me a river. What you have seen is a dispute on my talk page and you rushed here to spitefully disparage me. Truly pathetic. "Not in good faith." Brilliant. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL - the IP editor has every right to ask for assistance here. And you have 4 previous blocks for edit warring, disruptive editing, and violating the 3-revert rule. Which seems a lot like what you are doing right now.— Maile (talk
)
— Maile , my comment was not directed to the IP editor but to my talk page stalker. The IP editor has every right to ask for assistance, though I doubt this is the venue, but the talk page stalker coming here to spite me is pathetic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I am quite sorry that you are yet again uncivil. Good Lord, nobody is stalking you, this was just a coincidence. My comment was in support for the IP editor who in fact showed good faith and manners, and that is all that there is to it. :) cheers Mm.srb (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you coincidentally saw my disruptive edits on an article which you had never edited before. What is the cost of lies, comrade? Your attempts to discredit me used to be better. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at the diffs and read through the discussion on
implicit, which means that it's fair game to challenge it (consensus can change, after all, and unspoken consensus doubly so). signed, Rosguilltalk
This user insists on not putting spaces after punctuation. Not just forgets sometimes, not is just unaware, but simply passively refuses to correct their behavior after being asked to recently here at ANI, back in 2016 by Anna Frodesiak, and who knows where else. I tried again here. They removed it without comment and just kept on doing what they've been doing. Some might think it a minor annoyance, and those of us concerned with such things are used to quietly fixing such things here and there, but it's just not reasonable for someone to effectively tell us to f*** off and expect us to follow them around and fix everything they write. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think these two edits encapsulate the 'refuses' thing. More worrisome is the recent plain vandalism [78] repeating [79] and problems elsewhere and here. Having been here since 2012 and thumbing their nose at simple conventions and now pranking us, hey, when does the low-grade fever finally exhaust the
Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. If this continues after the block expires I will block indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I hace declined their unblock request as they say they do not understand the reason for the block.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MSGJ, Dlohcierekim, and Shenme. The silence you hear is the sound of a dozen gnomes resting a moment, anticipating a little less work for their arthritic fingers. I realize I didn't notify the editor about this discussion, for which I apologize (and thank Shenme for doing so). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there.I see there has been some ongoing talk about me. After an unneccessary block, i would like to apologise. I am actually not much fond of editing here (which i will learn more and make the edits as pleasurable they are to you as to me). I would further like to iterate that i will try to avoid those punctuation errors which i have done, and i would like to mention that these are not intentional in any ways. However, i do hope that when users with more administrative rights ban other users, they could provide more solid reasons to the ban, rather than linking references way back to 2016 like this one back in 2016. I would like to also mention that sometimes when incidents like this happens, often i assume that these edits are intentional when users often revert back to their idealistic versions of a wiki page, or a more non-constructive ones like this one here. I also like to mention that when Shenme mentions vandalism, it seems abit weird when this and this are mentioned. These seem to be unrelated to the topic, and also something which i have been just made aware of and will clarify that with the respective person. I would like to emphasize to the user to not make wavering accusations of vandalism. I have been an user who had made more than 500 edits i have no reason to see myself into an indefinite block. Hence i advise that these terms be acquitted henceforth. I hope that i have mentioned these as clear as possible, and also would like to request that users do not ban others without hearing both sides of the story. We are all here to learn from each other. I have so and i hope you do too. Thank you. --Hari147 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
New user with spurious "blocks"
Could an admin please have a quick look at the new editor Moral Value who appears to be issuing "blocks" which are not? Thanks. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing: thanks for reporting. I was just about to swing by here to say HEY, I think it's that Indonesian vandal--can someone have a look and see if the underlying IP needs to be blocked as a proxy? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
At least one user was genuinely alarmed. I reassured them everything is fine. El_C 01:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
At least one other account had also been editing; all the other ones I looked at were new. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (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.
Karthikhar24 is keen on adding copyvio content, removing deletion tag, recreating deleted files and creating non-English pages. --AntanO 11:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I have briefly blocked the user for copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (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.
28 November/Rotherham cleanup needed
A few weeks ago I reported a couple of IPs to AIV for repeatedly adding unsourced birth dates and birth places to articles, often choosing 28 November for the date, and Rotherham for the place. The affected articles are now on my watchlist, so I've discovered Specialwood (talk·contribs) doing the same thing. Exploring the history of some of the affected articles, I've found 31.49.25.29(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 31.51.95.79(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and 84.92.218.161(talk·contribs·WHOIS) doing the same. The editing pattern goes back to 2012 at least. So please will someone block Specialwood; and if anyone would like to help uncover and fix the damage I'd be grateful. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Backlog at ANI RPP
Not huge, but another pair or even quartet of hands would be useful (should this be here or AN?) Doug Wellertalk 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Do you really mean ANI (which is this very board) or smth else?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Damn. RPP. 5, but I always think RPP needs fairly quick responses. Doug Wellertalk 11:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Bring back Daz Sampson: NPA and ASPERSIONS
First some background,
JamesBWatson, and the unblock request was accepted by Bbb23 here. All of this seems fine; an editor made some mistakes and was blocked as a resutlt. Some time passed and the editor was unblocked because it was believed they had learned from their mistakes and was committed to moving forward and not repeating them.
in September 2015. Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to being Målfarlig! in their unblock request, so part of the behavior they were stating they were not going to repeat would also be making personal attacks against others. Recently, however, it appears that they is going back to making unsubtatiated comments about other editors in some talk page discussions and at an AFD. None of these comments appear to have been provoked in anyway; people weren't pinging them or even mentioning them by name let alone posting any negtive comments about them. It would've been entirely possible to participate in these discussion without making any comments about any other editors. Yet for some reason, they felt that these discussions were the right time and place to try and revive old disputes with others. Here are the most recent diffs:
May 11, 2019,
WP:NFCCP; the discussion was perfectly civil and there was no reason to make accusations or cast aspersions against other editors. A personal attack against Number 57 was even mixed in under the guise of supporting their position in the discussion. Requests by myself and Number 57
for diffs and a striking of the attack was never responded to and the thread was archived.
June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899892694: More accusations made in a different FOOTY discussion which seem only intended to try and re-start some long resolved dispute. Perhaps things didn't get resolved in a way that Bring back Daz Simpsom wanted perhaps, but they were resolved none the less. Stating that I exhibit "monomania" is something that was previously done here a little more than three years ago by one of the blocked sock accounts.
June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899890243: This AfD !vote could've just as easily been made without mentioning any other editors; yet for some reason, this editor felt the need to mention GiantSnowman by nameeven though Giant Snowman isn't participating in the AfD at all. It's almost as if this was a pre-emptive personal attack or casting of aspersions in advance just on the off chance that Giant Snowman might eventually show up and !vote.
I don't think there's any doubt that Bring back Daz Sampson makes a lot of positive contributions to articlese about soccer, particularly women's soccer. The problem is not really their ability to do that. The problem has to do with their behavior and their apparent inability to simply stick to commenting on content and avoid commenting on other editors as much as possible. All editors have their bad moments, and probably post things they wouldn't; morevoer, three posts might be only a small sample size when it comes to this type of thing for someone with no history of having problems with others. Even just three posts, however, might be one too many when you're coming back from an indefinite block, and. Moreover, there's no indication there won't be more such posts from here on. FWIW, I'm not looking for a reinstatement of the indefinite block; I'm not even looking for a short-termed block to be issued or even an apology to be made. I do, however, think that a stern final warning is needed that this type of conduct is not going to be tolerated by the community and that this editor is going to be expected to try to figure out a way to honor what they posted in their unblock request and also what they posted here. If this type of behavior continues after this final warning, then the community can decide to block if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC);[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of the word “articles”, to change “short-termed” to “short-term”, and to replace the word “moreover” with “and”. — 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)];[Note:Post edited by Marchjuly to strike comment about GiantSnowman not having participated in the Referenced AfD. -- 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)]
Okay, here goes. I'd like to set out some background of my own: This all relates to an ongoing dispute over
WP:HOUNDING
Tvx1. I'll make no comment on the validity of that, except to say that Tvx1's edit history has not yet been subjected to anything like the forensic excavation mine has.
Anyway, to try and address each point in turn: Among your myriad talents, Marchjuly, brevity is not one of them. Upon sight of your latest imposing
WP:WIKILAWYERING. In point three GiantSnowman did !vote so your objection doesn't make sense. GS always votes "Delete - fails NFOOTY, GNG". GS voted this way there, in the relevant AfD I linked from three years ago, and in each and every one of the recent spate of AfDs on female footballers. GS has likely been voting this way for over a decade. Does GS make a genuine search for sources every time to weigh up GNG? Or even a cursory one? You would have to ask GS but given the sheer volume of these !votes it seems improbable to me. So the comment was on the !vote itself not on GS. That is to say it addressed the content and the action, not the person (unlike GS's swipe at me below). Bring back Daz Sampson (talk
) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You are correct about GiantSnowman having !voted in that AfD prior to your post. I apologize for that error and have stricken it from my post. As for the rest of your comment, I will respond below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. That, as well as this later response, is pretty offensive, from the scare quotes around 'activists' to the implication that only a miniscule proportion of the population thinks that not using offensive terms about other people matters, to the assumption that only people personally affected by a slur would want to protest against it, to the underlying presumption that it doesn't matter if someone uses incorrect terminology if the topic is not (in their personal view) immediately relevant... and that doesn't even touch on the fact that they admit to not really caring about other people being abused. A serious and final warning is the minimum here, and combind with the PAs, an indef does not seem to be undue. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I see now that 'transvestite' was not a well chosen word and I can't defend its use there. Although used out of thoughtlessness and ignorance rather than malice, that is no excuse. It was a stupid isolated comment made in the heat of the moment and not - I hope - representative of my editing before or since. On reflection I will strike the offending paragraph and offer a sincere apology. I am also likely to self-impose a topic ban to prevent me letting myself down in that manner again. Clearly I should stick to the soccer... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading just the above, it's clear to me that BbDS has made a habit of making personal attacks. I'd be inclined to re-indef, unless a reasonable counter case is made. ~Swarm~{sting} 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found this user to be nothing but a pain, to both myself and other editors. Serious attitude problem. I'd support an indef. GiantSnowman 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not (quite) intellectually dishonest enough to pretend this is a 'personal attack', GS. But its of a piece with anything I've posted in the three diffs in the OP. Arguably slightly unbecoming of an admin - although in the circumstances I can't really begrudge you a fly kick at me here! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
For context, it's also worth noting that BbDS previously edited as Clavdia chauchat and exercised their right to vanish after being blocked for personal attacks – see this ANI report from 2014. Number57 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so that's why they took an instance dislike to me! GiantSnowman 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours, apparently, which John offered to cancel if I recanted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a comment for now. This user in the past has been resistive to efforts they perceive as instructing their behaviour; my most favourite version of that sentiment is this comment on performative contrition. For some background have a look at this October 2016 discussion. I do believe that the user sincerely misinterpreted the
standard offer at that time and was treated somewhat harshly for it, and after having it explained and going out of their way to thumb their nose at my advice, it seems they actually did take it. Their April 2017 appeal
was a genuine exploration of their behaviour and it was easily accepted. All of that is to say: I think they're here for the right reasons, and capable of listening to advice when it's given gently.
We should also note that in the past this user (under their many usernames) has suggested they are subject to ongoing harassment, which it seemed to me at the time of our last interaction to likely be the case. A user working in content creation for female athletes attracting gender-based harassment is no big surprise. However, they have indeed already been told many times that they should contact an administrator if that is the case, not respond with personal attacks.
And having said that, I have noticed there have been a lot of AfD nominations for biographies of female football players just over the last month or so, correlating quite neatly with reports in various places about Bring Back Daz Sampson's incivility. While it's probably not harassment per se, for someone who works in an underrepresented topic to have much of their work broadly put up for deletion, as though someone is on some kind of mission, it likely stings. Still,
no personal attacks
is policy.
All that I guess to say I don't know what to do here, it's complicated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There have only been four AfDs on female footballers since the start of May and none of them were articles created by BbDS. Number57 13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Ivan, I don't remember ever using the word harassment myself. I've got a thick hide and can take the brickbats with the bouquets. If my skin was as thin as some on here my latest comeback might have lasted two weeks, not two years. All that said, the fact is, yes, it's often a toxic environment for us women's sports editors. Your links reminded me of Hmlarson - a much smarter, more stable and resilient editor than me. It seems even they have now been ground down and had to basically give up and walk away, which I think speaks volumes. I also remember LauraHale, another exceptionally gifted editor constantly subjected to
WP:BATTLEGROUND by editors of - shall we say - more prosaic abilities. Such accomplished content editors are indispensable to Wikipedia as no-one else can do what they do. As diverse role models and mentors they are also invaluable as a bulwark against groupthink and the petty tyranny of the 'average Wikipedian'. There is a persuasive argument that gold standard contributors like this deserve a measure of extra protection here (Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi) Maybe a fast track to adminship under a sort of Rooney Rule
? Such progress is probably still a few years away yet. But in the meantime they should still get no less than the same treatment and protections extended to other editors. I'm not trying to bracket myself along with Hmlarson and LauraHale, by the way, this was more of a general point to follow on from what you said.
Football (soccer) is a passionate game, an emotive subject, and sometimes tempers will run high while editing in that area. I am sure that GS and N57 will back me up that WP:FOOTY is a teeming cauldron of bad editing, non-notable sub-stubs, pedantic quibbling over statistics, IP vandalism etc. etc. I dare say that policing the minutiae of obscure image copyright policies is a very important job. I just can't pretend to share Marchjuly's enthusiasm for it. Clearly there are some wider philosophical differences here as well as the content dispute over NFC#UUI #17, but
trying to get each other blocked
is not the best way to deal with that.
As for our previous interactions Ivan, with hindsight I do believe that you were - as you saw it - trying to talk some sense into me. I recall you were working up to your admin position at the time and on something of a 'charm offensive' which made me wary. Also, if you ever get blocked (I hope not) you will find that strangers turning up unsolicited at your talkpage can feel a bit ghoulish. The fact that you are still here saying the same sort of things convinces me that you were sincere and my doubts were unfounded. I appreciate that you have kept an open mind and a balanced approach when others have not. You are correct to say that I thumbed my nose at your advice and I was wrong to do so. Although I'm disappointed you seem to have settled on giving me a thumbs down verdict, I hope you can reconsider based on the evidence presented elsewhere in my response. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I was ever on a charm offensive, but I can see your point. Maybe it was Hmlarson in that discussion that suggested harassment, and if I was trying to be unusually polite in that discussion it was because she seemed to have lined me up as your enemy. I can't read Bbb23's mind but I'd guess that he wouldn't have bothered cutting off your talk page access if Hmlarson hadn't been so adversarial. But that's all, what, three years ago now? I should respond to the rest in another part of the thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The reason I am here is that I was notified of this discussion because I had previously suggested removing a block on this editor to give her another chance. I am a great believer in giving blocked editors another chance. I have now checked all of her comments on talk pages and other discussion pages from 23 April. (In "comments" I do not include such edits as archiving her talk page, adding categories or WikipProject banners, and so on.) When she is not expressing disagreement with other editors there is no problem, but in every single edit in which she expresses disagreement with one or more other editors she does so in a belligerent and contemptuous manner, doing such things as throwing insults at them and accusing them of incompetence or bad faith. An indefinite block on this account was lifted on the basis that she had acknowledged her past faults and would avoid doing the same again. I checked her editing immediately after that unblock, to see whether she had at first done better and then slipped back, or whether she had never improved. For a long time she simply didn't make comments in discussions at all, but when she returned to doing so the very first talk page comment she made after the block contained a personal attack. Looking through the history of her many accounts (12 that I know of; there may be more) I see that she has repeatedly been blocked and then claimed that she will not do the same again. As far back as December 2013 an editor wrote in an ANI discussion "This user is incapable of civil behaviour", and her actions since then have done nothing but confirm that impression. Over the course of more than five years there have been I don't know how many blocks on her various accounts, there have been ANI reports on her, discussions of her editing on talk pages of different accounts, and assurances from her that she now understands what was wrong with what she was doing, and she won't do it again. If she were at all likely to improve then she would have done so by now. Ivanvector says she is "capable of listening to advice when it's given gently", but listening to advice and then not taking it is no use. I don't see the evidence of "ongoing harassment", but perhaps Ivanvector can link to it; I do, however, see an editor who interprets civilly-expressed disagreement with her as harassment or attacks, and responds with attacks. The last indefinite block was lifted following recommendations from Ivanvector and me that it be lifted. Ivanvector said then "it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block", and at the time I agreed with that, but knowing what went wrong is no help if that knowledge does not lead to a change in her ways, and it hasn't. I supported an unblock "to give him or her another chance". Giving her that other chance has not succeeded, and the indefinite block should therefore be restored.
talk
) 12:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't disagree with anything JamesBWatson wrote here. "Belligerent and contemptuous" describes my previous interactions with the user as well, notwithstanding what I wrote above. I wasn't aware of accounts predating Sevcohaha, but if this has been going on for six years without any marked improvement except when they need to convince someone reviewing an unblock request, then it's time we stopped playing their game. I support restoring the indefinite block, and they're going to have to do something better than swear they won't do it again this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
When I created
notable ones with national team caps. Despite my frequent criticism of the football notability rules in their current form (which some editors seems to take personally) I do respect them to the letter in my editing. I played a small part in SounderBruce's dramatic recent overhaul of the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup. You will see that points 1, 2 and 4 express disagreement with the article as it then stood. Bruce's response to me said he disagreed with putting some of my suggestions straight in the article without further sources. No problems. The PR ended and I got back to Bruce a short while later for another friendly interaction on his talk page: "I think x might be notable?" Response: "No I disagree, I don't think it is." Again all very standard, civilly expressed disagreement. I then politely asked an admin to restore Kim Sun-hui. They were unable to do as I asked so I thanked them for their time and went on my way
.
Even at
accuse me of
here.
So, even if we delimit this investigation to comments from my rare "expressions of disagreement" with other editors (a rather circular argument in itself), "every single edit" is simply not true. I can point here to evidence of long-term harmonious, productive interaction and editing which makes your characterisation of me both inaccurate and unfair, JamesBWatson. Even if we accept that I have made serious personal attacks here (which I don't), the years between them and your previous examples mean they have been episodic in nature rather than chronic as you have tried to imply. I am not incorrigible. I am very far from the recidivist portrayed in your post. My last block ended over two years ago and was for
WP:SOCK. I have not and will not SOCK ever again and my penance is this ludicrous username. My block for edit warring with a personal attack was, I think, more than three years ago now. Since the block I have never edit warred and will always now seek assistance when needed. When one of my creations was recently subject to IPs persistently adding various madey-up birthplaces, I requested page protection
. Shortly afterwards I requested protection on another article which was getting v serious BLP violations. That request was turned down - wrongly in my view - which I took on the chin.
At
WP:WOSO and I don't think I've ever been involved in any conflict there. I've contributed happily to WP:WIR edit-a-thons etc too. During one such edit-a-thon, WP:WIR promoted one of my article creations on Twitter with a small factual error in the accompanying blurb. I pointed out the error to them, which they immediately corrected. Again from what I remember the exchange was quite cordial, perfunctory rather than "belligerent and contemptuous". Perhaps you'll wish to exclude all this from your deliberations because it isn't narrowly focused on me disagreeing, er, disagreeably. I'll argue that it is relevant though, because this is what I spend 99.9% of my time on Wikipedia doing and why I am here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk
) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that any claims of harassment should be taken seriously and looked into per
WP:BIAS as a de-facto justification for continuously attacking others or casting aspersions is a good approach to have been following, and, as pointed out by Ivanvector, it would've been much better instead to get administrators involved at a much earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk
) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
But you have a marvellous gift for sifting other users' edit histories, Marchjuly. I'm sure if you clicked on the 2014 link supplied by N57 above you could
harvest some striking examples of the flak aimed in my direction. Flak which puts anything under consideration here firmly in the shade. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk
) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Just going to add one more diff for reference because I think it further illustrates what
WP:RFP/A request made by this editor doesn't seem to be rude or harassing in any way, and even seemed to include a request for further clarification. However, when the editor posted here on another editor's user talk page a little over a month later, they seemed to feel the need to label Swarm as a jobsworth (just reading the first sentence of the "jobsworth" article should be enough to understand why refering to a Wikipedia administator in such a way is probably not a good idea); not specifically mentioning Swarm by name seems irrelevant here because it wouldn't take much to figure which editor was being discussed. Anyway, I have no idea whether either Swarm or this editor remembered their earlier interaction regarding the Målfarlig! account and it affected their response, but this editor could've posted something on Swarm's user talk further explaining why they wanted to be "autopatrolled", even after the request had been formally denied here. Instead, this editor somehow felt entitled to take a cheap shot at Swarm on some other editor's user talk page, even though the response to the "jobsworth" comment given here actually seems to agree with what Swarm posted at RFP/A. This is similar to what was done in the three diffs I referenced in my OP in that the a personal comment about another editor was added when pretty much the same thing could've easily be stated without posting anything good or bad about anyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk
) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Really? Even by the standards of the first three examples of so-called personal attacks this is getting pettier and pettier. Speaking charitably, it is now into the realms of the surreal. I gather that as the "accused" I am expected to take on a wholly supplicant role at ANI, but I will stand by my use of Jobsworth and offer you a detailed explanation as to why. In the UK, the term Jobsworth can be used humorously. Sure, it is informal but not necessarily derogatory, much less abusive. The background was that Swarm tried to set me a bizarre 'homework' task, expecting, I think, the written regurgitation of some basic Wikipedia policies. This homework assignment was set in the middle of the night where I live and when I hadn't responded less than 72 hours later my RFP/A application was summarily booted out. Is this normal? Had I been the sort of editor given to making personal attacks I suspect I would have furnished Swarm with one there and then. In Swarm's defence I suppose there's nothing stopping anyone taking it upon themselves to make up arbitrary additional criteria on this sort of random, ad hoc basis. Equally applicants would be under no obligation to indulge any additional criteria they diagnosed as pointless and/or demeaning. Clearly in my case it was superfluous - and so it proved when I was rubber-stamped at RFP/A shortly afterwards without any such fuss. I didn't remember any previous interactions with Swarm and I sincerely doubt they connected me to my previous incarnations. I doubt anyone would connect my Jobsworth remark to Swarm either, unless they were interested in conducting a detailed 'audit' of my edits like you seem to be here. Would Swarm have felt attacked by my exasperated Jobsworth outburst - which didn't even mention them - had they seen it? Would they have cared? Even a teeny bit? I can't speak for them but I have my doubts - I certainly wouldn't have done. In terms of potential for disruption to the wider Wikipedia community it wasn't exactly seismic.
Perhaps given the chance again Swarm and I would have both done things differently. Once I'd realised Swarm was apparently serious about wanting the homework I remember shaking my head and chuckling to myself at the impertinence. But other editors who lacked my patience, empathy and good sense of humour may have been turned off. The ensuing month or so taken up needlessly 'patrolling' my article creations could have been put to better use, easing the large backlog of new articles which actually needed to be patrolled. Maybe this very minor kerfuffle being cast up again six months later will give us both an opportunity to learn and grow? Although I rather suspect both of us had quickly forgotten all about it and had already moved on. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Placeholder comment to stop this being archived, to give chance for BBDZ to respond. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Your OP did not give a neutral outline of our dispute, Marchjuly, which I have tried to rectify. You have also rounded up admins involved in my previous problems and carefully selected others. So much so that I fear that you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of
WP:ADMINSHOP
. I acknowledge that you withdrew your last posting and agree it was crass. Albeit I don't think it was out of place alongside the rest.
As I tend to edit quietly and eschew
WP:DRAMA
, I am obviously not fighting on my home turf here at ANI. You on the other hand appear to have an inordinate presence here, relative to your editing. Roughly how many of these reports would you say you have filed now? Are you a serial complainer? You certainly seem to know the buttons to press and the buzzwords to hit - throwing in a couple of decorative nods to balance always plays well with the admins. I would prefer to see some honesty. Notwithstanding your claims to want "not even an apology", there is fat chance that you breathlessly typed out these essays and dragged me here to bring about a mere finger wagging. I know well enough - given my problems a few years ago - that another block would be an effective site ban and there would be no way back this time. So while this may be sport for you the stakes are much higher for me.
As ANI is definitely not my thing - despite editing consistently I haven't been here for over two years - I have been idly reading through some other postings. Trying to take the 'temperature' to assist me in writing my responses. It is startling to me just how high the bar is set here for actionable personal attacks. The case above mine was about someone saying 'asshole [...] cunts [...] wank pheasant' which seemed to me like pretty strong meat. Result: no action taken. Incredibly, we also appear to have users telling each other to 'fuck off' all over the place, not least at this noticeboard itself, which is somehow (!) tolerated. You have tried to pad out your complaint with some irrelevant material already dealt with years ago, but at its crux you are claiming a breach of WP:NPA. Despite me assisting your case by being a bit of a wank pheasant at Graham Linehan, you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that I have made any personal attacks severe enough to be dealt with here.
Finally, the various impugned parties on whose behalf you have raised these matters (N57, GS, Swarm) could presumably have meted out warnings or blocks themselves had they felt it necessary. The reason they didn't is that the matters are trivial. And if they set their thresholds that low, they wouldn't have time for anything else besides blocking and then dealing with the fallout. Am I a perfect editor? No - but who is? I've shown in my response how seriously I take my responsibilities here. If you continue making notices like this, then next time (or the time after, or the time after) someone will eventually "join the dots" and
realise that you are the common denominator in your frequent trips to this noticeboard. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk
) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
If you believe a BOOMERANG is warranted, please provided diffs. If you believe I've been edit warring or making personal attacks, please provide diffs. If you believe I've been editing against/ignoring consensus, please provide diffs. I've asked you previously to provide diffs here and here in support of accusations you've made against me, but you never got around to it. Perhaps, you can do so now?I notified people of this ANI because they were either specifically mentioned by name or had something to do with a previous block or unblock request. I'm not trying to pad out a complaint against by bringing up your past, but pointing out that you've been recently exhibiting the same behavior that led you to be blocked before. Your past editing history (regardless of how many accounts you may have used or how many times you might have been blocked/unblocked) is relevant because you gave assurance that you would not repeat the mistakes you made before. One of our first interactions apparently was about User talk:SevcoFraudsters#File:Sheffield FC.svg where you decided edit warring and personal attacks would be acceptable substitutes to discussion, and from what I and others have posted above, you seem to be reverting to (at least) the personal attacks approach once again.As for UUI#17, your narrative seems to be that (1) I created UUI#17 (not true), (2) I'm the only editor nominating or who has nominated files for discussion at NFCR/FFD for this reason (not true), (3) I'm going against whatever consensus was reached at NFCR/FFD and continue to remove files from articles just because I don't like the consensus (once again not true). I can provide diffs showing that (1), (2) and (3) are indeed untrue if needed. You make specific reference to files being used in the Bhutan and Haiti national team articles as examples of me exhibiting this type of behavior. Can you please provide diffs showing the consensus that was established about these files and me removing them contrary to this consensus? FWIW, I wasn't even a participant in the Bhutan file's discussion, and I wasn't the only participate in the Haiti discussion who !voted that the file should be removed from the team articles. Again, I can provide diffs showing these things. Regardless, both discussions were closed by administrators (just like the Sheffield FC one referenced above) who then removed the files from various articles and removed invalid non-free use rationales from the files' pages. There are many more NFCR/FFD discussion where a file has been removed for UUI#17 reasons: not all of them were related to sport team logos, and not all of them were discussions that I even participated in. The closes for these various discussions were made by different administrators and were pretty consistent in that this type of non-free use was considered not to comply with relevant policy. I'm not telling these administrators how to close these discussions or what the consensus should be; they are making that decision on their own. FFD is like any other XFD discussion is that an administrator closes based upon whether they believe a consensus was established; so, if you disagree with their close, you can discuss things with them as explained in CLOSECHALLENGE. If I subsequently removed the Haiti and Bhutan files from team articles or any other file from a team article, it was done based upon the closes of one of these discussions. If a new consensus is established overturning these closes, then the files and corresponding non-free use rationales will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
So are we looking at a dispute over non-free content criteria then, with some spillover? That should be fairly easy to work through,
WP:NFCI
#2 should apply.
But! These matters are decided by discussion, and if you have a lot of editors saying UUI#17 and none saying NFCI#2, then admins' hands are tied. No amount of questioning editors' "feminist credentials" is going to do much to change that. And Marchjuly is correct that the way to object to that sort of deletion is to take it up with the closer, c.f.
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Or start a discussion to clarify NFCC between UUI#17 and NFCI#2 for this particular circumstance, to hopefully head off problems in the future. But much smarter people than me drafted that policy (with its legal considerations) so I'm just going to watch for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits
) 18:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:AN/RFC and I am patiently awaiting for said request to be actioned.Tvx
1 10:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not refusing to allow anything. I just don't agree with your assessment that the discussion reached the conclusion to overturn the way the policy had been applied by various administrators (including some who participated in the discussion) up to an including that point and has continued to be applied since that discussion was archived more than three years ago. Near the end of the discussion, there seems to have been at least
@Ivanvector: Basically, a non-free file was removed from an article per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png. This is one of many NFCR/FFD discussions where a non-free file was removed from an article (sometimes even from more than one article) for the same reason. Tvx1 is arguing that Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 resulted in a new consensus with respect to this type of non-free use, which effectively overturns all of these closes (or at least one particular close) and also overturns how the NFCC was and still is being applied by various administrators to this type of non-free use. Bring back Daz Sampson pinged Txv1 and brought up my disagreement with Tvx1 about this matter because he thinks it proves his claim that I’m the one continuing to edit against consensus in dozens if not hundred of cases. He might even see my behavior as somehow justifying his having to resort to SOCK and EVADE (some of the reasons for his previous block) because I somehow am able to influence admins who deal with non-free file use to close discussions in a certain way that I desire or to block editors who disagree with me and try to interfere with my apparent crusade against certain types of non-free use. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict × maybe? weird server error) Look, I'm not even going to try to evaluate conduct issues here until there's some formal resolution to the matter of fair use of these images. Another admin might, I'm not the King of Non Free Content or anything. But I think that as long as both of you have competing interpretations of the guideline that you're trying to enforce, this is just going to go in circles. I don't see anything at this point that merits a one-sided sanction. I'll say though, Tvx1, I think it might be more productive to start a new discussion on this topic rather than try to glean a consensus out of one that fizzled three years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I wasn’t requesting that either you or some other admin sanction Tvx1. I didn’t ping them into this discussion. Moreover, as I posted in my OP and even though he doesn’t apparently believe me, I’m not asking for Bring back Daz Sampson to be re-blocked. I’m still just only asking that he be warned to avoid commenting on other editors and stick to commenting on content as well as to avoid reverting back to behavior that previously led to one of his previous blocks and that he said he would no longer repeat. Others have suggested reblocking, but I haven’t stated so even once. I didn’t seek him out and post some things at WT:FOOTY in the hope that he might see them and perhaps post something that might end up getting him reblocked. In all of my interactions with him and his various accounts, I don’t think I’ve ever not been civil. I might not have agreed with him, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually commented on him as a person. So, if whomever closes this discussion decides that no action need be taken, then I won’t challenge it. Same goes if others after reading everything posted above decide to change their minds about what they posted. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If the AN/RFC request results in a new consensus as being established, I will respect it as such. I may ask for clarification of it, but I won't ignore it. If the request results in a no consensus or suggestion for further discussion, I'm happy to participate in any such discussion, and am assuming there would be no objection to me doing so. Anyway, my understanding of our disagreement is as follows.
A general discsussion about the application of the
WP:NFCR
discussion (at least with respect to this particular file) still applies.
Item 5 of
WP:PUF
were incorporated into it. The file's non-free use in the Bhutan team's article was "unquestionably" established as a violation of the NFCC by the NFCR discussion; otherwise, it wouldn't have been removed from the team article. Again, I'm assuming here that the consensus established by that 2014 NFCR discussion is still in effect, which means there was no violation of 3RR or any edit warring.
If the WP:AN/RFC request leads to a close which does state that a new consensus was established to allow this particular type of non-free use, then I'm assuming it would apply to all such files and not just the Bhutan one: which means it might overturn all previous NFCR/FFD discussions related to this type of non-free use, not just the NFCR about the Bhutan file. Of course, this may depend upon the specific wording of the close and the scope established by the closer. On the other hand, if the close states that no new consensus was established or that further discussion is needed, then the previously established consensuses for each of these files would continue to remain in effect until they are individually overturned or a new general consensus is established for this type of non-free use which overturns them all at once. You posted that you prefer to be patient and wait to see what happens at AN/RFC, which I think means that the current consensus (or at least the consensus established prior to the concerned WT:NFCC discussion) still remains in effect.
Does the above roughly sum up where things currently stand? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
...Jeez. I probably shouldn't have called Marchjuly a "time burglar". But if that's now the only charge left against me I'm pleading 'veritas' and citing this thread in evidence! Within this avalanche of pompous verbosity there is, I think, evidence of an insidious, passive-aggressive form of incivility which ultimately is much more damaging and disruptive than occasional mild outbursts of frustration from those of us on the receiving end of it. That said, I must accept that neither party's conduct here has been faultless. To bring this to a conclusion I would be minded to accept a short block of seven days or so, provided that the sanction is applied evenly to both me and Marchjuly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(NSFW) A user's unusual behavior
No admin intervention needed,
2 things tho. 1) A simple and polite message informing them what is and what isn't acceptable and or expected here would've sufficed,
2) There are many many problems with your statement (inregards to "gross and disturbing" - People here should be accepted regardless of things like this - Like I said a simple message here would've sufficed). –Davey2010Talk 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Crossdresser Chrissy has been uploading images of himself cross-dressing to Commons. Not only that, he is adding those images to articles about cross-dressing, including his own user page, in a manner unsuitable for Wikipedia. A list of his contributions can be seen here.
I don't know about you all, but I find this user's behavior to be gross and disturbing. So much, in fact, that I've temporarily came back to editing again just to write this. He has not been warned about this so far. I don't know if site policy has a protocol for this kind of activity, but I doubt that it's okay. I've therefore drawn attention about this to all of you admins, in case you aren't aware of it already. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ(ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Anonymuss User - These actions, if exclusively being done to Commons and not the English Wikipedia, would need to be reported (and any necessary administrative actions taken) there. There wouldn't be anything we can do about it here. Aside from that point, Commons has... a lot of images uploaded there that one would find explicit, such as pictures of one's own genitalia, and other such images. I'm not expert on content policies on Commons, but I would imagine that the images that are being uploaded aren't in violation of any policies there. That being said, it won't hurt anything if you check and ask about it on Commons, though. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's not "gross" (and probably not disturbing for most) but it's certainly a violation of
WP:NOTWEBHOST, and I see that another admin has deleted it. Black Kite (talk)
15:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You just posted a "currently engaged in an edit war" template on the talk page of a user that last edited article space four weeks ago? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2019 (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.
Disruptive user,
WP:NOTHERE
The majority of edits of a new user account (Sparkle1) registered on 8 June 2019 have been to revert edits or additions made by me to articles. When warned about breaching 3RR, the person responded in bad faith, and went on to revert more of my edits (of things such as timelines, which are widely accepted practice across Wikipedia). I have no intention of starting an edit war with the user in question, so would appreciate advice about how this can be quickly resolved. The behaviour, and use of terminology such as OR suggest this isn't a new user per se, but rather a sock of an existing user here.
This is a simple content dispute and RaviC simply dislikes the content the have added being removed or even challenged. The better place for this is the relevant talk page. The user also appears to be a bit of a pedant as they have not assumed good faith by waving around silly warnings on talk pages and running here as opposed to being constructive and engaging on talk pages for articles. Here is not the place for content disputes. I would also like to point out that simply pouting out issues as opposed to running around throwing warning and running here applies under
WP:boomerang to the person making this absurd report where there should be talking in much more constructive places. There is nothing here. This is a waste of the time of everyone involved. I would also like to say talking about socks and alike neglects that I have been an IP user for a while before creating an account. The bad faith from this report stinks to high heaven. Sparkle1 (talk
) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've asked you to follow the procedures of
WP:BRD multiple times and you don't seem to have started one discussion. When the admins review the diffs, they will clearly be able to see where the bad faith stems from. --RaviC (talk
) 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
But this is not a simple content dispute. You are edit warring across multiple articles while making no use of talk pages, on top of having a generally insufferable attitude. You are going to need to rapidly improve the way you communicate with people, and learn how to use
dispute resolution, or you're going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk
RaviC is displaying dangerously close amounts of WP:ownership over this very specific section of information. There has been a grotesque overreaction here and a lot of hostility and tension shown towards another editor who has dared to challenge this information being on this encyclopedia. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with
dispute resolution protocol as you imply that you do in your comment above, then you should've started those discussions peacefully and pinged RaviC to them so that he could respond. Why didn't you? Please, both of you, no more edit warring... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)
12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The same applies to RaviC here. Instead of running around with warnings how about opening a talk on a user page. RaviC here is the one with the insufferable and appealing attitude and I take great affront to the ridiculous comments made regarding that. RaviC should be told to open discussions with users as opposed to simply placing warnings and running to places like this. It is not collegiate and it is not collaborative. A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [80]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
That is not a great defense, saying that you will engage in revert wars unless the other user explains something to your personal satisfaction. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not asking for that but I simply find it hard to bear the bare faced gall of complaining about someone else not starting a discussion when RaviC won't or hasn't opened any constructive discussion. Where was the Hello on my talk page. Non existent. Instead I get hostility with a warning and then this. I find RaviC to have acted very portly and I do not see why i should not point that out. RaviC should have simply started a simple discussion on my talk page. RaviC has demonstrated they know where my talk page is but they are more interested in process with warnings and here, than extending a friendly hello and a chat. RaviC has been very hostile. I think this is all overblown, out of proportion and silly. As such please lets talk on my talk page if there is something constructive to talk about as this is just politics. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
You received your polite invitation to discussion here. Don't bother playing the victim card, it really won't work. --RaviC (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
RaviC have you considered alerting the SPI noticeboard? Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've considered it, but I'm not sure there's much to work with at this stage. --RaviC (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
dispute resolution protocol? If the warnings were mistakes or felt to be in bad taste, you should've done the right thing by peacefully starting a discussion and saying so. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because one person is (seemingly) assuming bad faith when they shouldn't be, doesn't mean that you get to throw Wikipedia's policies and guidelines out the window and do what you please in response... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)
12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: it seems that the user in question has decided to ignore the messages here. From their conduct in multiple articles today against Vabadus91, it seems that they have learned little to nothing about dispute resolution procedure here. I would like to restore content to the pages where content was arbitrarily removed; could an admin give me their insight into how I should go about this? --RaviC (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2019 (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.
Resolved
Hello, I've been having a issue over the last few days with a sock puppet, user
CityOfSliver's talk page. In 2017, MySuperBelt85 was consistently vandalising the article Mafia III by removing sourced information, he been blocked multiple times but every time he quickly returns with a new sock account (a new account he created or another IP address). Mafia III has been protected multiple times but he will resume vandalising the page as soon the page becomes unprotected, the page has been protected for nearly two years and he been quite since until this last month where he has been vandalising my and CityOfSliver's talk page stating that he will continue to vandalise the Mafia III article as soon the page become unprotected in November. I'm hoping that an admin can do something to stop his vandalism, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (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.
Difficulties with an Editor
OP indeffed by Tony for disruption and inability to communicate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (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 struggling with an editor. The editor insulted me the other day. They keep threatening and warning me, but they are mistaken. The first time there is a banner we both read differently. Rather than acknowledge that the banner could be read to ways and being conciliatory, she insulted me, calling me illiterate. Today, she accused me of something that the timeline of events in this history (essentially accusing me of a reverting war and not finding consensus in the talk page, despite me adding the text to the talk page almost 12 hour prior.) I'm truly at my wits end. I strongly suspect there are a group of jaded experienced editors that really are targeting me, and I think it needs to be researched and addressed. That said, I can't even put the editor's name here because I can't figure out the rules above and am literally in tears about how I've been treated. These horrible experiences with senior editors are a recurring problem; if Wikipedia were a real company I'm positive this would not be tolerated; in fact, I'm positive it would result in a harassment lawsuit. I think ultimately editors just assume that everyone is up to no good. But Wikipeida can't and won't survive if that continues. But that is a digression, and ultimately I'm asking for help with this editor, and possibly "these" editors as it feels coordinated. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Too much text, not enough evidence. El_C 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I did not call you illiterate, I asked if you had bothered to read what you were being told. And you are edit warring, per the history on this article where bbb23 asked you at least twice to take it to the talk page and get consensus before reinstating the edits. I can say for certain there is nothing coordinated between myself and bbb23 and I certainly am not targeting you, nor have I threatened or harassed you. In fact, I've asked you twice to stop leaving tirades on my talk page. As far as your statement about Wikipedia being a real company and a harassment lawsuit, we're volunteers, we're not employees and we follow community established policies and guidelines. Sometimes hearing "no" sucks but it doesn't mean you're being harassed. Praxidicae (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Warned for legal threats, as well. Which may be moot, however. El_C 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
We'll see. I've often found that editors who angry-retire come back, and that the so-called retirement is just a way to avoid the consequences of their problematic conduct. I could say more about this very difficult editor, who, ultimately, is NOTHERE and incompetent, but I have no time at the moment because of some RL commitments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve indef’d the OP for disruptive editing and either inability or unwillingness to engage in the communication needed to work on a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (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 disruptive editing
Closed with prejudice. El_C 18:44, 18 June 2019 (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.
Persistent
User:Ahmedo Semsurî.[81][82] (According to the definition of Kurdification, the article also deals with areas, so the map is important. The map was also in article since 5 years without any disput [83], added by Spesh531) I think a topic ban for all Kurdish-related article is the best solution for the editor who deleted the map. Please look at his behavior. Uwaz (talk
) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:AIV. Problems should be reported to a single noticeboard only. But you haven't discussed this on the article's Talk page or the user's Talk page. You should try to resolve content disputes by talking to other editors. SchazjmdTalk
17:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Bold edits or reverts by very new accounts at the Kurdish set of articles are, at the moment, highly problematic. This is due to persistent disruption and socking over the last month or so. I've been semi or ec -protecting those articles pretty much on sight — talk page usage should be sufficient for those very new accounts, at this time. Tolerance for disruption as it pertains to these articles will be met with a far less lenient response because of that. It, unfortunately, is the price that has to be paid to keep these articles relatively stable. El_C 18:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy close this. This is outright hounding and block evasion by OP. At least 3 previous ANI reports have made against Ahmedo by the same socking user or group of users to try to get Ahmedo blocked on clearly false or trumped up accusations. Ahemdo has been making reasonable edits in a very controversial area and thus appesrs to have picked up an angry stalker. It is highly suspect that a brand new user comes here and not only reports Ahmedo for Kurdish issues but then asks for a topic ban (a somewhat obscure remedy). Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:33, 18 June 2019 (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 sandbox article in question was deleted by Giant Snowman per
WP:NOTHERE following David's decision to come rant some more about the mysteries of the fava bean in this discussion. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguilltalk
22:11, 18 June 2019 (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.
WP:NOTWEBHOST. Let's see what they do from here... GiantSnowman
14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you think of just talking to the person? Xe has been trying to talk to us, and been met with indifference. It's now indifference plus a heavy-handed and uncommunicative outright deletion of an article draft for Cyamites being constructed in a sandbox. Rather than the feedback on how to write drafts that the editor asked for back in April. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Uhm, did you read that screed? Cyamites (
not therapy, and, not being a therapist, I wouldn't know what to say to a person who thinks that text made sense. Fut.Perf.☼
16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm not sure what feedback one can be expected to provide to that sort of incomprehensibility. El_C 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Another confused rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I, the user in question, reached out to another editor in March in hopes of getting help to stop me from making any any disjointed connections as shown here:[87]. In fact, another editor, a Linguist whom I personally know looked at it, and added a period. His entry was noted in its history where the sandbox is where we make trials and errors, had 170 citations, and more integrity than the vandalism done to it. The only area where I ventured to write any statement without a credible citation was in the lead section which Fut.Perf. has quoted in what appears to be a half-truth, usually designed to be deceptive. Maybe, as an editor, he didn't read it close enough to see the citation in the first paragraph of the article which states: "at a time when the earliest attested definitions of demigods had to do with humans who became gods through heroic acts.", and was properly sourced by a definition which states "a demigod is defined as a deity or god who was once mortal".[88] Cyamites, from κύαμος, is defined as Fava beansκύαμος, and is associated with a genetic deficiency that affects those of Mediterranean decent, and I gave supporting citations showing his role in the Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries while explaining its relation to a trip to the underworld.[1][2][3] I go on to argue its association to the scythe said to have been invented no earlier than 500 BCE, yet we've found several hoards across Europe such as the Frankleben hoard containing hundreds of ax-heads, and 91 types of sickles where the Wikipedia page says this suggests a relationship to a ritual. Some of these were dated at 1,500 BCE whereas neolithic cave art is said to date scythes at 10,000 BCE,c:File:Neolithic rock engaving depicting scythes, Norway. Wellcome M0014997.jpg and this coincides with the disappearance of the Digamma which is too difficult to explain without quoting what I wrote.
In the Cratylus, Socrates argued for a Folk etymology, "not from "unseen" but from "his knowledge (eidenai) of all noble things""[23] while answering a question as to whether names, and our language, are based on something in particular or are completely ambiguous.[24] Much of the read is spent discussing the origin of Hadês' name, Homer dropped the Digamma on verse 3 of the Iliad changing the pronunciation of it, purposely breaking the rhythm of his poem as if to make the Digamma the main point by way of Meiosis (figure of speech). Academically understood to be in regards to Agamemnon, the Epic form of ᾍδης (Hā́idēs) being Ἀΐδης was used rather than its variables of ᾍδης and Άδης,[4] (https://lsj.gr/wiki/Ἀίδης), but with the Digamma it becomes wanax (ϝάναξ) who was the head figure in Mycenaean Greece#Society_and_administration for over 500 years, but with only one possible example.[25] Zeus Anax ánax defined as tribal king, lord, (military) leader from (Greek (Zeus (Ἄναξ) lacks the proposed Digamma stemming from the Mycenaean Greek Ζεύς ϝάναξ , (wánax),[26] where at other times /wóînos/[27] English " wine ") was used when the Digamma was dropped.[4][5][6][7][8]
The name Fava beans was at one point changed to bean, possibly starting with the Sea Peoples, but they regained their name in 1492[31] concurring at the same time the conquerors said they were being grown with the corn of indigenous peoples of the Americas, [32] but this was hundreds of years before we discovered they were related to a Genetic disorder. Because of the countless historic references, it is argued that Favism, named for the Fava bean, was a known condition in Ancient Greece, [33].[9][10][11]
As for my claim regarding a
Orphic Eggs as shown here c:Category:Orphic Egg (Hearst Castle), as well as a fireplace in the Celestial Sitting Room with the following quote. In respect to it, there is decorative smoke on the North Tower, and deteriorating decor on the deteriorating decor at the Roman pool all of which have remained the same throughout repair work done to the castle as indicated by the images. I think the only reason my page was vandalized was because of its objective truth, and for no other reason. As shown here, it takes me a few tries to get my entries corrected. Feel free to fix that citation. Davidlwinkler (talk
^"The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions by Palaima, Thomas G." (https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/63630) The University of Texas at Austin - Texas Scholar Works, University of Texas Libraries - Classics.
David, as you've been told before, Wikipedia is not the place for your views on fava beans. Also, given the concerns raised about your lengthy blocks of incomprehensible text, I'd advise against responding with a lengthy block of incomprehensible text. See also
I just need four words explained to me: it's [sic.] omission ruined poetry. El_C 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Everything in my sandbox was objectively cited, and none of had to do with my views, and I don't see where I was ever told that. I think @Uncle G and Uncle G: made a point that needs answering in regards to the indifference I've received when reaching out to your editors, and the deletion of my sandbox without due process, fair warning, or any discussion whatsoever, almost as if to hide what was in it. Not being able to read an answer to a truth claim which seemed to be a Gish gallop based on half-truths seems to be a bigger issue. Again, I think this is vandalism, and to pick on one particular out of the rest seems to aim for a hasty generalization, but this video seems to explain the exact thing I claimed.[89] yes, it can be disputed, but this point is argued by myself and others. Davidlwinkler (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So, that's a no, then? Understood (that much at least). El_C 19:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have addressed each question with rational and reasonable answers that are sensible, and instead of addressing my points, your responses are vague, ambiguous, and appear to use weasel words. When a person says an answer answer is A, after it has said it is B, it is usually because of Denialism, cognitive bias, or an inability to assess the works of another. If I am mistaken, please direct your attention to my points which gave answer to these charges rather than continuing with the smoke and mirrors. Davidlwinkler (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The only smoke and mirrors here seems to be David's wild answers. This is outright trolling. I think a
Another Wikipedia editor, (Uncle G), said this was heavy-handed and uncommunicative outright deletion of an article draft, and anything I say in defense of this, as best as I can given my ability, is now said to be trolling. This is not the case, or at least by my own words, and unless something else is said by an admin in my defense, I will refrain from arguing my point, in case I am incorrect.Davidlwinkler (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have given Davidlwinkler an indefinite block as not here to build the encylopedia. Competence is required. Cullen328Let's discuss it 21:45, 18 June 2019 (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.
Manager27
Back to the archive. El_C 15:15, 18 June 2019 (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.
Someone want to investigate Manager27 (talk·contribs) more carefully? I'm too annoyed (by their repeated undoing of my removal of sockpuppet edits) to do it fairly, and anyway I need to go to bed. But their edits largely consist of indiscriminate reversions of IP editors (some appropriate, others like this one less so) and indiscriminate welcome-new-editor messages left on others pages. I smell socks (and not the one I was just blocking and denying over on Kynea number), but maybe I'm just overly paranoid. I should mention that after they re-did the sockpuppet edits on Kynea number a second time and I suggested on their talk page that they self-revert, their response was instead to remove the message from their talk (as is their right) and keep going on doing other things. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Backing this request. This editor reverted perfectly valid alphabetical correction of the clients' list in Tox (protocol), and also removed additional comments to one of the entries, which were backed by a link to developers' statement. Judging from their contributions, it appears that Manager27 (talk·contribs) mostly removes and/or reverts edits from anonymous editors. I believe that such destructive and biased behavior should not be tolerated. 134.191.220.74 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Was there anything wrong with the sock puppet's edits? As much as I get annoyed when people encourage sock puppets to continue editing, policy allows them to "
take complete responsibility for the content" they've restored. However, it looks to me like Manager27 may be indiscriminately reverting recent edits to get permissions. See, for example, this edit, where Manager27 restores blatant vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
) 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The relevant sockpuppet edits are not completely terrible (i.e., not vandalism, BLP violations, etc.) but do not improve the encyclopedia. They are essentially adding enormous lists of trivia of a particular mathematical kind. --
talk
) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Separately, Manager27 reverted David Eppstein a second time (with no edit summary, of course), after DE explained the issue: see [90]. --
talk
) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I've declined the PERM request. Someone else can go ahead and do a CIR block - long enough for them to at least understand they have a talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I have restored this from the archive, because after a 4-day case of flu, Manager27 is doing exactly the same things again. --
talk
) 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Your diff is from four days ago, and after that edit, Manager27 was blocked for 48 hours. Have they returned to the same pattern of editing after that block expired? I see they have edited yesterday and today, but from a quick glance it doesn't look like they have been reverting indiscriminately - I have not looked that closely though so I may very well have missed something. Unless they do start doing the same thing again, there doesn't seem to be any reason for administrative action. --bonadeacontributionstalk 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have looked more closely. --
talk
) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (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.
Suspected biased administration of the FlixBus page
Nothing to see here. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator SOWHY (Redacted) recently deleted updates about the German company named Flixbus (Flixmobility) on the relevant page. After the deletion there is no traces of the changes deleted on the "history" page neither it reffered on the "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
In more detail: Ahsafir, SoWhy didn't revert any contributions of yours. SoWhy was merely the person who left a standard welcome message on your page. Somebody else removed your contributions, evidently because they felt they were non-neutral and/or poorly sourced (and at a quick look, they were probably right in doing so). This is all visible in the edit history, so nothing was hidden from it. You should go to the article's talkpage and get some advice from experienced users about why you can't add material like that. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User issued a final warning against personal attacks, aspersions, trolling, or otherwise disruptive conduct. Please rereport to me or to AN/I if any such behavior resumes. ~Swarm~{sting} 12:01, 18 June 2019 (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.
At this page the user had called out several admins, who they disagreed with and said they should not be admins.
Also, for the user page, I assumed you made a mistake by not transcluding the "userpage" to your userpage. You never made any clear indication you did not want it prior to my transclusion of the "UP" user page. Based on you comments at
ping me
) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I got pinged here. Wish I had some clue what was going on :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
aspersions or trolling, or anything else disruptive, I will block you indefinitely. ~Swarm~{sting}
01:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Although it has nothing to do with casting aspersions, Shyam apparently believed he could create a subwiki on his user pages where he had pages about the "Slaves of Shyam", called himself a God and other webhost nonsense. The pages have been tagged for deletion. I haven't evaluated the other evidence here but, currently, I don't think Shyam understands what Wikipedia is for. It isn't to be used for his own personal amusement. LizRead!Talk! 01:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
ping me
) 01:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I tagged them for deletion. I also didn't notice that the Slaves page had already been mentioned. My mistake. LizRead!Talk! 01:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(
ping me
) 03:08, 18 June 2019 (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.
A few hours after the IP
WP:NOTHERE (which was the conclusion of the last ANI), and I believe an indef is warranted this time. -Zanhe (talk
) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE. El_C 22:53, 17 June 2019 (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.
Please could an admin look at this IP's edits. Fresh from a block for vandalism, this is what he's up to now. Thanks. Robvanvee 19:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Reblocked. You can also consider reporting obvious vandalism at
Will do, thanks! Robvanvee 20:15, 17 June 2019 (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.
Happy to close based on the OP's expectations. Some ranting at ANI is par for the course, but there are limits.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Andy Dingley made this claim, evidently about this edit. Do I even need to call this a lie? Not to mention apparent stalking, since he's turning up to comment every time I'm involved in any kind of dispute. Can I expect something to actually be done this time, or is that still a forlorn hope? Or should I just expect to be falsely accused by anyone for any reason forever? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You have some problem with the idea of Donald Campbell having set a land speed record and you persistently remove it (as you've been doing here). This is simply false, and there is vast sourcing to back it up. But once again, everything else, on and off WP is a conspiracy against you and you demand freedom to spout off your inaccurate nonsense here (search ANI for his record of howlers). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There does seem to be substantial evidence that Campbell set a WSR on that day, including contemporary Pathe newsreel footage [94][95] which somewhat undermines Trekphiler's umbrage at being called out for edit-warring. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Calling a single edit an "edit war" does you no favors. The issue in't Campbell's effort. The issue is, was it a record? Since it had been exceeded months before he made the attempt, it's not. The LSR page is for absolute records; read the lead for the page. Every other effort recorded produces a speed higher than the one before, except this one. This is Andy, yet again, still, refusing to accept Campbell didn't actually set a new record. You'll also notice, Campbell's effort is recorded
Malta Convoys dispute, or the London Auto Show dispute--false accusations of vandalism & disruptive editing, which the hypocrites in charge ignore. Of course, the lies about edit warring won't draw any sanction, either, will they? Unless I'm being accused of lying about somebody else, in which case it'll draw an indef block, right? And what I say here will make not the slightest difference, will it? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura
16:32 & 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I imagine "false accusations of vandalism & disruptive editing, which the hypocrites in charge ignore" will greatly assist in getting you a sympathetic hearing; abusing those to whom you're appealing for an intervetion normally does the trick. Good luck to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, wandering into the local police station and screaming "Why don't you lazy, corrupt, incompetent pigs do something about those kids on my lawn?" generally works a treat. Good show. --Begoon 16:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Abuse or not won't make the slightest difference, based on my past experience with this kangaroo court. I've come here before facing obviously false charges & gotten express desire for an excuse to block me for my trouble. Tell me again why I should expect fair & equitable treatment. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 17:02, 17 June 2019 (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.
That was their only purpose here and it was clear they were not going to stop. Doug Wellertalk 14:36, 17 June 2019 (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.
Disruptive editing
I've indefinitely blocked Sourcerery for disruption, including copyright violations, edit-warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (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.
Sourcerery(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) edit-warring on multiple articles stopping just short of 3RR. In the three articles below, the editor attempts to force their text in opposition to multiple editors – usually all other involved editors.
This last article brought to AN3[96]. Closure was: “Declined, no 3RR violation. Sourcerery's conduct on the article and talk page might be worth a trip to ANI in the future, but Bishonen has already warned them about it, so no further action is necessary at this time." This comment was in reference to the article TP where the editor argued against seven other editors (I believe) with no support.[97]
Copyright problems:
There is also a copyright investigation request concerning the editor’s contributions to four articles.[98]
Also, this morning three copyright violations by the editor were revdeled at article Postmodernism. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For Carl Benjamin, the editor did not "stop short" of exceeding 3RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
If I'm counting correctly, I think they actually go past 3RR at
WP:SEALIONING. This editor needs change their attitude towards collaboration and consensus-building, perhaps by spending a bit of time editing in less contentious areas.GirthSummit (blether)
13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
They also substantially over-tagged History of the Jews in Italy and when I reverted on the basis that it was clear over-tagging, they just reverted their tags back in. The article could use a few more refs, and I didn't want to kick off an edit war over something as trivial as over-tagging, but it's yet again part of the same disruptive pattern.
See also
WP:BRD and logged off for the weekend shortly thereafter, otherwise I would have likely not even done the second revert.) Simonm223 (talk
) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
With regard to fascism, they misinterpreted a key source, and when consensus on talk was clearly against their inclusion of their preferred edit, they just inserted it anyway, stating the sources supported their position .Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Good luck seeing that as disruptive editing when I'm just following what sources say, if anyone is being disruptive it's those reverting to versions not supported by sources.Sourcerery (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:COPYVIO content that was rev-delled earlier today here? Simonm223 (talk
) 13:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's properly attributed and therefore not a copyvio?Sourcerery (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Even with a ref in the middle, we don't copy entire paragraphs from somebody else's book. I urge you to self-revert that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's couple of sentences, on Populism entire book is in the article Mudde, Cas; Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The copyvio issue I'm referring to is in Postmodernism and has to do with a youtube-popular philosophy professor's discussion of Heidegger. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
And I'm telling you there is no copyvio with proper attribution, in regard to "we don't copy entire paragraphs" I'm noting examples of entire books, so that appears to be false claim.Sourcerery (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
If an administrator has reviewed the content and revdelled it as copyvio, reinserting it without discussion with the deleting admin might not be a good approach.GirthSummit (blether) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I also think this is a case of hounding, they have never edited certain pages yet now certain editor appear there only to revert my edits with very weak claims.Sourcerery (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You should be specific about which editor you mean, and which article you are talking about, if you are going to make an accusation of
WP:HOUNDING. As for the strength of the claims, you have demonstrably gone beyond 3RR in the diffs above, and the material added to Postmodernism has just been revdelled for a second time as COPYVIO - these are not 'very weak claims'. You seem to be getting into a lot of conflicts at various different pages in very quick succession - instead of pointing the finger at other people, you might want to think about your own approach to editing. GirthSummit (blether)
14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
They're probably referring to me, as I have challenged their edits on several articles. But I should note that this is because they have edited several articles that I either am a regular on or have been passively watching due to my participation in
Call-out Culture - I don't have to go to their user contributions to see a pattern. Simonm223 (talk
) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I should note that Alex Jones is also on my watchlist though I've not involved myself there, as the drama on that page largely passed before I got involved, thanks to the efforts of other editors.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You are lying so much it's not even funny. Why are you not editing Modernism, where were you when discussion was raging at Frankfurt School, when was last time you edited anything related to existentialism and philosophy? Disgusting, but here you are now to revert my edits on all page, I would like interaction ban between me and this liar. O3000 as well, do not want to hear from me or his spams of my talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please strike through the claim that I was lying. It violates
WP:CIV quite unambiguously. And no, I don't actively edit existentialist articles, although I occasionally toy around with doing some work on Simone de Beauvoir, but as I said previously, I don't actively edit the majority of the articles on my watchlist. Postmodernism is on my watchlist rather than other articles related to philosophy because, thanks to popular far-right public speakers like Jordan Peterson a lot of white supremacists are weird about postmodernism. Now when a user shows up, tries to revise the definition of fascism and then inserts a copyvio breaking paragraph about Nazi-party-member Martin Heidegger into the article on Postmodernism which fits Occam's Razor better, that I am deliberately hounding you or that I saw a disturbing edit pattern that ended up with an obvious copyright violation and intervened? Simonm223 (talk
) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not striking factual claims and was involved in Fascism article from my Wiki start, so that runs counter your dubious claims. Was involved in discussions on Postmodernism but again, you were nowhere to be found, Frankfurt School as well.Sourcerery (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Since you've been spending so much time in my edit history you should notice that until the Fram situation blew up I'd been almost entirely inactive for several months. As my user page notes, I tend to regularly take extended breaks from Wikipedia before returning to an active state. Now, yet again, this is
Yeah, be your usual self and when exposed for lies you peddle say "I'm done here". Postmodernism article had major rewriting, not only you didn't take part in it, you didn't even discuss it.Sourcerery (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence of hounding. Many editors, including me, do watch what eother editors do. Sometimes they do that because they are friends, other times because of the reasons given at
WP:HOUND "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Doug Wellertalk
14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've warned Sourcerery on their talk page about personal attacks, including bad faith accusations of lying against other editors. freshacconci (✉) 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The user has been warnedmore than once recently about edit warring, but their response was to blank their talk page and continue with exactly the same behaviour. I'd like to see some sort of acknowledgement from them that they understand what is problematic about their editing, and a commitment to improve. GirthSummit (blether) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to keep the diffs in one place, I had previous NPA issues with this editor, the discussion of which they removed from their talk page here and here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: indefinite block for copyright violations
I recommend indeffing this editor until/unless he/she shows some proper understanding of copyright and of our local
copyright policy. The complete lack of understanding demonstrated just on this page is alarming, and the history of repeated copyright violation after warnings (1, 2, 3, 4) and even after notification of a CCI request (5) is wholly unacceptable. As for re-adding the same copyvio again at Postmodernism after it had already once been removed and revdeleted ... well, I'm out of superlatives. I'd do this myself, but have already been in various altercations (e.g., 6) with this user and so cannot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk
) 16:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support until such time as the editor is able to accept that their approach to editing (the edit warring, the bludgeoning/sealioning, the personal attacks, and the copyvios) is not acceptable. I'd also support a 1RR editing restriction with a final warning against personal attacks and copyright violations as an alternative solution. GirthSummit (blether) 16:43, 17 June 2019 (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.
Someone's been trying to hack my account
Strength in passwords.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (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.
Over the past few hours, I've received several notifications – both here and via email – that someone from an unknown server had been trying to log into my account. I've gotten multiple "15 failed attempts" notices, and they also tried to do an email reset on my password (which I've changed as a precautionary measure, despite my original password being strong). The IP address from which this suspicious activity originates has never edited and geolocates to the United States. I can send the IP to an administrator via email if necessary.
Is this something I should be worried about? Thus far my account doesn't appear to have been breached, and my password is strong enough that anyone trying to hack it would have an extremely difficult time. It's not something that anyone could just guess. Even so, I feel a bit uneasy, so I'm bringing it here for advice. Kurtis(talk) 06:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Its most likely someone who has forgotten their username and is using yours by mistake. Actual hackers would only bother doing an email password reset if they have access to the email account. Just make sure your email account is secure as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. My email and Wikipedia accounts both use strong passwords, so there shouldn't be any concerns. Thank you. Kurtis(talk) 06:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There are also idiots who try to do a password reset, too dumb to realise it will be sent by email. And there are trolls who just want to mess with you. Someone trying a password reset is no reason to change it if it's already secure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Eh, my password was overdue for a change anyways. It's no big deal. Now it's even stronger than before. Kurtis(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you can send details to
two-factor authentication, but you'll need to request a special user right from Meta. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
) 07:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've looked at 2FA before, and it seems like it would make logging in a bit of an ordeal. Then again, it probably just takes some getting used to. Kurtis(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 10:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking that's a pretty good idea. I'll email you the IP address shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtis (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (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.
Big Brother 21 (American season)
Semi one week. Please review your 3RR exemptions at
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
There has been what seems like coordinated, though fairly childish vandalism to Big Brother 21 (American season) by multiple IP users for a little while now. Also a couple BLP issues (mostly insults and slurs). I've reached 3 reverts, so I'm not sure what to do now. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's no need for a separate thread on the same subject at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per the other conversation on this page, I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Then I guess we should just shut down science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We are talking very specifically about the competence of a person and its measurement in controlled settings. The proposal that competence can't be measured by observation in controlled settings is not anti-science. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
"Promoting a fringe theory" continues to be an interesting interpretation of what I'm doing. However, I've made it clear several times that your claims of there being a consensus on FC are not supported (due to the clear conflicting evidence), and that it does not qualify as a fringe theory, because it is not a theory or a medical claim. It is a technique invented to help people communicate. You have, indeed, provided evidence that it doesn't work sometimes. I've never denied this fact. Meanwhile, you have denied the evidence (in peer-reviewed academic journals) that it does work based on the standards of criteria for biomedical information.
So, again, determining a person's competence based on context-less data sets and ignoring any qualitative evidence to the contrary, and then relying solely on this interpretation of the data to govern what can be considered "fact" on Wikipedia is inappropriate. (e.g., I believe that to completely blank Amy Sequenzia's article with no evidence of her competence apart from her inability to speak is far more contentious than removing the information she produces via FC). --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, I offered you a source about a woman who cannot speak, cannot write, isn't potty trained, but somehow earned a Bachelor's degree in the Netherlands due to FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Being unable to control your motor functions does not mean that you are incapable of understanding anything. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And the evidence that she understands something is...? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2019 (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.
Legal threat by Bryant & Stratton College
Threat has been identified as a hoax and Bbb23 has blocked the suspected IP. Sasquatcht|c 22:40, 18 June 2019 (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.
On June 17, 2019, I received an email from a legal representative for Bryant & Stratton College (BSC). The person added that "We expect that you refrain from editing our institution's Wikipedia page and rectify (i.e. revert) all of your contributions by Thursday, June 20 2019, 02:00 pm EST. Should you fail to follow our request, we will take legal action." The lawyer added that other parties may be involved in the lawsuit against me.
The specific allegations were:
Adding material which strongly suggests BSC is a diploma mill although it is accredited.
Linking terrorists to BSC.
Representing BSC as a failing business.
Adding statements that BSC engages in unethical and fraudulent activities.
Publishing private and intimate details about BSC's executives and owners.
I believe I can refute each of these specific claims.
BSC has been mentioned in a scholarly book (by AJ Angulo) about the history of for-profit education.
Timothy McVeigh, an American domestic terrorist, attended and dropped out of BSC. I did not add any additional terrorists, but one crime boss was already listed under "Notable Alumni".
Most BSC's campuses have been losing money, at least from the most recent NCES data. However, I do not recall posting anything on Wikipedia about this.
I'm not sure I understand what the lawyer means by "personal and intimate" details about the institution's executives and owners. I do know that the President of BSC has a DM from University of Phoenix. Anything that I have written is based on publicly retrieved information.
In addition, I have added a great deal of positive and updated information about BSC. WP:Free speechCollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The legal representative for Bryant & Stratton College has given me three options before filing a class action suit against me in three days.
1: You provide us with your Wiki account login details and a member from our IT team will do the revision.
2: We will attempt to give you instructions.
3: We could enforce the revision on Wikipedia. This may mean the revelation of your identity on Wikipedia as well as the conflict of interest you have in the matter. WP:Free speechCollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's anything we can do on-wiki about off-wiki lawsuit threats. Do you know what the username that sent the email was? Additionally, you may want to notify [email protected] that you received a legal threat. Sasquatcht|c 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Per
WP:COI, but don't declare your identity or any information that may hint st your identity unless you really do want it out there. For now, if your edits do conform to Wikipedias standards, the info should stay. If BSC does actually sue you, the Wikimedia foundation's legal could possibly get involved? Editors should not be scared to edit because of scare lawyering tactics. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓
19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
My only concern is that a user is using Wikipedia's email interface to email users to threaten them. If that is the case, then some admin action can be taken, but otherwise there's not much any admin can do. Sasquatcht|c 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Report it to the WMF ([email protected]) and contact a lawyer, under no circumstances give your login details to anyone. Be warned, they (the College) could force the WMF to disclose the information about your identity that it has (IP address etc). The exemption the WMF has for not being responsible for content is that individual editors are. The WMF are almost never going to hand over personal information about yourself without a court order to do so, however they do have some experience in editors being sued and may be able to offer some advice/help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sasquatch and Captain Eek, Thank you for all the good information. The legal threat was sent to my email. They may have gotten it through Wikipedia, but I have no way to be sure. The "warnings" I received were from a dynamic IP that did not identify themself. The dynamic IP wrote the "warnings" on my talk page and the talk page for Bryant & Stratton College. Anyone could figure out my identity from my talk page, which is not a problem. I just don't want them to start a
@CollegeMeltdown: if was sent through the Special:EmailUser function, there will be a line in the footer that says: "This email was sent by user "Sasquatch" on the English Wikipedia to user "Sasquatch". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." You may have to expand the footer if you are using gmail or other webmail interfaces. Sasquatcht|c 20:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
IPs cannot use Wikipedia to e-mail users.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
CollegeMeltdown: it is trivially easy to identify you (and subsequently a simple internet search for your email address) just from the basic information on your userpage, so no one would need the email-this-user function. I suggest you contact WMF legal and your own lawyer. But in this case if they should choose to get litigious, they have no need to contact the WMF at all for your identity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maby it's a hoax??? Try to Email or find the college on facebook and ask them if they sent you an Email.... Jena (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This would not work. Regardless of if they did send a legal threat via email their lawyers will tell them not to respond on Facebook about a potential legal matter. —A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm still thinking it's a Wikipedia user who wants there own way Jena (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
While it's quite true that an entity would not comment on a pending legal matter, it's not a bad idea to call or investigate to see if the purported sender is, in fact, associated with said entity. It's an easy and telling indicator. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Dumuzid (and Jena). Also, they’re filing "a class action suit against [you]"—an individual—seriously? Sounds to me like someone playing lawyer, who didn’t bother going to Wikipedia to look up
class action suit first. What would the plaintiff’s aggrieved class be—the class of all colleges and university administrations which didn’t like the content of their Wikipedia article? Don’t make me laugh. I’d ignore the email, but that’s just me. Mathglot (talk
) 22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this Ted talk explains how I’d really be tempted to respond, but I can’t recommend this approach for everybody. Takes a lot of persistence, and a good sense of humor. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ted Kaczynski is listed at Harvard_College#Notable_alumni and you don't see Harvard getting all bent out of shape about it. (I note that Jared Kushnerisn't listed, though, and I suppose if he were then Harvard very well might sue us for ruining its reputation.) EEng 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@
formal letter format, be addressed to you by name, be signed by the lawyer personally (i.e. using their full name), and be sent by an official email address associated with the relevant school or legal firm. It might also contain an official boilerplate header or footer. Does the email you received check any of these boxes? ~Swarm~{sting}
02:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dumuzid,Swarm, EEngs, Jena Fi, Jéské Couriano, Mathglot, Sasquatch, ElKevbo (who directed me here)and everyone else that contributed to this conversation. Thank you so much for your input. It is heartwarming to see this community assist in what I consider a 1st Amendment issue. I'm still not sure how to assess the legal threat, but I don't intend to fold due to undue fear. The company does have record of trying to silence people, but the emails appear so unprofessional that it could be a hoax. I'll add something here when I get more substantive informationCollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@CollegeMeltdown: My advice would be to not respond to the email directly unless you can authenticate the email address was sent by either (1) the institution, (2) a barred attorney, or (3) an employee of a law firm. If it is not one of those three things, then replying could potentially have harmful effects were this a scammer. Answering Swarm's question above would alleviate these concerns. Either way, excuse me as I go contribute to that article. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Assuming this is genuine, it seems to me even if the 'email this user' function was not used, the WMF will have definitive interest in one particular aspect of this namely the request to hand over your account details. If it's not a clear violation of the ToU, I strongly suspect they'll still be interested in banning this third party from attempting to access wikipedia via someone else's account that they were forced to hand over. In terms of the more general point of assistance see Meta:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of ContributorsNil Einne (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, if this is really the IP on your talk page, I'm fairly surprised that a lawyer or someone on their staff will get that involved in the nitty-gritty of wikipedia editing. I don't just mean the random policies and guidelines they threw out, but also the fact they're referring to things like automatic article talk page archiving. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Without seeing the original email, it is hard to know if this is a hoax. It might be routine crap from an IP editor, but it *might* be genuine in which case it is an extraordinary legal threat. There is a need to contact the alleged legal representative directly, as the "email this user" feature can be abused by trolls.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 04:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, before responding, you need to verify that the email was sent by a real attorney representing that organization. If it is, contact WMF Legal ASAP. This is absolutely a first amendment issue. ~Swarm~{sting} 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the first amendment about US government suppressing free speech? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: A lawsuit is a request to the judiciary to take government action. Even if a lawsuit is initiated by a private citizen as part of a private dispute, the court must obey the first amendment in any action it takes. This can seem a bit quirky because generally it is not a first amendment issue for the owner of a website (or his volunteer site administrator) to ban someone or delete a post. But the difference is that in the latter case, the property owner can take action without involving the government, while in the former case, someone is asking the government to intrude upon some else's private property and do something. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is, as very recently re-affirmed by the SCOTUS: see hereGoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You guys.
libel), cannot be suppressed simply because it is negative, critical, or objectionable. Not by a judge, not by Trump, not by anyone else. Not even if it is illegal in another country. It is protected from such legal challenges by the first amendment. Wikipedia content that is allowed by US law and Wikipedia policy, at the most fundamental level, is protected free speech that cannot be suppressed with frivolous legal threats. The US government can't make laws that restrict free speech. Thus, it's hard to claim under US law that objectionable content is "illegal". See WP:General disclaimer and WP:Content disclaimer. Free speech protections extend very far in the US, which means that actual legal challenges have a very high bar to meet, which is why the few legal threats that we do see aren't credible, and in the greater scheme of things, why defamation suits are so hard to win in the US. IANAL. That said, there should be no mistake that Wikipedia content is protected by the first amendment. ~Swarm~{sting}
09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Any lawyer would understand this. Attempts to suppress policy-compliant content on Wikipedia over the first amendment would be next to impossible, as Wikipedia's standard of verifiability inherently invalidates the notion of defamation. One would have to prove in court that an allegation is untrue, which does not work with sourced content, and unsourced content can be removed unilaterally as a matter of policy. AFAIK, the only other form of speech that is not protected is that of immediate threats of harm that meet the "clear and present danger" standard. ~Swarm~{sting} 09:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It has become painfully obvious that there is something wrong with this so-called lawyer. This morning he sent me an email at 3:42 am. He tells me that I have an agenda and showed me that he knows about the research I have done, which is fine for me, but a little creepy. He wants me to call a call center that is identified as Switzerland. The warnings on my talk page from the Dynamic IPs were also from Bern, Switzerland. I am extremely curious about any party that would make such a concerted effort.Is there any way to identify the source or at least the country this is coming from? When I checked 411.com it says "Spam/Fraud Potential: Low" Risk (UTC)CollegeMeltdown. I tried Search.ch but the number does not come up. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@CollegeMeltdown: This situation is highly suspect, but please address my questions above. Was the letter sent in a formal format? Was it addressed to you by name? Was it signed by the lawyer's full name? Was there official boilerplate in the header or footer of the email? Was the email address associated with a law firm or the college itself? I don't know why you didn't address this issue before, and if these concerns are applicable, you should already be in contact with WMF Legal. Why are you still commenting here without addressing the relevant concerns? If you fail to do so further, this thread will be formally closed and archived. ~Swarm~{sting} 11:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Swarm. If you intend to verify the veracity of this legal threat, then you must do the due diligence that Swarm is advising, if not just call a lawyer outright. Otherwise this is just a meaningless exercise. Wikipedia editors are not in a position to give legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So, everyone, I just wanted to briefly follow up. I contacted CollegeMeltdown off-wiki because I was concerned about this, as many of us were, and the issue sort of dovetailed with my off-wiki life. CollegeMeltdown shared some details with me, and I have reached the conclusion that there is no genuine threat. That is for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the e-mail address from the purported lawyer mentioned Bryant & Stratton in the local part of the address, but was from the "mail.com" domain; (2) when the purported lawyer gave a telephone number to contact it was an international number; and (3) Bryant & Stratton is headquartered in Buffalo, NY, but the "attorney" does not appear to be registered in New York, even as in-house counsel. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Swarm and Waltcip, the emails did not have Bryant & Stratton College letterhead, but the NDA they wanted me to sign used the school's logo. The emails did address me by my last name. The signature says "Harvey Clouston, Legal Affairs Division, Bryant & Stratton College" and the email address is [email protected]. I cannot afford a lawyer. Should I still contact WMF legal?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
talk
) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Indeed, it's unlikely that a first contact from a bona fide lawyer to a stranger would be by e-mail at all. You can contact WMF Legal, but it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is involved in this at all, but they might still give you some advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If they're offering you an NDA, what information are they offering to disclose to you? They supposedly don't want to give you information, they want to shut you down, and I doubt they're offering you money for your silence. That name doesn't return any relevant hits when searched with either "lawyer" or "stratton". Anyone can slam a logo into a PDF. This is not walking nor quacking like a duck. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest also looking at the path of the "Received:" message header lines and IP addresses/domains/envelopes. Spam and scams are easy to forge to look legitimate but may originate from anywhere (and that's why tools like PGP are awesome), even "mail.com" there can be misleading, unless you see that IP address reverse-resolution (see tools like host, nslookup) correspond. —PaleoNeonate – 14:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have at least partially discovered the culprit. It was someone who had a friend in enrollment at Bryant & Stratton College in Buffalo.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There's probably not much more to be done here. The email is clearly not a real letter from the school's legal department, and Bbb23 has blocked the IP who was likely responsible. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would give some people comfort to know that impersonating a lawyer is a crime in most or all states, and possibly in Switzerland as well.
+1. It's probably BS and trolling, but it was good to discuss this. Also, there was no logical reason to offer a non-disclosure agreement.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
No comment on the rest of it, but regarding the IP addresses and some background, there used to be a very problematic editor on the same network with an interest in certain education topics: Supervisor635. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:01, 18 June 2019 (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 disruptive editing by user SBS3800P
User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.
For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.
He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't bite the newcomers, but this newcomer has been biting me! He deletes my posts on his talk page and adds questionable information to articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk
an arbitration case. He has engaged in soapboxing on the talk pages [99][100][101][102][103] where he attempts to discredit sources critical of FLG. He was also involved with edit warring, with User:Unicornblood2018 (now banned) [104] who he called a CCP apologist, and previously, he received several warnings for his disruptive editing [105], and was blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. In light of this I think a topic ban may be in order--PatCheng (talk
) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
None of the diffs you linked to seem to show problematic editing on the article itself- and the archive of his talk page only shows me that you and him have had past disagreements, going back 3 years. While verbose talk page walls of text are unpleasant, this strikes me as a dispute over sourcing and content, which ANI usually doesn't get involved in. Furthermore, his last edit to the Falun Gong article was around 2 months ago. I'm not sure this situation warrants a T-ban. Non-admin comment by: Rivselis (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciated User Rivselis's fair comments to User PatCheng. However, sock puppet account is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please use a legitimate account instead.
I paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet who died of CCP's human rights abuse). FG topic is human rights related and I did some research in the area, so it became one focus. But I did edit other pages as well, refrigeration is one example. In my sand box, i started to work on a new page. I am going to work on many other areas as well.
As I notice the reason that human rights related pages often were not following
WP:COI
?
As the link provide by PatCheng showed, I did not call the named user CCP apologist. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Marvin, I have not edited WP for years, and I am not an employee of any agency, so WP:COI can be more apt describing your edit patterns, which shows a distinctly similar pattern to
WP:FLG-A and have left WP as a result. Furthermore, a check on your edit history shows that the majority of your edits revolves around FLG related articles, with refrigeration at the very bottom, and have also spent quite a time sparring with User:STSC.--PatCheng (talk
) 02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
PatCheng: I asked whether your complain against me here seems not to follow
WP:COI
. Your answer regarding you "not edited WP for years" is not relevant. Your editing history included many evidence that led to my question on COI. Here let me only name a few.
okay, yes, refrigeration is at the bottom of my top edited page list. As i said i cared about human rights, you can see the page 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and the page Zhang Jianghong are at No. 4 and No.6 of the list. I am not a FG single purpose user as you claimed.
I have no ideas on the two IDs you talked about. If you check users contributed to most FG related pages, you can see, over the years, many IDs who edited those pages were blocked. Those IDs showed similar editing pattern as yours: adding CCP propaganda content defying
an arbitration case showed the similar editing pattern as I just discussed as well. You asked another user on his talk page for CU of me. Ironically, it seems that you are a user that needs to be CU. In my opinion, Wikipedia welcomes everybody, Pro-CCP user like you, pro-human rights user like me included. But everyone has to follow editing policies. I did feel sometimes my reply on Talk page were a bit long and unnecessary. I will try to improve in this area. BTW you had long/unnessary discussions as well, here is an example
The user acts as though s/he is a sort of moderator/ supervisor for the Gender article, and displays clear bias in supposed enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines to align the article with their personal opinion.
The user initially reverted my edit on March 25, stating that the source l supplied was bad. l changed the source from an online article to an original academic research on which the article was based, then sent thanks for the reversion.
neither discussed nor took any action upon. l called this out immediately, and when no actions were taken, l took further action on the talk page after 1 week. Note that at this point, neither myself nor Flyer22 Reborn made any further edits. -sche then made a feeble defense for the lack of citation, and proceeded to make further edits and added 2 citations.
One of those citations was restated verbatim in the body of the article (more than once). 20 days after this edit, l checked the source and found that it is not reliable. Flyer22 Reborn, who is presumably vigilant of poor sources, took no action in this case as well.
l then copied and pasted the content of the other citation given and gave notices as well as discussed -sche's actions and the information in dispute on Talk:Gender. Since that time, -sche has made no further edits nor responded to my statements on Talk:Gender. The same day l made the edit and gave notice, Flyer22 Reborn made an edit to delete most of the information, leaving one fragment; a few days later, made further edits and a long statement on the edit summary. None of this was discussed on Talk:Gender. Edits (vandalism) on other parts of the article based on the non-authoritative source remain at present.
The user displays personal bias toward the subject at hand, and consistent efforts to steer the information in this article to align with that bias.
Ellesmelle (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
1. This isn't the place for content disputes. 2. This report lacks evidence in the form of
diffs. 3. You've failed to inform the user about this report, which is mandatory. El_C
18:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy close:(edit conflict) Why did you post this here and now? Flyer22 Reborn hasn't posted to the Gender article since end of May. The article and talk pages have had very little traffic since end of May. It's not good form to bring a content dispute that has been quiet for at least two weeks, here without so much as discussing the problems on the talk page or with the other editor during that time (if not longer). You have only made 4 edits in the last two weeks. In addition to the poor timing, I don't see anything that rises to the level of needing an ANI. You are claiming bias but I'm not seeing it. Springee (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The OP also failed to notify -sche, which I've just done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :) I think we can cut Elle some slack: they notified Flyer on her user page rather than her talk page, it's clear they're still learning how Wikipedia works. I see another user has weighed in now. -sche (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at that article now. It's going to take a bit to get up to speed here, but one immediate observation is that there is a significant amount unsourced content, and I've already spotted inaccuracies and unencyclopedic writing. There is definitely synthesis going on, though I'll need to go through the history to see who added it. Having worked in collaaboration with -sche on these topics before, I don't think they're who added it. -
Bishunpur-Jaunpur is ... remarkable. It seems to be the work of User:Spallahabad, an unfamiliar name to me. I went to their talk page and was surprised to see more (old) messages from me than from anyone else. I don't want to give the user the impression that I'm hounding them, I don't seem to have been successful communicating with them in the past, it's near my bed time, and ... perhaps I'm just a bit lazy. Could somebody else take a look, and, if appropriate, brandish the mop? (Who knows, perhaps I sleepily misunderstand, this user should be praised for diligence in referencing, and the mop should be brandished at me.) -- Hoary (talk
) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable request. Probably an 'objective' admin. should look into it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Everything cited seems to be connected to the Union Bank, except for one which possibly would have made a reasonable source for supporting the PIN in the infobox. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I put a notice on the user's talk page to ask them to improve the referencing. If the article doesn't get improved, I don't think any administrative action would be needed, but in that case it might be better to revert the article to a version such as this one. --Metropolitan90(talk) 17:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Bishunpur-Jaunpur for the battiness surrounding these articles -- battiness that continues to bring up the name Vivek Kumar Pandey. -- Hoary (talk
) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Ongoing feud with U1Quattro
2-way
IBAN implemented, again. This time with overwhelming (unanimous) community consensus. I'll leave the discussion concerning the blocks open however, in case there are further thoughts regarding these. El_C
15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Both also blocked now, effectively stopping this thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 19 June 2019 (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.
Administration has failed to punish him and now his behaviour is unbearable YBSOne (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Chassis codes don't form part of an informative article. There is a reason why articles on other cars from other manufacturers do not mention them. It is clear that the user does not understand the purpose of why the article is there and continues to add information which might not be understandable to the general public. The user as also been involved in breaking the IBAN imposed as a result of a previous ANI discussion. Moreover, words like these "can you not read with comprehension?" and "Don't delete edits you know nothing about!" suggest that this user is implying the impression of "owning" the articles while failing to reach a civil consesous on a talk page discussion.U1quattroTALK 03:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You are a hypocrite and manipulator. The reason You deleted this content was and I quote: "Ferrari F50 That is the engine type."
"Enzo Ferrari (automobile) This is the engine code name. "
" Maserati MC12 Added short description. Removed content without source. "
It had nothing to do with being "too technical" but with Your pitiful lack of automotive knowledge. You have mistaken a chassis code for an engine code not knowing that on some Ferraris the codes are the same. And twhen I have educated You You have changed Your offensive strategy to "oh, it's too confusing..." YBSOne (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/902039332 As this is going on he is still reverting my edits. Replacing a primary source with a secondary one. Can administration see he is out of control?! YBSOne (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to read WP:RS. A fact needs to be verified by third party sources. About the codes. Yes the engine codes are same. The engine type used in the F50 is F130 while you added "Type 130" the same is for the Enzo Ferrari. These edits are confusing to the general public. Your recent frustration on this thread also indicates that you fail to understand that this site is not a court of law where people are punished for disagreement. As far as I see it, you're trying to force your way here.U1quattroTALK 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @
talk
) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Admins: Given that both editors have an IBAN already (missed that part) and they have both violated their IBAN (YBSOne has reverted U1Quattro's edits as "VANDALISM," U1Quattro has reverted at least one of YBSOne's edits within the past day), I recommend short-term blocks for both, plus closer eyes on both of them to enforce the IBAN since clearly they . Please. Before this gets out of hand again. (Before either of you say it: it's completely irrelevant which one of you violated the IBAN first. Saying "but he started it!" just makes you look like a couple of five-year-olds)
talk
) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't hane an IBANS actually, it was "given" by a user and he closed the thread and it was reopened. As I understand he did not have any competence to do either. YBSOne (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We actually do. An admin agreed with it.U1quattroTALK 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
READ: " @Sable232: Reopening this thread. Please read WP:INVOLVED, you should never close a sanction discussion where you yourself participated. Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions, in case of discretionary sanctions and conditional unblocks (classified as an unilateral sanction, different from a community sanction as being discussed here). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)"
Enough. We are not going through this again. I am imposing a binding 2-way
Interaction ban on you both, with great prejudice. Please stay away from and do not comment on one another from now on. El_C
03:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, there was no consensus for an IBAN in that previous report (not enough users participated), and since I now realize that I'm unable to impose such a ban unilaterally, I'm reopening this report. Let the sniping continue, I guess. Unless both users agree to an IBAN, in which case, we're fine once again. El_C 12:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Stuff me wit green apples, enough, IBAN for god sake.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Two-way IBAN
I propose that both of the users be indefinitely banned from interacting with each other. Exact wording below: U1Quattro and Ybsone are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions as stated in
Support FFS, either IBAN or nuke from orbit, since neither one seems to be willing to drop the stick, even after posting massive wall-of-text screeds here that have repeatedly drawn very little external interest because of them turning into massive extensions of the existing squabble that tends to discourage people from wanting to respond. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I am against. I didn't seek administrative sanctions against U1Quattro to "give myself an interaction ban". I can refrain, which I do, from interacting with this user. I don't delete his edits out of spite or lack of understending of the subject. My edits were reverted by him at least 45 times over past months. Out of spite alone. By brushing yet another of his outbursts under the rug You are all responsible for him being out of control. Mark my words. YBSOne (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Quoting
WP:IBAN: A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. You both need to understand that this action is borne out of desperation and not because we feel like it. --qedk (t 桜 c
) 14:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic
you are at 3RR as well, and some of the content you added appears to be unsourced. Thus it is down to you to provide a source (not edit war without adding one). Did you try add a source or discuss this at the talk pages?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Why can't You understand that I will never win with him. I add a simple fact, he reverts it and demands a source. I provide a source, he reverts it claiming it is confusing. I add it again, he reverts it claiming it is not needed here, etc... YBSOne (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Editors are allowed to remove notices from their talk pages. It's a non-issue. I'm collapsing this before it gets out of hand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You know very well I wasn't talking about the notice. YBSOne (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment about my last revert of U1Quattro's change of designer source. Here Special:Diff/902207569. Yes I did it for the n-th time but I would like to briefly explain why. It is extremely hard to find proofs of some of the designers work as manufacurers and especially studios activelly mask who designed what. Pininfarina took great lenghts to redact design sketches from designers' signatures. To find a portfolio website is like a gold. And I have tried to defend this find. (Very simillar case was with Enrico Fumia's website that was invaluable because he also included exact dates of his designs.) `YBSOne (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support I am tired of the wasted time wading through their endless arguments. I see no signs that they will learn to interact peacefully. - Donald Albury 14:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support They are not going to tolerate each others edits so this is overall a net drain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(
talk
) 14:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support per nom SchazjmdTalk 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support This is still going on? If these editors cannot
Support enough is enough. Have mercy and please end this. RandomGnome (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. This has gone on long enough. Nearly 2 weeks of ANI's time have been wasted on this. This could of been resolved in a few days, but it lasted nearly two weeks and became a mess. The ANI thread above is proof that neither of them can
Support per my comments in the previous discussions and the clear intractable issues above. (As an aside - my sincerest apologies for my error in the previous AN/I that exacerbated this.) --Sable232 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Things like this get out of hand too quickly. Nip it in the bud, now. Blackmane (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocks
Comment I've blocked U1Quattro as clearly the aggressor here. I'm particularly focused on the fact that he has reverted Ybsone multiple times, but when Ybsone reverts him, it's an i-ban violation. No comment on whether anything needs done to Ybsone; it is 100% clear to me that U1Quattro needs a block, but I'm not sure what should happen to Ybsone. And support the 2-way i-ban, except I can guarantee one or both are going to game the i-ban about 3 minutes after it is imposed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked Ybsone for the same duration as I do not feel this is one-sided. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption on the part of both of them requires a time out from the project. I thought we would try the IBAN without blocking first, but if you'e going to go that route, both parties' disruptive editing needs to be taken into account. El_C 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
As long as you're confident Ybsone is more or less equally to blame for the continuing disruption, I'm fine with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I took a 2nd glance at their contribs and am, indeed, confident that this long-running feud is 2-sided. El_C 15:58, 17 June 2019 (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.
Facilitated communication articles
This may be moot, since the user says they have departed, but the topic ban enacted here will remain in effect if and/or when they return. El_C 17:23, 19 June 2019 (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 here to dispute actions being made by
Lucy Blackman, Sue Rubin, and removing nearly all of Benjamin Alexander (writer)). I have provided extensive evidence to the contrary, but regardless of one's position on FC, completely removing every reference to it and every person who has been purported to use it cannot be the appropriate action to take. Please assist in this matter. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I have not removed every reference to Facilitated communication: only those that fail to recognize that it is a psudoscience. I would appreciate administrative assistance in this matter. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That was uncalled for. We discuses in the article the counter claims about FC. There may well be arguments for a re-write, not wholesale deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Per NPOV, each claim must be given due weight. That means that scientific consensus is stated as fact while psudoscience is called out as psudoscience. Giving science a chance to make a counterclaim against psudoscience is a violation of NPOV. I deleted all information that implied or depended on the proposition that FC is science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Then you re-write, you do not just blanket delete (including removing the criticism of the procedure).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the "criticism of facilitated communication":
According to skeptic
bigots who have fear and disdain for those they believe are intellectually disabled.[3][4][dubious – discuss
]
This passage fails to communicate that the technique is psudoscience, and I don't see how it is salvageable. I don't see how any of the information I deleted could be useful in an article which reflects the psudoscientific nature of FC. For instance, it makes no sense to include quotes from a person who cannot communicate. If the article cannot be re-written, it may have to be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are making the claim that FC is pseudoscience based on incredibly tight goalposts. Again, I have provided [extensive evidence] that it is not. There are many, many qualitative studies confirming authorship that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Now it has to be "medline indexed" in order to be reliable, apparently. I will wait for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain which bit of that "Extensive evidence" you link to is the bit we should read to show us that this is not pseudoscience? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
All of it does. The idea that FC is pseudoscience is predicated on an antiquated version of what autism is (which is why that page includes research on autism being a neuro-motor condition and presumption of competence.) However, I did provide a specific journal article on the Amy Sequenzia Talk page when I was asked to provide something from within the last five years. (This one.) And I know that you saw it, because you responded. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Was That when you carpet bombed us with a couple of pages chock full of refs? And that one has been superseded. Roxy, the dog.wooF 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I presented other evidence to the people I was debating, and it was ignored before that point in time (of which you were not a part of, so I'm not sure why you say "us"). Then I made a comprehensive list of my information because I wanted to show that there was a lot of evidence, not just a few articles that supported my view. You call it "carpet bombing." I call it being thorough. I then took a break for a while, because I was offended by your comment to "put in the work" as if I hadn't just spent hours debating people and then a good while formatting and arranging a list that would be easy to read, and then you just showed up and refused to look at any of it.
Then you did the same thing when you glanced at the article I posted, apparently misread the date on it, and responded condescendingly, ("What part of 'in the last five years' don't you understand?"), which I thought was completely uncalled for. I have not mentioned that to this point, but I will now, because I don't know who you are or why you're being so dismissive of me.
The issue is complicated, but you're all pretending it's cut-and-dry, as if human competence isn't complex and our understanding of it isn't ever-evolving. These are human beings. I'm not pretending that FC is never used incorrectly, because it is, and people who have used it to build motor control and have gone on to type independently (which is the actual end goal of FC) have talked about the potential for ethical violations. Removing FC as learning method entirely isn't the answer, though, because some people need physical support to start. Regulation of the profession is the answer. However, we can't regulate the profession if this idea of it being pseudoscience keeps persisting.
To those outside of the debate, it might look like I'm some nut who was falsely convinced by the "ideomotor phenomenon" or whatever and is now trying to break science by including falsities on Wikipedia. I'm not. I'm only saying that there's enough evidence of FC that you can't, in good conscience, act like everything that was ever produced via FC should be discarded entirely. (I haven't touched the facilitated communication article because I'm not ready for that mess yet, but it does not present a comprehensive understanding of FC and the history of its research. Even the first line saying that it is also known as "hand-over-hand" is wrong; there are dozens of versions of facilitating and only one of them is hand-over-hand.)
Anyway, I disagree that the article provided has been "superseded." I think there is no way to win this debate due to the other side's shifting goalposts. First, it's "well, there's no evidence," then it's "too much information," then it's "well, it has to be in a peer-reviewed journal", then it's "well, there's no review", and now it's "oh, it has to be medline indexed." My point is that removing large swathes of information on living people because you refuse to acknowledge qualitative studies on the efficacy of their communication method due to whatever your arbitrary rules are on what is or isn't considered proof of authorship is, I think, inappropriate. Thus the request for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And I would suggest that someone's method of communication not be held to the same standards as those governing the provision of medical advice.
[Addition: To provide an example, to say, "Amy Sequenzia said these words [using FC]" is not the same thing as saying "FC is appropriate and successful for every single non-speaking autistic person." Unless you have a particular reliable source that says that Amy Sequenzia *specifically* could not have possibly communicated using FC because of whatever reason, I don't think that referring to a literature review that ignores qualitative evidence of FC being used effectively is a good enough reason to discount everything that could have been communicated via FC and excluding it from Wikipedia articles. And repeat this argument for every other specific person who uses it.] --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The general does prove the specific. There is no need to debunk the same pseudoscientific claim each time it is made. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
For the convenience of the administrators, here is a list of pages related to this discussion.
There are also other pages about facilitated communication and it's users, but I have only listed those pages that are in dispute. The other pages for the most part seem to reflect the psudoscientific nature of FC. This 2014 literature review[5] concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." I do not believe that any reputable source exists to challenge it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship." So this review ignores every qualitative study that has proven efficacy, and we're using that as the sole determiner for whether FC is pseudoscientific or not? Quantitative data isn't the only reliable source, particularly when you're trying to evaluate competence. Just because someone gets an "F" on a test doesn't mean they don't know the material. There are a lot of factors involved. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikiman2718, you've also been deleting material from Autism rights movement. Please add it to your list of pages related to the discussion above. CatPath (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Unless one can play the speech synthesizer like Hawking, it is extremely doubtful that FC would be effective. If the goal of FC is to teach people play it, then I agree that it is a worthy cause. Otherwise the S from CUDOS prevails. And, yes, always citing high-quality sources prevents Wikipedia from turning into a PR venue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Extremely doubtful that it would be effective by whose measure? How is it that applying your objective measure of someone's competence, without being inside of their head, determines whether or not they are capable of doing something? And how are you able to apply your measure to every single person who might use FC? What diagnoses do each of these people have? What is their measured IQ? What about the participants in whom the quantitative studies of FC were conducted? Do we know all of their symptoms? There are people who now type independently who got to that point by using FC to start. So I can already tell you you're wrong.
I'm not arguing that a psychic claiming that their words come from dead loved ones be presented as a fact on an online encyclopedia. I'm saying that unless you can objectively determine that an individual person is incapable of ever using FC to convey their thoughts, then you cannot be removing what they claim are their words on the basis that you think they can't use it.
One of these articles was about someone who attended college and became a writer. There are hundreds of people who have seen this person every single day and interact with them. And for a random Wikipedia editor to remove the entire article on the basis that they decided that it couldn't possibly have happened and that nothing in that article can be presented as fact... even though they presumably have never met this person, know nothing about who they are, what their story is, what their symptoms are, and whether or not they are capable of using a letter board or a keyboard to convey their thoughts, based on, what, a diagnosis of a condition that has an incredibly wide expression of symptoms? And then that person can just point to numbers as their proof?
This isn't medical advice, and it shouldn't be held to the standard of it. It's people talking about their own lives. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In the end science is about what can be measured. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Measurements without context are meaningless. Science is not always right. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems that you have just agreed that science is not on your side. And for qualitative evidence, the courts have consistently found that
List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice try, but you've definitely misinterpreted what I said. When I say "science is not always right," I'm saying that the science you are relying on is wrong. (In particular, I'm saying that their interpretation of the results is based on an objective measurement of competence and that our understanding of competence, particularly in autistic people, is very different now than it was in the 90s. Also, the data shows that FC was unable to be validated in double blind controlled studies. It doesn't show that FC is never effective ever. And we know that it can be because, again, there are people who type independently now who once used FC. But these people are very inconvenient to your argument, so instead of addressing them, you just pretend I haven't mentioned them at all! And then you make up arbitrary rules for what further specific proof needs to be done first before you could accept that anyone at all could possibly need someone to brace their shoulder in order to be able to type something!
I'm not saying science is not on my side, because it is. I'm not the one denying science here. I'm not the one shifting the goalposts to make up excuses to ignore very obvious evidence of its effectiveness. I can see that it is not effective in some cases. I can see that there is evidence of facilitator influence on occasion. Yes, that's definitely a problem. However, I can also see that there is clear evidence that it does work for some people. The thing is, this argument starts with the premise that I'm some kook ignoring science, but I'm not. You're looking at biased past interpretations of people's levels of competence, and you're using them to make generalizations of other people's levels of competence. Like I said, without even knowing the people involved, the argument you're making is that scientists who measured competence and, with their own inherent biases, interpreted the results are a more reliable source than literally anyone in that person's life.
Criticizing a method is not admitting that science isn't in my side. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Y'all just keep eloquently proving my point. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Doing my daily bored ANI browse, but this appears to be a giant content dispute - not sure there's anything for ANI to really do here. SportingFlyerT·C 00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Is there any way you could transfer this discussion to the proper place? Thank you. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiman2718: I'm not sure what the best place for the discussion would be, possibly the autism wikiproject? SportingFlyerT·C 04:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how these sort of disputes work. The dispute has to do with autism, pseudoscience, medicine, and the biographies of living people. It's ok if you're not sure where to put it. I'm sure someone will come along who can move this to where it needs to be. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
What he is saying is this is a content dispute, and thus should be talked about over at the articles talk page. This is for reporting disruption, and that is all you should be talking about, users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
For archives, adding recent related noticeboard discussions:
In light of these archived discussions, I think this dispute should be moved to the medicine noticeboards. The wikipedians there will be properly equipped to evaluate the evidence at hand. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. This is not a case of medicine. This is a case of a user unwilling to accept what is right in front of them. Whether you think facilitated communication can work or not, there are users who have technically graduated college and have diplomas in their names. There are users who have their names on published poetry and books. And there are users who now type independently. Whether you like it or not, these are incontrovertible facts that do not need to be established by a doctor. You can argue to the moon and back about this, but you can't be removing facts from Wikipedia just because the implications of it are contrary to a human interpretation of scientific data. That is why I brought this here. Your actions are entirely unreasonable in the grand scheme of things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am referring to edits such as these (but not limited to these): 1, 2, 3, and especially 4. I've had this debate about content before, but no one else was making edits like these, and that's still what I'm disputing here. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
A consensus that FC is psudoscience would means that all statements which imply that such people can communicate would have to be removed. FC users are not activists and they are not authors; they are disabled people who are being taken advantage of. The pages of all FC users will have to be re-written to reflect this. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The review you linked did not conclude that "FC is pseudoscience." That phrase is meaningless because "facilitated communication" could potentially mean half a dozen different techniques. Further, it clearly does work, because there are people who are now at a level of competence that is widely accepted to be a valid method of communication (i.e., being able to independently type on a keyboard, i.e., like I myself am doing right now) who have used this widely-considered-valid method to confirm that FC helped them to get to the point they are at now. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The review addresses FC in general. A number of older reviews find the same, but we prefer to cite the most recent literature. FC was considered debunked in the 90s. There are claims of FC users learning to type independently, but much like FC itself, no such claim has ever been verified scientifically (or even by a reliable source). The mainstream media that reports on FC without acknowledging it's pseudoscientific status is not reliable. It is normal to find such media on issues of pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I have not yet seen evidence concluding it is "pseudoscientific" or "debunked." I have seen a review concluding that there is evidence of facilitator influence in some of the messages, and I have seen theories as to why. There is no evidence concluding that every message communicated via FC is influenced, so no, it is not "debunked." We are dealing with human beings, not "spirits" or "ghosts." It is not possible to "debunk" a method of communication. Presumably there is a point at which one is competent enough to use it; correct?
FC has, in fact, been verified scientifically and by reliable sources, just by ones that you refuse to acknowledge. In regards to independent typers, Ido Kedar's book, Ido in Autismland, contains a foreword written by Dr. Yoram Bonneh of the Department of Human Biology at the University of Haifa, Isreal that verifies his identity and abilities. This may or may not be considered a "reliable source" based on whatever goalposts you're using today, but you are wrong yet again. And this is only one example. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time a professor made false claims about FC.
WP:GRAPEVINE. I believe that I am justified in making these changes. If I am not, I am sure the administrators on this forum will take appropriate action against me. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You have failed to produce evidence (or a consensus) that facilitated communication is never effective, and this response is exactly why I asked for admin intervention. You are interpreting data to fit your own agenda and refusing to accept anything else. It is a violation of neutral point-of-view. I hope administrative action is taken on these disruptive edits that are meant to obscure facts which for which reliable sources exist and for which no reliable source contradicts. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I have produced evidence per
WP:MED. You seem to be the only one who disagrees here, and your opinion is grounded in ignoring guidelines. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Your "evidence" was not a scientific consensus. It was a review of quantitative studies. Which guideline am I ignoring? --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
See what scientists say at [106]. Otherwise, Wikipedia is very strongly biased against
An article is not a scientific consensus either. I can quote scientists who disagree with those ones. However, we can only deal with very specific sources, according to the people here who think its pseudoscientific, so within those parameters, I want to see the scientific consensus that FC is never effective. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We have a
WP:MEDRS-quality sources, but from them you may Google further to what those professors published and have stated in court. Speaking of US courts, these have not recognized FC as true speech of the facilitated person. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikiman2718 shouldn't be deleting huge swaths of content without a consensus, but if the consensus goes in favor of writing BLPs from the point of view of the people using pseudo-science to exploit the BLP subject for their own benefit, then Wikipedia has gone crazy. ApLundell (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We also have a
WP:GRAPEVINE, consensus is not necessary to delete such contentious information. Reguardless, I do believe there is consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, we don't want fringe POV pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The idea that the BLP subject is being exploited for someone else's benefit is your opinion, not a truth, as yet again, there is no scientific consensus that FC never works, and there is scientific proof that it can. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
That's just your opinion, you aren't a published scientist/scholar so it is all
None of what I said is my opinion. I have referenced published scientists and scholars to back up everything that I have said. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest using other venues for
WP:RS/AC denialism. Maybe you should try Conservapedia. Or your own blog. Here we are very biased for mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you review denialism yourself. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Denying that FC is
WP:PAG-based dialogue if you admit that it is fringe, bereft of that agreement there can be no rational discussion with you. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 23:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Denying incontrovertible evidence that FC can be effective, and then falling back on arbitrary guidelines for what counts as a fringe theory (and refusing to engage me when I try to clarify) indicates the same for you. I continue to be accused of being irrational for judging all of the evidence fairly (there is no reason not to, considering that evidence for FC outnumbers evidence against it) ... and yet you, and other users here, refuse to acknowledge other evidence at all, based on your belief that it is debunked, end of story ... which is easily contradicted. --Anomalapropos (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You should keep in mind that:
the rules which apply to debate championships (Debatepedia) don't apply to Wikipedia;
the rules which apply to Academic Publishing Wiki don't apply to Wikipedia;
the rules which apply to MBTI don't apply to Wikipedia;
the rules which apply to Hindawi don't apply to Wikipedia;
the rules which apply to the academia don't apply to Wikipedia.
To give you an example: for science experiments are decisive. For Wikipedia the scientific literature is decisive, not experiments. Wikipedia is in no position to perform its own scientific experiments. You might have the greatest discovery in natural science, if it hasn't been published with peer-review and accepted as mainstream science, it is useless junk for Wikipedia. We do describe scientific hypotheses, but we don't describe them as facts. So, if
WP:EXTRAORDINARY in order to pass for accepted as science. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You are again referring to guidelines and presuming a scientific consensus without offering evidence of this being the case. You are continuing to apply rules to this situation as if we have already established that point. We have not. The reason I am being interpreted as repeating my points over and over is because you are failing to provide evidence, but you keep engaging me as if you have done so already.
Re:
WP:CHOPSY: "The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In matters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes." Great. This is what I'm advocating for. As per this journal article
, "the preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills."
To me, this makes it pretty clear that the majority of evidence points towards some effectiveness. In response, I have been provided an article that quote scientists claiming that there is a consensus on the issue, and a literature review that excludes the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. By all standards, I have not been provided with a scientific consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You are by default a person with a mission, so you will never agree to the
WP:IDHT. Your aim is to raise low-quality sources above high-quality sources (i.e. reviews indexed for the MEDLINE, a recent one which was told to you says the opposite of what you say). That is unacceptable. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop presuming you know what my intentions are, and please also refrain from suggesting that I am removed from reality.
I am not trying to "renegotiate" the consensus; I am trying to get proof of it. You are referring to my sources as "low-quality" in order to discredit my argument. They are in peer-reviewed academic journals. These are not low-quality sources.
As I have already said, the review you are speaking of excluded the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. This is not a consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That's what I meant:
WP:IDHT—you have chosen to reject the medical consensus. That is just your choice, not ours. Also, the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 01:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
How does
WP:IDHT
apply? I am asking you for proof of the consensus, not rejecting it. I am not pretending I didn't hear you; you literally are just refusing to provide evidence to back up your claim. That's you pretending you didn't hear me, not the other way around.
"the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper" -- Exactly. There is no consensus because the data in peer-reviewed journal articles is conflicting. You are picking and choosing which evidence counts as acceptable, then treating me as if I am ignoring common sense when I ask for clarification, and ignoring the science that doesn't support it by claiming it doesn't meet the standard of a medical claim, even though "facilitated communication" is not a medical claim. --01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you gave me quotes from a web page that had a few scientists claiming there was a consensus. This does not constitute a consensus. The
WP:NPOV
, and I don't consider it to be a reliable source on its own. The sources that were used for the article mainly criticize it. I'm quite aware of this.
However, there are more sources of the same quality that say otherwise (of which I have provided many, via the Amy Sequenzia Talk page). So again, we are looking at a curated list of reliable sources that make a number of claims about FC's efficacy (again, no consensus that it can never work; only that there is evidence of facilitator influence) versus another curated list of reliable sources, many of which support authorship in FC.
If I could draw an analogy, this argument is like trying to determine the scientific consensus on the use of a keyboard. There is no consensus, because people have individual capabilities that are a result of a number of factors. At some threshold of competence, a keyboard is useless, yes, and we can provide many studies of it not being effective, but none of it means that the "consensus" is that it is useless to everybody. Clearly, it can be useful to some people.
So I am disputing the use of quantitative data to make determinations of the competence of every person who uses FC. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
To me the above sounds like you dig yourself into a hole. Also, are you a
GMO arbitration case). E.g. you sound much like [108], an editor who was also involved in discussions about autism. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 02:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I have been pretty clear about my reasoning. No hole that I can see. Unless you have new information, I'll reserve further comments. I have never been to either of those pages. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
To be sure, that's not a denial (as answer to my question). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not a confirmation either. I'm not responding because I'm not obligated to. --Anomalapropos (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, speaking strictly as an outsider to this little conflict, I have a few observations:
single-purpose account
focused on autism rights advocacy and closely related topics.
The locus of dispute here appears to be a garden-variety content dispute; however, Anomalapropos appears to be pushing a POV that is not supported by sources that meet
WP:MEDRS
, while those on the other side of the dispute are attempting to enforce policy regarding the scientific consensus.
Any time that someone disagrees with Anomalapropos, the response is, essentially, a recap of their current position and insistence that qualitative sources trump quantitative ones, that context trumps the weight of evidence, while remaining unfailingly polite.
A full month ago, Bishonen already gave Anomalapropos good advice on their talk page, suggesting that they try working in a less-controversial area and try to build more consensus for their edits; this seems to have had no effect on their editing patterns.
My non-admin opinion, based on this information: Anomalapropos is a
right great wrongs
against autistic individuals.
Despite my own
being on the autism spectrum, this doesn't give me any confidence that Anomalapropos is going to be able to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this point, and it might be time to start discussing a block. rdfox 76 (talk
) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I am a new user, and I haven't edited other topics yet. You are correct. If any of my edits have not been neutral, please point them out in order to provide evidence that I am violating
WP:NPOV
.
Again, this is not a content dispute. I came here to discuss a user's disruptive edits. The user has blanked pages and removed large amounts of information without discussing his edits first (and when they are challenged, he simply reverts them and shuts down dissent). For example, after I reported his behaviour, he started a nomination for deletion of Amy Sequenzia's article by claiming that there was a "consensus" reached on this page to nominate it; there was not. He is disruptive because he is taking actions without discussing them when they are actively in dispute.
There is no scientific consensus that FC is not effective, and I have explained myself numerous times. Continuing to say it is does not prove otherwise.
Any time someone disagrees with me, I try to get clarification. I assume this is a normal way to respond, but I could be wrong. If you interpret my responses as restating my position, perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we are both missing. I'm not sure what me being unfailingly polite has to do with it, except that I can point out that, despite my unfailing "politeneness," several users involved have questioned my competency and good faith, but I have not reported any of these. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
The advice that was given to me had to do with making edits before discussing them -- exactly what is happening here, but on a grander scale.
My non-admin opinion is that if I am blocked for challenging the perception that FC can never work and proving incontrovertible evidence that it can, but [User:Wikiman2718] is not sanctioned for his extremely bold edits that remove facts backed up by reliable sources without being open to a discussion first, then perhaps we have very different ideas of what it means to contribute productively. --Anomalapropos (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Your mistaken assumptions:
that we would have free (aka unstructured) debate (no, we don't);
that Wikipedia would be a level playing field between medical orthodoxy and altmed (no, it isn't);
that all opinions/sources are equal and should be treated equally (no, they aren't). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth. I have never implied any of those things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Then you will have to acknowledge that the medical orthodoxy is that FC is
WP:FRINGE/PS. As simple as that. Just stick to mainstream scientific sources, that's their final verdict about FC. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 01:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have provided you with a mainstream scientific source that says otherwise. There is no "final verdict" as much as you want there to be. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE. Yes, this includes mentions of fringe topics in articles about mainstream topics. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 01:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I would note that this user is making this request based on our disagreement on interpretation of sources for a very specific subject and not as a result of any edits I have made. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That's just your view. I will let others chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:RS guidelines. If you cannot see that, it might be better for you to edit in another area. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 02:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The evidence proved that there was facilitator influence in some messages. Not all messages. Some. This is not "unequivocal evidence against FC." And when placed next to other reliable sources of similar quality, it is clear that there is unequivocal evidence for FC. There might appear to be a consensus based on the synthesis of information that you have cherry-picked, but this qualifies as original research, not proof of a consensus.
I continue to contend that there is no consensus due to the conflicting evidence that scientific studies have presented in regards to the use of FC, and again, these are not low-quality articles. They are peer-reviewed and in academic journals. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For clarity:
> I came to report a user making disruptive edits; user says they were not disruptive edits because
WP:FRINGE
implies that every source is unreliable.
> I responded that
WP:FRINGE
does not apply, because there is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of FC.
> We exchanged sources. The evidence in said sources is clearly conflicting.
> There is a claim that specific sources outweigh mine because you have to go with guidelines for
WP:MEDRS
> I have disputed this as well; I don't think that a method of communication constitutes
WP:MEDRS
; this definition of "training" on the biomedical information page -- "how a person learns to do a job, or what tests they have to take to do that job legally, is not biomedical information" -- could apply.
> Further, like with every single method of communication, there is obviously a point at which facilitated communication can be effective 100% of the time (e.g., with a speaking person who has enough control of their body and can verify that it does work).
> If I am wrong on that point, please explain. But if I am right, then
WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia
. Without an independent measure of her competence, one can't possibly claim that very specific sources have determined that she is too incompetent to use FC successfully (and that these very specific sources apply to the exclusion of all other sources that would otherwise be reliable).
> I say "otherwise" because the reliability of these sources is apparently challenged by
WP:FRINGE
> Even though its inclusion in
WP:FRINGE
is what I am asking for a reliable source on in the first place (back to top and repeat)
Did I miss anything? --Anomalapropos (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have learned to perform qualitative analysis. But the professors told me upfront that "qualitative analysis is exploratory, not confirmatory". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban on Anomalapropos from all pseudoscientific topics. He has thoroughly demonstrated a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards on fringe topics, and there is no point to allow him to continue editing in this area. His contributions and arguments are nearly certain to be rejected by any guideline-minded editor, and allowing him to even participate in dispute resolution on such topics will simply continue to waste everyone's time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban for fringe topics subject to MEDRS , but I think all fringe may be too broad. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban from fringe topics subject to MEDRS. @
WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia". Please note that if you should be topic banned according to this discussion, but continue to edit Amy Sequenzia and similar BLP articles according to your conviction that it doesn't apply to them, you can be topic banned from BLPs also, by a single admin, since you have been alerted to DS for those. Bishonen | talk
08:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC).
Perhaps you can tell me why
WP:MEDRS applies to an individual's method of communication instead of telling me I'll be banned for questioning its application. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 15:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Support I am not sure they do not have a mildly valid point, there does seem to be some recent research which supports FC, but in no one overturns the rest of the studies (partly because of methodology issues). But at the same time this has been taking up a lot of other users time, and does look very much like advocacy. Thus I am hovering between oppose and support, and would rather some other restriction was in place (such as a no edits without consensus ruling).Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
And I did not here that is enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban on all Pseudoscience, Fringe and Project Med related articles for this user who refuses to follow Wiki Policy regarding sourcing. -Roxy, the dog.wooF 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I don't necessarily oppose, but I'm not sure about "all fringe topics" - is the goal to allow editing in less controversial subtopics of autism? If there is an apparent conflict of interest, could it affect objective editing about autism in general? And another option may be mentoring, but this would require both a generous volunteer and Anomalapropos would have to accept and drop the stick whenever told by the mentor that a source or edit are not acceptable. Just food for thought for the future depending on the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban for all topics that can be construed as
WP:FRINGE, as proposed by Tgeorgescu. I see no sign Anomalapropos is willing to abide by our policies. - Donald Albury
15:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to further clarify that the position you are all taking is that Wikipedia cannot refer to movies created by people who use FC (
WP:MEDRS? Because if that's the position, I'll just leave willingly. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 16:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
you really are doing yourself no favours.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you're misunderstanding me because, like half of the other people involved here, I'm autistic. If this is the correct interpretation of the rules, then I do not want to participate in Wikipedia anymore. So if the answer is "yes," then I am willingly going to leave, and you will literally not have to deal with me anymore.
I am asking for a "yes" or "no" answer. Is that the correction interpretation of the rules? --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the number of block votes should give you the answer, and there is now one more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You honestly believe that I'm not having trouble interpreting your meaning and that I'm trying to cause trouble. But I literally asked for a yes or no response here, and explained why I needed one, and you've again responded by essentially saying, "We already told you." Could you please just take my words exactly for what they are and respect that I really and truly just want someone to say, "Yes, this is the correct interpretation of the rules"? Or are you going to respond with another non-answer and then accuse me of being disruptive? --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
We are not against people with autism. There is an essential decision as a Wikipedia editor: "Do I obey the rules and the decisions of the community?" Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(
consensus must be respected––you can disagree with it, but endlessly repeating the same arguments and opening ANI cases against the editors you are disagreeing with is not the way to go about doing it. The appropriate way to have handled this situation would have been to state your case, and then step aside and allow other editors to weigh in. signed, Rosguilltalk
17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's actually completely relevant to the issue at hand, because this whole discussion started because those articles are being targeted in this way, and because that was the consensus. So you are saying that those edits are not a correct interpretation of the editing policy, but when I question those edits being made and try to explain why they're not a correct interpretation of the policy, I'm also violating a policy. I'm actually more confused now than before. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You're not getting a straight yes or no answer because that's the content issue. The issue in this section is the behavioral one - whether you're arguing in a disruptive way. Abiding by consensus can mean walking away even when you're sure you're right. -
At which point should I have walked away? --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
[Edit:] You're probably gonna say something like it doesn't matter. I mean, I've basically accepted there's going to be some kind of action at this point, so I just want to make sure I understand clearly. I brought this issue here to ask for intervention on edits of this kind, and it's clear there won't be any, and there won't be any because the consensus is that
WP:FRINGE
applies.
One of the editors who disagreed with me on this matter spent just as much time arguing the matter as I did, and then proposed that I be topic banned from
Anomalapropos, the issue is that you're arguing against consensus and against policy. Yes, there are some editors you're arguing with who maybe have also been responding too much. But at the end of the day, there is a consensus, and you are the only editor arguing against it.
As for when to stop arguing, there were many points where you could have walked away and avoided sanctions. Before coming to ANI was one. After Wikiman2718 explained their position would have been another. The moment when a subsection was created for "Outside opinion" would have been an excellent time to walk away. Best behavior on ANI is briefly stating your perspective, and then stepping aside and letting uninvolved editors weigh in, only adding comments if someone specifically asks you for a clarification Although it can be noted that many experienced editors also fail to behave this way, usually to their own detriment. If other editors want to badger you endlessly, let them, it'll reflect more poorly on them than on you. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The consensus in this case was that FC counts as
WP:FRINGE, so I have to go with that, and trying to clarify how this became the consensus is when I should have walked away? --Anomalapropos (talk
) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. Once it's clear a consensus has been established, the best move is to accept that (even if you disagree with the consensus), and either work on the article within that consensus or move on to other articles/topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm with you up to that point. In this case, the editor I reported as well as the editor who requested my topic ban have both gone on to nominating articles for deletion based upon this consensus that I am meant to accept. (see here for example)
I think these are pretty major edits for something that I'm not sure should be fringe in the first place. But I'm outnumbered so I can't question them. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
. Uninvolved editors showed up, ignored anything said at the BLP Noticeboard, and took the argument back to Sequenzia's Talk page.
I backed away for a bit. Two weeks later, User:Wikiman2718 begins deleting things relating to FC users, eventually leading to blanking Sequenzia's page and nominating it for deletion.
The reasons that
WP:RS as unreliable." At the bottom of the page, User:Wikiman2718
writes "I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here."
They are taking these actions based on what they have decided the consensus on FC is, and they believe no other sources can prove them wrong because those sources are immediately ruled unreliable per
WP:FRINGE. If that is not the correct course of action, well, I hope anyone else who tries to explain why doesn't have it fly back in their face. lol. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 22:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In the reality-based
WP:RS channeling isn't treated as valid/real (it is not taken at face value). Same story with FC. So we describe what Jane Roberts attributed to Seth, but we never say in Wikipedia's voice that there is a real spirit, Seth, who told her that. In the reality-based world some views won and some views lost. Spiritualism and FC lost. We simply take this at face value. It is not our job to renegotiate the medical consensus upon FC. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 23:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Doesn't seem much alternative, really... (and I love that
Per Bishonen's insightful comment above: Your debating technique is a waste of our most precious resource, which is constructive editors' time and patience. Isn't it time to end that waste of resources, quit debating with this endless time-sink of a user, and just enact the sanction? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe some of you might read this page to see why the basis for applying
WP:CLEANSTART for saying otherwise. And then to have the folks in power show up and tell me I'm a waste of time and I'm the one at fault for trying too hard to understand? I feel like I'm actuallygoing insane. I'll leave on my own. see ya. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 17:14, 19 June 2019 (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.
WP:NOTHERE
I'm bringing this back up again now the thread above has run its course and has been closed as a train wreck. Two of the proposals in that thread were created by
WP:NOTHERE "allegations" against them. As I previously noted, I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the editing pattern here, but I have serious concerns about a user who has a relatively high percentage of their posts dedicated to indefinitely blocking other users (at least 2 of 56, by my count), and very few posts actually improving the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyerT·C
08:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what is up with them. I would (at this stage) support a warning. I cannot help but wonder if he is a puppet of some kind, if so a ban would be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not !voting for anything at this point, but since their first visit at ANI I had the same impression. —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If the community is not part of the encyclopedia, then I'll accept the warning to focus more on articles. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Ban. Obviously a returned banned editor. One doesn't mention "lede" in their first edit. [112] One does not post edit war warnings to other editors within their first ten edits. [113] One does not head to ANI quoting BOOMERANG and DUCK in their first fifteen edits. [114]. This wasn't a good try. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a pretty bold conclusion to say "Obviously a returned banned editor." unless you're also going to say which one. Why not a
WP:CLEANSTARTs are supposed to avoid old conflicts, but still, if you don't know which old conflict this is... You can support a ban just based on behaviour regardless. --Begoon
11:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Tip for anyone who's trying to CLEANSTART - ensure you make more than 10 edits to article space per year. No, I don't know which banned editor this is, and I don't particularly care. starship.paint (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This is why I am only really supporting a warning for now. There may be a number of reasons why this user may know so much about us (hell I believe there are even websites that tell you how to edit the project). I really would like to see a bit more evidence then a gut feeling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thunderchunder has acknowledged [115] that their edits were a botched WP:CLEANSTART, that they will commit to article improvements, and that they will stick to the Thunderchunder account. In that light, I'm willing to give them another chance, and have rescinded my vote to ban. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. In the last few days, this user has gotten involved in thorny discussions like a proposed interaction ban for Hijiri 88. There's absolutely no way this is appropriate — undisclosed alternative accounts may not engage in internal discussions of this sort, and as noted above, clean-starts must step away from past disputes. Why would you get involved in such a thorny case if you didn't care about it beforehand? The only reason I didn't indef is the possibility that this is a CLEANSTART gone awry. Please continue discussing this case if you believe it useful (I'm not trying to shut down conversation), and feel free to ask questions here of Thunderchunder; at his talk I said if you wish to respond to anything there [this discussion], ping me and (assuming it's not grossly abusing) I will copy your statement to ANI.Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Bad block – A preventative sanction would be an IBAN or a TBAN; this was purely punitive, with no warning, based on an admin's stated assumptions of bad faith. "You're editing the wrong parts of the encyclopedia, so I'm going to stop you from editing any of the encyclopedia for a week" does not make sense. – Levivich 16:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's logical. This is obviously not a new user, so it's a 99% chance it's either a blocked editor, a good hand/bad hand account, or a CLEANSTART. If it's either of the first two they should be blocked anyway, if it's the latter they shouldn't be diving into contentious areas (some of the other articles they've approached (i.e. Tartary, have been flagged up on ANI). I realise the account is over a year old, but it did nothing for the first 8 months of that. Waiting for CU data to go stale, possibly? I realise it's approaching ABF, but on the other hand if an account isn't going to be contructive there's little point in indulging it. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The way I see it, this block prevents further disruption in ANI discussions for 1 week. —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, and if the behaviour resumes, the sanction can increase, probably to indef. I support the block - it gives an opportunity to change course but makes it clear we won't be messed around. Good block, imo. --Begoon 16:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Good block. A block is *never* not at all punitive. In fact, if someone didn't do something wrong, there would not be a reason to believe they will do anything wrong later (preventative block logic) in the first place. The editor needed the time away and it was enforced as administrators are allowed to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I don't necessarily buy that this is just an accidental botching of a CLEANSTART. The fact that they chose to come after me specifically makes me suspect that they might be evading either a limited sanction or a site ban that their original main account was subjected to as a result of interactions with me. (Let alone the fact that a CLEANSTART account would be unlikely to remain dormant for eight months.) I don't mind if TC does not wish to disclose the name of their prior account publicly or to me specifically, but it would be best if he did so by email to Nyttend, some other trusted member of the community, or ArbCom, and said editor(s) could confirm whether the original account is subject to any unappealed blocks/sanctions, or "left the project" under any specific circumstances. (The editor I kinda suspect TC of being was not subject to any specific editing restrictions, but did storm off in a huff after being issued with a final warning about disruptive behaviour; such an editor making a "clean start" in order to avoid being subject to restrictions for violating said warning would be inappropriate.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
User:118.136.114.253
User:118.136.114.253 has been on an editing spree to change many Southeast Asian food articles into an Indonesian one. I am no expert on food, but I doubt that all food items that the user edited is solely Indonesian. For example, the user goes around deleting other countries' names. Please take a look at this. Thank you! William2001(talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have issued a 72 hour time out and am currently reviewing the edits. Sasquatcht|c 23:36, 17 June 2019 (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.
"No hay pedo" is Spanish for "Sure, no problem". --213.220.68.44 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2019 (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.
After a previous block by NJA recently for continually adding unsourced genre's and despite another "final" warning, Wildwiki337 continues with the same disruptive editing pattern, adding unsourced genre's as can be seen here, here and here. Please could an admin look into to this, thanks. Robvanvee 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked as NOTHERE. N.J.A. | talk 18:40, 19 June 2019 (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.
Unwarranted block. Could someone please review this ASAP?
Upon consulting with blocking admin, I have unblocked Scolaire, who I notice has also been given the BLP DS alert. I think we're good here. El_C 13:20, 19 June 2019 (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 can't see any reasonable evidence of discussion, intentional 3RR, and was taken aback at seeing an excellent editor blocked in some sort of misunderstanding. I've brought this to the ANI at his request after having spoken up on his behalf. Something has gone very wrong, and I'd appreciate it if a sysop/administrator other than the blocking admin were to review it. I'm sure there's an honest mistake at the bottom of this.
Thanks for the check in advance. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I have accepted the unblock request due to the strict conditions the user now places on themselves, so unless you object, I intend to follow through with it and unblock. Please let me know. El_C 08:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: You're supposed to inform the editor you make a discussion about (please see the big red box on top), I've informed Nyttend of the same. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, Nyttend. I submitted this request on the fly & forgot to template you. Thanks, QEDK, for informing Nyttend of this thread. Uff, one shouldn't make dinner & open new ANI threads simultaneously. My bad! Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@El C: For the record, note that Scolaire was edit warring to insert BLPVIOs, which should probably be addressed. ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with accepting an unblock request, but this was not a mistake; see my response to a request that Osaka article be protected because of the ongoing edit war. Please remember that 3RR is a sufficient but not necessary condition for edit-warring — if you go past 3RR, you're definitely edit-warring, but it's possible to be edit-warring without going past 3RR, and the history of this article clearly demonstrates that Scolaire and another user had been slow-motion edit-warring since last month. Nyttend (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
What is this, a new standard for EW blocks? A 14-year editor with a clean block log, who was involved in a talk page discussion, gets a week-long block for a slow edit war, for the first offense, without even a warning? The golden standard in these situations has always been to protect the page first, and block the editors as the last resort. While, in fairness, you also blocked
@No Such User: I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. Scolaire's shoe-horning of trivia—her shy, candid personality into the lead—is not what is expected from a 14-year-old account; knowing when not to edit war—whilst a discussion is actually taking place—on the other hand, very much is. Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The fear is mutual, I'm afraid. There's quite a long way between "shoehorning of trivia" (which I could accept, although it was in the lead before the dispute emerged, and has been reasonably defended as relevant) and "inserting BLPVIO". Claiming that someone is "shy and candid" is hardly unflattering, let alone BLPVIO. Goodbye to you too.
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.
After Destroyer27 got hit by a boomerang at the Teahouse, the editor that they accused, LovSlif, decided to come here and promptly got hit by another boomerang. Bbb23 has blocked and tagged Destroyer27, LovSLif has been blocked for one week for much less pervasive socking. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguilltalk 17:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Summary of this episode
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 everyone!
There was a disruptive edit war on page Pallava_dynasty by Destroyer27 and the same was protected by an admin. A discussion was opened to discuss the same on article talk page.
In the course of discussion, the user has viloated [Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] by posting sarcasm/uncivil/insult/disrespectful comments and deviated the discussion completely.
Despite of remainding him not to use such comments he violated the same. Rather this user has opened a discussion on teahouse pointing I was involved in Personal attacks. But the same was disproved by the Teahouse moderators(as those were not personal attacks rather a few examples I quoted to explain). Below is the complete description of the discussion & comments used.
Honestly, both of you need to tone it down a notch. Looks like you're both prone to long diatribes and attacking each other on occasion (e.g. here). If neither of you can behave, a topic and interaction ban may be considered against the both of you. I would consider toning down your attacks and sticking to editing the article. Sasquatcht|c 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't said absolutely anything defamatory now. In fact, nothing at all in a while. Even yesterday on the talk page LovSLif made an obnoxious comment and violated good faith with apparently sock accounts, as identified by Abecedare, to which I hadn't responded. Kautilya3 had a while ago pinged me on talk page, offering to moderate our discussion. I made a condition that Kautilya3 must opine on whether it is worth coming here on the noticeboard page with the dispute, so as to ensure that no one deliberately tries to draw out the discussion, thereby postponing the edits. LovSLif has complained about me here just after that. He had made the same complaint on the teahouse page, removing the context in which I made those comments, alleging that I'd made a personal attack, which the administrators gainsaid. Thank you for brushing it aside. I'd certainly follow your advice. But banning me for his activities would be grossly unfair. I've got nothing to do with him. Since this comment has been addressed to you, I'd only respond to you or any other authority, and no one else.
Dear Sasquatch, I request Destroyer27 not to ping me or address me again just like he did again(in above comment). If you look at the same , yet again used false or downgrading tone with self drawn allegations. I agree and I opine its of no use to speak with him and I ask him to follow the same such that he can no further mislead or deviate the core discussion. I have numerous valid sources to carry forward the discussion with admins and moderators and not let WP prey for POV. This is just a complaint on uncivil tone and not on the content which is already being moderated on talk page. Thank you! By LovSLif (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Everyone is socking. Destroyer27 is Confirmed to Renamed user sgjut467ggf(talk·contribs·count). I blocked and tagged both. LovSLif is Confirmed to RViN341(talk·contribs·count). I have blocked and tagged RViN341 and blocked LovSLif for one week (the socking is much less pervasive than that of the other pair).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23! Saved me and others from wasting even more time and good-faith trying to mediate the dispute between these two. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incivility from Leos1968
Blocked by Sasquatch - quickly and efficiently. Anything else is besides the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2019 (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.
"autistic mick" (This last one after I warned him to stop the incivility or face an ANI filing).
Could someone step in and ensure that Tim isn't faced with even more insults, and that the edit warring on the article does not continue? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the user based on their pattern of behavior. They are clearly
WP:NOTHERE. History of disruptive editing, edit warring, aggressive behavior and now unacceptable personal attacks. Sasquatcht|c
Thanks Sasquatch, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It sure would be swell if en.wp developed quicker responses to instances of incivility to prevent those busy folks over at T&S from having to pick up our slack. Tiderolls 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
quicker responses: the request here was handled in 47 minutes. In my experience, except in actual emergencies, T&S takes several months. what might help is a more easily found way of asking for assistance, and, to their credit, the WMF is apparently working on this. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was handled in only 18 minutes... I'm pretty sure Tide rolls was being sarcastic, and that was actually praise. Well, a combination of praise and commentary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
16 minutes but who's counting?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, this particular case was remarkably clear cut. Dealing with ambiguous borderline cases involving highly experienced and otherwise productive editors and administrators is considerably more challenging. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly so, @Cullen328:, and I apologize for my flippant post. I'm hoping you'd agree that for those close cases where this language project might not have responded optimally heretofore, anonymous complaints and faits accomplis presented with no redress are not a solution. @DGG:You're not wrong, of course. As regards the WMF I'll quote Tevye. May God bless the Czar, and keep him...far away from us.Tiderolls 05:08, 20 June 2019 (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 Wikiman2718 has admitted to making disruptive edits on facilitated communication articles and should be blocked
Complainant was blocked by Malcolmx15 for socking. Wikiman2718 had a discussion with other editors about the correct application of
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:Wikiman2718 says on FC-related articles "None of these sources are skeptical of facilitated communication, so none of them are reliable." This is not a valid reason to delete a Wikipedia page.
Chris3991m has been CU blocked. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I assume this doesn’t need explanation? Consensus is that facilitated communication is a psudoscience, so any mainstream news source that supports it is unreliable. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That is rather a stretch. I suggest you read WP:RS more carefully. A source can certainly be reliable for one thing, and not another. The mere fact that a 'mainstream news' source says something that appears not to dismiss facilitated communication as pseudoscience does not automatically mean that it cannot be used at all regarding the topic. And 'mainstream news' sources shouldn't be being cited as sources either for or against, for that matter. For matters of science, we cite scientific sources. The mainstream media may also be used as a source, not for statements as to whether facilitated communication works, but for background information etc. Wikipedia rarely rules out otherwise-credible sources merely for having minority opinions. What we do instead is avoid suggesting (or implying, by giving 'equal weight') that minority opinions are anything but that. Articles on pseudoscience are best when they present the evidence (e.g. on what the majority opinion is, and why the majority holds that opinion), and let the reader decide, rather than being dismissive hatchet-jobs. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Those are all good points, but I think that the relevant guideline here is
WP:NFRINGE. I would like some verification that I am correctly interpreting the rules. I am trying to be a constructive editor. —Wikiman2718 (talk
) 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NFRINGE is clearly relevant when discussing notability. It doesn't however assert that mainstream news sources can simply be dismissed as 'unreliable' in the way that you suggest. In fact I can't really see how it supports your argument at all, since discussions in sources independent of "promulgators and popularizers" (such as the news sources you are trying to dismiss would appear to be) are precisely what is required to demonstrate notability of fringe subjects. Whether such sources discuss the subject in sufficient depth to demonstrate notability, and whether such sources should be used as evidence for the credibility of such theories may of course be open to question. It very much depends what such sources are being cited for. You seem to be asking for some general 'ruling' regarding sourcing, and you aren't going to get that here. Not least because WP:ANI doesn't make rulings on content. There is
WP:RSN, but again, you will only get anywhere there by discussing specifics: i.e. what is being cited, and what is it being cited for. 86.133.149.192 (talk
) 04:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
What he said. For emphasis, though, always ask "reliable for what?" Journalists generally are not reliable for statements of scientific/medical fact, but that does not mean they are unreliable for everything else if they write something touching on such a subject. It's possible for a wealth of news sources to establish that a subject is notable, even if none of them can be used to make definitive statements about medical or scientific claims being made by the subject (though make sure to actually read the sources, as often they are already attributing all such claims and making none themselves). This definitely creates a conflict for subjects that are essentially famous for fringe claims, but only mentioned in the news - an article whose meat is entirely attributed claims on one side of a controversial issue seems really weird, and is indeed why
WP:BLPs. There is an argument to be made for deleting an article whose subject is notable only for a medical claim where no medical sources exist, but that is not set in policy anywhere, and many editors will argue that as long as N is satisfied, the only question is how to write the article, not whether to write it. Someguy1221 (talk
) 04:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thanks a lot. That’s exactly what I wanted to know. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (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.
disruptive editing and the uncivil editorializing in edit summaries. Good luck, N.J.A. | talk
17:04, 20 June 2019 (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.
WP:PROFRINGE
reasons. Specifically the account exists primarily to make antisemitic statements and homophobic remarks. Diffs:
[122] - Specifically they take issue with the translation of the word to holocaust, which I might otherwise not worry about if not for the fact that a person with a so explicitly
Volkish username spends such a large proportion of their time on Wikipedia worrying about Jewish conspiracies. Simonm223 (talk
) 13:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll agree quite a few of these are unacceptable, this kind of point of view pushing that has no place on this encyclopedia. I'd say this user needs to be shown the door. --Cameron11598(Talk) 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. They're inactive enough and the disruption today is bad enough when combined with the diffs above that they should be blocked and have to explain their editing in an unblock request before we consider letting them edit again. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2019 (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 OP has been CheckUser blocked, and there wasn't any support for their complaint. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (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 writing this complaint as I believe that
WP:EQ
, whereby it is recommended that editors should, amongst other things:
1)
Assume good faith
2) "Do not ignore reasonable questions"
3) Be prepared to apologize.
I am a new editor, and I am under the impression that I have been assigned this IP address and inherited a previous block from a previous user of this IP address (I know this as a result of a kind explanation from User:Hut 8.5, [123].
However, before I was aware of this, I made a few attempts to ask about the situation from the admin that blocked my IP, User:Materialscientist. For example, [124].
I am now aware that the way in which I was attempting to notify the user was in the incorrect format, and I wasn't aware that you aren't required to save Wikipedia pages as often as you would, for example a document on a word processing software. Nonetheless, I was reading Help:Notifications at the time of trying to ping User:Materialscientist, and was in the process of figuring it all out and getting my message correct.
User:CLCStudent's user talk page was semi-protected, and there did not exist a way for unregistered users to contact them. As noted by User:Hut 8.5, this is bad practice according to the protection policy.
As a result, I pinged User:CLCStudent on my talk page to ask for an explanation here. And was ignored for the first time.
I then asked User:Hut 8.5 to message the user on my behalf, and User:CLCStudent ignored this also, and still refuses to explain to me about why they have made these edits.
User:CLCStudent's user talk page was subsequently unprotected, and so for a third and final time, I messaged them for an explanation once more, [125], and was ignored for a third and final time.
I know I have been ignored, as the user has chosen to reply to other people on their talk page and make over 50 edits since I messaged them, yet continue to ignore me.
I am writing this complaint as I am not happy that
WP:EQ, and I feel as if I have exhausted all avenues now in my attempts to get them to simply explain why they undid the edits that I made on my own talk page. I'm hoping that the discussion on this thread will prompt the user to finally stop ignoring me and give me and explanation, as I am a little disheartened by all of these affairs. Thank you. 31.205.11.76 (talk
) 18:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I just spoke with CLCStudent about a different issue and their response was fine. Another editor explained why the edits were reverted on their talk page. I'm not sure what more you want explanation wise. 2001:4898:80E8:A:5ED4:E001:A3A3:C2C4 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The edits were reverted without the user knowing the full story and knowing that my edits were not intended to be nonconstructive, and were made in
good faith. To be civil, it would be nice to hear if they actually understand where I'm coming from and to confirm whether I am mistaken about the way I am going about editing here? Ignoring me is really unacceptable and very disheartening. 31.205.11.76 (talk
) 18:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The other editor explained why they were reverted. You attempted to make a ping four times. This ping failed because 1. There was no signature and 2. There was no message. What specifically do you want to know beyond what was said? 2001:4898:80E8:A:5ED4:E001:A3A3:C2C4 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're speaking on the user's behalf, perhaps a
WP:EQ, it is not acceptable to ignore me and I want to hear their explanation in their own words - as they are the one that made the edit. 31.205.11.76 (talk
) 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Disengaging then. Accusing someone of being a sock while complaining about AGF is telling. 2001:4898:80E8:A:5ED4:E001:A3A3:C2C4 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel discouraged and disheartened about this - I was under the impression that the user should
WP:CHOICE is tenuous - it appears reasonable to suggest that asking for a mere acknowledgement is not overly demanding. 31.205.11.76 (talk
) 18:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Everything seems to stem from this, and various attempts to justify your right to make such an edit since. I think you're backing a loser there.
I also see that you're since blocked for a month, which seems like a good time to wrap this up. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2019 (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.
Starting on June 3 at Life After Death, IPs from the Netherlands began edit warring over references, with five reverts within a 24-hour period on June 3–4,[126][127][128][129][130] and three more on June 6.
At OK Computer, DanWarpp showed up to resume the edit warring of Netherlands IPs. The disruption started on June 13 over a header style decision involving parentheses and years, with six reversions by Netherlands IPs in a 24-hour period.[131][132][133][134][135][136] Yesterday, the IPs from the Netherlands added rateyourmusic and changed a Library of Congress reference,[137] then reverted back their preferred version three times, followed by DanWarpp to make a fourth revert in 24 hours.[138][139][140][141]
The behavior of this person is tendentious. The constant edit warring is disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
In almost all of your edits, you never provide an explanation as to why you reverted. I politely asked you every time to discuss any concerns in the talk page but you never did. I myself have discussed the disputes regarding Life After Death and OK Computer with the other editors in in articles' respective talk pages. How are my edits disruptive? DanWarpp (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@DanWarpp: Edit-warring is disruptive. Discussing your changes is fine, but you can't continue to edit-war on the article while you discuss them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I will try to limit the discussion only to the talk page from now on. DanWarpp (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Editing conflicts are not decided by edot-warring and calling an opponent "vandal". They are decided by participation in talk page discussions and finding consensus. To help you to understand the point, I protected the page from editing for two weeks and reverted it to the pre-war state.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the editing page, but why did you leave the editing version that was not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not my role to discuss what is correct and what is not. My role is to push you and your opponent to look for consensus. Since you were changing IPs constantly and were blindly reverting your opponent calling his edits "vandalism", whereas they took the trouble to point you out to the talk page, this is the only way to push you going to the talk page. If, after the protection expires, I will see these edits continuing, I will start applying blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, but I have nothing to argue with him about his lies, everything is written in the article about who is Ivan Gundulić .Ragusa is an Italian name for the city of Dubrovnik, there is no nationality of Ragusian that does not exist as you left it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
If you do not have anything to argue, you will not be able to edit the article. As simple as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, with a liar, there is nothing to discuss, let it continue to lie,I will not open and read lies on that page anymore.There is no justice here.Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Then read about our reliable sources rules for why we're not going to rely on Britannica as a source.
Then take your discussion to the Talk page and work out your issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I want to raise a couple of points here: 1) I was not notified about this thread, which is everything but okay. 2) I did not want and do not want to edit war with this IP adress. Most of my edits were constructive and neutral in nature, or at least that is what I gave my best to achieve. 3) A discussion about this issues was opened and opened on the same talk page for some time. 4) The neutral version, that is a poet from Ragusa, was the stable version for a lot of time. This can be checked when comparing histories of the article. 5) Most of other notable figures from the former indepenedent Republic of Ragusa are described in the same manner, per NPOV and historical facts (they had their own Slavic Catholic identity, separate from modern ethnicities). 6) I was labeled and insulted by the same disruptive unregistered user over several times... 7) I think that Ivan Gundulić should be made permanently unavailable for editing to unregistered useres prone to vandalism and offending other users. 8) The same page suffered quite a lot from editors like the one in question for quite some time and I have no doubt that the same behaivour will otherwise continue to take place. Thank you, Mm.srb (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the IP should have notified you of this discussion. As for the rest, there's no chance the page will get permanent protection. The community has been very clear that permanent protection is against the spirit of collaborative editing we want to foster here. That said, if this issue crops up again, make a request at
Please could an admin take a look at this users edits. They have been repeatedly asked to source their edits on their talk page with me and some other editors going as far as making a personal plea in an attempt to get them to source however, these (final) warnings are removed soon thereafter (see here, here and here). As one can see from their most recent edits, they are up to the same thing again; adding unsourced recording dates with an edit summary that simply reads "Added recording date" here, here, here and here for example. Robvanvee 10:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
DuncanHill, not an admin, but looking through the authors of the removed citations, Steven Béla Várdy, Justin McCarthy (American historian), and Elizabeth Özdalga, you may want to bring the sources at issue to RSN, incivility from IPs notwithstanding. McCarthy in particular is controversial; according to our Wikipedia article, he's both been repeatedly recognized for excellent demographic work, and criticized for Armenian genocide denial and pro-Turkish POV in his work. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I semi-protected it for a couple days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone really look up to tye credibility of the citations used? Both of the authors are widely recognized for Turk-favoring interpretation and presentation of historical events. Furthermore, there are opinions of people without scientific recognition on the issue, just presented in order to make the reader more favourable towards tye Turk side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.220.148 (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling all this, DVdm; it's certainly been an ongoing problem. A couple pages have been protected, but that doesn't seem to be helping much, as this user just moves on to another one or several. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The math-related contributions from this range are presumably all disruptive. There might be other people in the range who don't edit math. I've looked around to see if any good-faith contributors might be affected, but the overall percent of vandalism from this range seems high, even if it's not all the same person. So I'd propose a range block on the /22 of two weeks or more. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) This is quite possibly the funniest vandalism I've seen reported on this noticeboard (particularly the assertion that 3*3 approximately equals 9).
talk
) 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not so funny the 10th time you see it. --
talk
) 22:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I rangeblocked for 72 hours; it's credible that it should be extended for a while. Input on duration sought. I am wondering if this is a school based on some of the behavior, not finding good identification data. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It's been going on for months: diff from December. --
Can anyone figure out what's going on here? This user (users?) has been, without leaving an edit summary, removing links to studenti.it from talk page archives. Or, I should say, at least from talk page archives, because the only way I noticed was that those edits tripped filter 973 (hist·log). So the damage might be much more widespread, since the IP is so dynamic that I can't even find what else they've been up to, or attempt to communicate with them. Has anyone else seen this? Should the links be removed, for some reason I'm missing? (User not notified; it's unlikely that they're still at any of those IPs.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
They may have good intentions but we may never know! Regardless, they shouldn’t be removing these links from talk pages archives. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I had assumed based on the IPs that he was switching networks, but no, that appears to be a single pool of dynamic addresses. What an insane ISP. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
And they're not all dead links... IPs and website Italian, it seems (but hosted in the US). —PaleoNeonate – 02:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at some /16 ranges on either side of each IP address, for what it was worth, and saw no other edits to talk page archives so hopefully Suffusion of Yellow caught them all. The site itself appears to be a student portal and probably not the sort of thing we would want to use as a source: there are only a couple of articles, I think, where it is used. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Forgery: Other editors write fake message alleged to be from me
I've removed the offending signature. Don't add it back. Fences&Windows 06:48, 17 June 2019 (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.
Wikipedia users Sam Sailor, LauritzT and Dicklyon are engaged in forgery. They start a discussion that they know is doomed, but instead of their own signature, they use mine.
Signature reads: 5.219.86.66 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Actual editor is: LauritzT
And here is the last diff. While perhaps the other two are just lazy and don't want to verify that I never wrote the original message in the talk page, Dicklyon actually knows this message is copied and pasted from elsewhere.
If anyone wants to start their own discussion, they are welcome; just use your own and your own sig.
There's no "forgery" here, it is a contested RM/TR. Best, SamSailor 05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
And I never said the it was a money forgery or other forms of forgery. Do not start disscussions on my behalf. Start you own, use your own sig. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: User
Baffle gab1978 has joined the harassment and forgery party. Diff
. If anyone wants to move a page, they are more than welcome to start their own discussion, with their own words and their own signatures, not MY signature. 06:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Update 2: User
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Here is the diff: [145]. Notice the time stamp. 5.219.86.66 (talk
) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@
RM/TR to the article's talk page, which is where requested moves are usually discussed. Your comment, including your signature, was copied along with it. Apart from uncontroversial fixes (e.g. spelling and grammar, reverting vandalism), requested moves are generally discussed on article talk pages to determine whether or not there is a consensus in favor of renaming. RM/TR is intended more for situations where a page move is prevented by some sort of technical issue, such as the destination page being move-protected or already existing. Kurtis(talk)
06:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I forgot to add that moving pages is not technically restricted for editors to do without discussion, but if a page move is contested, a talk page discussion becomes mandatory. Kurtis(talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think that's wrong. It would be better to just inform that person who filed the RMTR request that if they still want to move the page then they need to open a discussion. In this case, he did not want to, as it will clearly lose. Dicklyon (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You'll get no disagreement from me. With only a handful of exceptions, I always favor getting people's thoughts on something before taking action that will affect multiple parties. Kurtis(talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Querying User:Fences and windows to explain their actions and their closure above. (A) Under which purview did they remove the signature of another editor on Talk:Al-Tusi in Special:Diff/902192930? (B) Why did they leave the edit summary "Stop signing on someone else's behalf" when nobody had done so, and do they in hindsight understand why nobody had done so? (C) Why was the above closed on the notion that the signature was offending rather than addressing the facts that the IP editor (1) already had blanked the talk page discussion five times, four of these, in breach with 3RR, within 19 hours prior to filing above, and (2) had expressed a clear intent of returning and move the article in spite of the move being contested? SamSailor 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
be so harsh. If they move the page despite discussion, then we can revisit this. Fences&Windows
21:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I hate to invoke BOOMERANG, but as another admin who was reviewing in real time, their request to not sign the post to them when then didn't make it was reasonable, and it was disruptive and harrassing to keep doing it, even if borderline policy compliant. It was very clear to me from the first thing they posted what they'd objected to. Sam Sailor, if you did not understand that, please go back and re-read their posts and replies. If you didn't feel that was a legitimate objection, please step back and reconsider. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(
WP:BOOMERANG is a concept we apply to the reporter, here the IP, not the editors being reported. SamSailor
21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The first revert of the IP was reasonable, but everything after that was not. It would have been one thing if you had quoted the IP, but instead you created the appearance that he had posted to the talk page himself. That is not itself a disruptive act, but once it was made clear in the IP's second edit summary that this is what he objected to, that changed. Satisfying his concern regarding the use of his own signature would have been a trivial matter if anyone had bothered to do it, but instead, experienced and normally reasonable editors decided to war over something insignificant and threaten the other party with the possibility of being blocked. This has ultimately resulted in a couple orders of magnitude more time and effort being spent than were actually necessary, which is far more disruptive than altering a signature. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sam Sailor, I think you're annoyed because the IP editor was "breaking the rules" and you reported them for vandalism/warring, but you didn't get what you wanted and people are criticising you instead. I was not aiming to narrowly apply policy, but to resolve the situation (a mountain out of a molehill) without anyone getting blocked or further disruption. That seems to have been achieved other than your objections here. Please let this lie and please don't ping me further about this. Fences&Windows 06:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Page move topic ban for Ortizesp
Ortizesp is Topic Banned from moving pages until 23 August 2019 (two months). A breach of this ban will incur an immediate block, without warning, of a duration at administrator's discretion. LoggedKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2019 (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 issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.
Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @
Rubén García Rey
article.
Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using
Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, an exception of moving from user space into mainsapce is fine. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I simply disagree that moving
WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk
This runs the risk of going stale and being archived again, despite a clear problem. Can somebody please comment/close with implementation of the topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I've tagged this thread with a DNAU so it won't be archived until 18 June. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I would say topic ban would only work if the user know if they violate, then it have some consequence. I would support the TBAN or just straight temp block. Most of the time except typo,
Breach of a topic ban would lead to blocks. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, there is no formal TBan, but this issue was raised in ANI for a few times. I am not sure enforcing a formal TBan and delivered the TBAN statement to his user talk page, has any change, if he seem did not know what is happening. But anyway, lets give him a final chance by giving him a formal Tban. Matthew hk (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
While there's no definition over the subject, he's still doing the same thing (i.e.
I was also reading the old ANI about him, and I've noticed that he thinks "it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously". The thing is that his mistakes are quite the same since the old ANI until now. MYS77✉ 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is ongoing disruption, an editor refusing to listen to concerns about their conduct and competence, and a clear consensus for a topic ban. Please can an uninvolved admin review and implement? GiantSnowman 09:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I would. But the issue for me, and I suspect others assessing this, is that you have five editors supporting a ban; one of those with an exception and one with what read to me like significant reservations. That's a pretty thin thing to call consensus, especially given the traffic to this page. Don't get me wrong, I think the ban is warranted and I'll do my bit and support a ban; but I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, close this as 'consensus for a ban' at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Six editors now... GiantSnowman 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Anybody else wish to chime in? GiantSnowman 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I support the proposed ban, but let's make it temporary. The unfortunate, but still best result when an editor, unfortunately, persists in problematic activity despite other editors having issues with that activity. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, and let's hope he communicates more in such cases in the future. Kante4 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Can somebody close and implement the topic ban please? GiantSnowman 13:47, 22 June 2019 (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.
Let me preface this with saying that I was told I should stay away from the dramaboards, and since then I have followed that excellent advice for the most part. Also, most of this report refers to the bolded conversation linked above except when mention is made to the RFC.
This report comes about from an off-wiki conversation that occurred at WP:Discord. Viztor asked for some feedback on the situation and was advised to take it to AN/I. Instead of getting involved with that*, I made a few edits to the article. [146][147] *I later did though.Diff unavailible
Since then, most of my substantial edits besides one were removed. [148] It's hard to get a diff for this because of edits like this, though.
What was the one edit? A tag I put on the article citing my concerns with
Now, despite Nyttend saying there was significant undue weight in the article at ANI, [151] an RFC being started on completely re-writing the article [152] with multiple editors agreeing in said RFC [153][154] (Well, it's only 2/3), and my repeated explanations... Syopsis has insisted that the tag be removed. [155]
In the conversation that labeled "Article concerns" (which concerns the tag), this user has made
"I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive."
This is on-top a general habit of
POV. [164][165][166] Even more concerning is their propensity to follow Viztor around to undo their edits. [167][168][169] or give them unneeded warnings [170][171] (this second diff alerting them to an ANI thread that Viztor started! That might have to do with this edit
, though?). On its own, these edits would be fine, but taken together I have to include a mention here.
I know I have lost patience at least more than once and have had my own fault in this mess. I tried resolving the dispute on my talk page, but as mentioned before Syopsis doubled down. I don't have any recommended action to take, but I would prefer to see a resolution into this matter. I really hate spending more time on this than I need to.
I don't watchlist ANI, so ping me when needed. Thank you all, –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
His POV is another question, the more serious one is his behavior: (1)persistent blatant attacks at multiple other editors (2)hounding them around, (3)tracking and reverting their edits in a systematic manner, so to scare (4)the editors from contributing (5)in the attempt to own the article in question. None of which is an acceptable behavior in this community. Viztor (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd also like to request help with Syopsis. I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with their POV because the content issues we are trying to discuss are being obscured by Syopsis' personal attacks against other editors. For example after my very first post at Talk:China–United States trade war, [172], Syopsis responded with this — and keep in mind this is also our first interaction on Wikipedia [173]:
"It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"
I thought I had only been recommending measures for article improvement, so I objected [174] to Syopsis' rude response, and they quickly came back with this [175]:
"let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position"
Syopsis has been ever more rude to MJL, for instance supposedly repeating their concerns using a kind of pidgin spelling, mockery and insults [176]:
"I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning... it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling... what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing..."
This is really distasteful and I hope something can be done to stop it. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be editorial boards: more or less professional environments. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Since @
personal attacks
by the other two users here; everything i have to say to Darouet i will say on the related talk page and I am not even going to address the comments Viztor made because it will just degenerate into a useless back and forth. But i will say at the outset I absolutely, 100% stand by the things that i wrote which that user quoted ("mediocre," "dog's breakfast" "pseudo-intellectual dog whistling") - they were attacking arguments. That is obvious to anybody who actually read the whole conversation...in full. They were not personal attacks because they were not even directed to a user. I've never made a derogatory personal comment since I started using Wikipedia and I will never make a derogatory personal comment so long as i use this encyclopedia. If that is what you call a "personal attack" then I would hate to see what an actual "personal attack" looks like. It certainly pales in comparison to some of the other things i have seen on wikipedia.
"...their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. " Ah so there it is. Your point-of-view to attack "anti-China" (what ever that means) POVs or defend a "pro-China" (again, I have no idea what means) POV. Little wonder that the user contacted you for help on discord (which seems very much like a case of tag-team editing aka Wikipedia:Tag team. Why even bother editing the article in the first place?). yes if things were only that simplistic. Whatever. Of course the label is just nonsensical, there is for starters a difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and there is a difference between attacking the views of a political party and attacking the culture of a particular place like some mindless idiot. No different than the difference that exists between, say, attacking a religion (christianity, Islam, judaism) and attacking its believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews). I have to say i do find it very curious you did not cite my most recent edits about Hong Kong here, here and here as evidence of my (non-existent) "anti-China" views - probably because you finally figured out the truth of what I just said.
Please stop misrepresenting things. I didn't remove the material you edited, i rearranged them and I left the tag in there as a compromise gesture - hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. By the way, you and anybody else who is reading this should also be aware that the changes I made which included reverting your edits have stayed almost entirely in place - again, hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. I challenged you multiple times on the tag issue with the aim of actually resolving it and all I got from you were just mediocre, sub-standard arguments - that isn't a personal attack, that is just stating a fact. I asked you how the tag isn't a form of discrimination and all i got from you basically was "because it just isn't". And that is before we even get to your allegations of bias in the content. And about the RFC...that was before the people involved in it made massive changes to the article to rectify the bias and whatever else the RFC initiator complained about, which in any case it must be said was decisively rejected.
Okay I will admit: I have to tone down the language. Going forward, i will do my best to refrain from using profaniies and just using general insults. I and like most of the people on the encyclopedia (including everybody involved in this request) are passionate about things, but at some point you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Fair enough. As for the hounding accusation - that's not accurate. There was one edit that was hounding (the one about Xinjiang) but the one about the anchor was to revert a hound edit by the other user and then the third one is not even an example of hounding. That said, I apologize for that one edit and haven't done anything like that since.
It's pretty simple. My position is that these are content disputes which should and can be resolved...between the two of us. If it helps, I am willing to shift the basis of my argument so that we now focus on the hard evidence that you have that the sources are "biased". This is a further compromise by me because I am downplaying the fact that it is wrong for you to discriminate the sources on the basis of nationality. Involving the two other editors is just going to drag this out way longer than it should and they aren't adding anything to the debate that we don't already know anyway. I don't know why you are trying your hardest to railroad this conversation and turn it into a conduct dispute when it isn't. Syopsis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only should you not curse, don't insult people at all, let alone in "general"! Argue over content, not editors, on talk pages. And in terms of POV, it /must/ be
WP:OWN the article, and little effort put into building consensus. Syopsis is clearly very difficult to work with. In terms of resolving the issue, I would support a carefully worded warning on conduct, or a post 1932-American politics T-ban. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓
01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: post-1932 politics t-ban seems a little much. Maybe a subset that has to do with US-Chinese relations, but I would not support such a broad topic ban for a relatively new editor.. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Syopsis: response incoming. Let me start with what is good about you. I think you are genuine person who takes criticism better than most. I appreciate your contributions so far to this project, and I hope nothing that occurs as a result of this ANI report discourages you in anyway from being a part of this community. That being said, your tone can be very off putting at times. As CaptainEek pointed out, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone nor anything. It's a bright line violation of our WP:civility guidelines. The sorts of language you tend to use has a negative effect on people. In that regard, I must address the tag team allegation because that most certainly is something I aspire to never do on Wikipedia. I believe I have been, from the beginning, the most transparent I could possibly be with you in regards to any offwiki communications I have had with Viztor. As previously said, Viztor had general conduct concerns that were brought up on discord (which is fairly common among editors there). I personally took notice of the article (it covers a subject I care about- namely trade) and made the edits. I never even knew Viztor before this interaction, and they had no reason to believe I would get myself involved. I said I had concerns about a bias on your part, and then I provided diffs to substantiate this claim. I did not review every single edit you made and only reviewed significant additions or subtractions to Chinese-related articles. Also, China in this case was shorthand for People's Republic of China (the government). Sorry if that wasn't clear. Listen, I really, really, want to work constructively with you, but just take a look at some of the changes you made which concerns sourcing. [177][178] That second diff was really bad in my opinion because you removed something cited by Reuters but left a statement that was cited to a tweet by Donald Trump. It's hard for me to make sense of that. I appreciate your ability to own up in the places you know you were wrong. I also like your passion for the subjects you cover, but I don't like it when that gets in the way of the group's ability to cooperate with one another. We're all on the same team here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. This is not the first time concerns of his questionable behavior has raised, This editor responded in a similar way last time and stated it was just content dispute. When he said that what he is really saying is that we should neglect his conduct issue because this is just a content dispute, that is denial of problem for me. If he do not acknowledge his problem, this will just keep happening, until everyone just get too tired. This is not "the debate just got too heated and I lost control" kind of situation. He was literally throwing words at people who he just met, on first encounter, people who showed gestures to reconcile the difference. That is beyond content dispute that I have no plan to dive into, for that would just be exactly what he want.Viztor (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Syopsis, you cannot continue engaging with Wikipedia in this way. If this is, as you say, a content dispute, then you need to focus on the content and avoid commenting on other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and these types of remarks degrade the experience for everyone. I would not support a topic ban at this moment, given the lack of a prior formal warning, but going forward I would consider that an applicable remedy if Syopsis doesn't change their behavior. Mackensen(talk) 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Bumping threadfor 7 days. To give admins time to review this.–MJL‐Talk‐☖ 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
In that case, can an admin formally warn Syopsis about conduct, and remind them that if the behavior continues they will find themselves escalatingly blocked? Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
^An acceptable outcome to me (just as much as saying, MJL, there is nothing actionable here. would potentially be). I'd like to see some sort of response from an uninvolved admin. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This thread is ready for a close and should be pretty simple to close too... Thanks - Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:35, 20 June 2019 (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.
Posting copyvios and abusive cack after being blocked. Adam9007 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The IP bears watching, I've blocked two sock or meatpuppets too. Acroterion(talk) 02:27, 24 June 2019 (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:LilBillWilliams
a.k.a. BobRoberts14
LilBillWilliams has been blocked again by Cullen328, and I have declined the unblock request. There is a maturity (CIR) issue here, but he must understand that a further block may be indef in order to be preventative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
) 16:42, 23 June 2019 (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.
talk ·contribs) has been editing for about a week and has accumulated nearly 700 edits between their two accounts. They claim to be a newbie, which...I'll take their word for it. My concern is that while Bill/Bob's intentions are clearly good, they are wasting a lot of other people's time with WP:Randy in Boise behavior. Their typical MO is to seek out an article about a controversial subject, make some BOLD controversial changes, reinstate those changes when they're reverted by another editor, and then engage in long, defensive, circular arguments on the talk page. I've already issued multiple warnings, topic-banned them from American Politics, and I suspect they may eventually be topic banned from the Abortion topic area as well ([179][180]
).
I'm not sure of the best approach to take with enthusiastic,
WP:0RR, or some kind of mentorship (if anybody's interested). Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk
) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. As one of the users who posted on their talk page at least a few times recently [ever since they made a botched AIV report (link], and as an newer editor who has been adopted, I feel like mentorship would be a great idea for Bill! I normally don't review their edits except as it comes up in my watchlist, so I thought I should make that clear. However, in getting the link for that AIV report, I found this MFD. Need I say more? They're very clearly new to Wikipedia and in need of some dire help to be productive. While it would be a lot of work in the short term for whoever takes on that task, in the long term the project would gain a really bright young editor. Bill has a lot of potential were they to leave their current path, so that is the scenario I would most like to see. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I've tried to help so far (haven't scrutinized every single edit though), but I fear I don't have much time in the future to do so. Certainly, a very WP:BOLD editor that definitely needs to learn more policies. That first abortion diff, yikes. Bill, you need a reliable source! Here's some advice, Bill. Pretty much everyone here is more experienced than you. If we're telling you you've done something wrong, you should be open to listening - because we're speaking from a place of much more experience than yours. starship.paint (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Sorry for the intrusion, I'd just like to comment. Although I did make many mistakes at the start, I have not been involved in any edit wars with this current account. When someone reverted my edits, I instead took it to the talk page. So although you're right about me doing that in the past, I am reading over policies/guidelines and will try not to do that in the future. Also, I'm not just "claiming to be a newbie", I most certainly am. I've only been editing for a week and a day, so I don't know as much as you guys/girls do.
talk
) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
LilBillWilliams, You are on Gainesville, Florida. You just reverted a revert of one of your edits and I had to revert it back. You were asked to stop editing the lead without getting consensus in the talk page but you continue to do so. PopularOutcasttalk2me!
14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - as one of the early editors to take notice of his behavior, I offered to help him but there is only so much one can do. It appears he is taking some of the right steps with the new account. I see the biggest issue being his unfamiliarity with community standards, and quite frankly prevailing ideologies and biases. How do we teach that from a NPOV? AtsmeTalk📧 14:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Your sentence was a run-on and had a total of 5 commas in it, so I removed the unnecessary end part of it. "Gainesville is the county seat and largest city in Alachua County, Florida, United States, and the principal city of the Gainesville, Florida, metropolitan statistical area," is a run-on sentence, and the last part about the metro area is unnecessary. I haven't seen any other city article saying that the city is in a certain metro area in the first sentence. Obviously it is the principle city in the Gainesville metro area. Anyone who can read would figure that out in a second, since it literally has "Gainesville" in the name. Trying to argue about that doesn't make any sense. @
talk
) 14:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This where you get into trouble. Five commas does not make this sentence a run on sentence. It is not a run on sentence. Donald did not edit that sentence to be a run on sentence; it has been the lead sentence for a long time. Comments like "anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" is one of the reasons that you are having so much trouble. This isn't an online game where we put each other down. We are trying to make this better and you just keep on editing based on faulty information about things that you think you know ... like if something is a run on sentence. I reverted you. Told you why and you come back arguing the same thing. It's exhausting. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 15:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It being a run-on sentence isn't even the main reason it should be removed. It's a long sentence either way, and I said ""anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" about it being in the metro area, so don't try to use my words for something else. Those words are perfectly accurate. Read the name of the metro area, and the name of the city. You can tell the city is in the metro area. It is stated three sentences later. There is no need to have that in the first sentence. Tell me one other article about a 130,000+ city that is the principle one in its metro area and includes that in the first sentence. Almost no articles are like that.
talk
) 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, I reverted a single person's edit one time. That's not a violation of the three revert per day rule, and wouldn't even be a violation if the article had a one revert policy.
talk
) 14:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - it isn't just controversial articles. The editor has been editing Gainesville, Florida, and a few editors have spent a lot of time trying to educate him/her. Continues the same behavior. Just look at the talk page there. Has apologized at least twice to me but then does the same thing again. I know it has been a short while since the editor has started but in that time I've had little time to do any other editing since I've spent so much time dealing with this user. I ended up taking a wikibreak partially because this user has been tremendously frustrating and I feel that my efforts to educate are getting nowhere. The only reason I came back today is because I was alerted by email with a ping from the user. I am frustrated and I know it's coming across in my tone and my comments and I know that ends up not being effective. I am at a loss as what to do. I had already brought this user to AN/I previously but I had never reported anyone before and apparently did not do a good job of it. Still, the report did not help user with edits. I, too, welcome new and enthusiastic editors even if they make mistakes, but in an environment like Wikipedia I don't know how to assure that someone understands the basic tenets before allowing them to continue to edit. Anyhoo, my two cents. I am sure that the more experienced editors and administrators can come to a decision that works. THanks for helping out. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding - just based on the editor's comments here, I would suggest a time-limited IP ban so the editor has time to read through the educational material that Wikipedia provides. This behavior of being argumentative then showing contrition has been seen several times but the problematic behavior continues. A more permanent solution could be used if the editor comes back and exhibits the same behavior. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That won't be necessary, since if me debating things is just causing more trouble, then I will just back off and not argue about anything at all. I guess if someone reverts my edits I'll just have to ignore that and move on. If I'm not able to ask questions or debate things, then so be it.
talk
) 18:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment The main problem with what I have done is that I know about the topics, so I think I am right too often. I agree completely that I am not always right, but I can go too far in trying to prove that I am. I promise that I am not at all biased ideologically or politically
talk
) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You still don't get it. It is not what you know personally know that counts in Wikipedia, it is what you can cite reliable sources for that counts. How material supported by reliable sources is used in an article is subject to policies such as
due and undue weight, and to the editorial consensus of that part of the community working on an article. The community has consistently rejected claims of expertise about the subjects of articles from editors. - Donald Albury
16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
LilBillWilliams - hope you can absorb Donald’s comment. starship.paint (talk
) 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course I get it, but there was absolutely no need for that to be in the first sentence. Again, you didn't give me other Wikipedia articles where the Metropolitan Area is mentioned in the first sentence. You can't just say "you didn't provide sources" about anything and everything I do. I made the original edit, then you reverted it first, because you thought it was incorrect. Saying that a city is the principle city in it's metro are does not need to be in the first sentence. The sentence was already more than long enough.
talk
) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Here’s another comment for
LilBillWilliams - it’s important you remember that Wikipedia today is the sum total of many, many editors edits, and some articles are even over 15 years old. Every well-meaning editor thinks their edits are correct. So, the more popular (or controversial) an article, the more eyes (and edits) there will be on them. Articles like Donald Trump, same-sex marriage, abortion, Israel-Palestine, Gamergate, I think editors have been ‘fighting’ over them for very long. There must be a reason why the articles are currently this way, and that is effectively the decision (consensus) of the community over a period of years. So if you happen to think something is really wrong about the article, and want to make a WP:BOLD change, don’t be too combative. Even in non-controversial articles like Gainsville, the leads of the articles are probably heavily scrutinised because they are of course the first things people read - so it’s not often that there are major errors in them. starship.paint (talk
) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That's good point, and I am not stupid enough to think that I am more experienced or know more than every other editor. That would be really dumb. I definitely agree that many people edit controversial articles to try and make them the way they believe, which is normally just good overall, but sometimes in a biased manner. I just can be too argumentative when I think I'm right about something, so I'll try not to be in the future.
talk
) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Get used to being in "learn" mode for a couple of years. I've been at it heavily for six years and a lot of it still baffles me. For some things, I probably wouldn't understand if I had edited for a hundred years. It's all about consensus and the ability to defer to consensuses you disagree with. ―Mandruss☎ 16:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Haven't read the above but just wanted to add Bob originally stated they'd only use one account however as of today they've used both accounts (which apparently was to get around the 4 day restriction on their new account)[181][182] - Anywho prior to all that I had redirected their Bob account back to the Bill one however if anyone disagrees with this they're more than welcome to revert my actions, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This editor argued that imposing sanctions on Russia is one of Donald Trump's most noteworthy policies. His current inability to grasp our community standards aside, I disagree with MJL's assessment that this editor is "really bright" with "a lot of potential." There is a long-term CIR problem here, in my view.
Don't try to misquote me. I never said "most noteworthy", that's a complete lie. I literally said "it is too minor to belong in the lead... I was just giving an example of one of his policies." Again, you were angry at me because I mentioned how you once told an administrator to "fuck off". I shouldn't have used that against you, but it doesn't mean you can lie.
talk
) 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Remove "most noteworthy" and I can agree with the rest. Otherwise you're just insulting me and lying.
talk
) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The diff stands for itself. The CIR issue isn't so much your view on noteworthiness; it's your belief that increasing sanctions on Russia is one of Trump's policies.
Again, I still don't see why you are involving yourself in this. You've told administrators to f off, so you cant't just come here and say "it's hopeless". I edited out two false words from your statement, then realized you aren't supposed edit other people's comments, so I reverted it. What a deal changer.
talk
) 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
What seems hopeless is me asking is you to stop bothering me, but I guess you never will.
talk
) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This is now the third discussion in which you've brought up that, six months ago, I told Awilley to fuck off. [185][186] After the second time, I warned you that I'd report you for harassment if you did it again. So here we are.
It's not the only thing you've done. What I am saying is that your blatant insults are just bothersome. They aren't necessary at all. This is about me and what I have done, but not for you to just lie and insult me.
talk
) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Since it seems as if I am not helping the community by debating things when people revert my edits, I guess I will just have to not ask questions or defend my edits. That's okay I guess, so I'll instead try to actually help the community starting in a few days (when I'm free from school work) by making less controversial edits about grammar, spelling, sources, etc. Sorry for causing trouble, I was just trying to help. But since it seems as if I am not helping, I should obviously do something else.
talk
) 19:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I wanted to chip in here with Bill's activity on Fetal viability. He made a bold set of edits that I disagreed with comprehensively. I reverted and listed reasons on the talk page. He reinstated one of the edits immediately without consensus. This was at 0044 June 18th. This is a strong pattern. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You mean I reinstated a part of the edit a single time because you said nothing on the talk page? Look at the time of the edit, and see that you hadn't said anything yet. Putting back a single part of an edit one time is not a major issue. Then when you reverted my edit for a second time, I spoke on the talk page.
talk
) 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's the one. I made a comment with my edit: "Reverting to last edit before LilBillWilliams made multiple edits; see talk page for description of multiple issues with edits." It took me eleven minutes to have my comment in the talk page, but it only took you five minutes to... I don't know? Assume that I wasn't going to say anything? Assume that my reason for reverting your edit was wrong? And reinstate an unsupported claim in the lede. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
First, some people have told me that "lead" only applies to news stories, and that "lead" should be used for wikipedia. Second, I only reinstated part of my edit, and it was not "unsupported". It was sourced. I deleted something saying that the point of viability is 28 weeks, and replaced it with 24. I also provided a source, and offered more. How is that unsupported? Again, you reverted my edit twice, not the other way around. I reverted it once and then went to the talk page instead of reverting it further. Even if you disagreed, you could have just talked about it first.
talk
) 22:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I would urge the new editor to recognize that a dash of humility, both epistemic and personal, goes a long way. I see many minor issues in this thread that don't particularly bother me, but I also see an overall attitude that strikes me as quite troublesome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal
After giving this some thought, I'd like to propose a custom sanction to directly deal with what I see as the root problems.
LilBillWilliams is subject to the following sanctions:
*If an edit that LilBillWilliams makes is challenged by reversion, LilBillWilliams may not reinstate that edit without a clear consensus on the talk page.
*To prevent
WP:BLUDGEONING
, LilBillWilliams may only make one (1) edit per day to any article talk page. (Thank very carefully about what you want to say.)
This sanction may be appealed no sooner than 1-year and only with the approval of an experienced editor with whom LilBillWilliams has undergone a mentorship.
(Note: on the talk page sanction that's one edit per day, not edit per 24-hour period. It averages out, and counting that many 24-hour periods is too much of a burden. Also, that's one edit, not one post.)
I realize there are admins who would sooner just indef-block than fiddle with custom sanctions, but I'd like to give something like this a try first, assuming I haven't lost patience and indef-blocked before this closes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that not allowing me to reinstate my edits without getting consensus would work, but to do that I need to be able to talk a lot more than one message per talk page. How about, if I go on for too long in a talk page (which I will try not to do), any admin can tell me that I am not allowed to argue about that specific thing any longer? That way I can continue to participate in talk pages, but I can be stopped from arguing for too long.
talk
) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
One edit per talk page would just be way too low. If I proposed something, I would not be able to comment further on my proposal, or if someone asked about it, I would not be able to clarify anything.
talk
) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I also think that a year is too long of a period. If I am active and contribute to the community (multiple dozen edits per day on articles), how about an appeal is possible after a month?
talk
) 21:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I support Awilley's proposal, it seems amply justified. As Dumuzuid says, there's a troublesome attitude, in this thread and even more on his own talkpage. I'm not really impressed by BillWilliams saying that he's trying to improve it, because, well, it just doesn't seem to be working. He has posted a whole lot of badgering and bludgeoning and nagging today. But you're not saying he already has a mentor, are you,
Bill Williams, saying "any admin" can always tell you to stop arguing, I understand your perspective there, but I'm afraid it's a dud. There aren't that many admins around the talkpages, and Awilley's point with an edit a day is to stop you wasting other users' time, whether or not there happens to be an admin watching. They should definitely not have to go ask an admin, either. But I actually agree with you that a year is a very long time for such restrictions. A month is a very short time, though. Awilley, would you consider an appeal after three months or six months? Bishonen | talk
21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC).
You didn't make any mention of one edit per day on any talk page. That would not make any sense, since allowing me to not revert edits requires me to be able to access a talk page. Also, I did not tell BullRangifer to stop bothering me or say anything rude to them, so I didn't just "wear out" their good will. As for the months, I would say three months at max. Any more than that is a long time for sanctions on me.
talk
) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I know the one-edit-per-talk-page restriction seems harsh, but honestly, I think it might be a good thing. With all respect, I believe you really need to take some time to consider your responses. I absolutely think you are competent and want to improve the encyclopedia, but right now, you are choosing battles which are nothing but downside for both you and the editors with whom you interact. This response seems a good example of that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As you said, I do really want to help out the wiki, and I agree that so far I have not done a good job by arguing. But how am I supposed to prove myself if I am not allowed to talk/collaborate on any talk pages?
talk
) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You "prove" yourself by following the restriction and learning to make your points clearly, concisely, and logically, instead of filibustering. ~Awilley (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate Awilley's thoughtful approach, though it seems quite cumbersome for Bill and the editors he interacts with. Enforcement could also get quite messy. I'm inclined to suggest something much simpler, that Bill be topic-banned from editing articles (and associated content discussions) until he's found a mentor.
So I don't get to edit any articles, anywhere? What even is the point of talking about it then? If that's what you want, then (whoever agrees with you) just block me right now. Why waste time debating it if you just want to block me completely forever? I get that I made mistakes, but the other people who have been blocked permanently in this talk page were normally much worse. Topic banning is not banning me from all topics. One makes sense, the other doesn't.
talk
) 22:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with Awilley's restriction, subject to appeal in 3 months, coupled with a topic ban on DS topics the user was warned about, also subject to appeal in 3 months. El_C 22:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Mentorship also is definitely a good idea, if the user is able to swing that. El_C 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd also include abortion to that list — not sure about BLPs. The talk page restriction is about your tendency to
I do understand that, but could it at least be higher than one? Maybe just five? That way I wouldn't be able to go on for a long time arguing about something, but could explain my points clearly and concisely.
talk
) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Is sanction negotiation a thing? ―Mandruss☎ 23:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Everything's a negotiation when you're a master with the bludgeon.
I am fine with everyone else here commenting, but Ahrtoodeetoo needs to just stop. His comment above is just another insult. Most of his comments, such as "this is hopeless", saying that I have a "CIR problem", which literally means that I am incompetent, and others in different talk pages are just rude to me and not civil. They are just insults. Can you please stop Ahrtoodeetoo?
talk
) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
His editing interests are eclectic. He has been a problem at Gainesville, Florida as well. He has been a drain on time and energy for several editors there. I favor the tightest restrictions that the community is willing to impose on him. - Donald Albury 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be more lenient and grant two edits to talk pages per day. In case they need to make a correction. starship.paint (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, definitely more than one edit. If someone says "well what about we do ... instead" I would literally not be allowed to respond if I could only edit once per day.
talk
) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be more lenient as well. Kid is off school and he has time and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt (no matter how personally frustrated I am) that s/he will be constructive. I would give two to three edits on a talk page with the restrictions going on for three to six months. I agree with the mentor part but if the mentor sees the behavior continue and not improve significantly, then maybe a block. For instance if s/he is seen significantly editing his comments or those of others, that would be cause for immediate block. No appeal until this shorter-than-a-year time period is over. I don't have an opinion on the topic ban. I don't know how troublesome all this is to implement so I will agree with whatever is the easiest, even if it goes against my suggestions. I do appreciate the thoughtful approach and everyone's help here.PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@
talk
) 01:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on today's behavior of
1. editing the lead of Gainesville, Florida, to be something not close to what we are working on on the talk page diff,
2. after being asked to stop editing the lead until we come to a consensus [187][188],
3. and deleting his and others comments on the talk page diff[189] after being told several times by different people on different pages that this is not good form
As I was looking for examples for my list, I saw that the suggested restriction has been implemented. I am not sure that the restriction is going to help the editor become a better editor. I am adding this so the administrators know about the continuing behavior and I retract my more lenient proposal. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 16:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I made a single to the edit to the article. That is more than allowed. I did not revert anyone else's edit after they reverted mine. You then said go to the talk page, which I did. How is that a problem?
talk
) 17:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
You did not say "don't edit the lead without getting consensus first", you said to include the metropolitan area in the lead, so I did. My edit did not go against what you had told me.
talk
) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, you are allowed to remove a comment about personal information that is unnecessary. My edit did not go against the guidelines on redacting information.
talk
) 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure it does -
WP:BLUDGEONing behavior. Also, you are simply lying. You discussed the lead in the talk page before my revert. There are time stamps, y'know. /head_desk PopularOutcasttalk2me!
18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
LilBillWilliams You edited the lead of the article while a discussion was under way on the talk page about the lead, without regard to that discussion. That goes against Wikipedia:Consensus. I am not willing to give you a pass on not knowing one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. You removed other user's comments along with your comments. That is what is not acceptable. In any case, your comment is still visible in the page history. - Donald Albury
18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought that my edit was acceptable because you guys had just disputed me removing the metro area from the lead. I am sorry for misunderstanding, and will be more careful in the future. I'll just stay clear of that article, since I sadly am not being helpful. Also, I did not know that my edit went against guidelines, since I do not know them as well as you. I believed that I could remove that from the talk page. But again, don't call me a liar for being confused. I did not just try to go against what you wanted, I didn't think I was doing something that you disliked. I thought my edit would be acceptable to you and Donald.
talk
) 18:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I think
WP:NOTHERE. I know that we have had productive and collaborative editors of his self-reported age, but he is not there yet. Maybe in a year or two he will be able to return to Wikipedia in a more collaborative mood. - Donald Albury
17:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been staying away from this ANI thread, but there seems to be no end to the disruption, good intentions or not. I have to agree with Donald Albury's assessment. Meters (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added that article (and related ones) to their editing restriction. Let's give em one more chance to see if they can edit without getting into trouble. Though I agree this is starting to become a bit much. El_C 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with one more try, but I think the rope is now fully stretched.. Meters (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Update
Events have moved past this thread... just documenting. starship.paint (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
El C and Awilley topic banned LilBillWilliams from American politics and abortion, subject to appeal in 3 months. LilBillWilliams can only use an individual article talk page once per day, subject to appeal in 3 months.
On 20 June 2019, LilBillWilliams was blocked 48 hours by El C for violating the topic ban on American politics.
After LilBillWilliams returned, on 23 June 2019, LilBillWilliams was blocked 72 hours by Cullen328 for disruptive edits. Kudpung declined the block appeal. starship.paint (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (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.
Donald Trump page.
Content matters are not dealt with here at AN/I. If you see something wrong with the page you can follow up at Talk:Donald Trump. — xaosfluxTalk 03:21, 23 June 2019 (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. I don't like Trump. 2. I'm 3rd party. 3. Someone needs to check this page for bias or bigoted material. Trump may be a liar, but so are all politicians. That's what we pay them for. ... an official page on him should not say straight out 'he's a liar'. .. I'm a fact checker myself, and EVERY president I've checked has been caught on something.
Be professional please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.225.6 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
No one is professional here, we are all volunteers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2019 (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 is freaky... --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
upload.wikimedia.org redirects to the wikimedia commons but I can't find that file there. Anybody with more experience in commons want to have a look? Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It's an en:WP problem, not Commons. Unless it's a Meta problem, because Meta (unlike Commons) gets to prioritise some stuff over the local WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is so weird. The vandalized image appears to be at File:Information.svg, but it looks as if Anomie uploaded it back in 2011... there is no updated upload log entry since 2011... Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
If I attempt to revert the image to the version as of 03:37, October 3, 2011, I get the following error message: The current version of the file is already identical to the selected one.Mz7 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Spooky. Maybe some weird caching issue on Wikimedia's end? Anne drew 19:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
And it appears to be fixed 🤷♂ Anne drew 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) JJMC89 deleted the local file and now it's showing the Wikimedia Commons' version, which is the right version. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Not for me. I still see the spooky face. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I action=purge'd it and now it's fixed! Thank you. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a Keep local high-risk file so @JJMC89: please restore and ensure protected when this is cleaned up. This may be related to a bug I can't find right now about certain thumbnails from the shared repository wrongly overwriting the local image ones. — xaosfluxTalk 19:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I know. I tried to restore the file and to upload a fresh copy, but kept getting DB transaction errors. Since the Commons version is upload protected, I've create protected the local page to prevent anyone from overwriting it. I'll look through Phabricator for a task or create a new one shortly. If another admin is able to restore or upload a new version, feel free. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I can't from where I am right now, but last time I hit that I has to upload to a new name, them move it over the old name. — xaosfluxTalk 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked. We now have a local copy in place. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Earlier, I also tried to re-upload the Commons version of the file as a new version, but I received this upload warning. I didn't proceed to "ignore warnings", but JJMC89 said they tried the same thing, but the upload didn't work even when they checked "ignore warnings". I think we may have to wait until the bug you mentioned gets fixed.Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems somewhat like phab:T30299 (if there were redirects in play in the vandalism?) — xaosfluxTalk 19:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the original file description page hadn’t been edited since 2017. If the spooky image’s file description page had been redirected to File:Information.svg, could that have caused the error? (Which begs the question, why would anyone think to create that redirect?) I can’t find the spooky face’s true file to verify. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A non-admin "good call" from me too. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (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 to insure that there is no question of propriety, I note here that I reverted an IP addition of an AfD tag at Shooting of David Ortiz, and deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of David Ortiz, created by a newly established account following the addition of the AfD nomination tag. I did this because the IP address that added the tag, 129.100.255.31(talk·contribs·WHOIS), has previously stalked User:Geo Swan and vandalized articles that Geo Swan has edited (see here and here), and added this tag to the article not long after GeoSwan had edited the article and initiated a talk page discussion. The AfD was created by User:NeoKnowsBest, a new account with no other edits, which circumstances suggest is merely an extension of the IP account. Of course, legitimate proposals can always be made to suggest that a subtopic should be merged into its supertopic, but I deemed this to be sufficiently within the pattern of previous stalking/vandalism by this IP to undo the actions altogether. bd2412T 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks okay to me; thanks. All the best, Miniapolis 22:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Might have been better to let the AfD run to "speedy keep". Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Consider it a ‘CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users’ deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2019 (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 Balon Greyjoy replacing Hawaiian okina with Joeytje50/JWB
I need help to get through to this editor who is not responding. The editor is Balon Greyjoy, and the script he is using is User:Joeytje50/JWB. Automated edit summary on all is " replacing curly quotation marks/apostrophes with straight ones, per MOS:' (via WP:JWB)" Pinging script creator Joeytje50. The problem with the script, is that it does not differentiate between quotation marks/apostrophes, and the Hawaiian okina. The ʻOkina is not a quotation mark. It is an apostrophe-like letter indicating the glottal stop, serving as a consonant. Per MOS Hawaii-related articles. I notified Balon Greyjoy on the talk page of the article 1, but he just keeps going. He also did this on John Dominis Holt. As of this morning, it's on Charles E. King. I don't have every article under WikiProect Hawaii bookmarked, so I don't know how many articles he has done this to ... or will do this to. In the long haul, this tool is going to reverse approved formatting a lot of articles that fall under WikiProject Hawaii.
Please make this stop before it wrecks more articles. A script that cannot differentiate between apostrophes, quotation marks, and accepted formatting of non-English spelling, should not be working. Also pinging KAVEBEAR. — Maile (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I would try leaving a message on the user's talk page. Some people disable notifications from pings and reverts. By the way, I think you posted the ANI notification on Balon Greyjoy's user page instead of user talk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved the notice to their talk page. Also left one at Joeytje50 talk page, a user who does not appear to be editing regularly. It is concerning that there could be a script running, created by a user who isn't around on a regular basis to catch the problems. — Maile (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can someone disable the JWB for now?Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is another example of disruption caused by obsessing on the MOS. (eyeroll) Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. Among other things this script is changing in Hawaii articles, is re-formatting the spelling in article sourcing. There are 7,453 articles attached to WP:HAWAII. That's a sizeable amount of body text and sourcing for this script to willy-nilly change. No way to tell how many editors strictly followed the MOS, but that is a potential large base of changes for this script - not just the number of articles. . Also, numerous Hawaiian articles have the okina their namespace. Hopefully, there is no script that can run to move said articles. Obsessing on the MOS is what Wikipedia does. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not see the alerts for my talk page while I was in JWB; it was the only tab I had open at the time. I failed to realize that it was improperly replacing the incorrect symbol, I misinterpreted it as properly replacing a curly punctuation mark. I'm sorry for any trouble that I caused. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Balon Greyjoy. While this seems to resolve this with what you were doing, it is still concerning that this script can do this. In the case of "curly quotation marks/apostrophes" the script has no way of knowing that each project may have their individual styles that conflict with this. Perhaps this script should be permanently disabled until - and if - Joeytje50 can correct this issue. With all the languages, place names and biographical names, on English Wikipedia, it seems this script needs honing. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:ENGAGE. Their talk page is filled with comments, yet they have not edited their own talk page once. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk
13:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the user is aware that their user talk page actually exists. May need to block for a short while to get their attention. I've given them one last chance to acknowledge the existence of their user talk page. El_C 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
While this discussion is ongoing, this user is still making the same type of editing. The user adding something [199] which was reverted as being unsourced [200], with the explanation given by the user who reverted them. Yet they just came around and put the exact same edit back, while still not providing a source [201]. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I think a short ban may be in order, it seems they are ignoring any messages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, that will prove enough to get the user's attention. El_C 17:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Dynamic IP continues to harass me
I previously posted about an anonymous editor with a dynamic IP who deleted my article entries for Bryant & Stratton College then falsely identified himself as a lawyer ("Harvey Clouston") for the school. After failing to meet his demands to revert my edits, he continues to harass me under another fake name ("Steven A. Miller") and identifies himself as a Wikipedia editor. It appears he may have emailed at least a dozen US businesses, identified himself as a Wikipedia editor, and told them to contact Wikipedia Legal. I believe I have his real email and first name. What are my options? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Your sole option is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, whether via Trust & Safety or Legal. —A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 02:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a problem at the article any longer? If so, please identify it and at least that might be handled here. In principle you could contact the WMF but getting action against a dynamic IP for crankery is unlikely. If there is some action that could be taken on-wiki (blocking a user or range of IPs, or protecting some pages), and if sensitive information is involved, you could email Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee). However, the internet is full of troubled people and the above description suggests that specific action might not be achievable. In what way are you now being harassed? Presumably via email? Do they know your email address or are they using Wikipedia mail to send you messages? Do not reply to any messages! Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I emailed Wikimedia Legal yesterday. The Bryant & Stratton College article is semi-protected, so there is no longer a problem with the article. The person has sent me about 15 emails so far, through other email services. My concern is that this man could escalate the situation. I believe I have his real email, real first name, and real work phone number, but am not sure how to proceed. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no further action that can be taken on wikipedia beyond blocking the IP and protecting the article. Any further action would be have to be taken by the Wikimedia foundation. We cannot and will not out names or emails or other personal information. Emailing legal is the right step here, as they can better tell you how to proceed with the matter. Now if a user continues to harass you here on Wikipedia, tell us and we can block them. But if a user is harassing you off-wiki, that is a matter for the Trust & Safety team at the Wikimedia foundation. They have tools that we just don't have access to on the Encyclopedia side of things. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Request IP range block due to abuse on day of the year pages
Hello, there is a continuous addition of unsourced content/reverting by ip's from range 1.129 and 1.144 not adhering to
WP:DOY guidelines. Currently on June 21, June 22 and June 23. This keeps moving along during the year following the current date. This has been a long term problem during this year on many day of the year pages (pick a date and you can find these ip ranges warring). This seems to be a single person completely ignoring every single edit summary helpfully explaining policy but also every warning given, resulting in edit warring by reversion. It seems that some of the ranges have been blocked for a shorter duration before, but this is clearly becoming a case of long term abuse. These edits also keep filling up Special:PendingChanges due to all day of the year pages being pending changes protected specifically to prevent new unsourced additions. Therefore I would like to request some sort of range block since semi protection of all day of they year pages may prevent many valid additions by ip and new users that do conform to policy. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk
) 19:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Redalert2fan:Sasquatch has already rangeblocked 1.129.108.0/22 and 1.144.108.0/22 for 1 and 2 weeks respectively. (block log)
I also saw the same type of edits on
WP:V as the linked articles verify the additions - but of course edit warring (and block evasion, as cited in the blocks for specific IPs - though that appears to be caused by a highly dynamic IP) is still impermissible. ComplexRational (talk
) 20:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Thanks for the ping! I hadn't got a chance to review ANI today yet. I will continue to monitor those pages after the block is up. One of the ranges had been blocked before so I made that one longer... There is the possibility of some collateral damage on the ranges so I am keeping them short for now. Sasquatcht|c 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see the user's use of edit warring on Portuguese language, their refusal to cite sources and constant personal attacks and accusing people who cite sourced content as trolls. --Spirit of the night (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see what writes this user above, how he attacked myself at first, that remains. He may lie, but he attacked, accused and insulted first, and he cannot change it anymore. It is not my fault if he could not interprete correctly what is written in the South African Constitution, which I cited as a source in a note. --Springpfühler (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have not been involved in this dispute, but I have been watching it, and it is out of control. It has been going on for a couple days, involving at least three editors and one IP, and everybody needs to stop reverting and work it out on the Talk page. The reported editor has violated WP:3RR, as has the IP (both doing so after being explicitly warned), but the reporting editor has also been firing off reverts and has been incivil/failing to WP:AGF in edit summaries and Talk ("stop trolling" in response to trolling accusations by other editor, accusing other editor of Afrophobia). To my view, the page should be reverted to the last stable version [202] and then all sides need to talk it through civilly and reach a consensus on the Talk page, and a voluntary cooling off period wouldn't be a bad idea for everyone involved (those who don't earn a mandatory one). Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry about what happened, anyways I didn't do it for me or any bullshit, just for the sake of truth.
It does not matter a thing to me even if I do not write in Wikipedia for a year, I am not really into that.
I just saw that there were a lot of mistakes in this page regarding Portuguese language and I corrected it. Maybe too much, but for a good purpose.
I was not the first who insulted or accused, and that can be easily checked.
The "old version" was full of bullshit, like Portuguese being official (minority) language in places like Andorra, Luxembourg, Galicia, South Africa, etc...A circus. Just lies. Everybody (should) know(s) it is not like that, in those places Portuguese is just an immigrants' language and sometimes not even that. I am aware there are even more places that should be removed from this box, but I was not sure so I didn't do it.
And I insist that the box with the flags should be reserved for the official use of a language, as it is was normally done.
If we are talking about "cultural", "honorific", "protected" language, or whatever like this, a mention in the article is more than enough.
Putting a small flag of a country where a tongue is NOT officially recognized in ANY area of the country, like it is the case for Portuguese in ALL the countries I mentioned before, maybe just because some guys are so naive or nationalist that take pleasure in seeing their language mentioned in a big amount of countries even if they know it is absolutely irrelevant or even non-existent there, is really a bad sign for the realiability of Wikipedia and definitely not serious, and that is basically why this site is not regarded like that by a lot of people. Because everyone can write whatever he likes without following a definite criterion regarding what should be written.
The question we should ask ourselves in this case is: would a "normal", "serious" or "traditional" book or encyclopedia include South Africa or the other countries I mentioned between the countries where Portuguese is spoken?
Never ever.
I teach languages and between them Portuguese.
Not even in Portuguese books, neither from Portugal nor from Brazil, is any of these countries ever mentioned as a place where Portuguese is spoken. Never. No way.
Because it would be a lie, as simple as that.
So, if Wikipedia puts a small note informing that there are Portuguese speakers also in these countries, that's ok, and that's what I did.
On the contrary, if Wikipedia still writes that in this countries Portuguese is spoken as it was an officially recognized language there, that remains a lie and it doesn't make Wikipedia serious at all, just that. Then we cannot wonder or complain about why so many people think like that, more than all at school or in academic environments. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have fully protected the page against editing for 3 days. Please take this to Talk:Portuguese language and build a consensus. I am well aware that I probably protected m:The Wrong Version. Sasquatcht|c 21:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen
It's doubtful that anything good will result from leaving this thread open any longer.
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.
Background: I
WP:CANVASS, I nominated the Article Rescue Squadron itself for deletion. This is where User:7&6=thirteen
I nominated the Article Rescue Squadron itself for deletion — at least you're forthright, I'll give you that! Sorry, but that does come across as a provocation. I find it surprising you fail to appreciate that. El_C 04:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that surprises me about this sequence of events is that you seem surprised at how it worked out. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. This was simply a factual announcement of another purposeful and coordinated attack on a useful
Rusf10 finds that my defense of WP:Rescue Squadron and its mission and performance inconsequential tells you everything you need to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎
) 08:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed,
Argumentum ad hominem on me. That is the best he can marshal. Oh well! At least I didn't go to ANI 7&6=thirteen (☎
) 09:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Article Rescue Squadron is a canvassing club. No, the community has no will to actually do anything about it. That said, it's not the disruption it was in its heyday when one member would slap its rescue template on a bunch of articles and the other members would then go around to each AfD in turn to vote "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable" on all of them. ReykYO! 09:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
As for the MfD itself, I agree it was a silly idea without much prospect for success. However I see no personal attacks from Rusf10 there, only (IMO justified) complaints about canvassing. Comments like "deleetionist provocateur" and "vindictive" are personal attacks though. ReykYO! 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This spat has arisen from series of deletion proposals and nominations recently made by Rusf10. The topics are all places in
@Andrew Davidson: - Yet you removed all seven PRODs in four minutes - pretty much the time it takes to go to each page, edit it and press save - which suggests you didn't review them to see if they were incorrect PRODs either. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
CAT:ALLPROD every day. This category shows all the pending prods and, as they stay there for about a week, I get to see the same topics again and again. I drill down into the titles which look promising and check those topics out by reading them and browsing for sources. I had been keeping an eye on this bundle for several days but didn't rush to act. When I did decide that they merited further attention, I dealt with them all at once. I have followed up all the AfDs which then resulted and that took a lot longer than four minutes. Andrew D. (talk
) 11:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. If you thought they were all notable, why didn't you deprod them all straight away? Why wait six days? It's not like they're going to get less notable! Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
sniff sniff- what's that I smell? Is it a post hoc rationalisation? Why yes, I do believe it is. ReykYO! 11:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a process of triage – most topics are hopeless and get no attention; some get consideration and a few get saved. What you don't get to see are the prods that I review but take no action. For example, currently there's City Square House – another large building. I took a look at that the other day but decided that, as the building hadn't been constructed yet, it probably wasn't worth any effort. Patrolling Wikipedia is often compared to drinking from a firehose – you have to be careful about sticking your head out! Andrew D. (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That said, it's not the disruption it was in its heyday when one member would slap its template on a bunch of articles and the other members would then go around to each AfD in turn to vote "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable" on all of them. To be fair, that's true - these days there's usually only three regulars doing that, and they generally use "Meets GNG" rather than "It's notable" as the boilerplate. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'm frankly surprised no one has blocked or sanctioned Thirteen for his behaviour, and canvassing isn't even the worst of it: here he copy-pasted a comment previously made by me elsewhere, here he compared me to a "fart on an elevator" that he hoped would "fade away". But Andrew's guilty of a lot worse than that, such as calling editors trolls for not agreeing with him (Yes, I've called at least one of the above editors a troll before, but only for blatantly trolling behaviour. If either of them provide diffs of me doing so, I would strongly urge any onlookers to look into the behaviour that I was describing as trolling and try to tell me with a straight face that I was wrong.), removing sourced content because he didn't like the editor who added it, unapologeticallyposting OR to the mainspace, unapologetically promoting the pushing of fringe theories again and again over multiple years, repeatedly arguing that a copyvio article was not copyvio after it had already been deleted despite having refused to do so in the three days that the argument had been made at AFD and the page was publicly visible... I've basically given up all hope that editors like this will ever face any sanctions for their consistently counter-policy behaviour, and I doubt anything worthwhile will come of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You posted here that you think the forum should be 'retired' but MfD was not the 'right way to accomplish that'. You have had well-known long-term negative interactions with multiple members of the forum including Dream Focus, Andrew and 7&6. If MfD is not the way to 'accomplish retirement', what is? -- GreenC 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of canvasing?, not posting notifications of a notice board, canvasing?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
SS, it might be a good idea for you to refrain from saying "this user who recently agreed with me on something is not canvassing". It didn't work out the last time you did it.[206][207]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not about me, please do not make it about me. This is my last repose to any comments about my actions here it is a derail then will end up being hated anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Responding to the second version of the above, which was live when I started to respond.) I know it's not about you. I'm saying you should probably stay away from discussions of canvassing until you have familiarized yourself with the relevant policy. Saying "You shouldn't be commenting here" is damn near the opposite of saying "This is about you". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't respond to or interact with
Argumentum ad hominem] are beside the point. 7&6=thirteen (☎
) 15:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment – Conduct issues involving deletion discussions are sufficiently common that draconian remedies are in order. The community should impose Community General Sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. (This includes editors who attack other editors, and editors who make too many XFD nominations.) If the community does not act, ArbCom should accept the next dispute involving deletion, and should impose
ArbCom discretionary sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk
) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I said at the MFD that opening that MFD was an unnecessary escalation. The same thing is true of this thread, which has generated more heat than light.
Comment. I recommend a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Editor conduct, for the lay of the land. There are certainly ways that the project can be seen as canvassing for keep, but there is also a very straightforward way to avoid any whiff of canvassing. Just post at the AfD that the AfD has been listed at the Rescue List. Then everything is transparent. (And I urge admins who close the discussions take that listing into account when evaluating consensus.) I've been watching the patterns of conduct in this regard for a pretty long time, after having a strange experience at an AfD when a bunch of keeps suddenly appeared in a discussion that was heading towards delete, and it initially was unclear why it happened so suddenly. In my experience, 7&6 has been very conscientious about this kind of transparency, as are most other ARS participants. And 7&6 seems to me to be generally quite civil about this stuff; the MfD just seems to have pushed his buttons, but I would recommend that no action be taken against him. I find that two editors, Andrew D. and the editor you will see in the link I gave at the beginning of my comment, to be on-and-off in disclosing at AfDs they've listed. Sometimes, they disclose, and sometimes, they don't. And when they don't, I post it for them. You're welcome. This happened yesterday at the AfDs discussed here, which is what led to Rusf10 taking the actions that he has taken. In my opinion, having a project that "rescues" and fixes keep-able pages is a good thing, and it's just a matter of the conduct of individual editors. Really folks, just disclose at the AfD that you have listed the AfD at ARS, and then everyone will be a lot calmer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I always post except for that one time I forgot. You can easily go through the list and see what I added and confirm this. DreamFocus 22:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Not anything near to one time. And you are always so collegial about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (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 propose that the community authorize Community General Sanctions for disruptive editing in the area of deletion discussions, where
disruptive editing
is defined to include, but not be limited to:
Personal attacks
.
Casting aspersions
on other editors, e.g., on editors having different deletion views.
Canvassing
of !votes on deletion discussions.
Disruptive bundling of nominations, by the insertion of pages into a bundle after discussion is underway.
Disruptive bundling of nominations by the submission of bundles that have nothing to do with each other.
(By the way, for examples of disruptive bundles, look at some of the packages of portal deletion nominations that have been waiting for closure since April. I generally support the deletion of portals, but the bundling of unrelated packages of portals is disruptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose the above thread was unnecessary and general sanctions would also be unnecessary.
Oppose most of these suggestions as unnecessary. Personal attacks, aspersions, and canvassing are already against Wikipedia rules. These incidents are unfortunate and should be sanctioned, but they don't happen very often in articles for deletion, as least relatively so. These things happen a lot more here at ANI. In most articles for deletion, people usually just post a single support or oppose comment. The more structured format results in far less problems than in other forums. We should be more vigilant to deal with disruptive acts like those described, but articles for deletion discussions are, relatively speaking, the best behaved areas on all of Wikipedia. I don't know why we are singling them out.Worldlywise (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Just going to add here that nothing I wrote was "off-topic", and that disruptive and inflammatory hat should be undone. I'm not going to try doing so myself, but I would really appreciate this thread getting a proper, admin close rather than the above involved close that was clearly meant to give the closer the last word in expressing their idiosyncratic view, and removing or retitling the hat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't on topic at all. You were trying to personally discredit someone for the crime of asking a simple question. This after you made unwarranted attacks on Andrew Davidson, who was not the subject of the above thread. And you were also pleased to share your own negative experiences with Thirteen, regardless of their relevance here, further cementing your reputation for making everything about you and dredging up things people did (or may have done) to you long ago. And then you had the nerve to lecture GreenC at their talk page for supposedly personally attacking you. That's just laughable. Feel free to continue framing yourself as a victim (without personally attacking others) in your userspace, but I suggest you stop disrupting pages that other people edit.
Note: On his user page, Hijiri has accused me of insinuating that he is mentally handicapped and/or insane. I don't recall saying anything of the sort, and certainly hope I didn't. The evidence that he has provided so far doesn't back up his claim. Indeed, I am perturbed that he finds anything seriously objectionable in those 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.
Fascism page
Not a user conduct issue. You have not even attempted to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Please do so along with any
reliable sources you have to support your position. 331dot (talk
) 20:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For whatever reason this page is being held hostage and being used to denigrate a current politician or political. While this is fine, normally, it makes Wikipedia look like they are using Orwellian tactics to pursue a singular ideology and impacting Wikipedia's general credibility. A simple though experiment can fully obliterate the argument that Fascism is a right wind ideology.
If conservatism is about the limited role of government (in the USA at least) then more right of conservatism is Libertarian. Somewhere to the right of that would be anarchy. None of these philosophies espouse control that is seen in Fascism, so to make a correlation to right wing philosophy is simply an attempt at political discourse instead of distribution of knowledge.
Others have made the argument that Fascism is a left wing Ideology, but I disagree. Fascism is so far out of the realm of logical political discourse that no ideology can contain it. Putting on a spectrum is a fallacy.
Unfortunately I was unable to comment on the page as it is being held hostage. The discourse on the page has descended to one side arguing logically at times, while the other side is stubbornly refusing to listen to any form of discussion or logic. I can only assume that this is not what the Wikipedia organization is after, and you will make a decisive action to settle the situation.
This isn't an incident requiring administrative action; this is apparently your disagreement with content in the article. That you disagree with said content is unfortunate, but no action is going to be taken here. If you're unwilling to discuss your issues on the article talk page, there is nothing further to be done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing actionable here. O3000 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (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.
If possible - may need attention - seems an anonymous "
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you *very much* for your help with this - and suggestions - they're *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (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.
Sharyl Attkisson BLP
I agree this is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. The article Talk page or, if needed,
WP:BLPN should be more than adequate.--Bbb23 (talk
) 00:08, 24 June 2019 (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.
WP:BLPPUBLIC
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
The Snopes piece was added by this user on 10 June.
Snopes' allegations are not supported by any neutral
WP:RS and should not be included in her bio, but this user has reverted all my attempts at a remedy. petrarchan47คุก
21:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think Petra understands policy and I think his report here is a sign of that. He's repeatedly goalpost shifted to remove content that views Attkisson unfavorably - first his justification was that Snopes is unreliable (which is false - it is a reliable source and has been reaffirmed 12 times at RS/N), and now that it violates other policies. It seems he keeps fishing for any policy he can look at to justify removing this content, but the talk page does not back him up on any of this. Discussion is currently ongoing (Petra started an RfC, in fact) on the talk page for this content, but the consensus seems to lean very much in favor of including it. Just read the talk page: this has been discussed before and is being discussed right now. His repeated attempts to force the removal of this content over the viewpoints of other editors is beginning to verge on disruptive.
My first revision was backed by
give equal time and validity to incorrect information
- like, say, a report that falsely alleges the government covered up research that proves vaccines cause autism.
As to the idea it has no backing outside of Snopes: other sources have commented on Attkisson's anti-vaccine piece on Full Measure, including Salon, which noted the sharp criticism it faced from several professors and medical doctors and scientists as well as its widespread promotion on anti-vax websites. Regardless, the content is clearly notable for inclusion as it fits the general finding that Attkisson is, at best, a poor reporter on vaccines and, at worst, is perpetuating anti-tax myths. This program is just another example of that, per Snopes. ToaNidhiki05 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a blog. Editors are using Snopes and a skeptic's blog to make exceptional claims about a living person - this is against policy even if three people on the talk page think it's fine. petrarchan47คุก 23:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I have a much different view regarding BLP & NPOV policy, beginning with strict adherence to our 3 core content policies, that exceptional claims require multiple high quality RS with in-text attribution for contentious statements. Based on the banter that has occurred on the TP, there is reason for concern that
WP:BLPCOI may be applicable in this situation as there does appear to be a bit of acting out in retaliation over Attkisson’s criticism of the way her BLP has been handled. Attkisson has been accused of being anti-vac and right wing, which she adamently denies. She has attempted to be accommodating by expressing her views on the article TP, but I think perhaps her comments were seen more as criticism than being helpful. Her comment in this diff mentions Tao and demonstrates part of her frustration over the difficulties she has encountered. Does the material in her article strictly adhere to BLP & NPOV? The short answer is no, not as well as it could. Is there noncompliance with policy - I believe so. There have been instances where statements in the BLP have been challenged as noncompliant with NPOV/BLP policy as evidenced by the diffs provided by the OP. AtsmeTalk📧
This is a routine BLP content dispute and doesn't belong at WP:ANI. Toa Nidhiki05's edits have been supported by talk page consensus. The only conduct problem is Petrarchan47's edits against consensus, though that problem has been manageable so far.
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.
Jzsj topic ban violation June 2019
(non-admin closure) Jzsj blocked for 3 months by Ivanvector for violating topic ban on "education or schools, broadly construed". Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:56, 25 June 2019 (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 Banner keeps twisting the truth. The one who proposed the Community Ban got only one person to support him, while the rest, including two administrators, opposed it. As I pointed out there, I have made a few completely inadvertant slips against this ban "broadly construed", amidst my many thousands of edits in the past nine months. Here I was focused on the Jesuit's support of this person, not on the fact the issue was raised at a school. And what the Banner describes as two places really pertain to the same place. I will redouble my efforts to notice when incidents pertain to schools. @The Banner:Jzsj (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There was a proposal for a community ban. And not by me.
Your topic ban violations are seemingly always "inadvertant slips".
And about twisting the truth: I had withdrawn my support before the discussion ended. But please not to other editors that supported the CBAN.
The language of the TBAN (see [208]) is: "... indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." The offending edits, to a paragraph on individuals losing their jobs at Catholic schools specifically for being in non-heterosexual relationships, added text of an incident where a particular Jesuit school was deconsecrated by the local bishop because of its refusal to dismiss a gay teacher. How it could escape one's attention that this is an edit "related to education or schools" is bewildering. Jzsj was last blocked for a month for violating this ban, this time it's three months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to concur with Ivanvector this seems an obvious violation of the topic ban there is no way I could see any reasonable person failing to realize that this would fall under "education or schools, broadly construed", when editing an article which covers an issue pertaining to a teacher. I'd endorse the block for what it is worth.--Cameron11598(Talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (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 concerned about the conduct of UponAShiningStar (talk·contribs). They have very little activity on Wikipedia (their first edit to this encyclopedia was apparent vandalism, and their other six mainspace edits seem to be low-value rewordings), but recently they have begun sending emails to administrators that I find suspicious. Specifically, I was sent an email from this account, which I had never previously interacted with, stating only "Hello, I have a request involving the English Wikipedia. Would you be willing to take one at this time?" It is apparent that I am not the only recipient of such emails, because UponAShiningStar has blanked a series of responses on their talk page made by other admins (specifically Surjection and El C) who received such an email and responded on the editor's talk page. After I suggested that use of the email system to contact administrators should be reserved for instances in which an editor is being stalked or harassed, UponAShiningStar emailed me again and wrote, "You've got it exactly right. I am actually being stalked and harassed on Wikipedia, and do fear to place it in a public sphere. In fact, I received a harassing message just yesterday mocking me for getting blocked. All the requests I mentioned were on that subject"; and "Several admins can attest to this". To me, this suggests that several admins have been made aware of stalking and harassment of UponAShiningStar, and have done nothing about it. The entire thing sounds fishy to me. Are there, in fact, any other admins who are aware of the conduct that UponAShiningStar now asserts? bd2412T 18:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I found the user's insistence that I provide to them my email address in order for them to report their concerns to have been quite puzzling and rather suspicious. But I suppose there's a chance I'm missing something pivotal. El_C 18:30, 24 June 2019 (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.
Page protected. Editors to use the article talk page or use the steps set out at
WP:DR to discuss consensus for the wording. N.J.A. | talk
00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an edit war around whether WP:Office actions is currently a Wikipedia policy.
I am not sure what the recourse is here but the complete absence of any attempt to build consensus before making this change is unacceptable. Anne drew (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)f
Consensus for the change already exists: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The page cannot be considered a policy as it was not developed by the community, which is a basic requirement for something to be considered a local policy. The fact that it carried a policy tag until my change was simply an error. –xenotalk 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: This was a unilateral change on xeno's part based on the recent Fram hullabaloo here [209]. The change needs to be discussed. SportingFlyerT·C 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus for the change already exists Where? I don't recall anyone even proposing such a change, let alone agreeing to it. You even said yourself that basically the change was bold. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I already explained: local policies are developed by the community. OA, in its current state was not. Coincidentally, your comments also apply to the Feb 2019 changes which had no basis in consensus. –xenotalk 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Protected for 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
28bytes why was the page locked on the current contested version rather than the stable version of the page before this dispute took place? Anne drew (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I assume that 28bytes protected the page in the version that he found it, consistent with longstanding practice. As to the last stable version, surely that was this one? WJBscribe(talk) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: WJBscribe is correct. The page was protected in the state it was found. Work out what the correct version should be on the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Please, everyone follow the WMF's lead and only change "policy" by "consensus". Like, for example, here and here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for the page being an enwiki policy following the major revisions in February 2019? WJBscribe(talk) 22:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is this even here. Regardless who did what (outside of straight out edit warring, if it occured) xeno just corrected a mistake and made it correct. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
FlightTime, It's been marked as policy since 2006. I find it somewhat hard to believe that it's taken 13 years for someone to spot a mistake like that. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There were large scale, undiscussed changes pushed to the page by an external organization. It is no longer a local policy, per our policy on policies. –xenotalk 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a ton of consensus at the Framgate discussion page that the present iteration of office actions does not reflect community consensus, and there is no consensus that it is an en-wiki policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A "handful"?! You've got to be kidding. There's more consensus in the discussion at WP:FRAM than one usually sees in 99% of consensus discussions. You're letting your POV get in the way of your judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This will probably escalate the drama; However, I've proposed that the article in question be redirected to either Meta or Foundation, just as the Terms of Service or other foundation matters would be. Promethean (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
In the interests of not escalating the drama, I'm not going to comment.Except to suggest that Anne drew Andrew and Drew is reminded exactly what both edit warring and consensus mean, and, more to the point, when they do and do not apply. As a lesson in precision, it could be useful. ——SerialNumber54129 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you explain it to me then? Use small words, I'm not as bright as you. Anne drew (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You must be fairly bright for your first 20 edits to be to your own .JS pages and then using Cite News and Cite Journal straight away. Don't be so hard on yourself. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm a professional software developer. Javascript and wiki markup aren't exactly challenging for me. Anyway, if you're trying to make a point please be explicit about it. Anne drew (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Correcting a long-overlooked error does not require a consensus. A "policy" which was never approved by the community is not an en.wiki policy. It might be a WMF policy, but that's different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: all else aside, edit warring normally involves a small number of wikiteurs going back and forth; most often just two, but sometimes you see a tag-team. Here, we have on one side at least, multiple individuals each making edits. Why would only one be warned, aside from the obvious (tactical) reason? Qwirkle (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Answer helpfully provided by ST47. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an administrator please take a look at Atlantic International University and let us know if it is eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article? An article with the same title has been deleted and recreated a few times but non-administrators can't easily tell if the current article is substantially similar to deleted versions. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I would not delete it under G4. The current version reads way less like an advert than the versions that were previously deleted, and it has quite a few more sources now than the old version did. (No comment on the quality of those sources, just noting that it looks like more work has gone into the current version than any of the previous deleted versions.) ST47 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and helpful reply! ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2019 (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, despite repeated warnings and personal pleas continues to add "their name" to music label pages. Just after the 2nd final warning and my personal plea for then to refrain and to rather play in their sandbox, the disruptiveediting continues. I would appreciate an admin taking a look please. Robvanvee 05:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP hopping ban evader
Over the past few days someone (I don't know who) has been repeatedly showing up on my talk page to evade their ban. They seem to have some sort of axe to grind regarding the Fram situation and also seem keen on editing the article about Bethnal Green.
The IPs used on my talk page have been (starting with the most recent):
Best thing is for admins to watchlist Thryduulf's TP and indef the IPs who post super-massive rants. Or semi-protect Thryduulf's TP and watchlist
WP:FRAM and indef the IPs who post "Oppose" with snarky edit summaries. The IPs all geolocate to the London general area. Softlavender (talk
) 10:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, no. Don't indefinitely block IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Even long blocks of these IPs serve no purpose (note the title of this thread). Thryduulf can protect their own Talk page if they wish, and the wonderful Fram ban page is protected (I had protected it before, and another admin continued the protection).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours this time. I can do it for a week or two if they come back on this IP address again. I used to know this ISP better, but I haven't blocked anyone on it in a while. I just need a little time to remember how long their IP addresses stay allocated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Loose Women
A persistently disruptive editor is finding
WP:TVCAST, and sometimes from the article body, only ever using "Good" as their edit summary, if not omitting the summary entirely. Since the editor often changes IP (in the past 24 hours he's had at least 4,[210][211][212][213] and if you look through the article history, you'll see many more. Most of the IPs are from BSKYB-BROADBAND-V6. Because the IPs are only ever used for a short period it's impossible to communicate with the editor so I've gone to some lengths trying to get their attention, leaving notes in the infobox but they are always ignored. Other than reverting the changes, I don't know what I can do so I'm after suggestions. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉
A persistently disruptive editor is finding Loose Women immensely attractive – I really don't feel we should be passing judgment on our fellow editors' sexual predilections. I also note that the article says that the show underwent a "revamp" [214], which seems like not the kind of language we should be using; references to "gold diggers" might be more appropriate. EEng 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know If I'm on the wrong place (my English is not that really good), because the image has not been deleted, but I am asking it to be deleted, as the one who uploaded it since I reformed the fair use rationale template but it seems to not satisfy or be enough for Wikipedia fair use of images. Feel free to delete it. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 month over a day ago. No reports since. Closing. N.J.A. | talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
A week ago I came here looking for help as my talk page keep getting vandalised by 88.147.36.93, user is a well known vandal who went by MySuperBelt85 who vandalised not only the Mafia III article in the past but my talk page as well. 88.147.36.93 was blocked but after the block expired still continue to vandalise and harress my talk page, he has also vandalised my CityOfSilver talk page multiple times as well. The user has a long history of block evasion and sockpuppetry and this is an obvious sock of MySuperBelt85. Can someone really help me? I just getting really annoyed at this guy and short term blocks aren't helping, can some block him for a longer period? Also could someone watch my and CityOfSilver talk page during the block period for obvious block evasion by user since the user has a history of block evasion. This would be really helpful, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2019 (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.
Last night I made some small formatting changes to a few articles. In one case, I rewrote some text that appeared to have been copied and pasted from somewhere, with no attribution, thus likely a copyright violation ([215]). Two users have undone my changes, and both have falsely accused me of vandalism ([216],[217][218][219]. Neither has given any explanation of their actions. I left both users messages on their talk pages asking for an explanation; both users deleted the messages ([220],[221][222][223])
Undoing an edit is not a problem for anyone, if the reasons are given. Repeatedly undoing an edit without giving a reason, making a false accusation of vandalism, and simply deleting all attempts to communicate, strikes me as highly disruptive behaviour. So, I thought it may be useful to invite an administrative eye on it. 37.152.231.90 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The text that you rewrote was quoted from the source, which is permitted (see
WP:QUOTE), provided it is not excessively long. The quote that you rewrote is within a typically accepted length of a quote. Blackmane (talk
) 05:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
User has been blocked as a possible
WP:BKFIP sock or for just being disruptive. Take your pick. Sasquatcht|c
05:44, 25 June 2019 (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.
Gregotheus 01 round 2
(non-admin closure) Gregotheus 01 indeff blocked by ST47 for multiple infringements directly after prior block with no indication of improved behaviour. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2019 (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.
Approximately 2 weeks ago I asked for help regarding this editor who repeatedly adds unsourced info to articles despite ongoing final warnings. El Cblocked for 72 hours after I pointed out the severity but apparently this person didn't get the message. Their recent contributions are full of the same disruptive unsourced edits. I gave another final warning a few days ago and haven't bothered today, they merely disregard them. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Robvanvee 14:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm having a look. ST47 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I have now reverted but here are the edits since the last block:
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.
Block evasion by Mrjackmarley
The first two /64 ranges are blocked, as is the IP, everyone for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (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.
Mrjackmarley has been using IPs from Maryland to evade his block. He is interested in David Bowie and Beck songs, often changing the genre and the personnel details, especially deciding on his own whether the song has lead and backing vocal parts, or lead and rhythm guitar parts. He was blocked for genre-warring and original research, but he's still doing it. Involved IPs listed below, including two IP6 ranges. Frustrated in his efforts today, he has also made personal attacks.[234][235]Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Already blocked. The only one of those IPs which you list which has any edits is the third, and interaction analysis does come back with a "positive" result. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2019 (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.
WP:MEDRS sources[1][2][3] in favor of his personal opinion. He cites irrelevant FDA warning letters that do not even address the disputed claim in attempt to refute it. He has successfully edit warred to maintain his version of the article. He has acted similarly on nootropics in the past. This dispute dates back to two months ago when my account was new, and I was not aware of the rules. It was my first ever disagreement on Wikipedia. I have been reluctant to report this user because I violated some guidelines myself, but I can stand his smug stonewalling no longer. If I get boomeranged, so be it. --Wikiman2718 (talk
) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference Aguiar2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Uninvolved editor: 1. regarding content: The sources provided do indeed seem to pass all criteria of MEDRS. The FDA could potentially be a valid source per
WP:MEDORG
; but it isn't listed there, though I guess it's regulations are borderline acceptable since it is a national regulatory agency; though again MEDORG suggests that both the scientific litterature and the guidelines should be discussed (and compared if there are RS which do so). This of course to be taken with a grain of salt since the FDA letters only seem to warn against advertising claims; and I am unsure if they imply that the products are ineffective, or only state that they have not gone through regulatory approval - which is a different thing, and in which case WP should probably defer to the consensus of topic-specific reliable sources (which I have not read so I cannot comment).
2. regarding behaviour: indeed an editing dispute, page history does seem to show a slow paced edit war over some days in May, though I am unsure if there was any violation of WP:3RR, and in any case there was discussion on the talk page so probably not warranting any action on those grounds.
WP:IDHT since, reading rapidly, the only point I see being made on the talk page by him is that "FDA notices are 'state of the science'"; claims that 5-6 year old research is entirely outdated seem unlikely, though that is not my area of expertise so I don't know. 107.190.33.254 (talk
) 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to say the FDA is our best source here. But this is a content dispute and so not appropriate here. Why not ask at
talk
) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The FDA sources do not even address the disputed claim. They would not be relevant even if they were position statements rather than warnings about unapproved advertising claims. If you want to join Zefr in his stonewalling, we can add you to the list of POV pushing IDHT editors. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Alex and Zefr are quite right. Personal attacks like that are naughty!-Roxy, the dog.wooF 07:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for my uncivil tone. I still think this is more a matter of editor behavior than a content dispute, as the lede was formed without consensus by edit warring to push a POV opposite that of
WP:MEDRS sources. But I know that it is best practice to only comment once when filing a complaint on this forum, so I will refrain from further comments unless directly addressed. —Wikiman2718 (talk
) 08:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring should be reported at
talk
) 08:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
And IDHT behavior? —Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Here - but "IDHT behavior" would be be evidenced by a long-term refusal to accept the obvious prevailing consenus. Here, what seems to be happening is that two editors disagree about which source(s) take precedence.
talk
) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis, and so does 107.190.33.254, but I think I have run myself out of comments. I'm off to edit other things. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:DRAMABOARD if there is a clear breach of policy (which remains an open question here). 107.190.33.254 (talk
) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The reason that I thought (and still think) that is a case of IDHT behavior is because the disputed claim (that bacopa is a nootropic) is not referenced in the warning letters. There is simply no way that the FDA warning letters can be a valid source if they do not address the disputed claim. I have brought this point up several times since the beginning of the discussion, and have still not received a response. Instead, Zefr repeatedly responds that the three
User:Alexbrn could address this point now, perhaps we could get to the root of the problem. —Wikiman2718 (talk
I know it is rather early to be bringing a user here, particularly as I have not yet specifically mentioned to them the possibility of a block over this, but I'm looking for admin assistance as this user seems to not get the message, which has been repeated several times, that Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research, and (especially as the mathematics community here has firmly rejected their ideas) they should find somewhere else for "angular vectors" or whatever they want to introduce. Thus, while a block is probably not needed yet, I would like assistance in getting Ujin-X to understand this.
Explanation. I stopped creating or changing pages, as required by the mathematical society. But I think that I have the right to contribute to the "talk". I submit my comments exclusively on the topic of the page. This ad appeared because I responded to a comment Jasper Deng on his personal page.--Ujin-X (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The whole point that everyone’s been making to you is that you do not have that right; unless you have very specific suggestions for improving the article, what you’re posting there is off-topic per
WP:NOTAFORUM (which has been linked to you at least three or four times now). In this particular case, your content can’t be useful for improving the article since it has been overwhelmingly rejected. I don’t consider it rude to call out blatant hand-waving.—Jasper Deng(talk)
19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia users should know not only about the essence, methods of finding, history, and other information written in books, but also about the problems in this work. About the problems in the books do not write. Therefore, if you value Wikipedia as a source of information, then change the article, add a section that tells about the inconsistency of the cross product. And add two simple proofs that I gave you. By the way, a lot of mathematicians tell me that they knew or guessed about this problem and the evidence. --Ujin-X (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
To be very blunt so that I am clear, Wikipedia does not care about your
original research. If you continue to use talk pages to present your theories on why published sources are wrong, you will be blocked from editing. Please know that this is not a verdict on whether you are right or wrong, or an attempt to suppress knowledge, or in any way driven by animosity towards you specifically. Regardless, Wikipedia exists for a very specific purpose, and that is to present readers with significant information on notable subjects that is verifiable to published reliable sources. What you are doing is outside of that purpose, and thus a waste of everyone's time here. Someguy1221 (talk
Ujin-X: As others have tried to explain to you, article talk pages aren't intended to be a place for you to teach others what you think they need to know. They're intended to be a place to discussion concrete specific suggestions for how to improve the article. This would apply even if what you were saying was well supported. As others have also said, we cannot add your own personal opinions or research to articles. If you want to add content, please find sufficient
reliable secondary sources to support what you are trying to add. Not explanations for why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Nil Einne (talk
Foxhound03 was asked, on numerous occassions, to provide reliable sources that state that the Hazaras are an Iranian/Iranic people. He has ignored that call on numerous occassions, including messages on the talk page.[236]-[237]
Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the
On 12 June 2019, "Foxhound03" received a 1 week block as he created a sockpuppet[244] in order to continue his same disruptive agenda on the Iranian peoples page. As soon as the block ended, he resumed edit-warring.
As of today (20-21 June 2019), Foxhound03 has also violated the 3RR rule, as he made 5 reverts within 24 hours:
Comment This editor started editing the English Wiki on 18 november 2018, after a look at the reported user's contribs, one can conclude obviously that he/she is here on a single purpose mission about Hazara people. The last mainspace edit of Foxhoud03 that was not related with that people was on 13 april 2019, from then on, this editor has exclusively tried to push his POV on
not being here to build an encycopedia, rather, to push his ethnic agenda.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)
10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Reply: If you were to look at previous rendition and talk history, I have replied and added citations proving my point so the statement "Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the Iranian peoples article through sheer" is not entirely accurate as I had provided citations on them, at the moment ,currently undone, there are total of five citations. In addition, this 'material' I am adding is simply putting Hazara people to the list of people who speak an Iranian language and all these undos were unwarranted and I had addressed them when I reverted , this one piece of material which was agreed on (Hazaras being speakers of an Iranian language) had not been successfully challenged on the talk page once!. Upon looking at the history and the talk page, you can see me clearly pointing out that Hazara people are Iranian speakers yet people are accusing me of disruption even though I cite sources which are the same as that appear on the official Hazaragi wikipedia page. I also added a summary of my edit which was dismissed by someone over it being a 'POV' and accused me of vandalism while the title clearly stated 'People that speak an Iranian language'. One such person started talking genetics which were irrelevant,for example: Balochi people are not genetically very similar to the Ossetians and if genetics were the case, why aren't groups claiming descent from Eastern Iranian people such as the Jatts included? The reverts I made were all justified and I had added an edit summary on each point and refuting it; it is not just mindless reversion as I had given my reason. Any disagreement in regards to their linguistics can be addressed by kindly visiting my talk page. Also the unblock request was actually my appeal which was not replied to by any moderator so my copy and paste was merely to defend myself from such allegations. The accusation that i am pushing an 'ethnic agenda' by pointing out linguistics is not true and having knowledge on a particular subject is not a crime, and if people think talking about a certain ethnic group and adding information based on it is bad and putting Hazaras as Iranic in terms of language is now pushing an 'agenda' then they are misunderstood. If adding cited and correct information is suddenly considered to be disruptive, then Wikipedia is now a disruptive platform. This issue seems to be getting ridiculous as everyone seems to be unanimously agreeing of their Iranian linguistics and Hazaragi being an Iranian Language is an established fact, I've provided my citations proving that it is in fact an Iranian language. May I also add the allegations have suddenly changed but delivered in the same style, indicating that the previous allegations seen on the talk page: "Foxhound03 has therefore not only violated WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:CON", is in fact false allegations against me. I would like whoever reads this to launch an investigation on this as well as all the false allegations of disruption which I have addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
As I seem to see being pointed out on the talk page, speaking a language is not the same as having an ethnicity. Also I have no idea what "Official statement on the matter:" is supposed to imply or mean. Thus makes me think not only are there not here issues but maybe COI too.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, the table which I had added Hazaras in did not read ethnicity, it was about peoples who spoke an Iranian language. And yes, you are correct in saying ethnicity does not necessarily mean native language but also history and culture, hazaras also share some ethnicity with other Iranic peoples such as the Tajiks and Pashtuns. The definition of ethnicity according to the dictionary on google is: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition", not genetics. However saying that partial ancestry is irrelevent is not intellectually honest as the genetics of an Iranian Speaker from the Caucuses and one from Pakistan will surely be different. Had this not been the case and all were ancestrally the same, there wouldn't of been such a difference in Y-DNA haplogroups present such R-Z93 and J2 and many others. Finally, the 'official statement' was just a response to allegations. Hope you found this useful, Cheers! Foxhound03 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
If RS do not say they are Iranian neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Research says they speak an Iranian language and the table's title originally said: "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages". Probably changed when the individual found out I was correct in judgment but didn't want to tell me after all those accusations XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The "individual" who changed the lead was me. I did that because the lead's sentence was not correct and confusing for our readers. Example, take a look at
User:Wikaviani No, it was not a personal attack as it doesn't meet the criteria and neither was it an accusation as I said "Probably", also I find it strange why you wanted me to assume good faith when It was you who accused me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Admin needed: He (Foxhound03) just reverted once again.[253] That's the 7th attempt. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: No, i re added it with another citation from another theses so now we have two theses, wasn't much of a revert. Visit the talk page. Foxhound03 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Theses are not necessarily RS. What is frustrating is that they do make reference to works that might be RS for the claim, but I cannot verify it. So Foxy may have a point, but they should still not be edit warring over it, but rather making a better case at the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I also note you are (in effect) a
wp:spa, all of your edits seem related to the hazaras.Slatersteven (talk
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, you are required to notify users when you mention them on this noticeboard. I've done this for you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 25 June 2019 (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.
Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article
1) An attempt to fix some of these issues[256] was then reverted by
PA "Undid revision 902199003 by Arianewiki1 (talk) not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish".[257]
They then decided to remove an entire paragraph actively being discussed on the
disruptive editing
.
Parts of the paragraph and end paragraph was again restored here.[259], then added two new references supporting the statements.[260] (Quoting the exact text from the source.) But instead of using the article's talkpage, Lithopsian reverts with the dismissive : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[261] The removal of this paragraph took out all the references remaining in the Introduction that inhibits the process to gain consensus.
Are these not are examples of avoiding scrutiny, talkpage discussion (BRD) or in attempting to gain consensus?
Yet when a discussion does appear, they instead goes to Attic Salt's User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash, knowing full well than Attic Salt doesn't want me to interact with them on their talkpage.[262] (Exclusion?)
2) Some additional recent revert edits by Attic Salt now claim: "As explained in edit summary and in paper by Johnson, much of the nucleosynthesis occurs before the supernova phase"[263] makes little sense. Edit summaries are hardly the place to justify changes, it is supposed to explain the edit. If challenged, it should follow BRD not a revert.
They make a 2nd revert claims: "Well, I all we can do is invite you to read Johnson and look at the periodic table in this article."[264] (the "we" pretends they have more support; inferring presumable Lithopsian.)
A further 3rd revert edit here[265] for the following sentence, had it instantly reverted because: "Please read the Johnson source"
Yet, this paper does not seemingly appears accessible and the abstract does not state what they contend[266], and even the available abstract contradicts the edit. Even Lithopsian tells them this here[267].
This is surely
sanction gaming
because another editor cannot verify the source: with the available information already contradicting it.
There is no justification for this kind of behaviour and it is plainly
gaming the system
. It is seemingly intended as a means of excluding another editor, by using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position by 'muddy the waters.' None of this is constructive editing.
Note: On the page Supernova was restored a likely undetected vandalism [268] and explained the reasoning on the talkpage here[269]. This clearly shows intent in trying to improving this article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This indenting style is confusing. I had to look it up in the page history. It was all written by Arianewiki1. El_C 04:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This looks to me like a garden variety content dispute that does not belong at this noticeboard.
Again. Lithopsian saying : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[270] is now acceptable practice? Repeatably being pummeled in articles is unacceptable. Being berated for every minor slip up is unfair. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Turning this back around to look at
your own behavior, Ariane, you may not have access to scientific journals, but I do. And I can see that not only does the Johnson source say precisely what the article already said it did (and contradict your own version), but also your other addition based on a quote from Sciencedaily actually contradicts the scientific article that the news piece was about. It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate. Otherwise I agree with Cullen that this is an ordinary content dispute with no apparent need for administrative attention, but the way you are making contributions here will be a matter for administrative attention if it continues. Someguy1221 (talk
) 05:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Might be true, but this my edit [271] was justified, because "nitrogen" or "heavier than nitrogen" in relation to an element is mentioned only once in the Introduction but not in the main article at all. Even looking at the figure in the article "Periodic table showing the origin of each element" shows Carbon with exploding massive stars. Again quoting the article under
original reaseach
. As you have read this article too, please point out where this appears in the paper, as I can't find it.
Yet the negative portrayal of me here "It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate.", but I didn't do that. I responded on the talkpage under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements?, where a cite already appeared[274] that was introduced by another editor, WAFred.
If anything, Attic Salt is doing what you accuse me of.
My revert was this edit[275] because the deletion by an IP didn't seem helpful. (Attic Salt has made false accusations of me, refuses to acknowledge the mistake. This editor continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against them. e.g.
Comment (EC) If I'm counting correctly, this is the 4th time since April that Arianewiki1 has complained about some editor here at ANI
WP:POINT violation in my eyes. And I have to admit, when I looked into I think 2 of these disputes, my impression from a quick overview was that while there was non-ideal behaviour from several people, Arianewiki1 seemed to be at biggest fault. So I'm not unbiased. Although I don't believe I've otherwise been in a dispute with Arianewiki1.
Also as a final comment, it's IMO easy to shoot yourself in the foot whatever the merits of the general concerns if there are serious flaws in your complaint. Referring to yourself in the third person was a previous example. Part of your complaint seemingly boiling down to "I don't have access to the scientific journal article" would IMO be another. There are plenty of possible solutions for that including asking at
WP:REX or simply asking the editor with access for a direct quote of the relevant sentence or paragraph. While paywalls may be annoying for article improvement, paywalled sources can be an important part of an article. Nil Einne (talk
) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
And as a final point, I should say it's unlikely I'll ever propose (as opposed to !vote in other proposals) action against Arianewiki1 in the near future even if they do open more of these threads. I've said why they seem to be a problem, if no one else shares my concerns enough to propose action if they keep happening then there's nothing to worry about and apologise for even bringing this up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I share your concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC).
Thinking about this a bit more, I have two comments specific to this particular dispute. User talk page discussion are generally a bad place to discuss article content especially in depth. Notably if editors made a decision on their talk pages and implemented it and then when challenged said 'we came to consensus' and referred to a user talk page discussion and refuse to discuss it again, this would almost definitely be a problem. But still for various reasons editors do have reason to use them at time. And in any case, there's no need to complain about every user talk page discussion over article content. I can understand it may be frustrating there's an article content discussion you cannot participate in but the simple solution to that is to initiate a discussion on the article talk page explaining your POV on how to improve the article and wait for others to join in. (Please don't get into pointless debates over who should initiate the article talk page discussion.) If already done so then just wait. On non urgent issues like this, editors should give others a reasonable time no matter what these others may have said or done elsewhere. And that's my other point. I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it. And given their lengthy disputes with both editors, they probably shouldn't looking at the 2 editors' contrib histories except when actively investigating the editors to bring a complaint to an appropriate noticeboard. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a very interesting point asking: "I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it." What about looking at Lithopsian discussions? Also I found their discussion just before I posted the ANI notices to Lithopsian and Attic Salt's talkpage. I then modified the ANI again before posting it. Was that wrong?
It is also notable that the (Attic Salt) "ban" is likely being made as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Also the entire reason why this ANI turned up was because I reverted an edit by an IP, where Attic Salt launched into their attack accusing me of "...so one can interpret Arianewiki1's sentence as meaning..." and "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." They refuse to retract these statements when asked.
In summary, what is going on is (as said here): "But even if this is acceptable, it is clear that you targeted this part of this only only because of my revert of an IP edit, and you thought it was a chance "to nail me" on some esoteric point just to frustrate the editing process. You were pushed on by Lithopsian pointy edits here[284] and here[285], especially when they claim "…and of course complete rubbish." (Then to make sure of this, they then delete the cites, making certain the burn their bridges behind them[286] on a unrelated pretext.)" As you've already point out, this kind of tactical behaviour is not the only time (over several ANIs now).
What is disturbing in the way gaming works. They see a weakness, like an 1RR, and exploit it. They force discussion onto talkpages, then either ignore it, make an accusation (like above) or attack the premise or a simple mistake on the talkpage or attack it in the edit summary; or now it seems do it where they can't be touched.
When challenged, like in this ANI or previous ones, they either target some 'mistake' (like no edit summaries), but avoid the actual problem. Or in this ANI, don't respond at all, and watch the complainer get picked apart by their past actions or transgressions. Easy. When the ends or disappears, you get the repeated attitudes, like Attic Salt's: "The ANI turned out to be a waste of time."[287] Another is Lithopsian's response on User talk:Lithopsian#Reflist dropping down of sources/cites : "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world."[288] (the assertion doesn't match the response.)
The current justification appears here[289] by Attic Salt, which continues to ignore the problem, even when the problem is explained to them by multiple people. Instead of an admitting any mistake, they finally partly capitulate with this series of edits[290] when they already previously reverted it here[291]. If this full explanation here[292] shows multiple problems with even basic policies regarding editing. And yet they believe "I honestly don't see why this is controversial." (Worst, they are just explained by another editor the basic problem[293], but still do it anyway.
A Supernova article
competence. Might be nice too, to hear a defence. Arianewiki1 (talk
Seems to mainly be interested in POV category labelling. Repeatedly inserts Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent into BLP articles where it is unsourced, and edit wars over it: [294], [295], [296] are examples on one of many articles. The rest is readily seen from the relatively short contrib history. No response to multiple warnings --Begoon 10:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
They're not socking as there doesn't appear to be any deceptive intent here (they seem to start a new account after completely stopping using the previous one, conceivably after forgetting their password). They've also edited from various IPs. POV is a concern, but there are also really really massive CIR issues and no willingness to listen to feedback. A drain on the community's resources without any visible benefit. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd support a mass-rollback of their edits and, if at all possible, a mass deletion of the redirects they've created: almost all are either just wrong or are to articles without mentions and the one or two exceptions are too vague to be any use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought they might be قیومونٹ because they edited a draft begun by them, and edited by no-one else. I noticed them because people abusing categories for POV labeling, particularly ethnic/religious, is a pet dislike of mine. Category:Film censorship in Pakistan seems to be another favourite. Now I look more closely, and at the other accounts, the general CIR issues are pretty stark though, yes. --Begoon 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mass rollback sounds reasonable. I changed one redirect (Old Urdu) from the target Hindi, which seemed rather pointy and in any case not very helpful, to History of Hindustani, but it would probably be best to just delete it with the rest. I don't know whether "Old Urdu" is a term that's used at all. --bonadeacontributionstalk 11:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Now it's framed in CIR terms, I admit that it does seem that the "basis" for a good lump of their Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent additions appears to be "because Khan"... --Begoon 11:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this is probably a young user, and their grasp of English seems to be a bit shaky. Maybe they ignore the talk page warnings because they don't understand them. --bonadeacontributionstalk 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You're possibly right. Even so, if the net result is that they are wandering around slapping incorrect ethnic categories on BLPs, then edit warring them back in when removed, that needs to be prevented fairly quickly. If they don't, or can't communicate then our options are pretty limited. --Begoon 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely, and came here now to ask admins for a CIR block. I posted this to their talk page 45 minutes ago and since then, they have added unsupported ethnic categories to a BLP, created another inappropriate redirect, and created a draft of a BLP for an apparently completely non-notable person - what they haven't done is react to the post on their user talk page asking specifically for a response. --bonadeacontributionstalk 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I just realised that this is almost certainly the same user as User:اردو کے ممالک، ثقافت، وغیرہ. That account was username blocked so they are not actually socking, but it is worth noting that they were already warned multiple times about the same kind of edits (unsourced additions, inappropriate page creations) on that account, as well as on the accounts listed above. I can't see that they have ever engaged in any kind of discussion. --bonadeacontributionstalk 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Assuming this account is the master, the subsequent accounts would be socks. The master was hard-blocked. Permission to create new accounts would have been required.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd support that - it's rather a lot of edits to undo manually, and I don't believe anything of any value would be lost. --Begoon 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Mass-rollback is Done. Home Lander (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I guess that just leaves the G5s of the (mostly) redirects - unless anyone thinks any of them are useful enough to keep. --Begoon 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Promptly blocked by JJMC89. Created page also deleted per G5 by same. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
King of troy and
WP:SEEALSO
WP:SEEALSO; they're often already linked in the article (sometimes duplicates of existing See also items), or of unclear relevance/relationship, and in no discernible order. Several editors have commented on KoT's user page and/or reverted KoT's edits, with no response or apparent change in behavior. Jayjg(talk)
14:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
user:Bbb23 has blocked indefinitely. Bbb23, can you provide some information around this? Jayjg(talk) 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jayjg: I tagged the sock so you can see the SPI case it belongs to if you want to read about the behavioral patterns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that certainly makes short work of this editor. But even if this were not a sock, with his additions of see also's that are not related, or are already linked in the article, and then not being responsive on their talkpage, this was going towards a block in any case. Somebody should undo all his edits... Debresser (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (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 hoping that the editor would either go away or perhaps the message would get through and his editing would become productive. Unfortunately neither seems likely at this point. It is starting to look like a case of
I've indefinitely blocked him for disruptive editing. We need him to address this continual disruption before he can return to editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2019 (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 was hoping that the editor would either go away or perhaps the message would get through and his editing would become productive. Unfortunately neither seems likely at this point. It is starting to look like a case of
I've indefinitely blocked him for disruptive editing. We need him to address this continual disruption before he can return to editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2019 (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.
Anon Disruptive Edits
I am involved in a edit war on Marriageable_age The anon is posting old news about saudi arabia from 2009 "In relation to proposed Saudi marriage reforms in 2009, it was observed that "although girls can marry even before reaching puberty, they cannot terminate the wedding contracts according to the Hanbali legal school, one of four major schools in Sunni Islam, which gives complete control over the female to the male guardian" However the saudi goverment have reformed this law and banning all marriages under the age of 15. "However in 2019 Members of the Saudi Shoura Council in 2019 approved fresh regulations for minor marriages that will see to outlaw marrying off 15-year-old children and force the need for court approval for those under 18. Chairman of the Human Rights Committee at the Shoura Council, Dr. Hadi Al-Yami, said that introduced controls were based on in-depth studies presented to the body. He pointed out that the regulation, vetted by the Islamic Affairs Committee at the Shoura Council, has raised the age of marriage to 18 and prohibited it for those under 15." (https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1540156/saudi-arabia-introduces-new-regulations-early-marriage) the user has left the new information but still puts in the old one which is redundant.
The anon has reverted my edits the reliance of the travler whose reference cannot be accessed seems to be dispaly false information regarding the age of marraige in the shafi juriprudence the source cannot be accessed then I found the online pdf of the book which can be accessed and that information completly different to what was written:
The false information currently on the wiki page whose reference cannot be accessed:
The Reliance of the Traveller, frequently considered the definitive summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, states in the chapter on marriage as follows:
32.2a. A father arranging the marriage of a virgin daughter: A father can arrange the marriage of his virgin daughter without her permission even if she is beyond the age of puberty. It is up to him whether he consults her or not.
32.2b. Someone other than the father arranging the marriage of a virgin: However, if anyone other than the father is arranging the marriage of a virgin, such as a guardian appointed in the father's will or anyone else, he cannot give her in marriage unless she is beyond the age of puberty and has given her consent. In this case her silence is taken as consent.[257]
The reference which can be accessed and which has been reverted by this anon states:
According to the Shafi book of Jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveler:
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission. As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her.As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her. No one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7).go to page 213
The anon is alos deleting information regarding hindu scriptures which are referenced and the annon appears to be using two anon accounts as well. Arsi786 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2019
1. for content: The old information should be kept as a historical record of how things were, if there is a
A quick look shows significant overlap between edited articles. Bothusers seem to have made also relatively little use of talk pages... If you (as I do) suspect this account is a sockpuppet, the proper place is
Lauriamundo uploaded about 60 images to commons yesterday as "own work" and added links here. The images are all up for deletion on commons. Not sure if anything else should be done here to prevent more of this. MB 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Depends. If the user is a newbie then help them per
Well, I assume the 60 or so notifications of deletions at commons will get their attention and hopefully put and end to it. I know once the files are deleted, a bot will remove the redlinks here. But in at least some cases, there was a prior image that will not be "returned" so there is some damage done here that will be left behind without manual intervention. I though maybe a block would be in order to prevent more such damage. Maybe they will stop (no new edits in 11 hours), maybe not. MB 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocks are not punishment but to prevent future problems. If a newbie makes 50 mistakes when they don't yet know, we're pretty easy on them, or should be. Check their contribs. Have they done this before? Check the version history of the tir talk page. Did anyone warn them and did they try to hide that fact be deleting the warning? That's all relevant in a complaint here.
Done I slightly re-ordered the list of warnings, and added my reasons for supporting the proposal. I agree with you about "the final proposal" but I just called it #Proposal 6: Close with warnings because I don't want to be presumptuous :-) – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I realize I didn't notify the editor about this discussion, for which I apologize (and thank Shenme for doing so). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
Checkuser note: Everyone is socking. Destroyer27 is 
Confirmed to Renamed user sgjut467ggf (talk · contribs · count). I blocked and tagged both. LovSLif is 
Bumping thread for 7 days. To give admins time to review this.–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
