I have deleted it. No idea why it had been left there for a week. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Devourcomm
WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I think that edits like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc. strongly suggest that this is almost certainly silly vandalism by a user who is just deliberately trolling for fun. But in either case, I think an indefinite block is the only option.—J. M. (talk
Could this be a fake account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.102.146 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
#fakecreff. Blocked by k6ka.
talk
) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Editing a page
Bhinegar was previously unable to create pages. They are now unable to edit pages. (Blocked indef by Jauerback) --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2020 (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 unable to edit any Wikipedia pages, for example the article 3^6 does not exist. Every time I go there, I get redirected to the New user Landing Page. Can I have some help please?Bhinegar (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Bhinegar (talk·contribs): Your account was created on 6 June 2020. Please don't create dozens of redirects until you have received some consensus that the edits are useful. Not everything deserves a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If redirecting Yidali to Italy is not acceptable because Yidali means Italy in Chinese, why can Deutschland be redirected to Germany?Bhinegar (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bhinegar: (non-admin comment). This is not a matter which needs urgent administrator attention, which is the purpose of this forum. Having said that - please read Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Deutschland is German for Germany: there's an obvious close association and that redirect is fine. There is no close association in English between Italy and China either in Chinese script or in any of the transliterations into Latin script. Redirects of that sort end up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and routinely get deleted. Please don't create any more like that - they just waste other editors' time. Narky Blert (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh. I would have expected Yidali to redirect to Israel. EEng 05:11, 7 June 2020 (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.
"Go and preen your feathers about your supposed neutrality and delusions of fighting nazis. No need to examine your motive or compromise - your cause is if utterly pure, and all opposition is a malevolent conspiracy. The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."[9]
User:VeritasVox -- recently partially blocked from Julius Evola and then topic banned from Naziism, Fascism and antisemitism -- to User:Ian.thomson on VV's talk page, after Ian thomson notified VV [10] that part of his comment at Talk:Julius Evola[11] was a violation of his topic ban.
Context is me being accused of sockpuppeting, despite this being disproved multiple times. However, I stand by this statement as an accurate characterisation of the partisanship some editors, the above included, have developed surrounding this article and their totalitarian approach to any edits contradicting their narrow dogmatism. VeritasVox (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
VeritasVox, your recent edit at talk:Julius Evola is a violation of your topic ban. Please do not do that again. Please see our guidance on defending yourself against accusations of sockpuppetry. Snark is understandable, but not considered a good look under the circumstances. BMK, it may be best to leave admins to bring complaints about remarks directed at themselves. I don't want to speak for Ian but for the most part we have fairly thick skins where recently-sanctioned editors are concerned. A degree of frustration and venting is pretty normal IMO - and the irony here is hard to miss, so. Guy (help!) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yup, poorly considered action on my part, all things considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough Guy, and my thanks for your candour. VeritasVox (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone just nip this in the bud already? Persistent unsourced additions/changes with an edit summary of either "Article" or "Template". After two blocks alraedy, I don't think there's any more message left to get. I'd give diffs, but it's basically just every edit in their contributions. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, this one of their recent contribs got RD1ed, so I wouldn't be surprised if those other recent large additions would qualify too (although I haven't actually checked). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I indefinitely blocked him. The Wikia license looks compatible with Wikipedia, but it requires attribution. The other issue, of course, is that he's replacing sourced content with fancruft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
London Pulse
London Pulse has been persistently vandalised recently. Someone is regularly inserting an unproven claim that Natalie Seaton founded the team. I updated the article relatively recently and found no evidence to prove the claim. I also left a message on talk page inviting editor to prove claim but have received no response. I have reverted the edit several times now. Another editor has also reverted it at least once. However the "editor" is persistent. Any help/advice would be appreciated. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The page has been protected for three weeks by Mjroots--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots, for your help. DjlnDjln (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
vandalism - taking sides
The IP editors are evading a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (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 you look here this user takes sides. should stop deleting the page.
[12] - previous version
[13] - current version
there is a massacre on the page... and the page crashes as desired. Previously, she has always had problems in this regard. [[14]] seriously, what has been done since yesterday 5.24.155.157 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
not a word was deleted. they constantly put forward something and made changes. I wonder how relevant it is. - Semsûrî5.24.155.157 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Your poorly-explained edits were
disruptive, which is I semiprotected the page. You may use the article talk page to advance any proposal you see fit, but it must be done in a civil manner. Please don't use inflammatory language like "massacre" to refer to editing disputes. That is not acceptable. El_C
15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Other than introducing the sfnp-template and some rewriting, I only removed unsourced information (except the one large section under 'language'), information that was sourced without a page and therefore lacks verification and a theory about origins that was even followed by a genetic study that debunked the whole theory. And thus removed.[15]
friends what did I do as destructive. please explain. -- [[16]] - previous version
Some ethnic information comes to the top to persistently point out the people of Zaza as Kurdish. taking sides. it is impossible not to see this.5.24.155.157 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that is too incoherent for me to parse. El_C 15:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
My friend Zaza people are an irani people. You can also look at the Zaza people in the Iranian encyclopedia [[18]]
and also in other languages there is no such problem, just english wikipedia 5.24.155.157 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
you may not be aware that the person who made the change is the kurdish nationalist. taking sides. You can even compare it with the version 1 week ago. 5.24.155.157 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't make these accusations without evidence — that makes it an
Her changes are already evidence. I threw you the Iranian encyclopedia. how can I defend myself if you block me? 188.57.60.249 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I haven't blocked you. El_C 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
What has changed from yesterday to today.can you please review ?188.57.7.36 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't the changes the person make already prove that she is taking sides 188.57.7.36 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"See also." This is the simplest proof that he took sides with the change he made in his department and was a Kurdish nationalist. The Kurdish nationalist added "Nureddin Zaza". 178.247.57.214 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
While Zaza is considered as Kurdish in some sources, it is claimed that some sources are Turkish. However, besides three doctoral theses evaluating Zaza as an independent ethnic group, there are many master theses and scientific articles: Kazım Aktaş (1999), Kahraman Gündüzkanat (1997), Selahattin Tahta (2002), Hülya Taşçı (2006), Gülsün Fırat (2010: 139), Bozbuğa Rasim (2019)178.247.57.214 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2020 (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.
Possible IP range block needed
Posting here since the disruption documented below only trickles in a small amount each time. The following IPv6 addresses are listed in descending order beginning with the most recent.
In some cases, it may appear to be a content dispute, but this editor has a repeatedly inserted incorrect information or messed with wikilinks in ways that usually result in breaking them. Here are some examples of each:
I've been patient and waited a while to see if this editor would get the hint, attempt to discuss, or at least respond on their talk page. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. I know JlACEer has been dealing with this a lot as well. Overall, it's not a great amount of disruption, but it's becoming frequent enough to become a disturbance. Might be time to send a stronger message, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
These may seem minor but they are persistent and annoying. This person is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 month Anon-blocked. --qedk (t愛c) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am reporting this here as I am involved; I had hoped to not have to. The gist of the issue: LegacyVisual is an ethnic/religious POV pusher with a healthy dose of
This narrative isn’t new. I have followed a trail of evidence on the Tigre people and other Muslim inhabitants indigenous to Eritrea, using trusted sources written by academics and scholars of history. This user has struggled to remain open to sources and made several personal attacks. User also exploited their platform by falsifying the origins and history of all Muslim Eritreans even when reliable references were used causing interruptions and rejecting written journals by academics backing our historical findings. User went on to deny Muslim existence and combined all Eritrean Diaspora into one ethnic group when they understand that we are not a monolithic set of people (which they denied at first but then fixed after a huge amount of persistence) Sharing knowledge should not be this difficult.
User only accepted ‘cia sources’ based in Eritrea (which by the checked and they don’t exist and are ‘Not found’) and are testament to the fact that they’re imposing only their political ideology and nothing else.
I tried show casing the diversity that has existed in Eritrea over the centuries because of its very strategic location on the Red Sea which again deleted many times by users denying all non cia materials even when written by trusted sources. Users continued being problematic and replicating their ideology using other accounts and references that simply don’t exist.
Another thing, user seems to have a history of making Islamophobic edits from different accounts, making sweeping opinions on the ‘Tigurat’ page which I fixed. Frequently reducing/changing population of Muslims from all demographics even when appropriate citations are used
Furthermore, included edits that suggested Tigre group were converted forcibly and were formerly Tigruat (another word for Tigrayan) the two groups are not analogous, and it is deeply ignorant to pretend not to mention patronising, to pretend otherwise or to try and impose a tigrai-centric view of history on Muslim majority groups inhabitants in Eritrea and elsewhere in the region not to mention the population number regularly changing with unexplained data, references and citations that don’t exist, while leaving Tigrayan to be untouched, clearly editing with an agenda. Forcibly imposing dishonest and offensive ideology causes more harm than you think, please stop. Seems to me that you want as little as Muslims as possible and your edits are a testament. Why should we subscribe to your opinions and ideology of things, what kind of chose is that? How about you start using reliable sources for your edits? And accept help. Your edits/statements are dangerous and will invoke divisions, doing immeasurable harm to the Muslim communities. All I’ve done is be clear in assertion and fixing any mythology that is being propagated by you and your marauding group. LegacyVisual (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:DIFFs for evidence when you make claims about other users. Ian.thomson (talk
) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR or some combination. Maybe explaining on Talk first will help the penny to drop. Guy (help!
) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:NOTHERE. This and this can give you a hint for what to expect when this user decides to utilize a talk page. LV just simply does not care for what a source actually says in making edits to Wikipedia.[24][25][26] –MJL‐Talk‐☖
@JzG: Sounds good with me. I'm always perfectly fine with giving more rope out! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary's reverts and attacks
This report concerns the editor Pyxis Solitary(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and the article The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I split the article to make the distinct separation between the first and second seasons. As the articles stood, there was only an article for the parent series and the second season, as, yes, Bly Manor is a second season and not a sequel series, as determined by reliable sources and past discussions. The split therefore separated these seasons and made content clearer. The article was split with the correct attribution and thus was acceptable and allowable per Wikipedia policy, and not every split requires a discussion to go ahead.
This split was reverted[27] without reason, prompting me to start a discussion at the article's talk page, after which I was egregiously attacked and sworn at twice [28][29], where they then directly edited my user page[30]. Previous behaviour of this example can be see at Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series). How am I to discuss the content at hand, when the reverting editor will not discuss in a civil manner at all and is fixated on being as egregiously insulting as possible? -- /Alex/21 05:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Alex 21 made a major change to this article in February 2019 when he moved it, which afterwards resulted in the move being reverted after objections to the move.
He took it upon himself, twice, to appropriate my latest talk page comment by merging it into his topic: 1., 2.. So, yes, "Who the fuck do you think you are to appropriate my comment?" was a gut-reaction to what I consider a violation of my right to decide what I write, when I write it, and where I write it. And the second time I undid his unauthorized grab I wrote: "I did not and do not give you permission to merge my comment. I specifically posted it as a separate comment."
Btw, this is the comment I posted @ 05:30, 2 June 2020 in his User page by error, warning him about ANI if he appropriated any comment by me again. He then ran here one minute later to create this complaint. I re-posted my ANI warning in his talk page, and he deleted it. I've dealt with 'cheers' editors before. Their affections of politeness contradict their contempt for the contributions of other editors to this project. Pyxis Solitary(yak). L not Q. 06:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not a reason for the revert. You have not given a guideline or policy reason for your revert. In fact,
WP:OWNBEHAVIOR
actually states An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Furthermore, it even states An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. I see this in your revert of my edits, which now even has editorial support.
Have I since proposed to continue the discussion of the article move from over a year ago? No. That's a dead topic, please find material relevant to this discussion. It'd be great if you could supply a reason.
The two talk page sections concern the same topic, and I believe the only reason you have created your own topic instead of replying to me is 1) out of spite, and 2) so that you do not have to directly reply to me, which, again, you have not yet done. It is clear that the editor has no intention to reply, only to edit-war and revert, and to not be civil in the faintest. They have admitted that they were deliberately incivil, a clear violation of the
WP:PA
policy. Unacceptable.
I was already in the middle of creation this report when you edited my user page without permission. Do you really think I wrote all of this in a single minute? No. Now, either reply to the discussion at hand, or admit that you have no intention to do so and recind your personal attacks and apologize for them. Refusing to do so will be your admittance that you have no intention to edit collaboratively. -- /Alex/21 06:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that the reported editor did respond on the talk page[31], but only to discuss conduct instead of content. This furthers the stance that they have no intention to discuss the article's content, only to revert it, further supporting the creation of this report. -- /Alex/21 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
None of this excuses your behaviour. You had zero reason to be so hostile in the face of a bold edit. Revert civilly, discuss civilly, come to a consensus. That is the behaviour of a collaborative editor. The previous discussions discussed the title of the article, not the season articles; they are irrelevant. And this[32]? Further proof that they are only here for a battleground behaviour. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? Administration action is clearly required here. -- /Alex/21 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Pyxis' revert of a major BOLD edit and insistence on consensus seems entirely justified. What slight incivility there is has gotten nowhere close to sanctionable from either party, and you have successfully avoided any edit warring, so - keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck, notify related Wikiprojects, open an RfC... any of that before kicking up a storm here over what seems like a reasonable if hotly worded content dispute. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that their revert was justified, hence why I have not reverted. What I completely disagree on is the "slight incivility". Let's take a look at the actions from the reported editor that have unfolded:
[40]: Quote - "you're here for a one-track-mind self gratification, not collaboration". Even less AGF.
[41]: Repeating herself as if talking to a child. I especially like this last one - they repeated "seek consensus" while doing everything she should to not participate in the consensus-gaining procedure.
Do you also see what all of these diffs do not include? Any sort of attempt to actually discuss the content. All of these edits, and not a single response that actually concerns the content. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck? I've kept it to the talk page, and how we can we stuck if she refuses to respond? In anyone's next reply, can you please answer that? These three diffs [42][43][44] is what it looks like to actually discuss the content. -- /Alex/21 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow. What a meltdown. Is there anything I posted that I, myself, have not already linked in my comments here? Do you assume that an editor who's read a comment has not also checked the diffs and linked quotes included in it? And, good lord, you've also diff-linked what has been posted here. By the way, I did not write that your "edits are 'snake oil'." When you indulge in parsing iotas you need to refrain from putting a spin to what was written, because what I wrote is →: "There is nothing 'civil' about appropriating another editor's comment: 1x, 2x. You do not have the right to decide what an editor writes, where, and why. Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil." I'll translate it for you: after your repeated appropriation of my comment I don't believe anything you have to say about civility. And this latest tinkering with the talk page comments is absurd. Pyxis Solitary(yak). L not Q. 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The entire point of a report at ANI is to provide diffs. We should not be taking other editor's actions here for granted; if diffs are needed, they then are provided. Is there a reason as to why you don't think I should be providing these diffs from you?
Your actual quote at this edit[45] was Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil. Pray tell, if you weren't talking about my edits, what were you talking about? My contributions? My discussions? If it was something about me, my point remains.
All of this, and you still won't actually discuss the topic at hand. Even when a consensus is starting to become clearer with other editors, you point[46] to an outdated RM (which did not have the consensus you thought), as if consensus's cannot be updated. -- /Alex/21 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"Your actual quote at this edit...." Okay. This is all becoming very odd and should concern others who read your comment. I linked and quoted what I said in full, and your response is to re-quote part of it and link the same diff, as if what I quoted and linked was not exactly the same. Bizarre behavior is a red flag for me ... and I'm outta here. Pyxis Solitary(yak). L not Q. 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, and? Explain the meaning behind it. Explain the meaning behind all of the diffs linked above. Or discuss the actual content. If you're "outta here", is that saying that you have no intention of contributing towards the current discussion(s) and forming consensus? Did you ever? -- /Alex/21 11:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Elmidae that whatever mistakes were made, there doesn't seem to be anything warranting attention at ANI. Two things that really struck out from the summary were.
1) the modifying my user page one. But when I check the diff I find it's clearly just a mistaken post to the user page instead of the talk page. It happens people visit a user page and forget or get confused and probably especially when people don't use the new section option to made new threads they post in the wrong place, if you're lazy or whatever, just revert and move on. Or better, revert with a note you're moving it to your talk page and do so and reply as needed. I mean even if it didn't occur to you that's what happened, Pyxis Solitary already noted that's what happened then in their edit summary when they re-posted on your talk page [47] which you should have noticed when reverting them [48] all of which happened before your follow up here [49]. So I'm not sure why on you would choose to continue to highlight an obvious mistaken post to the user page instead of your talk page as "editing my personal user page without reason".
2) the swearing at you bit. Looking into it, it seems to me that Pyxis Solitary overreacted but it was a bit of a mess. Merging related threads is a well accepted practice. And AFAICT, the only modification of their comments was changing the indentation and remove the heading. [50] Per
WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN section headings don't really belong to anyone so it's generally acceptable to modify them although caution is urged when it's likely to be controversial. But modifying indentation is more problematic. While fixing indentation levels is allowed, the problem is you need to make sure you're actually fixing not modifying. If someone is at 2 levels and there are no other replies and someone else replies at 4 levels, that's likely to be a fair fix. If someone is at 2 levels and someone else replies at 2 levels below them, fixing that is risky since it may be the 2 levels is intentional as they are mostly replying to level 1. In this case, it seems that Pyxis Solitary chose to ignore your existing comment so weren't replying to it, so I can understand some frustration with the way you modified their comment so it appeared to be a reply to your comment. Probably the best solution in this case was instead of a pure merge, you could have kept the separate section heading but made it a subthread i.e. a 3rd level heading which is often the better solution and what our guideline suggests anyway.
In any case, since Pyxis Solitary is clearly unhappy over it, it's best to just let it stand. I suggest you both keep discussing under one of the sections headings, and use WP:Dispute resolution as necessary. And try to keep the personal stuff over who did what wrong on the article talk page down to a minimum.
Pyxis just seems to have an issue with any sort of modification, even when I merged the sections, didn't touch her reply or her header at all, but kept her reply as a level 1 reply[51], calling it "absurd"[52]. There's no sense to the madness, unfortunately.
So, cutting a long story short, the demand to gain a consensus and then the refusal to discuss the content is acceptable? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content. -- /Alex/21 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
And now they have made another comment[53] that an unrelated editor deemed to be racist[54], and I completely agree with them. How long can this behaviour continue? -- /Alex/21 23:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh. So I'm racist now? Your grasping at straws for anything that can stick is getting old. But ... maybe an admin with time on his/her hands might glance at the 2019 discussions, look into the IP addresses, and see where the crumbs lead. Pyxis Solitary(yak). L not Q. 08:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't call you racist initially. That was an unrelated editor. Best to be careful of that boomerang. I thought you were done? Or "outta here"? -- /Alex/21 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@
abusive, defamatory, or derogatory". "No wuckas" is slang for "no worries" and "Bruce" is slang for "man". This behavior by Alex 21 is becoming harassment. Pyxis Solitary(yak)
. L not Q. 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
DIscuss the actual content. It's really not that hard. Or did you never have any intention to discuss the content after you reverted my edits? Funny how you refuse to answer this and keep deflecting.
By the way, you forgot to actually link the diff to your racist comment[55]. -- /Alex/21 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what racism means. Stop calling it racist. "Racist" actually means something important, and using it as a gimmick is deeply uncool. My gut tells me we'd be better off if you were both blocked as being more interested in feuding than collaboratively editing, but my gut is sometimes wrong, and I don't have the stomach to see who "started it", and whether someone is behaving incrementally worse. But after just a cursory 60 second review, I'd be willing to wager that the admin who does eventually wade into this finds that you're both at fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I've asked the reported editor to discuss the content multiple times, because I'm interested in collaboratively editing after they reverted my major edit and told me to discuss it, but I've yet to see an actual reply by them on the topic at hand. That makes me think that they didn't intend to in the first place. So, as I think I've said for (at least) the third time during this discussion: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content? How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? -- /Alex/21 23:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Alex 21 deleted my comments again after I restored them: 23:23, 4 June 2020. This is both
Do you, or do you not, have any intention of actually discussing the content at hand? Or, at the very least, ceasing the
PA's, of which I am one or two editors in concern? -- /Alex/21
09:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this and this are Pyxis Solitary losing her temper. She was provoked, but she reacted more strongly than she should have done. Apart from this instance, I haven't yet identified anything that I would personally see as overly uncivil. I think Alex21 strongly dislikes being reverted and sees it as a highly confrontational thing to do. Recommendation: (1) Apply the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval to Pyxis Solitary for going a bit over the line on one occasion; and (2) Offer support and direction to Alex21 on how not to overreact to being reverted.—S MarshallT/C 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
User:DReifGalaxyM31 persistently adds unsourced material and avoids discussion
As far back as 2014, I've left notices for DReifGalaxyM31 (a few personalized) regarding the need to backup claims with reliable sources. Some of their edits are fine, involving a simple rephrasing of existing text and other forms of light copyediting. Others are even helpful at times, correcting specs and removing outdated information. The good tended to outweigh the bad, and it wasn't much work to sweep behind and keep things tidy over the years. However, the bad now tends to outweigh the good, and the frequency that myself and a few others have had to get involved is increasing. The editor hasn't responded to repeated requests and keeps marching on. Here are some recent examples...
There are other minor concerns with some edits, but right now lack of sourcing and ignoring pleas to discuss are the biggest issues. Perhaps a short-term block is needed (1 week) to get their attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Years of incivility
As myself and two other uninvolved admins have concluded, this report is closed as not being actionable. ANI is for reporting active (which is to say recent) incidents rather than historical links that for our immediate purposes are Stale. El_C 22:48, 7 June 2020 (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 the first 13 years I edited here, I had never heard of JzG. I first encountered him about a year ago and was struck by the uncivil tone he took in his interactions with those who disagreed with him. Eventually I had enough and in April I filed a complaint here at ANI. Bagumba found both of us at fault, but noted in the closing note that "at least three editors did not consider [JzG's] edit summary reference to "magic bread" to be WP:CIVIL."
In May, I complained again about 1) a series of uncivil comments and 2) his revdel-ing one of his own talk page comments. The conversation that ensued revolved around the deleted comment. In it, JZG declared that I was one of seven people in the world that he didn't like and that he didn't want to interact with me ever again. Lourdes then closed the discussion, saying "the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard, and JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. In my view, this is enough for the thread to be closed." She did so before there was any real discussion about the uncivil comments and only 14 hours after my original post.
I never asked for him to avoid interacting with me, and as long as he can remain civil have no problem interacting with him. Because of this, and because I thought he should have a voice in a particular discussion, I pinged him on a request at a noticeboard earlier this week. He opposed my request, which I knew he would. However, he went beyond this making six additional comments (plus subsequent expansions of those comments), trying to convince others to oppose me as well. He made more comments than any other user, save me. I am not upset about his participation for the reasons stated above. However, the content of some of those messages is troubling.
I am not sure how I am supposed to take this comment as anything but a personal attack: "He is religious, and like so many religious people he knows he is right, therefore everybody else is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it. He is acting in absolute good faith, and that is the problem." Painting religious people with such a broad brush is troublesome. I'd normally let it go, but I've since learned that he has a long history dating back to at least 2007 of bias against those who are (or he believes to be) religious. In the May ANI discussion, Mr Ernie said "I think we're close to the point where JzG's personal beliefs regarding Christians / Pro-life / Conservatives may be impeding their ability to edit those topics without conflict."
In her closing comment, Lourdes said "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence." Since she hasn't been actively lately, I can't ask her exactly what she meant by that. I took it to mean, however, that if JzG interacted with me again then the community would review my
, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly).
I have also since learned that I am not the first to raise concerns about JzG's uncivil behavior. When ElKevbocomplained about him last year, the lengthy discussion closed with Ivanvector saying "Formally, JzG is warned that the community's patience for repeated incidents of incivility is wearing extremely thin. In particular, JzG, I kindly advise you to note the number of editors endorsing blocking you here who are themselves administrators, and that a number of editors have made good arguments for why blocking you several days after this incident would easily fit within policy as a preventive measure."
In that discussion, Fish and karate found numerous other complaints about him, but sanctions never seem to get applied:
What is it that is so special about JzG? It was three years ago that DuncanHill asked "Does Arbcom think admonishing JzG will have any effect at all? He's been behaving atrociously for years." Three years later and JzG is still saying that because someone is religious that they can't be neutral. Three years later and he is making offensive comments towards others' religions. Just how thin does the ice have to get before it cracks? I've seen people blocked for a lot less, and rightfully so. As an administrator, he should be held to a higher standard. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, this noticeboard is for active incidents — so what active (i.e. recent) incident are you reporting? El_C 16:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, The discussion Lourdes said could be revisited was held on ANI, so I assumed this was the correct place for it. If it would best be held elsewhere, kindly inform me of where and I will retract this and repost it there. Thanks for the help. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, I'm not sure what discussion you are referring to, but you cannot ask for sanctions on the basis of Stale evidence. El_C 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, In May, I posted here at ANI. In closing that discussion, Lourdes said "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence" (emphasis mine). Since then, JZG has interactedwithme two days ago and made a personal attack three days ago. I assume that is recent enough. Again, however, I am not terribly familiar with this forum. If it's best addressed elsewhere I'd be glad to move the discussion there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, JzG is not obligated to avoid all interactions with or about you (like commenting on your request to lift your ban). As for the purported attack you mention, while granted, it is a bit too polemical for my liking, JzG went to some lengths to note that he feels you are acting in good faith, but that you have blinders that distorts your approach to neutrality. El_C 17:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
But Slugger says that calling him a Catholic is an attack and he does not identify as such, so of course I apologise unreservedly and will not call him that again.
You are right: I think Slugger is editing in good faith, and pursuing truth as he sees it. The issue at KofC was an unwillingess to accept any pushback about sources with an obvious dog in the fight, and it's my view that this was true at Stop the Church as well. Guy (help!) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, First of all, calling me a Catholic is not an attack, per se. It's that I've asked you many, many times not to, and you continued to do it. This is the first time you have even acknowledged my request. Secondly, and relatedly, "of course" you apologize? I asked you to stop one last time just two days ago. Did you apologize then? No. Did you agree to stop then? No. How did you respond? With six paragraphs of unsolicited advice that said how I could do better, but didn't even mention my request, much less agree not to do it. I am glad you have now apologized unreservedly, and accept it. I just wish it hadn't taken a complaint at ANI to obtain. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, seriously, if I had noticed I would have stopped. We both tend to the prolix, and I may well have skimmed over it. I can only apologise, the intent was never to offend but instead to recognise sincerity. As I have said, I think you are sincere. I also think that you have a tendency to dominate any matter in which you are involved - hence your #1 position in the edit stats of so many highly edited articles and their talk pages.
You can hardly call advice "unsolicited" when you came to my talk page. Guy (help!) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, You didn't notice? In both prior complaints about you at ANI I have raised the issue. I've raised the issue on article talk pages. In a one paragraph entry on your talk page entitled "Please stop" I asked you not to do it. I don't know how you possibly could have missed it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, the "please stop" was when I did. And you'll note I haven't said it since. Guy (help!) 20:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, You haven't said anything to me since then. If it was your intention to stop, perhaps you should have said so, instead of offering me instruction on other topics. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, I apologised for getting it wrong. Are we done? Guy (help!) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Yes. I've already accepted your apology. It's your statement that you didn't know I was upset by it that I find incredulous. As far as I am concerned, we are done with this line of conversation. The greater issue of your longstanding incivility remains, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If you wanted a interaction ban you should have asked for one then, if you had offered it probably would have happened. Since you didn't you would probably need new issues to get one. Its seems JzG stayed away from you until you tried to have your topic ban removed with a request that I believe misrepresented my participation with you.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, As I said above, I didn't want one. I don't want one. I don't want JZG to avoid me, I want him to be civil towards everyone. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless you have a specific request this is just going to be a timesuck. Also you should add diffs to your last paragraph otherwise they are aspersions and sanctionable as such.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
My interactions with JzG have been uniformly extremely unpleasant. I haven't reviewed all the links Slugger provided above, but I am not surprised to hear that he has a long history of incivility.
For my own experiences, a month ago JzG accidentally rolled back hundreds of my template edits completely unrelated to a pending matter at the time, and while that in and of itself is not a big issue (misclicks happen), he has still not cleaned up after himself a month later. Other editors have generously helped clean up some of the edits, but many of them remain undone (with compounding damage), and he has so far brushed off or ignored follow-up.
If the examples that Slugger linked to hold up in context (and again, I'm not asserting that they have, since I haven't checked them), it seems that the carelessness I witnessed may be part of a larger pattern of irresponsibility. If that is the case, then I would suggest that this may be an instance of an unblockable leaning on the blue wall, and that JzG has lost the confidence of the community. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, This refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037 § Change to all our welcome templates. Context: you were granted template editor rights at your request, the granting admin expressed reservations in the ANI thread. You made large scale changes to templates without prior consensus. I restored the status quo ante. L235 then came and asked for some tweaks which I did. You clearly feel this is unfinished business - you reopened the ANI thread and undid the auto-archive on my talk page - but the final status of that ANI was that there should be a RfC to decide on the template content issue. Is that now complete? Guy (help!) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You did not just restore the status quo ante, you undid hundreds of my template edits in some cases going back years, most of which had zero connection to the ANI thread. This was clearly explained to you by other editors on your talk page in the discussion I linked above; do not obfuscate the issue. Here are three rollbacks/page deletions that you have still not undone [56][57][3] (deleted page); there are tons more, so do not just fix these and then call it a day. The mass rollback feature is an extremely powerful tool that needs to be used judiciously and with care; that you still do not seem to understand how you messed up with it after it has been clearly explained to you multiple times is negligent. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Regarding your "context", I object to your characterization. You closed the discussion less than two hours after it was opened, hours before I ever saw it. As a result, you missed the highly pertinent discussions previously held about the issue. Your choice not to modify your close in any way after what happened became clear created a further mess. All of that reflects on the issues of irresponsibility raised in this thread. (For anyone who follows the link and is curious about the reclose, Serial Number 54129 has clarified that it was done just to get the thread to archive, and is not intended as an endorsement of your close.)) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, you were granted template editor rights 2020-05-06T14:18:08. I removed the right at 2020-05-08T14:11:13. Between those two timestamps you made 103 edits to Template space [58] and created five new ones. You didn't think that was a bit bold?
I rolled back 145 edits by you in template space [59]. The discrepancy is due to a screwup in the date filter on one refresh.
My inability to "understand how [I] messed up with it" is primarily due to a lack of specificity in your comments to me. Example: there is massive cleanup left to be done - sure, but... details? My rough count of the difference in numbers did not then and still does not indicate a problem of vast scale such that specificity would be a problem. Feel free to show where I went wrong there.
But sure: 100% of the problem is the guy who tried to clean up the mess. We're used to that. Guy (help!) 21:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I posted three queries in WP:RSN. JzG responded on all three, sometimes more than once, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly). If the responses were civil, shouldn't we be congratulating Guy for taking on board prior concerns? Levivich[dubious – discuss] 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I have encountered JzG a number of times over the years and I there hasn't been a lack of decorum in my eyes. Throughout last year, there was a problematic editor who couldn't take a hint 12 and even with said editor trying to edit war and campaign against JzG, this administrator still gave him ample rope in the first place, before finally drop the hammer and ban him from Wikipedia all together. If there's active unprofessional conduct, I have yet to see it.
How many times is JzG going to be brought here for incivility before something is done? Up top El_c tries to excuse it for stale reasons or something similar, but it is clear that in certain topics he holds very strong opinions and in many cases he crosses the line of civility. His being an admin does play a role because this is conduct not becoming an admin and he is held to a higher standard, even if he doesn't use his admin actions. He wrote a whole long screed calling all US conservatives nasty names, now he calls anyone religious similar, and the links to prior ANI actions is where people have had enough of his behavior. It is unacceptable and we should not tolerate it. Sir Joseph(talk) 01:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - JzG is a valuable editor and an extremely effective admin. Calling a spade a spade is not "incivility", and should never be the reason for blocking, banning or even admonishment. If Sir Joseph perceives Guy as a problem, it's most likely because he's been on the wrong -- i.e. non-policy -- side of disputes with him. That's Sir Joseph's problem, not ours, although it could well contribute in the future to further sanctions for SJ. [60], [61], [62]Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, I don't think I've ever been involved in a dispute with JzG, but thank you for showing everyone why ANI and Wikipedia is such a toxic place to edit. My block log has no bearing on this and you threatening me is inexcusable, especially considering the way you treated me before. Just look at this thread and see how many times JzG has been warned about incivility. What you did by bringing my log into this is a form of harassment and bullying considering I am not a party to this. Sir Joseph(talk) 02:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't "threaten" you, as I have no power to do anything to you. And if you have had no interactions with JzG, then you really don't have anything particularly pertinent to contribute to this thread, do you? As for "toxic": "How long are we going to put up with this dude before we do something to him" (paraphrase), "Guy's buddies are protecting him from lettingus do something to him" (paraphrase), "Guy dares to have opinions about politics that are different from mine" (paraphrase), "We cannot tolerate this! Man the barricades!! Up against the wall!!!" (ultra-paraphrase). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, I can ask the same to you, although much stronger. He's an admin and civility is very important and he's been brought here many times before. I assume you read the ANI and didn't just jump to my name to comment. This isn't the first time he's been brought here, and it wasn't the first time he's been brought here in the past couple of months. As to why comment, I can you the same question, why would you comment on ANI threads? I really don't know what I did to you that you have such animosity. The only interaction I've had with you was a positive one about some synagogue in NYC, as far as I can remember, yet every interaction you have is a negative one. Also note how I'm not pasting your block log or your warnings. Just please stay away from me. Sir Joseph(talk) 03:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Re "What is it that is so special about JzG?", the answer is that he works in the fringe area and frequently has to argue with nutcases trying to use Wikipedia to promote their favored anti-science view. ANI is not the place to post a bunch of historical links. Links should be selected for relevant and recent problems, not sprayed with a firehose. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I was pinged (you rang?). I wasn't going to comment here, but here I am. First let me say, I really like the title of this thread. I think it is a great name for a novel, a memoir, or even a soap opera. Having said that, I agree with Johnuniq and in a different way say the same thing. RFC/U has been dropped by the community and this has become one of those. I recommend that editors with their own complaints open a specific thread regarding those complaints. As it stands now, any complaint that is not Slugger's is off topic.
JzG has apologised (or apologized) for the "Catholic" remark. The other "uncivil" remark I think is debatable. What exactly here [63] is a personal attack? I think it serves as JzG's description of how someone edits more than accusing someone of something. So, what particularly is offensive? I am asking in good faith here. (Redacted) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, it looks highly likely to me that you have come here to complain about JzG because he opposed your recent request to have your topic ban on the Knights of Columbus lifted. You must have worked hard to uncover admonishments that JzG received five to twelve years ago, but stuff that old is of very limited relevance in 2020. As for JzG guessing at your religion, I think that we can agree that if a hypothetical editor spent most of their time editing very positively and tenaciously on Zoroastrian theology and Zoroastrian men's groups and Zoroastrian controversies and so on, constantly citing sources from Zoroastrian publishers, that another editor might be forgiven for concluding that the first editor was a follower of Zoroastrianism. But now that we all know that you do not want your own religious identity to be mentioned on Wikipedia, anyone who reads this discussion will try not to mention what everyone thinks. What you call a personal attack I see as a frank evaluation of your style of editing, and criticizing your editing is not a personal attack. Other editors are chiming in, claiming that JzG has been mean to them, but JzG and many other editors think that he is defending this encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines from editors who are here to push assorted versions of a pseudoscientific world view. I endorse Johnuniq's assessment right above. An administrator who has JzG's focus "frequently has to argue with nutcases trying to use Wikipedia to promote their favored anti-science view", and that good work as a Wikipedia adminstrator tends to make enemies. This encyclopedia has a problem with articles on topics specifically related to particular religious denominations relying solely on sources published by those religious denominations, or with heavy reliance on such sources for sweeping assertions. As a result, we end up with articles that state, in Wikipedia's voice, that certain myths and legends are actually "miracles", and other overtly non-neutral content. That is untenable for a neutral encyclopedia, though it may be excellent content for the denomination's own publications. We cannot host "articles" that are really religious tracts and recruitment brochures in disguise. There are many academics working in the field of Comparative religion and related fields who produce high quality neutral analysis of various religious beliefs and practices, and those are the type of sources that should be preferred for such articles. I am 100% in favor of rigorously neutral, properly referenced articles about religious topics. Editors who work to undermine the neutral point of view need to be monitored, restricted and blocked if the behavior persists. As for JzG, I encourage him to use diplomatic language when dealing with problematic editors, and to avoid writing anything that could be construed as a personal attack. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not seeing anything here that is actionable. Slugger is recounting old UNCIVIL violations to begin with, then adding one on top. There really isn't anything much here. Recounting past uncivil violations in this context does not seem applicable. This is not the same as, for example, an editor with a long history of tendentious editing, thwarting the project at every turn. JzG's positive contributions outweigh the other issues that have been brought to the community's attention imho.
Also, I feel he has been able to describe most situations with uncanny accuracy and I often appreciate their candid remarks, whether or not I am INVOLVED. And that applies to a number of edits going back a number of years. Dealing with fringe editing and POV edting can understandably result in becoming testy from time to time. I echo Cullen here except for one a couple of words. "I encourage JzG to use diplomatic language when dealing with problematic editors" specifically "to avoid" any comments "that could be construed as a personal attack." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Rather than say the same thing three different ways, this comment should serve as a response to Steve Quinn, Johnuniq, and Cullen328. First of all, we should all be glad that JzG does some laudable work. Good work over here does not excuse incivility over there, however. Secondly, this is not personal. Others opposed my request last week, including you, Cullen and Steve, but I am not filing complaints against anyone else. Why? I haven't found anyone else to be so uncivil. In fact, Steve opposed me and I said some nice things about him in response. Third, I thought I had already litigated the timeliness issue above. Let's look at Lourdes' closing comment above in its entirety:
There are two issues here. One, JzG (Guy) made an erroneous admin action, reversed it. Two, the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard, and JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. In my view, this is enough for the thread to be closed. If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence. I'm closing this here now.
Now remember that she closed it after less than a day, before any of the uncivil comments were discussed, and after other editors specifically asked for it not to be closed to give them time to look into the uncivil comments. I'm not sure how to interpret that except to say that if JZG interacted with me in the future that the uncivil comments would be examined. What was I supposed to bring back here otherwise? Evidence that he didn't live up to his voluntary pledge to avoid me? What would be actionable about that? If you still believe that ANI is not the right place for this, I've already said I will take it to another forum. Finally, the community has decided that I should not edit in the area of the Knights of Columbus because I cannot do so within the community's standards. If JzG cannot edit in "fringe areas" without becoming uncivil, then perhaps he shouldn't edit in those areas either. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't wish to see any more admin board complaints regarding JzG by Slugger unless there are very recent and tangible violations. Otherwise Slugger should be sanctioned. The ANI, to which Slugger referred [64], resolved the above issues, as did the ANI before that [65], from which everyone was supposed to move on - including the redev action. Even if Slugger doesn't think so. All this has been dealt with, so please stop
beating a dead horse. The community has spoken more than once. It's not fair to drag an editor into ANI unnecessarily. For future reference, when an AN or ANI thread closes, that means it's time to move on. ---Steve Quinn (talk
) 16:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is some advice. If Slugger wants to know what Lourdes or any other closer meant, then please ask Lourdes (or other closers) on their talk page. That is a targeted effort that may yield tangible results before flailing about in high-traffic ANIs and ANs. This will save lots of time. The energy spent writing here could be used more productively elsewhere, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll say this another way. To correctly interpret the decision elucidated in a closer's remark, it is best to ask the closer what they meant, rather than before coming to this or any other drama board. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Steve Quinn, As I said originally, I wanted to, but she hasn't been active here lately. She's only made one edit in the last two weeks and hasn't responded yet to several messages I've already left on her page. I don't know when or if she will be back. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slugger O'Toole: That is unfortunate. If you are basing this complaint on interpreting what she meant, then we're stuck. Because, I don't know either. I don't know what this means: "...the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard." And I don't know what this means, "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence."
It appears JzG interacted with civility before this thread. Then he apologized here for the "Catholic" remark. There has been no discernible civil violation in the previous ANI interaction - at least not one that you have presented. Also, as JzG said, he probably scanned your last post on his talk page, rather than read it, so he gave you friendly advice instead of acknowledging what you said. But, again, JzG apologized here.
Judging from what you have posted here, it seems you feel it is not necessary for JzG to avoid interacting with you, as long as it is civil. If I have covered all the bases here, then I suggest waiting for Lourdes to return before coming back to ANI, or AN. But, I strongly recommend coming back is based on recent and tangible violations, otherwise the thread will probably lack direction, and probably the complaint will not garner support - as is the case with this thread.
If I may, I will also add this: if you are thinking of going to Arbcom based on the history you have presented here, I am pretty sure that case will not be accepted. JzG's history shows low-level CIVIL violations. Arbcom deals with complex highly contentious issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
One more thing. I am guessing, but I am pretty sure Lourdes meant, if JzG contravened his offer based on "(recent) uncivil remarks" then it would be OK to file another complaint at an Admin board. I am guessing, they left out "(recent) uncivil remarks". It seems that is implied. But, again, to have clarity, consult Lourdes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
OK. Just one more thing. Arbcom will not take a case if the Dispute Resolution process is working. That would be a high bar to overcome regarding JzG. If anything, the evidence presented in this ANI shows the DR process has been and is working. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I intend to close this report as not being actionable. As I mention above, if Slugger O'Toole has an active (which is to say recent) incident to report, they are welcome to do so — but as the other two uninvolved admins who commented on this report (Johnuniq and Cullen) have said: ANI is not a fishing expedition. El_C 11:42, 7 June 2020 (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.
Dan arndt
Dan arndt has accepted that Rollback wasn't the correct way to make that revert, and has indicated that they will try to be more careful in future. Discussion has started on article talk page, no need for this to remain open. GirthSummit (blether) 17:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From my part, there were several attemts to resolve the issues on their talk page, and also a warning because of Rollback abuse, but all useless.
Given that, I hereby kindly request to consider revoking the Rollback flag of this user. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that I also had asked for advice at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback#What_to_do_in_case_of_Rollback_abuse and Eumat114 has confirmed me that repeated cases of Rollback misuse are subject to flag removal. Now we have at least four abusive rollback edits, this cannot be considered accident or lack of experience or the like. --A.Savin (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Baseless allegations as my explanation for reverting the images are clearly given on each article’s talk page a simple fact that A.Savin appears to have purposely overlooked, despite my comments on his talk page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:ROLLBACKUSE: Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Your reverts do not fall into any of the five categories listed. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs
) 04:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Which means the flag has to be revoked, because this is a systematic abuse. --A.Savin (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that A.Savin (the OP) reverted Dan's edit again after Dan had started the discussion at
talk
) 11:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just as (un)civil as Dan arndt. --A.Savin (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The diffs linked above are as clear as can be that Dan arndt has been using rollback to revert edits that are nothing like vandalism. If A.Savin has also done something wrong (which I haven't checked) then that can be dealt with, but Dan arndt has obviously been misusing this tool.
Phil Bridger, A.Savin has edit-warred to include his own image without discussion in place of a long-standing image. Dan has at least started a discussion. Trouts all round. Guy (help!
) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is quite an unjust assessment from you, since the initial edit war starter definitely was Dan arndt (meanwhile I have withdrawn my image until further notice) and they alone abused the Rollbacker flag, what this thread actually is about. --A.Savin (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If I am guilty of abusing the Rollerbacker flag then A.Savin given his edit history is equally guilty (let those without sin cast the first stone). Noting that I have tried to discuss these issues at their respective talkpages and that A.Savin has clearly indicated to me that he doesn't want it discussed on his talkpage. Dan arndt (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:BRD you continued to revert and did not join the discussion Dan started on Talk. We have seen this behaviour from other editors, and some have been banned for it. Don't be that guy, OK? Bold, revert, discuss. Guy (help!
) 08:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Dan arndt has abused their Rollback flag several times for undoing good-faith edits and editwarring. Can a sysop remove their rollback flag please? Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin Sysops are not required to revoke the flag because rollback has been misused, it is just one of the options open to us.
Dan arndt Do you understand that rollback should not be used to revert good faith edits, and that you shouldn't have used it in your initial revert of the replacement of the image? I think that if you accept that, and indicate that you will be more careful in future, nothing more needs to be done. GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
In hindsight it wasn’t the correct use of the rollback tool however I did always try and discuss my rationale on the article’s talk page. I'm also of the opinion that A.Savin is equally guilty of abusing the rollback tool even if he’ll never admit. I will try and be more careful in my application in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:TROUT to me at this point. As one who was edit-warring to insert their own picture without discussion, your best option is to shut up now. Guy (help!
) 14:42, 8 June 2020 (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.
Galendalia, again
I'm sorry to have to report that Galendalia has been indefinitely blocked and that an initial unblock request has been declined. The consensus here does appear to be that the goodwill of the community has finally been exhausted, but there is hope expressed by several people that Galendalia may be able to return to editing one day. Nick (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2020 (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.
Skipping to the end,
talk
) 05:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
In my defense I accepted that and moved on. The conversation on their page was about me and they were trying to be slick about it by not using my SN. I can use any phrase I feel necessary when I am constantly being harassed by other people within the community and the fact that I’m being called out for something I felt was AGF attempt and having long ass stories put on my talk page and being told I’m not doing what I should be based on a conversation that was closed awhile ago but still gets constantly brought up because some people can’t or won’t let things go. I brought it up as I stated because I wasn’t sure do the fact their email is on the user page and their website. I quoted my exact reasoning “ Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by oversighters (see requests for oversight).” I was told that my misreading of it is that the user voluntarily posted it therefore my CSD was inappropriate. My argument is right there in the first sentence “whether added by yourself or others....” Maybe it was the wrong template but the correct way to go about it is simply stating that “hey the template you used was not appropriate in the way in which you used it, instead here is a better way.” No instead it turned into once again an attack on me and the administrator went on a tangent Then in comes everyone else about something including Ponyo who again is stating it fell on deaf ears, etc etc etc. Then to top that off a user posted a COI to their page however they didn’t post it correctly to put it in the category so I created the COI for them (as they only had a sentence stating they have a COI and the user account is only a few days old). Therefore I was being helpful in this particular incident. Furthermore the poster of the ANI did not post anything about this discussion to my talk page, and for an administrator none the less, should be doing this instead of (referencing conversation on their talk page with another admin about me) trying to skirt the system and go behind my back. I did nothing wrong nor did I do anything outside of my promise on the previous conversation. When I see this posted by an administrator on my talk page “This might be an area that requires some restriction.” Then I see it as a threat that I will be restricted by the admin from editing certain parts of Wikipedia. I will note that throughout the conversation eventually the admin did start to explain everything which was helpful and not as condescending. Now as far as the other user posting on my talk page, they added their four (count them) four paragraphs of their opinion on stuff already talked about and therefore was unneeded on my talk page. This was completely uncalled for in any aspect. I am getting tired of having to defend my every single action on this site especially when it’s the same admins over and over who have the issue. Btw I happened to come into this conversation as I look at the board once in a while before I start CV to see what has been reported so I don’t waste my time on revisions if someone was reported. PS I can take advice if it is presented as such. Simply leaving 4 paragraphs of crap on my talk page is not advice, nor is telling me I’ll be restricted is advice. Galendalia Talk to meCVU Graduate 06:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to notify you of the ANI. Done.
talk
) 12:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
PS I can take advice if it is presented as such. Simply leaving 4 paragraphs of crap on my talk page is not advice, nor is telling me I’ll be restricted is advice. Editors aren't under any obligation to make sure things are worded in a way only you can understand. If you don't want to be treated like a newbie (ie. templated) stop with the boy-who-cried-wolf
WP:BITE stuff and start listening to what several experienced editors are telling you. Praxidicae (talk
) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Seeing Galendalia's initial reaction to ThatMontralIP's explanation as to why the G11 tagging was incorrect made me realize that there will always be issues with Galendalia's editing on this project because they have great difficulty admitting when they are wrong. Their entire temperament is unsuited to collaboration, which is obviously an issue as this project relies on collaboration. Who is ever going to want to try to discuss anything with Galendalia when odds are you'll be met with denials, claims of harassment and petulant responses? When I recently expressed concerns on their talk page, they responsed angrily and blanked the discussion with the edit summary "No need for the smack down from an admin" whereupon Nick, who closed the last lengthy ANI thread, noted that"You've already been given a significant amount of leeway that is not always extended to new contributors causing low-level disruption, please do not use up the last of the good will that exists for you within the community". Consider my patience exhausted. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Also noting that in Galendalia's response above they state " I am getting tired of having to defend my every single action on this site especially when it’s the same admins over and over who have the issue", yet when I approached them on their talk page, having never interacted with them before (that I'm aware of), their response was "I don’t even know who the f*** you are but now you are on the prowl against me". So any new admins who bring up concerns get dumped on the Admins Who Harass Me pile. There doesn't seem to be an avenue for discourse that doesn't veer into uncivil territory.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
For someone who loves to drop the "DONT BITE NEWBIES" line, they sure like to dabble in non-newbie areas. I see no benefit of allowing this to continue and would suggest a
WP:BITE while attempting to edit in areas that require experience. Second time at ANI, only been here what, a month? Praxidicae (talk
) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
User_talk:ThatMontrealIP#thank_you_for_trying is uncalled for, but to each their own. Galendalia Talk to meCVU Graduate
18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Ironic you complained above about a lengthy warning and yet added this diatribe here, while complaining about incivility of other editors who you said "fuck you" to. Is "do as I say, not as I do your Wikipedia motto, Galendalia? Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, and this was a necessary commentary to serve what purpose? Galendalia Talk to meCVU Graduate 18:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
So, i'm not allowed to register an opinion of a habitually problematic editor? I was hoping you'd respond with some sort of acknowledgement about your disruptive behavior before I made a formal proposal for a block and/or ban. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Galendalia, I am curious about something. Is your position that a) you should not be warned or advised when you make poor edits that affect others, and b) if you are warned or advised on bad edits, you will continue to tell experienced editors to "go to hell" or go fuck themselves? Slightly paraphrasing your use of "fuck", but it's more or less accurate. Do you see nothing wrong with your conduct?
talk
)
ThatMontrealIP No, neither one of those are my positions, however, I need to stop being so angry at people who are making attempts to point out my wrongs, however, there is a correct way to do it and should include what can be done to correct it not just "That was the wrong template, don't go peddling in things you don't know.....etc etc..." Galendalia Talk to meCVU Graduate
18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
What a mess. Galendalia's edits (and commentary about them) have been a prominent fixture on my watchlist as of late, and that's never a good thing - especially for a user who's been here around a month! Making mistakes due to inexperience isn't a problem, and I'm the one of the first to bat for folks who're accused of "incivility" when frustrated, but Galendalia's frankly obtuse attitude towards any and all users, admin or not, who offer constructive criticisism about their behaviour is getting incredibly old. Their apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge they have a problem combined with their rabid obsession with collecting responsibility (their behaviour around the Spoken Wikipedia Project is incredibly concerning) suggests to me that a
WP:CIR block is required for a year or two, until they gain the willingness to actually work WITH people. Until then, their presence here serves to simply burn the time and goodwill of valuable constructive editors. -- a they/them | argue | contribs
19:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
: Oh wow, I just discovered this. I am struggling to find a justification for this kind of hot-headedness. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 19:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that was an...unwise request on their part. ——Serial# 19:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the diffs in the initial complaint are enough for an indef on their own, and given the history here, there are CIR issues. I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2020 (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.
Carlstak being problematical
The OP has been put away in a sock drawer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (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.
Until you have a better grasp of English syntax and grammar, maybe you should stop correcting such things, per
WP:CIR. The problem here is clearly you and not the other editor. Heiro
06:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked once before for disruption of the reference desks / help desk, at it again, even though every one of his questions gets hatted (and not always by the same person).
Sometimes he paraphrases the question (identifiable by the poor grammar) instead of copying it, but his answers to requests for clarification make it clear that he is not posting about any actual problem that he personally is trying to solve. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This certainly looks like a
WP:NOTHERE. I see four edits in article space in 2014, and none since. I think all the rest have been Talk and Desk questions. User claims all the questions posted here as well as outside Wikipedia were posted by them. Not sure if that helps the Copyright issue, but it certainly looks like a lack of interest in encyclopedia building. --Deep fried okra(schalte ein)
Oh, btw, just to make this case weirder, I'm totally cool with unblocking from article space for no reason whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is odd. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that if someone wants to use Wikipedia just for the reference desk, that that is part of our encyclopedic mission. I do not see why people here are taking into account Ram's lack of mainspace contributions, because that should not enter into the calculus. Okay, if he's being disruptive on the reference desk that should count against him, but why bring up mainspace if the poor guy just wants to do the reference desk? Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It is true that there is no policy against only using the refdesks, but there are a couple of subtleties here.
First, if you actually contribute to building an encyclopedia we give you more slack when it comes to other things. Let me give you an example. Every so often someone (usually not seriously) mentions a Cabal. See Wikipedia:Cabals. I often reply by writing the following:
"There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will."
It is just a bit of lighthearted fun, and nobody minds because of all the work I put in trying to improve the encyclopedia. But what if the only thing I did was post jokes? I could very well end up with a
WP:NOTHERE
warning.
Second, It is generally agreed that what we are looking for on the refdesks is [A] questions that lead directly to improving the encyclopedia, and [B] questions that the poster wants to know the answer to. Ram nareshji is just copying questions from elsewhere. He shows zero evidence about actually wanting an answer regarding Windows shutdown of traveling in Kenya. Please read User talk:Ram nareshji#Need confirmaton where he admits to copying questions from stack exchange he doesn't need answers to and where he promises to stop doing it. As he was told in that discussion:
"The purpose of the reference desk is so that you can ask questions that you want to know the answer to, not so that you can turn the reference desk archives into a 'question bank'. The people who put time and effort into answering questions that you asked did so in order to help you. How do you think they are likely to feel about having spent time and effort into producing an answer that nobody visiting the reference desk actually wants to know about?"
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.
Since May 30, the above user has been editing the above article based on their local knowledge, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, there's a couple dozen more.
They have been edit-warring against multiple editors to their preferred version, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff
Consensus on the talk page for the last stable version, diff
Warnings left for editor for edit-warring and editing against consensus, diff, diff, diff
As per the evidence presented, Shenqijing is edit-warring, editing against consensus, exhibiting signs of
WP:RGW. I'm asking for relief from this disruptive behavior, take your pick, topic ban from the article, partial block from editing the article, or whatever is necessary to stop the disruptive behavior. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk)
09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty bad
WP:CIR to complicate the issue. It seems unkind to take away their hobby but something has to happen. I would support an indefinite block or at least a partial block from the article and its talk page. Johnuniq (talk
) 10:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Just read the talkpage and my brain hurts now; the user wont listen and keeps posting screeds that seem to have little relevance to what is being discussed. Oh, and they have taken it to the arbitration committee diffCurdle (talk)
I was asked (Canvassed) by the user in question to take a look at the situation and it is clear: this is a longstanding
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and if they don’t chill out and back down, a block is in order. Montanabw(talk)
17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, Montanabw, for good article status, All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended is as good as it gets (re: "requires consensus for change"). However, I agree that these edits are poor enough to fall into the latter category, and that, having been reverted, they then should discuss it (which in any case is in line with the basic principle of BRD). Mind you, having gone to the talk page they then made for painful reading. Depending on their responses in this thread, I'd suspect a CIR issue. ——Serial# 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Point acknowledged. ;) Montanabw(talk) 14:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked Shenqijing for two weeks for socking. That should not preclude another administrator blocking for a longer period or indef if the consensus here is that it's needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:53, 8 June 2020 (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:AIV not only backlogged but being used by a new sock to fuck about. DuncanHill (talk
) 20:53, 7 June 2020 (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.
One confirmed user vandalising minority language page.
Syloti Nagri or Sylheti is a language of minority community in Bangladesh, India and UK. Why only one confirmed user "Username" dominating the page, who hate the language, call it a dialect in several edits and doing whatever he wants. Discouraging all other contributors.
Only handful of community users use this script, known to them as "Syloti Nagri" who is trying to reintroduce the script. But this user who know nothing about the community dominating the page.
Please have a look at the name Syloti Nagri in our small community and resources and correct the spelling in the page name.
@Coilsspit: Your concerns should be raised at the article's talk page. This page for is for matters that require administrative attention. I don't see anything in UserNumber's that requires administrative attention. A cursory look does suggest that Sylheti is a language, not a dialect—but again, that's a content matter for the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I have also notified the user in question, since you did not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It is curious, though, that a newly-created account has come straight to ANI with this, regarding a page that is protected due to sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
For background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputro.nagaland/Archive. The named socks were all active on Sylheti-related pages. The person being criticized above is most likely User:UserNumber who has added a lot of content, and identifies as a speaker of Sylheti. (This is the person criticized above as knowing nothing about the language). The disagreement (above) appears to be which script is the correct one to use for the language and how its name should be spelled in English. Whatever the issue may actually be, it has tenacious advocates (or possibly, one advocate with many socks). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it is a very strong accusation to make that I know nothing of the Sylheti language or script. In fact, I have not only contributed immensely to these articles, I have created related follow-up pages such as: List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Ashraf Hussain, History of Sylhet and Sadeq Ali, which show my enthusiasm for the topic.UserNumber (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
im here over wikicommons via reported user talk page here see:[75]! he has some issues l.e creating baseless flag and edits related Sylhet. I know its not related the case above but just take a look at my reverts here List of regional anthems, enatrly bullshit edits- his edits have sometimes null evidence and I assume just for fun and wiki is not definitely for that!! - 2A0A:A546:E753:0:F1E4:54C6:8172:9252 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Anon User Kdchan on No Game No life
Been a while since I looked into Wikipedia policies so this might not be the right place to post.
Since August 2016, the user KDchan has been displeased with the negative reception of the article No Game No life, (Talk Page Discussion); the user was permanently blocked as an end result. Here is the last revert done on the user his IP hopping spree before the page was protected for 2-years which ended last week (Link).
Before the expiration, the user has returned recently to voice his protest on the talk page via vandalism. Here is a link to the last revision before the latest talk page protection (Link).
Since the protection expired on the main page, the user has returned to changing the reception to de-clarify a negative reception for whatever reason (Link). Third edit, third day, third IP address.
Is there an alternative measure besides protecting the page just because of this one user? Thanks D.Zero (Talk·Contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
pending changes in the toolkit, but that puts the burden on you to patrol and approve or reject changes, and sometimes people unfamiliar with the page may approve the IP's edits. In this case I think semiprotection may be best. Guy (help!
WP:CIR, having already been blocked for endlessly repeating the most basic disruptive editing akin to spam, as seen on his Talk page, and then made histrionic personal attacks here. The attack is the last straw, but the user says the same things repeatedly, over the same issues, repeating identical disruptions and making new ones of the same kind, claiming not to remember even doing any of it, half of which is arguing with a bot, and demonstrating no possibility of doing otherwise. Please kindly block this user for the sake of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk)
Pi.1415926535, who had wanted to get the user blocked and was then attacked. Sorry to bug ya, just in case, according to typical practice. — Smuckola(talk) 02:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the last 4 weeks though? Or are there edits you don't like but you haven't bothered to mention to him? The editor is perhaps a bit clueless, as he's talking back to a bot on his talk page, but maybe he needs a little more coaching? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this kind of response YOU MONGRELS HERE CAN GO 🖕🏻 YOURSELVES!!! Andrew Lieb (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC) warrants some kind of administrative action beyond coaching... JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That was four weeks ago. Admins don't punish, they just prevent continuing disruption. Do you see a continuing problem that needs admin intervention? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE, he's been blocked for all this, and he continued to do it all again (at best, no edit summaries or reliable sources). Then he made that huge personal attack. Then, since your last comment here, he just made a personal attack to me and basically the whole Wikipedia process on his talk page, simply for having reported it here! And while knowing that it's blockably wrong, except also somehow it's not wrong when *he* does it. So actually we're all wrong and you're wrong. That basically proves that he's going to continue abusing us and the system *because* he's not being blocked. And I'll ping the involved users just in case, Trappist the monk and Johnuniq. — Smuckola(talk)
20:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't see that he did anything like a personal attack since May 7. Why here now? Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I left them a final warning. Please notify me of any further problems, preferably by a ping from a talk page illustrating the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
IP range
WP:HOUNDING
my contributions
The range 221.132.119.0/24 has been constantly going through my contributions list and reverting my additions of Urdu-language titles to articles on Pakistani entertainment with strong ties to the Urdu language. Here are some examples:
There are plenty of other examples littered through their contribution history, but hopefully this is enough to get the point across. In their latest wave in particular, I find it highly unlikely that they just happened to stumble upon
WP:HOUNDING should be acceptable, and to bring some attention to it I am posting here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs
) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The user seems to be on a bit of a crusade against inclusion of Urdu names. Quite a bit of it seems to have been pointed at your edits, but looking at their recent contributions, it's not solely that. I've rangeblocked for a week for anonymous users only (account creation still allowed), so if they want to create an account and discuss this style issue civilly, they can. As it stands, I consider this disruptive editing because some of those edit summaries are really quite personal, and they're massively misrepresenting the
WP:URDUSCRIPT, seems to have no issue with inclusion of Urdu in these types of article. ~ mazcatalk
Has history of introducing facutal errors and making political comments in the body of articles. Has now begun to insert antisemitic comments (Example)–DMartin 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked for one week for disruptive editing. If they were an account, I'd've indef
At [76] and [77] a temporarily blocked user casts aspersions about me. I suggest indeffing according to
WP:NOTHERE
. As I told that editor: Get a grip on reality: I did not revert your edits, nor I changed them in any way (except indentation).
He/she is a vexatious troll. If you want more evidence: [78]. Somehow he/she seems to think (contrary to reality) that I reverted his/her edits or blocked him/her from editing. It is a mystery why he/she thinks that I would have moderator privileges. Oh, yes, the editor should be checked for sleepers. Maybe I had reverted his/her edits in a previous incarnation as a Wikipedia editor (i.e. another username). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Well I think as many would say, a username like User:Truth lives here raises significant concerns in itself. But I wouldn't read too much into the moderator and other stuff. New and inexperienced editors get confused all the time. Since you were the most recently addressing them, there is a good chance they confused you with Materialscientist. Further the fact that the editor would refer to anyone as "moderator" is another sign that they don't understand how things work here, since we don't really have moderators. It's hardly uncommon that editors get confused and thinking anyone who reverts them is a "moderator", or anyone who can post on their talk page when they are blocked is an admin/"moderator", or anyone who can modify their edits even if to only add indentation is a "moderator" etc. Heck since we're at ANI, it's hardly uncommon that people assume anyone posting here must be an admin or should be an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:ANI
.
@
equally valid with evolution is fundamentally against our policies or guidelines. I don't see how this editor could become a net positive if he/she is allowed to edit topics about creationism and evolution while still asserting their own POV. Either they quit asserting their POV, or they get topic banned from anything which has to do with evolution and/or the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 08:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Quoting myself. So, yeah, if his/her only purpose at Wikipedia is to
WP:IDHT that he/she is not allowed to do that. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 08:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I apologise for the confusion with my last comment. I wasn't intending to suggest that you posting at ANI had anything to do with why they assumed you were moderator. Rather is was just another example of how often new editors get confused, and therefore why it's silly to assume just because someone said something about you being a moderator or reverted their edit when you didn't, means they were a sock. And I stand by my point. It's a silly assumption. Anyone with even an inkling of experience here knows how often new editors get confused. If you want to propose an indef for NOTHERE, that's one thing. But don't make silly assumptions and expect to be unchallenged. Actually there is some irony here that you, an experienced editor here are calling for a block based on a silly assumption, when the likely problem is simply some new editor here making silly assumptions. If Truth here lives has brought you up before you had interacted with them you would have a point. But this is clearly not what happened therefore it's a silly assumption. New editors get confused all the time, and if we want to block them, we should block them for actual problems with their edits, not simply for some understandable under the circumstances, confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Further reading your comment more carefully, this discussion just gets more and more confusing. You said "passing creationism as objectively true" except how did creationism even come into this dispute? You mentioned it in your YESBIAS template, but the OP doesn't seems to have mentioned creationism AFAICT. Instead the dispute seems to be often this [79] over flood myths especially ones in the Torah or bible. AFAICT, there's no part of that edit which involves or explicitly refers creationism. It may be true that creationists often believe in flood myths, and especially those who believe in Noah's Ark tend to be creationists. But the fact remains, AFAICT, there is nothing in that edit which specifically referred to creationism. There are people who are not creationists who believe in flood myths just as there are people who are creationists who do not believe in flood myths. There are probably even some people who believe the story of Noah's Ark is literally true but rejected creationism, and more who accept Genesis creationism but reject the story of Noah's Ark. I agree that it's unacceptable to change our articles to imply pseudoscientific myths are factual, be they creationism or flood myths. However let us be clear what is actually going on and not conflate different things. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:SOCKS
and the checkusers will reply with confirmed or unlikely. I don't have to be 100% right for a checkuser to perform a check, just a legitimate hunch will do.
Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias,
I'm not opposed to a check is a CU feels it justified. But that would largely be based on the editing targets and the username. The fact they happened to call you a moderator or said that you reverted them, after you chose to engage with them is at best, only a very minor considerations because it's a silly assumption to make, since as I said anyone with even a small amount of experience here knows how often editors get confused. P.S. Although this is fairly off-topic, to ward of any nitpicking, I'd note that evolution combined with molecular biology provides strong evidence against flood myths, there's clearly no such population bottleneck, and indeed it's not plausible we would have the diversity of life we have if there was a worldwide deluge. So by that token, you could argue that claiming flood myths are true is challenging evolution (by which I mean our current understanding, not some wackadoodles idea of evolution which is consistent with their belief in flood myths). Hence why I was careful to concentrate on the creationism part since that's a separate issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Their
WP:FRINGE/PS does not stop: [80]. According to them, me and Materialscientist are biased editors who abuse the system: In addition To the evidence above I am new on this space However the admin Materialscientist who is by his own assertions is biased and will never change is working to snuff out any free thought how can you ask a Biased person to not be biased when they claim they will never change that means they will not even consider anything that will not fit into there small narrow Biased point of view. Tgeorgescu (talk
) 06:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another vexatious troll
It is hard to see [81] for anything else than vexatious trolling. If you analyze all the edits of this editor (and those aren't many), you will see a pattern of
I made a very simple edit to Central line disambiguation page just to correct a misinformation about the type of a railway from fright to passenger, but user:Britmax reverted my edit on ground of "unexplained change". I reverted him and noted that the original text contradicates the information written in the railway article. Then s/he reverted me again stating "please find the source from the other article as otherwise you are using Wikipedia as its own source". I don't want to engage in 3RR and demand some sort of mediation from a third party. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
They were poor reverts - the information was easily verifiable from a quick Google search.[82] I've reinstate the change. Number57 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If the original changes were that easy to verify the original poster should have done it, and should learn to leave an
Edit summary to say what they have done. Otherwise we have an unexplained change that requires me to do someone else's homework. Britmax (talk
) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Reverting is the least helpful response possible though. I regularly see IPs and editors making unexplained changes, but rather than blindly revert a possibly good edit, I take the time to see whether it's correct or not. Number57 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the lack of an Edit Summary is no excuse to blindly revert. Cheers,
The following discussion is closed. 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 looking for a fellow admin who might say to User talk:RexxS: Look, the guy’s polite, he has a right to talk, certainly on his own talk page.
Most recently, RexxS said “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.“ After first accusing me of trying to subvert the standards of MEDRS, and after previously threatening to seek sanctions against me if my “disruptive editing” continued. This is at User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS.
I have followed the rules and have made solid edits on the main Coronavirus pages, and at the same time, I have civilly questioned policy on the talk page. In particular, I’ve pointed out that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) has a header which states, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . . “
Background includes:
Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints
Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)
Any help would be appreciated, and if I’m doing something unacceptable to group norms, please let me know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how any admin intervention is required here. You're having a disagreement with another editor, which can easily be handled by continued discussion either at the article talk page or via your user talk pages. ANI is a board for requesting administrator actions and I can't see any actions that would be appropriate here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not just another editor. RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. I’m trying to be proactive and get a response before I’m blocked. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. Diff of that threat, please? --bonadeacontributionstalk 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
“Consequently, I'm now warning you, in all seriousness, that I will seek sanctions against you for disruptive editing if you persist.” (end of first paragraph) And this for advocacy on talk pages, not for actual live edits on article pages. And,
From
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 9 —> Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ”
“As for ‘One study of COVID-19 patients at three hospitals showed ...’, if you finish that sentence with a biomedical claim, I'll block you until you're prepared to abide by our sourcing policies and guidelines. It's as simple as that.“ (RexxS’ first response, May 16) That’s an example of making up policy on the fly. It’s also an example of being both player and referee.
Again, I’m trying to be proactive. And probably should say, that even though I’m a 10+ year Wikipedian, I’m more used to sports sites in which extended debate on something like a talk page is viewed as just fine. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's the same thing you said in your initial comment, but it doesn't tally with what you said in a follow up. RexxS said they would seek sanction against you. In other words, let other admins or the community decide if your behaviour warranted action. They never threateened to take admin action against you directly which is what you implied with "RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me". An editor saying they will ask for you to be sanctioned or blocked if you continue to violate some policy or guideline is perfectly normal, frankly I would expect you to know that with 10+ years of experience. It's not generally worth our time analysing whether your behaviour warrants sanction on ANI unless we're actually considering imposing sanction. So if you feel the threat is without merit, ignore it. If your behaviour is really fine then when they seek sanction they'll just be told to go away, or worse suffer a
WP:boomerang, there is no need to be "proactive". Of course if your behaviour is a problem, the fact that you've already been warned means you'll likely get limited sympathy. If you're not sure whether what you're doing is okay, you should continue to engage in discussion with RexxS and others, or seek help elsewhere e.g. WP:Teahouse, not ANI. It's ultimately your responsibility to understand and follow our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk
) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I mostly wrote the above before you replied based on checking out your talk page, got an EC, skimmed through what you wrote and reworded it slightly. I missed the part in the second example where they did directly threaten a block. I haven't looked at the details and for AC/DS cases it can be complicated whether an admin is acting in a purely administrative capacity. However it is also about 17 days ago and given that in their most recent comment RexxS simply threatened to report you, it may be even RexxS now feels they're
WP:involved. Have you at least asked RexxS whether they still feel they can block you directly? Nil Einne (talk
I’m all in favor of reliable sources (medicine), including the first header which mentions “common sense” and “occasional exceptions.” And with a new-to-humans disease like Coronavirus, we might well benefit from including the occasional primary source. If so, we (1) have to be really confident we’re summarizing it right and (2) state something like “A study of ___ number of patients showed.” Unless we’re simply going to repeat WHO and CDC, as valuable as these two are, there may not be enough good secondary sources otherwise. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be misinterpreting "occasional exceptions" to mean ignoring the policy on the very page where it is most important. For any exception to be occasional it must be stringently justified in the context where it applies, but you seem to be proposing to use this as a get-out clause to avoid confronting "bat shit crazy conspiracy theories" in a proper, scientific way and to promote other unproven theories. You are taking people's time away from providing some of the best, well-sourced, content on the Internet while you continually argue about this point.
I've been attempting for several weeks now to stem the tide of unreliable sources being used at
WP:MEDRS
in particular are observed, as those are the key guidelines that prevent content from being degraded with text sourced from poor quality sources.
The situation was so bad that I even had to impose a specific general sanction to prevent the use of preprints (preliminary studies, not even peer-reviewed) as sources. See sanctions on the use of preprints Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints. The comments from FriendlyRiverOtter were outright opposition that showed a complete lack of understanding of the reasons for MEDRS: "What we’re up against are bat shit crazy conspiracy theories ... We’re also at risk of irrelevancy due to the 24-hour news cycle and social media. ... And then I’d ask, How often really does a professional journal make substantial changes to a pre-print? I mean, if we’re going to make big sacrifices to piously remain on the sidelines, that’s kind of an important question. Especially when a clear better alternative is to say “According to a preliminary study . . ” or something of this sort, or even add “(pre-print, not yet subject to peer review)” if we feel that’s necessary. Suggesting that we use sources that don't even meet WP:RS by using qualifications like "According to a preliminary study" is thoroughly unhelpful and sets a poor example for other editors at the article. Further comments from FRO in that thread included:
"If a colleague said “a preprint showed . . ” pertaining to a real live patient under the care of both of you, would you try to pretend you never heard it, or would you cautiously take it into account?" - to an MD who disagreed with them
"For several weeks from January and February, a preliminary study from China found that approximately 13% of transmission from pre-symptomatic persons." - advocating another preprint
"To me, the overall issue of whether we remain relevant, or not, is huge. And in that context, a couple of weeks can be a big deal."
"So, a professional journal is okay with a pre-print, with the qualification of course, but for us, Oh no. We have to outdo them and be more goody two-shoes, more by-the-book, seemingly more everything."
"I urge you not to decide ahead of time that we’re going to relegate ourselves to the trailing edge."
After receiving support fro other admins, I imposed the general sanction. That provoked a personalisation in FRO's next response:
"No compelling argument, eh? I’m not sure one should both energetically champion a viewpoint, and neutrally sit as a judge."
My viewpoint was that of upholding MEDRS, not a personal view on the content, but that's lost to FRO, who added:
"Now, whether we’re really going to go the route of secondary sources only, that’s an entirely separate discussion. I don’t think WP:MEDRS is that hardcore about it. Yes, I have read it before, but it’s been a while."
Then back to challenging MEDRS/RS:
"On an occasional, sparring basis, with the qualifier “a preliminary study shows . . , ” I don’t think we should immediately dismiss using a pre-print."
"So, we’re going to have a “higher” standard than JAMA, are we? JAMA makes pre-prints available — with a qualification of course (key point!). And we’re going to do this as if super “high” standards are some kind of unalloyed good thing."
It was at that point on 14 May 2020 that I warned FRO that their continued opposition to our standards for sourcing was becoming disruptive. There the situation remained until 28 May when FRO decided to take up the argument again, this time on their talk page, claiming "All the same, I do not feel I should be penalized for participating on a talk page." Of course, FRO has not been penalised, other than having been prevented from using preprints to support medical content.
For sake of clarity: given the personalisation in their replies to my warnings about their behaviour, I will not take administrative action against FriendlyRiverOtter, but I am now looking for some support to curtail their disruption. The more that our sourcing standards are openly challenged, especially on talk pages, the more difficult it is to maintain quality in the article, which already is recognised as problematic and is under community-imposed general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There’s also the part on May 15 and 16th in which I started the discussion:
Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)
Toward the beginning, I said:
”Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild (and it doesn’t mean consensus first for our Coronavirus article).”
I stand with both of these, because if we go at a snail’s pace that’s not going to help anyone. But the editor should be able to present his or her reasons for an exception. So, I’m all in favor of going medium in a thoughtful way.
”you’re one of us. You have jumped in and joined your fellow Wiki citizens, and we’re happy you have you!”
Now this is clumsy. And @RexxS: I wish to apologize to you for this clumsiness. All I meant is that if you’re playing a basketball game, you cannot also referee it.
On my talk page, I responded to your post of May 14 two weeks later on May 28. I often respond to posts at my own leisure. I want to eventually respond because I don’t want people months down the road to think I violated MEDRS, which is certainly not how I look at it.
RexxS, you ended your May 28 post by saying, “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.” Given our previous disagreement and your role as admin, I viewed that as an order not to talk on my own talk page.
Obviously, I think I have a right to my talk page. And more broadly, I don’t agree that speech = crime. A person can follow a policy and at the same time work to improve that policy. And if other Wikipedians don’t understand that, we can and will bring them up to speed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:LISTGAP
. It's much kinder to those using screen readers if you don't continually leave gaps between your indented posts.
The thing about "occasional exceptions may apply" is that in all the years I've edited medical articles, I've never seen one of those occasional exceptions applied, have you? I'm always happy to discuss reasons for making exceptions, but you haven't brought any, apart from your desire to keep up with breaking news, and you've been told a dozen times now that it's not what Wikipedia is about.
As for your patronising welcome, it wasn't simply clumsy, it was downright rude. This isn't a game (of basketball or otherwise). You need to understand that on wiki, an admin is not disqualified from action merely because of prior admin actions. If an admin warns you about your behaviour, you don't get a free pass from sanctions simply because you argued about the warnings. Fortunately, I don't have to use any admin functions to seek sanctions and this board would be one of the possible venues.
Let me be clear on this point as well: you haven't violated MEDRS that I'm aware of, but you have challenged it, and repeatedly advocated to see it breached. You won't be allowed to continue down that road. It really is time to stop doing that ("drop the stick") and get on with more productive editing ("back away"). Is that clear enough?
If you feel you want to improve MEDRS, then let us know how you want to improve it, because all I've seen from you so far is how you want to circumvent it.
Finally, on Wikipedia, you have exactly two rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is a privilege that is extended to you as long as you respect the established conventions of being here. One of those is MEDRS and if you still don't understand it, you can always have a look at this video from Wikimania 2019: File:MEDRS - bulwark or barrier.webm. It might give you a clue about why I'm so passionate about defending it. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. And if we look, we might be able to find a few more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk
) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@FriendlyRiverOtter: Just mark them up with {{medrs |reason=primary source used to support biomedical claim |date=May 2020}} and they will be removed, or just remove them yourself. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: no need to remove, they’re not on our article page. But since you ask and all, the two are clean, easy-to-understand studies, and I think they’re good candidates for making exceptions for. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
If it would make FriendlyRiverOtter happier, I am prepared to block them rather than RexxS if the energetic pushback against general sanctions continues. Talk pages cannot properly function if they are dominated by campaigns to include preprints. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors are usually allowed a little latitude on their own talk pages, to be fair.—S MarshallT/C 00:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The requirement for RS/MEDRS and prohibition on using preprints has wide community support, but we have a small number of people who seem to be constantly pushing back against that, and FriendlyRiverOtter is at the forefront. I know policy says "occasional exceptions may apply", but we should expect that to be very occasional, not every time a non-RS is published about Covid-19. That's the way we have tradtionally approached exceptions, and the community has very much reinforced that approach for Covid-19 articles. If RexxS has agreed not to sanction FriendlyRiverOtter personally, I have not. And I am very much prepared to sanction those who tendentiously keep on challenging the MEDRS requirement and agitating for its breach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
So, it’s the case that speech itself on our talk pages is the “crime,” even if civil? And whereas, if someone makes a response and someone else hammers it with four responses, okay, that’s repetitive. But if you make a response and I make a response in turn, that’s not repetitive, is it? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
FriendlyRiverOtter, it comes across as "keep badgering until you get the answer you want".
The restriction on preprints is there for an excellent reason. Papers can fail peer review, the preprint version can be significantly modified, and this is an area where there has been noise about early findings that have turned out to be wrong to the point of likely fraud.
Sure, it means we won't necessarily be at the cutting edge of the latest breaking news. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (help!) 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)
I've now reluctantly reached the conclusion that FriendlyRiverOtter has no intention of abiding by our standards for sourcing, as the debate above shows – indeed they seem determined to undermine MEDRS in order to appear "cutting edge" in our coverage. I see no inclination to back down from their position and feel that their continued presence on those articles is detrimental to establishing quality sources.
I therefore propose that they are topic-banned from COVID-19 related pages for a month.
I understand that any uninvolved admin can impose any reasonable general sanction in the area anyway, but hopefully having some degree of consensus here might bring home to FriendlyRiverOtter the need to observe the community's express requirement for maintaining our standards for quality and behaviour on pages under general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. FRO was heavily involved in pushing the "cough radius" primary study they cited earlier as evidence that "MEDRS primary exceptions exist", and kept agitating for its inclusion even after at least 3 literal MDs explained why it was important that we not use a (heavily underpowered) primary source. Clearly they are still carrying that stick and don't intend to drop it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: this was in the context of an RfC which I myself started. So, yeah, if someone makes a thoughtful response, I’m going to try to make a thoughtful response in return, time permitting and if I feel I have something worthwhile to say. I can see two MDs by user name. If you know who the third is, I’d also be interested in knowing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
inappropriate and unwise to demand a mea culpa as a precondition of continued editing privileges, but this discussion needs to lead to them getting the message. Editors are allowed to express unconventional views on their own talk pages and this must not be banned.—S MarshallT/C
10:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@S Marshall: thank you for your measured response, and I hope you appreciate my measured approach as well. Even though I have pointed out that the MEDRS header states “common sense” and “occasional exceptions,” I also said above “Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild.” That is, I really have attempted to steer a middle course. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" clauses in practice mean hardly ever and only for something special. There's no "middle course" to steer here. The required course is "no non-MEDRS sources for medical information in Covid-19 articles", as the community has made very very clear. Seeing you continuing to push back against that even here, in a proposal to have you topic banned, confirms my conviction that this topic ban really is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per my comments above. This is, at the moment, the most important article on which
Support, unfortunately, as FriendlyRiverOtter is still not getting it, or is refusing to get it. I'll add that I was thinking a 3-month topic ban would be appropriate if FriendlyRiverOtter continued, but hopefully a 1-month ban will prevent the need for anything longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m polite, and for the most part, my responses have been relatively brief.
Now, besides being a sports site person, I also a nerd. So, if there’s an unstated group norm which I’m not reading, and I get the definite feeling there is, it might be helpful if someone could just matter-of-factly state such. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing unstated here, there's just a very clearly and oft stated "Stop pushing against the sourcing requirements for Covid-19 articles" which have a very clear community consensus, and stop pushing against those who strive to uphold them. Honestly, it's a long time since I've seen anything less unstated than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk
) 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If you make a commitment to stop promoting the use of primary sources and/or non-MEDRS sources, stop supporting their use, *and* drop your participation in the currently open RfC (in which you persistently show that you still don't understand how not to use primary sources), and if you commit to only using (and discussing) MEDRS compliant sources (without exception) in relation to Covid-19, then I will strike my support for this topic ban proposal. But it will be on the proviso that any breach of these commitments would result in an immediate topic ban under the active community-authorised discretionary sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and please note the striking of my support won't stop the proposal - I don't have the power to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And one final comment here, having just had a read through
WP:MEDRS. And *that* is why you need to be stopped from your attempts to get sub-standard sources used in Covid-19 articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk
) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I add my support for closure of that RFC, to go along with the topic ban. It has obviously failed, and, as said above, it only serves as a time sink.
I have closed and archived the RfC. I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!), as such discussions have not at all been well received. And I plan to continue positive edits on the article pages themselves as I’ve done on Coronavirus disease 2019: Revision history since at least early April, and other COVID-19 pages since March. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not the agreement I wanted in order to strike my support, I need you to back off from promoting primary sources permanently, not just for "one month (and probably longer!)". You just *will not listen*, will you? I reaffirm my support for the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Is this necessary? I think FRO may have got the point now. Guy (help!) 08:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
What, FRO is going to "cool it ... for one month (and probably longer!)"? I really don't see that as getting the point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support: This guy needs to be hit with a baseball bat aka I mean the 1 month topic ban is sufficient. DerianGuy40 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - I would like to think that FRO has "gotten it", but, like Boing!, I would like to see a statement from tehm about backing off of primary sources for good, not for 1 month, as the problem will simply return if they return to the same behavior in the future. If the behavior is wrong, then it's wrong forever, not for a short time in order to get out of being sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Support – I reacted to this comment above which to me reads like FRO is saying that they might be prepared to look actively for primary studies to support information that they would like to add, even though there is no guidelines compliant source for it. And saying that they will "...cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!), as such discussions have not at all been well received" also shows that they have not quite got the point. Non-guidelines-compliant sources should not be promoted on the article talk page at all, since they will not be added to the article (there's a sanction in place against that, after all). Three months would be better than one, but one is better than nothing. --bonadeacontributionstalk 18:34, 8 June 2020 (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:NOTLISTENING issue, please could an admin block them- my suggestion would be temporarily, to try and get them to talk. Joseph2302 (talk)
10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Block. They've been told the same thing, by multiple editors, for the last three months. A block will at least get their attention—note they've never even used their talk page—and I'm not sure I'd even argue against a CIR indef. ——Serial# 11:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I've given them a final warning - one more incorrect date edit from them and I'll block them (or any other admin can do it). I haven't blocked yet simply because I really think they need to be given fair chance to have their right of reply first. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Uh-uh: their 11th right to reply. ——Serial# 18:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks suspiciously similar to Bowtiebandit's contributions. The same kind of edits with the same edit summaries. – 2.O.Boxing 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a massive sock farm going on here. The standard sock's userpage looks like 1 or 2, and some representive diffs are Special:Diff/957361611 and Special:Diff/956289969. Characteristic edit summaries are "improved grammar", "added info and citations", "added wikilinks", and similar. If anyone has any suspected socks who are not listed at the SPI, please report them. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2020 (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.
Every contribution/or edit made by Bablos939 to wikipedia targets only Chinese women and girls.You can in every prostitution in every country. It is offensive that wikipedia allows a anti-Chinese editor like him to roam around freely. All his contribution relates to nothing more but Chinese women being prostitutes oversea, Chinese women married with non-Chinese men, and removal of Chinese men married with foreign women. All country has it's own shares of prostitutes overseas and marriages to foreign men, but he only seems to target ethnic Chinese. Simply look at prostitution of Spain, New Zealand, Cambodia, Laos, Russia and every country and every edit are towards Chinese.. I'm sure wikipedia isn't a place where you can just target one ethnicity. If he is allowed to do this than wikipedia is a place where everyone can have a agenda to create anti-sentiments to any ethnicity.
His contribution since March are motivated by racism, anti-Chinese, nationalistic. I wish he get blocked for this type of offensive behaviours for several months. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:POV, but it does seem a strange focus. Then again, I also have strange editing focuses, so cannot really judge. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping
! 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I've had numerous disagreements with Bablos939 over their edits on various prostitution articles, but, as they haven't edited these articles since early April and all issues have been resolved on an article by article basis, it would seem that any admin intervention is now unnecessary for these articles. Bablos939 has been editing Interracial marriage since then, but the edits have been reverted by other editors. (Interracial marriage has been edited by various editors with their own focuses and, in my opinion, it now needs a rewrite to restore balance). There has been a vendetta against Bablos939 since early May, initially by sockpuppet Buzinezz[83], and latterly by the IP. Whilst I'm not posting to defend Bablos939, I feel this is being blown out of proportion by the IP and is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, possibly down to Chinese/Korean rivalry. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto:Hello, esteemed administrator! I am interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country.
But I have nothing to say about the problem of the Chinese economy. Because Wikipedia is already complete.
so I can only talk about the issue of Chinese women in Wikipedia. That's the only field I know. It is also true that Chinese women are frequently mentioned in the world, according to numerous academic sources.(ex) 'Trafficking in Persons Report' 'Major press'etc..) I only described it in proportion to its actual size and have no other intentions.
I'm an ignorant person. I'm so ignorant that I don't even understand Wikipedia rules.
So I got a lot of misunderstandings from other users in the beginning. But I had no malice and just worked hard
I want to report to you about malicious users.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watersinfalls (I think I misunderstood 'Bamnamu')
Related2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige
'
single-purpose account
: Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16 , 41.232.35.139 , Buzinezz and 70.77.154.228'
He existed even before I was active. Maybe he is 'Rajmaan'.
He has contributed his lies and delusions to Wikipedia for a long time.
Sometimes no one has looked at the details, so false information is left unattended. (Interracial_marriage)
Rather, he is simply blaspheming foreign women and telling all kinds of lies.
I had held a debate to point it out. Then
single-purpose account
began to interfere with all sorts of things.
In the debate, he repeated only the wrong words without answering the question. I wanted the debate to be concise.I argued that falsehood should be deleted and the truth should be listed. but He repeats a long sentence on a topic that is not related to debate. Eventually the whole debate becomes incomprehensible. Perhaps he intentionally interferes with the debate. It is natural for other users to be angry...He is constantly disturbing Wikipedia by Bypass IP. Please block him and normalize the documents.thank you.Bablos939 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This argument has been going on all over Wikipedia (see this), includng my talk page. and counter-SPI reports. The dispute seems intractable to me, but maybe someone can straighten it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment I believe many of the other wikipedia users that spoke out against Bablos939, had learned about his racist anti-Chinese behaviours through many different social media sites. For example one of them could be from here.
Other users may have known him from a long time/or recent editors who suspected him because his actions were similar to previous socks such as
incidents of xenophobia and discrimination
against Chinese people". I believe this exactly what's happening in wikipedia. I kind of agree with the person who created this thread that this should reported. The spread and hatred against Chinese is insane, and neither the government nor the media support it. I don't support it either.
Wikipedia users
single-purpose account
that has only participated in the discussion in support of Bablos939. On that basis, I checked Maomao123 and Bablos939, and they are Possible to each other. "
I agree with the other users that had already disputed with Bablos939, there is no reason why the discussion should only be about Chinese women, Chinese men and foreign women. If we were to discuss again we should also include Korean women with foreign men or any women ( of race/ethnicity) with foreign men.with Mongol men, Manchus men, American men/soldiers, Japanese men/soldiers, Chinese men or Chinese/Korean men with Russian women, European women ect. Unlike Bablos939 claiming, that only a few Chinese men married the other editors (even supported by admin/or respected editor ) shows Chinese men did intermarried with many white, black, mullato population in Cuba, Peru where there so many sources that shows (from Peru's and Cuba's own government statistic and historical records) that shows there are massive number of descendants of many mixed Chinese Peruvians and Chinese Cubans due to marriage with Chinese, they all look mixed. And also about your Chinese women marrying muslim men, fact is historically evidence also shows Chinese men married muslim women. You keep saying Chinese are concealing information of Chinese women foreign men marriages, when there's no concealment. The others didn't even reject the idea that foreign men married Chinese women but rejected your exaggerations from a single book source. The others posted historical record and genetic evidence to show it isn't as exaggerated as you wanted to be. Like the other editors said we should also talk about Korean women marriages with foreign men.
So Bablos939 if you really want to discuss again, I will join in too this time, but I suggest wait for the other editors too, it wouldn't be fair since they are much better than me at this ( I've spend plenty of time reading and copying their edits). You can also wait for that Maomao123 single purpose account. If you don't want to discuss I'm fine with that, if you wait for another time or wait for the right time, in my opinion is the best choice. You can also continue disputing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miscegenation ( the discussions is hidden but allowed to continue, we can talk there) or you can discuss in my talk page and I wil answer your question, but don't just make this about Chinese women. By all means we must also Korean women and other women (like the other suggested ) married to foreign men, because that is correct. I'm not interested in Chinese/Korean rivarly. Chinese and Koreans shouldn't be the only ones targeted. First I'll prefer to wait for Sockpuppet investigation, is not over yet. I really don't know who is a sock or not. In case, a sockpuppet supported me or I was supporting a sock the whole time, you will take the chance to accuse me of being him. I rather that is sorted out first. In the mean time, you can come to my talk page or I come to your talk page. Maybe there are some things we can both agree. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion should not have been opened here in my view, ip address 70.77.154.228 because this is mainly a sockpuppet case now. If the ip address here could help look over Chinese-proti and his sockpuppet edits it would be helpful for gathering evidence but I feel I have gathered enough evidence for a decisive conclusion.
Bablos939 is not a new editor. In Bablos939's second edit to prostitution in Cambodia he added this perfectly formatted citation and it's actually new editors tend to make the mistaken of edit warring to restore their contributions and get blocked for engaging in them rather than someone familiar with Wikipedia rules on consensus. Bablos939 used a lot of wordy terminology referring to Wikipedia rules on the talk page of interracial marriage showing he isn't a new editor. How many new Wikipedia accounts show immediately after account creation who know how to format citations perfectly and know how to refer to Wikipedia rules in arguments? Bablos939 isn't actually obeying those rules he just uses them as a crutch in his argument. He is violating original research and NPOV which he accuses others of doing by him deleting information on Korean miscegenation and lying about what sources say. He claimed no sources existed for Korean female miscegenation in the Yuan dynasty he was talking about, when shown them he promptly ignored it in the discussion and acted like it didn't happen. He claimed no sources existed for Persian women in Guangzhou. When showed them he then ignored and insisted he be able to restore his edits where he removed it. Read the talk page discussion edit by edit.
Primarily the argument on the investigation is rather about Bablos939 socking and evading a ban. His problematic edits which can easily be disproven are secondary. They can easily be dealt with if an administrator previews all his edits because he is lying and adding things to the article that aren't in the citation for example he claims a certain law from the Ming dynasty was about forcing foreigners to marry Chinese women when the source didn't mention gender at all and another source mentioned both genders marrying. Bablos939's focus on Chinese prostitution isn't the problem, it's that his edits Chinese prostitution matches that of a banned individual who engaged in nationalist edit warring to "conceal" (as he says) information about miscegenation of Korean women along with it. He's in a nationalist contest over whose women are miscegenating or prostituting more since he sees this as a nationalist contest to be won on Wikipedia. I ask any third editor who can do it with reliable sources, go ahead, add information on both Chinese women and Korean women to articles on miscegenation or prostitution with other races and see if this account cannot resist deleting Korean women from the pages. If Bablos939 had not made the edit removing the things about Korean women he wouldn't have blown his cover. I found another sockpuppet of his called Skyslandscanner and decisive evidence that he is a sockpuppet of Chinese-proti through available diffs. Skyslandscanner adds the same thing as Chinese-proti to articles while Bablos939 deletes the same thing as Chinese-proti from interracial marriage. They even use the hyphen the same way in their edit summaries.
I think we should end the discussion here and return to the sockpuppet investigation pages. You can read the evidence I added there which I think no reasonable person would doubt by now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti]
Regarding Montalk123 he might be another Korean nationalist because he appears to be actually fluent in English unlike Chinese-proti who types with really bad grammar which gives away who his socks are. But I am absolutely confident now that Bablos939, Maomao4321 and Skyslandscanner are Chinese-proti and have provided the evidence to prove it on the investigation page. They speak the same, edited the same articles, deleted the same things and add the same material as each other. Montalk123 not sure but the other three definitely yes. Please return to the investigation page and help out there.Watersinfalls (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - There are ongoing sockpuppet investigations at
WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Moving forward, I would suggest adding protection to Interracial marriage to prevent disruptions by sockpuppets and/or single issue editors, which causes other editors to spend a lot of time trying to sort things out, time that could be better spend elsewhere. As Interracial marriage, Miscegenation and Multiracial people have large overlaps in both coverage and content, I would suggest the latter two articles are also protected to prevent the "war" being transferred to those articles. --John B123 (talk
) 13:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Watersinfalls blocked as a sockpuppet of Rajmaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Recreation of deleted page and other spam pages
Sumanrsb2, has been recreating deleted page Ashutosh Kumarand again. The talk page of the user is filled with such deletion tags for different pages. The user just keeps creating spam pages after several warnings. Zoodino (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Page salted, I'll let someone else decide whether this needs a block too.
talk
) 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
talk
) 11:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
1292simon, Sumanrsb2 has shown a long history of creation of non sense pages and disruptive editing, and have already been warned a lot times. I think a block should be in place. (indef or as deemed to be necessary by a sysop). Zoodino (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.
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 we wile back the user was blocked form editing
wp:nothere and are just a time sink. I would ask the ban is extended to the talk page.Slatersteven (talk
Because you are ignoring what has been said (now by more than one user) that
wp:v does not mean what you think it means, Because we are going round in circles with you refusing to drop this, despite having been told in April you are wasting everyones time, and earning a block (an "especially lenient. Please do not squander that opportunity" one). It is clear you have not leaned that lesson.Slatersteven (talk
) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you refuse this? Just take no part in these discussions and then your time as you say "will not be wasted". It is so simple.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You are correct, I should have just said no and then ignored your responses rather than trying to enrage with you, I will not make the same mistake again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
But instead, you filed a false report because you thought your "time is wasted"? It is a clear
DISRUPTSIGN (Campaign to drive away productive contributors). --Александр Мотин (talk
) 15:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
NO, but I will let other users decide now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
But your accusations ("a time sink", "wp:nothere") lack facts that prove them. Just pay attention, Slatersteven. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmnmm. Not a
WP:SPA, per [86]. How about a topic ban? Guy (help!
) 14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Its what I am asking for, an extension of their article ban to include the talk page as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Clearly
WP:NOTHERE. I would support at least a topic ban but I think, given the evidence, including the subsection below, a global indef block is warranted. - Ahunt (talk
) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure how many people realize here that the user disputes a claim of a source which has previously been evaluated as reliable, on the basis of a removed photograph in a Russian social media (double original research). I am afraid an indef block is the way to go here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: So was this tweet written in English or Russian? In Russian it has a different meaning. Need some facts that prove your claim. And , of course, I sincerely understand how hard this is for you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly, precisely the problem. You are trying to perform original research to convince us that a reliable source has it wrong. This is not how Wikipedia works. You need to find another reliable source disputing the first one. Your opinion is not a reliable source. Russian (or, for that purpose, American or Cameroonian) social media are not reliable sources. You have been told this already dozens of times, you have got a partial block, but you continue wasting everybody's time and either you do not get the point or you have chosen not to follow the policies and wikilawyer instead. Since you are way beyond the acceptable number of warnings, an indef block and a site ban look to me like the only two viable options. An indef block is presumably easier.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There are no conflicting sources here. There is one reliable source and your personal opinion, supported by social media. When you publish this opinion in a reliable source, please come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Really? So "DNR" tweeted in English or Russian? Why there is nothing said about the tweet in Russian in the article? I assume that they "usually" tweet in English in order to inform the British people, right? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you really not get that we go by what independent secondary sources say, not this group's own web site? It's pretty obvious by now that you are trolling here just as on the talk page in question. Someone who has the power please just block this editor.
What?? One of that "independent" sources says Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession in June 2014 illustrating it with a photo posted in 2011? So I searched the archived (April 2015) version of their website and there is no link to their "official twitter" account at all.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I found one [87] (April 2015) — http://twitter.com/newsdnr registered in May 2014. So yeah, it seems to be a propaganda bullshit pushed by "independent" media. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that personal attacks will win you sympathy here, but you can keep trying.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You must be stress-resistant as an administrator. I'm doing nothing of that!--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Change to site ban Anyone who thinks that "This happens, when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts." means social media or their own OR is equal in weight to a respectable published magazine should not be here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment The fact that a block to the article main space does not include a block to the talk page of that article by default seems to me to be a loophole that should be closed. Isn't it kind of implied that if someone has been disruptive enough to be banned from the article, it's probably a bad idea to let them continue interacting on the talk page? And this very reportis a clear proof of that. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You had 6 years to improve the article on your own in the way you like. What did you do? Here are my recent improvements and my recent proposals--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Not major at the moment, but they are also refactoring their posts after they have been replied to [[88]]. I leave you to see the other problem I see with that post overall.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal Boomerang block
It a clear example of the
WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Just check the article's talk page (here
The above being a case to point, as they have not shown the sources do not say X (In fact their whole point is the sources do say X), only that they do not agree with the sources conclusions. Thus either they do not understand or have not actually bothered to read
wp:v (I seem to recall this was an issue last time), or they are...not being wholly honest.Slatersteven (talk
) 14:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) How is it that a statement that says exactly what the source says cannot satisfy
Phil Bridger: It seems that this is just someone's propagandist interpretation (the Diplomat outlet) of that tweet allegedly written by DNR because the original tweet seems to be in Russian with a different meaning! Check the discussion here. --Александр Мотин (talk
) 14:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I had read that discussion before I commented above. The whole point of
Phil Bridger: What I see is that this source says that "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession" The photo of the Buk launcher was posted on the internet in 2011 and the so-called reliable source says "Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 systemin the group’s possession" (on 29 June 2014). So what are talking about? What reliable source? It seems to be a "propaganda bullshit" as the administrator Ymblanter says in this case.--Александр Мотин (talk
) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment by non-administrator: Deny I don't think that this would benefit Wikipedia. There is no rule saying that the person making a false report would have to be blocked. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Just as importantly there's no evidence that this is a false report.
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 from 74.192.3.63
No idea what that was about, but it doesn't seem revdel-worthy.
talk
) 01:24, 10 June 2020 (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 realize that this is several days old, but can an admin rev-del this edit summary as it is clearly a legal threat. Thanks. 66.108.131.114 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't qualify for revision deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Batshit insane, but not sanctionable. Guy (help!) 22:18, 8 June 2020 (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:Nsenaratna creating flood of "in creation" Sri Lanka stubs and orphan categories
Nsenaratna (talk·contribs) is creating a flood of articles on Sri Lankan electoral districts, filling various alerting lists, and in particular Category:Stubs. Each article is labelled {{In creation}}, and they are being developed piecemeal in mainspace, overwriting edits by other editors such as stub-sorters who are trying to empty that category. They have been left a variety of messages on their talk page over the few days since they registered as an editor, but have not replied to any of them.
PamD, They are currently the editor with the most unreviewed articles, 149 by my last count. Vexations (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I asked them yesterday to please stop mass creating low quality stubs - in fact there was one point they did 6 in a minute and given this is more than just a single line of text, which I could see being possible in that time frame, I'm concerned about the rapid fire creation that seems bot like given the stubs also include detailed/difficult templates that this is automated/semi automated. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I also realize this is rather quick for a proposal but I'd suggest a block at least from mainspace until they respond to their talk page. I find their unwillingness to communicate and collaborate the most problematic and the sheer number of messages that have gone unacknowledged is unacceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have unblocked NSenaratna and am hoping for good things to be the order of the day. Thanks for engaging! El_C 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto
Pointlessly opened, closing before too much heat is generated. Naypta, it's not advisable to edit war with a user on their own talk page: removal of a note is taken as reading, and they don't have to respond to you if they don't want. As has been pointed out, the rollback tool was removed at the users own request before Naypta's second message, which looks a bit pointy. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (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.
Yesterday, Cassianto used rollback on what appears to be a good faith edit here. I assumed this was a mistake on their part - happens to everyone! - so I went to their talk page and brought it up with them, assuming that the response that I'd get would be either a justification of the use (maybe I'd missed that the user was a persistent vandal) or an "oops! made a mistake!, either of which I would have had no issue whatsoever with.
Instead, Cassianto undid my message - something I only spotted this morning. This struck me as a concern -
rollback uses policy
.
This is not remotely an acceptable way to deal with criticism, especially when it concerns use of a potentially powerful tool. For obvious reasons, I am disinclined to continue this conversation at their talk page, so I have brought it here as the only viable alternative. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto has gone to the lengths of having that user right removed, so that ought to have been the end of that. El_C 10:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Removing the post should have the second end. Maybe a
@Unbroken Chain: If you feel I've violated any policies, I encourage you to tell me so we can discuss it - people make mistakes, and I'm more than happy to engage with people pointing out my own. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:ENGAGE not being followed, but also with general civility, I think. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page
| 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Removing a warning is tantamount to reading it. It will help you. They dont have to be accountable to you..Unbroken Chain (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think you should have continued to post on their talk page, either, once your original message was removed, but that's by-the-by. I would just move on from this. Nothing good will come of this. El_C 11:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: What would you have recommended doing, other than immediately taking it here? More than happy to take on board advice, of course - but I don't think just leaving a situation in which someone who I understood to still have rollback perms was refusing to engage with criticism over their use would be a good solution, in general. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(
Iridescent
11:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Only thing I'd support here is a boomerang block - When it was pointed out Cass may of misused rollback they immediately asked Tony to remove their rollback right so as El_C states that should've been the end of it, I'd support speedy closing this or failing that a boomerang block. –Davey2010Talk 11:06, 9 June 2020 (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.
Netoholic and haunting-related disruption
Does not seem to be going anywhere, with no lack of attention. starship.paint (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2020 (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:SNOWBALLed
against that idea before I even arrived to comment there (though exactly what the title should be is still open to some question - "reported", "purported", "alleged", etc.).
Netoholic is not making a consistent, cogent argument throughout, but veers between various policy/guideline principles depending on who N. is arguing with. The goal appears to be shotgunning every argument that comes to mind as long as N. gets what N. wants.
MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt?" [106] We all know that WTW is words to watch (i.e., to rarely use, only carefully and sparingly, for good reason), not "words that are banned from Wikipedia". Netoholic posted this after this was explained to them [107]
. If it's not what N. wants to hear, it just doesn't sink in.
I repeatedly warned of
WP:WINNING-flavored baiting [110], and then pursued me to my talk page [111], [112], [113]
, where Netoholic seems unwilling to take no for an answer and has been making repeated demands for the same thing over and over.
When Netoholic didn't get the demanded action from me (for me to self-revert my proposal [114] at
WP:FRINGE topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly", and that is obviously not the intent of this guideline." And I explained this all to N. very clearly [116]
.
I restored my post [117], and warned Netoholic not censor it again [118] or I would ask ANI for a topic ban. N. did it again anyway (even with a repeated edit summary, as if talking to a child or an idiot) [119]. So here we are. Netoholic did not respond at N.'s talk page or mine, just decided to editwar against
WP:BATTLEGROUND
thing this is for N.
Before this escalated to this point, I also notified
, appears to indicate the bludgeoning effect was strong enough for that editor to just abandon the discussion without commenting.
I think a topic ban, from something like "hauntings and ghosts" and from MOS:WTW is appropriate for some meaningful span of time. I have no idea whether this behavior is motivated out of a sincere belief in ghosts and in a "duty" of WP to treat them as real, or some kind of obsessive wikilawyering and argument-for-sport habit, or what. I just know that it's disruptive and that it appears to be confined to this particular topic (that said, I have not gone diff-digging for broader behavior patterns). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the removing of the word reportedly when we have
WP:RS showing the existance of ghosts at that location, or those locations. -Roxy the elfin dog .wooF
15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I see healthy debate on a talk page involving an open discussion about page moves. Just because you can't get the last overly verbose word in for once doesn't make his behavior disruptive. You've had your input, now walk away and let a closer determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about the content decision being discussed in the RM, it's about edit-warring to delete other people's posts, and bludgeoning a discussion with
WP:IDHT, then pushing the matter to the user-talk page of an "opponent" after that party already did walk away, and badgering them there with three posts of the same demand (two after an answer was already given). — SMcCandlish☏¢
😼 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The pot is really calling the kettle black here.
Calidum
16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This got very heated and whilst no one should edit war to remove another users comments there were also counter accusations of canvasing. I am not going to judge the rights and wrongs just to say this should be closed and maybe a few quite words had.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Quite a few words, a few quiet words, or quite a few quiet words? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That would be up to the admin who utters them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The heat is on one side though. I was deliberative, factual, avoidant of escalation or circularity, trusting that neutral notices to relevant pages like WT:MOS and WT:FRINGE will draw any necessary attention to the RM content matter, proposing guideline clarification on the guideline's talk page (the proper venue for that), and drawing WP:FTN noticeboard attention to the disruptive aspects of what's been going on at the RM discussion (without even naming a name, just pointing to a circumstance that needed some intervention). Netoholic, by contrast, has been posting sarky baiting messages after I've made it clear I don't want to continue the discussion, has IDHT-style browbeaten people at the RM who have a different viewpoint, then badgered me in repetitive fashion on my talk page, tried to censor my guideline clarification proposal, and done it again after a warning. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can"(SMcCandlish, above). Well, I looked at the RM expecting to see an editor arguing with everyone in sight, and it has 18 !votes or comments by other editors - of with Netoholic has replied directly to four, and become involved in a discussion on a fifth. Apart from the nom, Netoholic has made eleven comments in that section. And the filer of this report, SMcCandlish, has made ... eleven as well. So IMO if Netoholic is "bludgeoning the discussion", then so is SMcCandlish. The spat at WTW was just that - a silly spat which wasn't needed. But the majority of this report involving the RM is spurious and can be closed with no action. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Netoholic has been serially challenging everyone who disagrees with him; that he hadn't yet gotten to all of them by the time we ended up here is a good thing, not evidence in support of his behavior. (And of course N. won't pick arguments with those who agree with him; your counting up of stuff isn't on-point). By contrast, I have mostly been responding to pings to bring me back to the thread, and to direct questions asked of me, and also chatted in a jokey subthread about ghosts of reporters. That's not
WP:BLUDGEON or anything like it. You actually have to look at the posts and their context and content. — SMcCandlish☏¢
😼 18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious that both this discussion and the RM are haunted and thus outside the scope of Wikipedia, please stop before it spreads to the general text, Commons, and who the hell knows from there. Poking at and playing with the forces of non-nature seldom works out (although Mrs. Muir didn't do too bad). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Aaaiiieee! a wikigeist! — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There was no good reason to edit war to remove SMcC's comment. If it was inappropriate, go to the appropriate venue and leave a note in the discussion it concerns. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute. The only thing actually concerning here is the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to use Wikipedia's voice to say that a place is haunted. Seriously? But I'll go and make that case elsewhere. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The firehose of "proof by verbosity" are mostly valid points that a reasonable editor would take on board and discuss. Do we really need to assume the readers are so stupid it is necessary to say "reportedly haunted". I don't know the answer but it's worth talking about. The inability of the group wielding the
WP:FRINGE hammer to see any other perspective can be trying at times. fiveby(zero
) 20:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
engaging with "the group wielding following the most fundamental aspects of the
WP:FRINGE hammer content guideline" can indeed be trying when arguing to use Wikipedia's voice to legitimate fringe theories contrary to that guideline. It's uncontroversial that there are people who believe haunting is Real and True, and countless TV shows, etc. dedicated to promoting that perspective. So we don't need to assume anything to understand that it's WP:FRINGE 101 stuff. — Rhododendritestalk
\\ 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. At least two cable TV networks that used to mostly produce educational and fact-based material have for about 15 years or so been engaging in almost propagandistic levels of programming devoted to fringe nonsense, especially ghosts and "ancient aliens". And it works. I know an otherwise scientifically minded elementary-school teacher who has become convinced by them that ghosts are real and common. It reminds me of actual belief in the kayfabe roleplay of professional wrestling; of the "alternative facts" echo chambers of far-right media; of anti-vaxers and other conspiracy theorists; and of the self-evident nonsense that people buy in supermarket tabloids like Weekly World News and National Enquirer. The less reasonable it is, the more it appeals to a certain subset of people who kind of revel in wallowing in entertaining falsehoods that allow them to identify with and feel they're part of a special group. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Like BlackKite, I was expecting to open that page and see the types of walls of text the complainant is renowned for. What I saw in reality was a fairly normal RM where the proposer challenges a few opponents. As a semi-regular RM closer, it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and I'm pretty sure I've made more challenges than that during RMs. I honestly don't know what action is expected here, so I would suggest this is hatted and we all move on to more important things. Number57 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. It's been my experience that virtually every time I raise concerns about an editor's behavior for the first time at ANI, no action is taken (unless it's a recent account that is an obvious troll or PoV-pushing SPA). What happens after that: either the behavior in question quietly changes so that the problem goes away (the best outcome), or the editor in question feels immune to consequences, so doubles-down and escalates the behavior, then community action is later taken when someone else reports the continued behavior pattern to ANI, another noticeboard, AE, or ArbCom, with my earlier ANI used as evidence. Either way, it gets resolved in the long run.
To be clear, I said nothing about the length of Netoholic's posts; the concern was the "Bible-thumping" and
WP:IDHT style of them, browbeating other editors with a personal reinterpretation of WTW, a guideline which does not (and could not possibly) mean what N. thinks it means, treating that personal vision of WTW like an inviolable policy, plus snide baiting to escalate when people try to disengage. — SMcCandlish☏¢
😼 00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute, and it should be kept that way. MiasmaEternalTALK 23:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I just looked at the block log of User:Netoholic. Sometimes one should learn from fifteen years ago. There may be a longer block log, but I haven't seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I can only dream of having a block log like that. EEng 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't going to raise that, since none of the blocks are within the last year. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The great majority of those were a very long time ago, and a number of the early ones were quickly contested and overturned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Am I the only one that sees the irony here? Want a solution to problems with how we cover places that are haunted? Well, since haunting is not real, how about we just not cover it at all? John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely you know by now that's now how WP works. We cover all kinds of fictional, imaginary, legendary, fringe, false, and impossible things, because they
have non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. And its good that we do. In this case, if you wanted to do a bunch of research toward debunking ghost stories, what better place to start than an encyclopedically curated list of purported hauntings? — SMcCandlish☏¢
😼 17:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The usernamed called Ayoube el omary is creating autobiographies and recreating deleted userpages, these links are created
These 3 links are same information but it may copy-pasted from 3 these link and i need block this user. -- BEAMALEXANDER!,talk 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is all quite strange. The CSD G6 nomination for
talk
) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (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.
Amicably resolved. Xsaorapa commended instead of reprimanded. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 18:05, 9 June 2020 (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.
Massively removing links to Wikiquote, "removing wq-link possible copyvio." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was removing these links because most of these pages have been tagged for copyright check on wikiquote (via their talk page), so the linking may be problematic. If this is not allowed I will not insist in removing them. --Xsaorapa (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Check; you've got a point there. Yet, the problem should be solved there, I think; not by removing links to Wikiquote. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Xsaorapa should be commended for such changes, not dragged to ANI. A page like this on Wikiquote is a massive copyvio host, which is not unusual at all on Wikiquote. Linking to copyright violations (which I just did, I know), is not allowed on Wikipedia. "The problem should be solved there" is nice in theory, but in practice they are years behind on copyvio cleanup (e.g. tag from August 2017December 2016, July 2009... Please continue removing these links, and thank you for takiong care of this.
Let's make that a whale for going on a revert rampage, reintroducing links to copyright violating pages, without even waiting for the result of this discussion.
Thank you for your feedback. --Xsaorapa (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the Wikiquote-page for Indo-Aryan migration theory myself; it was a propaganda-page for indigenists. So, as I noticed above, Xsaorapa has a point here. Yet, excuse me for being surprised when an account that's never been used before starts with mass-removal of links; quite unusual for new accounts, isn't it? Anyway, my apologies for my short-temperedness. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I understand. It may be better if I create a thread in the related talk page before removing the external links. --Xsaorapa (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (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.
Praxidicae keeps stalking me and calling me 'a disruptive childish editor'
Closed with a boomeranged warning. Filer was within an inch of getting a boomerang block, but the community is just barely extending it's good will here. Much useful feedback has been given, and I will leave C2A06 a kind talk page message impressing upon them the value of such advice. Issues of maturity have been raised. Should they continue, it is likely that C2A06 will find themselves blocked for several years until they can mature. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:43, 10 June 2020 (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.
Praxidicae has repeatedly been stalking me and commenting on me rather than on content. I feel I really have to address their behaviour after they called me a childish vandal ([120]) and I told them a few weeks ago ([121]) to stop assuming bad faith towards me and to comment on content, not the contributor. But they are still persisting in doing this and assume I am here to disrupt Wikipedia rather than improve it, which is clearly not true looking at my contributions history. I would appreciate a swift interaction ban between both of us because they appear to be repeatedly uncivil towards me and have kept on posting baseless messages on to my talk page. They just appear to think I'm a net negative to the project and don't focus on anything good. They have given me nothing but ridiculous warning messages and they honestly give me a heart attack every time I see them. I'm not going to go over to their talk page because I don't think it's worth communicating with them anymore. I would like someone to consider an interaction ban between both of us if this doesn't get resolved immediately. Thanks, C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have made a handful of edits to your talk page after you needlessly pinged me in places and then threw a tantrum on my talk page. I asked you to stop acting like a vandal and edit with some maturity. You didn't bother to discuss it before even bringing it here, so what exactly are you hoping to happen? Praxidicae (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I certainly do not appreciate being called a vandal. Once again, you need to comment on content, not the contributor. I have been editing like a mature person and no one but you has referred to me this way. And regarding your comment You didn't bother to discuss it before even bringing it here that's exactly why I'm bringing this here to discuss your conduct towards me and propose an interaction ban if this doesn't get resolved. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@C2A06:that's exactly why I'm bringing this here to discuss your conduct towards me and propose an interaction ban if this doesn't get resolved. well you proposed a nuclear option of an iban in your first edit here but what exactly is there to resolve? Was I incorrect in my assessment that your page move was incorrect? Or that your edit summary was immature and vandal like?
And in case there is any doubt, the incessant use of the help template is why I even came across your edits to begin with, followed by this when you thought "it would be funny" to see how people would react to being randomly pinged for no reason. I fixed a bad page move that showed on my watch list because I also fixed your sourcing in
White City depot, which is how it got on my WL in the first place. Perhaps you should assume good faith instead of assuming that every experienced editor who gives you constructive criticism is somehow out to get you. Praxidicae (talk
) 13:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Even if I make a mistake, they are all the past, I even apologised for the mentioning of you my edit summary. If you think I'm no good to the project, leave me alone and stop stalking my edits. Anyways, I don't want talk about this anymore because it's frustrating me and please leave me alone and do not use my talk page. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You brought this directly to AN/I, yet you expect you can have your way without the editor you're accusing having the right to respond to you?
I think you should take Praxidicae advise to heart, C2A06. Not to sound like a broken record, but nothing good will come of this. El_C 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm feeling frustrated. I'm leaving Wikipedia forever. Goodbye. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Can you at least do an interaction ban between both of us? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go. Hope you reconsider. With respect to an interaction ban, I don't think there has been enough intractable interactions problems between you two for that restriction to come into effect at this time. El_C 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@C2A06: Why do you need an interaction ban if you're leaving Wikipedia forever ? Nick (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nick: When I say I'm leaving Wikipedia forever I never mean it literally, i will always return at some point. And the reason why I would need an interaction ban between me and Praxidicae is to avoid them from posting baseless messages on my talk page which contain nothing but personal attacks and threats. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@C2A06: A suggestion, perhaps start saying what you mean, rather than making it up. If you say you're leaving, people will assume you're leaving. Likewise, if you ask editors to comment on content rather than the contributor, they will assume that you will also. (Even if, of course, you don't.) ——Serial# 14:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@
providing a diff to where I threatened you?. I can't find them in any of these 10 or so interactions, which consist mostly of me responding to help me templates and asking you to stop repeatedly using them, me asking why you pinged me randomly in an article which I'd never even seen or edited, me asking you not to ping me for no reason, me asking you not to leave a novel length diatribe on my talk page and finally me informing you of a bad page move and vandal like edit summary. But perhaps my mind has gone in my old age and you youngsters think constructive criticism is a threat. And lastly, stop accusing people you start an ANI thread about, then ping, of stalking you for responding to you. Praxidicae (talk
) 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
C2A06 please, give it a rest. The first diff in your report links to Praxidicae giving you some sound advice. The second diff links to you describing a comment of hers as a lie - a deliberate untruth - that is a personal attack, and it's the only one I'm seeing. I honestly suggest that you have a cup of tea and a bit of time out before that bendy stick starts arcing its way back to you - walk away. GirthSummit (blether) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm very sorry everyone for all the disruption i've caused throughout my time here. I promise I won't repeat it. I will not continue to tag other editors in my edit summaries I will accept criticism, I will not create any nonsense pages, I apologise to @Praxidicae: for not following their advice, i will do that in future and listen to everyone. I'm very sorry, i understand what I did was wrong and I won't repeat it. I hope you choose not to block me now. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@C2A06: real talk and I don't care if you want to give me shit about it. I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're younger. This is an important life lesson that is not limited to Wikipedia. Criticism sucks. It is often difficult to deal with but it's required for any type of collaboration and to get anywhere professionally or personally. It hurts and that's human but instead of reacting, start reflecting before you respond and see what you can do with that advice. This is something that many Wikipedians struggle with, including most of us in this thread, but it is absolutely necessary for this environment. With that being said, I'd strongly suggest taking an extended break of several months to a year so you can mature and come back. If not, I fear you will wind up right back here again and instead of a temporary block or ban, it will probably be longer and harder to come back from. You obviously do not have to take my advice but I believe it would be more meaningful and helpful to you rather than your sudden 180 above when a realistic block was proposed. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
the page's purpose. It's time to ask yourself what you're here for before your next block turns out to be your last. Cabayi (talk
) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
C2A06, so no more citing Reddit for made-up terms? Some of us are old enough to remember Eddie Segoura's attempt to use Wikipedia to promote as neologism., It went badly. Guy (help!) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly, @C2A06:, that you understand now that you are 100% in the wrong, and plan on 100% changing your approach here? I was just about to block you from editing for 2 years - had the block page open and everything - on the assumption that you need to gain a significantly higher level of maturity. If you've really had a "road to Damascus" moment in the last half hour, I suppose one more chance is OK, but I've never seen disruptive editors instantly become non-disruptive, and I think this is kind of a false hope. It seems more likely to me that you're hoping to say something, anything, to avoid a block, and aren't going to actually commit to change. In any case, be 100% more careful, 100% more open to comments, 100% less disruptive or you will be blocked with no further warning. Praxidicae's advice to voluntarily take an extended break is really spot on, if you'll listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed the activity logs and talk pages of Praxidicae & C2A06 and it would appear as though they have had minimal interaction over the course of several months. Most of this dispute, (which Praxisicae justly paid heed to), concerns C2A06's self-governed rules. C2A06, you can dress your talk page up a bit, but trying to claim autonomy or unique & enforceable edicts that state nobody may ever challenge what you do will not fly. You could write a rule that says nobody with a BMI above 20 or wearing pants may visit your page and it would be about as enforceable as what you're trying to establish here. I recommend you remove everything from your user page and the rules on your talk page, (see
or wearing pants may visit your page given the pandemic, there's a good chance most people aren't wearing pants right now. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2020 (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 indef blocked for legal threats. GirthSummit (blether) 11:17, 10 June 2020 (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:NLT block, for such edits as [122], [123], [124] (which cites a specific statute along with a claim of jail time! Hows that for a legal threat...). CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓
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.
Nothing to see here.—CYBERPOWER(Around) 12:04, 11 June 2020 (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 the Wikipedia article talk page Talk:Adult Swim I posted a discussion called "Do we really need to have Death Tributes?" back on 21 February 2020, there has not been any respond to the post and as a result the Wikipedia bot User:lowercase sigmabot III keeps archiving it, I in turn un-archive because this is an important discussion as to whether the article is too long as a result of the Death Tributes section and/or is the Death Tributes considered trivia? I am trying to get a consensus but unfortunately I cannot do that because this stupid bot keeps archiving the post. I also changed the signature so that a new date will appear, maybe it will or maybe it won't help but in any case I would appreciate some assistance. Thank You. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
So I ended up here via
WP:RCP
It's getting archived because no one has replied in 90 days and the section being archived wouldn't make the talk page empty. Look at the archiving setting. See
I don't know why you are reporting this. There is no urgent or long-term userbot-conduct issues here. There are 435 watchers, so probably nobody cares until you
It's a slow moving enough talk page that I'd just turn off the auto-archiving completely. It is fine to keep old discussions on the page as long as the page doesn't get overlarge. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot is doing what is told to do. Just increase the timer and minthreadsleft if it is a problem.--Hippeus (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2020 (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.
Quark dispute
ANI is not for content disputes or getting 3rd party input on content. Use the talk page of the article or Wikipedia:Third opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm unable to reach a consensus with 2 editors. Therefore, I need input from a third party (other editors).
Editor Cuzkatzimhut has a poor understanding of particle physics. He couldn't provide any valid counter-argument against my claim, which is backed up by many scientific experiments. See Talk:Quark#Free quark. It is clear that he tried to use circular reasoning and ignored all the scientific facts I provided.
Editor Ruslik0 claims that my sources are not reliable.
How is a published book not a reliable source? (source 1)
Source 2 is from CERN website. CERN has the largest particle physics lab in the world. It is leading the world in particle physics research.
Source 3 is from Forbes. Forbes is a well-known American magazine that explains science for the layman. Source 3 is written by a Ph.D. astrophysicist.
The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement. Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union. It would be nice to hear input from editors that are actually particle physicists in real life or anyone with a deep understanding of particle physics. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
As I was hanging around this page just now, I would recommend that your query be taken
WP:3O, since it's not a problem requiring (or requesting) administrator intervention. Since I can't ping an IP, I'll leave a note at your talk page, too :) Kingsif (talk
) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm not able to edit the article anymore, which leaves the error unfixed. How do I get the attention of WP:WikiProject Physics members? Thanks! 14.169.212.232 (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
All my scientific claims are ignored and unaddressed by circular reasoning. I also provided a lot of evidence to prove the reliability of my sources. That too was ignored. How do you explain that? I feel like I'm being treated unfairly because I'm an IP and not an established editor in Wikipedia. Just because they're established editors, it doesn't mean that they're always correct or knowledgeable in an advance topic such as particle physics.14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The dispute seems to revolve around two similar but not identical uses of the term "free quark". Some sources refer to non-confined quarks moving around relatively freely in a quark-gluon plasma (which is physiaclly possible) and other sources talk about single quarks existing alone in space without support (which is probably not). It would be a mistake to conflate these two uses of the term. ReykYO! 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Reyk. All my sources support the first interpretation that you got there. In any case, the fact that free quarks have been observed in the quark-gluon plasma. It proves that this statement "they can be found only within hadrons" is scientifically incorrect. The word "isolation" being used in the article means that physicists thought quarks can never exist outside of color confinement. However, recent experiments at CERN (and other places) prove otherwise. When scientists discover things that they didn't know before, knowledge needs to be updated too. For some reasons, my good-will attempt to update human knowledge was thwarted for no apparent valid reason. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2020 (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.
Kingshowman & Passengerpigeon
Boomeranged. Favonian (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please look into these users edits? Kingshowman has been blocked months ago for vandalism but there has been a recent string of new accounts getting blocked by PP posting them to
Wp:AIV without any warning or edits to the new users’ talkpage. I am bringing this here for review because if we automatically suspect every new Editor to be a sock of KSM with a guilty-unitil-proven-innocent attitude It only going to cause more vandalism & socking and we are going to find ourselves blocking innocent users who actually have nothing to do with this vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.78.81 (talk
) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I sense a definite boomerang on the way... Glen 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a lot of usage of "we" for an account that has never edited before. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (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 range making disruptive edits to California articles. Rangeblock warranted?
This IP-hopping editor comes through every few days and makes a bunch of edits to California articles. This editor appears to be on a mission to say that summer rainfall/snowfall/thunderstorms in the mountains and deserts of California is more common than it actually is. Sometimes this takes the form of edits to prose; sometimes it takes the form of twiddling around the numbers in {{Weather box}} templates. I suspect that sometimes the prose edits are done to mask the data edits on peoples' watchlists. Every time I've checked the climate data source referenced in the articles, the IP's edits have gone against that source data. I think a rangeblock might be warranted here. −−−CactusJack 🌵 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
NB: No need to run mass rollback on the IP range's contribs. I've undone all but two of his edits, and those two edits look fine to me. −−−CactusJack 🌵 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Rangeblocked for 3 months, good plan. There's basically no edits from the range other than the mysterious Operation Make-California-Sound-More-Rainy. Hopefully this puts a stop to this odd project for now! ~ mazcatalk 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree - see also unconstrivtive (sic) edits by The Bens MacDuis on the South Uist page, removing verified data and replacing with unsourced hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
"I agree" So you agree that your edits are unconstructive? Wow. Never before seen IP. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I made some unconstrivtive (sic) edits on different pages to illustrate the absurdity of the unconstrivtive (sic) edits The Bens MacDuis is making on the South Uist page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Also please stop making fun of User:Crouch, Swale's editing mistake. It is not funny. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
IP editor, that sounds like a textbook example of
WP:POINT. I would suggest you take the time to read and understand that guideline. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs
) 23:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for disruptive, pointy editing. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that my account, User:Prahlad balaji, has been compromised. I cannot login to it. Please block it immediately. Thanks, 67.248.20.27 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have logged in on two different computers over 20 times, with the correct password.
There are currently server errors. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. 67.248.20.27 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Just had the same issue. Try clearing cookies and turning 3rd part cookies on. I did that after a frustrating 10 minutes and that finally did it, then immediately turned them back off. Heiro 19:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Everyone else who is a foreigner BACK OFF. I am sick and tired of counter edits from people who have this narcissistic flair of arrogance about them lecturing me about what's like to be Viet. I'm talking to you, "scotsman who wants a SEA wife". DISGUSTING. An informational purification is what you all need. Clearly the coronavirus wasn't enough. — User:Qualitycontrolchecker
I was going to write a comment to them after their initial post and this misguided edit summary, but they pushed themselves far beyond what I would call misguided new editor conduct. Could an admin please intervene? — MarkH21talk 10:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Good report. I see the editor has been blocked for 72 hours. --Merbabu (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
They apologized, and El_C unblocked: the system works. Many thanks to all involved in calming and explaining the situation to a new editor. That was pretty specialist stuff: "You Scotsman looking for an Asian wife" has to be one of the most original insults yet. ——Serial# 09:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
by Ythlev at Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes: Visaliaw will be reported for continued reinsertion of their contested changes (diff).
It’s a pretty clear
WP:ONUS and edit warring issue. Visaliaw ironically didn’t even bother to respond in the talk page before their latest reinsertion of their contested changes. I had given them one more warning, but it doesn’t seem like that will get through when all of the others haven’t. — MarkH21talk
05:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, this thread can be closed now. Visaliaw has come back from their block and opened opened a DRN post so I don’t foresee further issues in the meantime. — MarkH21talk 07:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Ythlev's arguments are low quality arguments largely based on his personal opinions instead of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When demonstrated that his arguments does not follow Wikipedia polices, he cited
WP:IAR. This thread would encourage Ythlev's strategy of arguing for the sake of creating the situation of no consensus to prevent changing the status quo, instead of collaborating to build consensus.--Visaliaw (talk
) 09:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Editing from 201.203.9.237
I know this IP for disrupting templates of countries coronaviruses medical chart. I caught this IP doing edits on
have applied protection to the templates as they are transcluded on multiple pages and should not really be open to anonymous editing. Guy (help!) 23:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It could be better if you put template editor, recommended instead of extended confirmed protection. 201.231.9.237 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
So by that statement you are going to get a account and get extended confirmed (basically) and then vandalize. Wow. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Why you are asking for it? That's not how Wikipedia works. Shawnqual is not a template editor and i, which i'm going to admit manages
SMB99thx, Perhaps we could block him for 1 yr or at least 3 months? {{31}}{{25A (talk)
}} 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if it does not change or improve in long run. We have to see things first before to decide to block him for that long. If we do it now, i see it as too harsh and unfair in my opinion. I'll settle for one week block first before eventually execute that long block.
Based on their comments and editing patterns, I extended the block to 6 months. This is someone who isn't here to contribute in a positive way, and by 6 months, these articles will probably be much more stable. I don't think baby sitting articles and monitoring the IP after the block has expired is going to change the outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
BLM2020 edits on the Al Campanis page
BLM2020 keeps making edits [130] on the Al Campanis page that violates a number of rules here. He/she refuses to discuss this on the talk page. If someone could speak to them about it.....it would be appreciated.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indef. Next time, you can take something like this to
Thanks. His/her first few edits didn't come across as vandalism....just someone who didn't know the rules here. So I tried warnings. The last edit is where it got ridiculous.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
While the edits were clearly inappropriate, just to let you know they are unlikely to have violated
WP:BLP since the subject has been dead for over 20 years and the edits seemed to be solely about them. BDP suggests 2 years at an outset for "recently deceased". Nil Einne (talk
Looks like lessons learned and apology extended. Not much left that is actionable here. Please continue discussion about the content on the article talk page. El_C 17:34, 12 June 2020 (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.
(Combined this sub-section and the next per suggestion of Beyond My Ken --Masem (t) 03:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) )
Snooganssnoogans
This user (in the subject line) keeps violating a number of rules here such as AGF and is generally harassing me (and others) on the topic of race. A number of examples of this and of other users that have noted this:
This editor also has a issue with NPOV and Ax grinding issues.
I would appreciate it if someone had a word with them. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I stand by everything I said. In terms of the first link[135], calling racist slurs "utterly irrelevant" is absolutely a reflection of racial bias and should be called out as such. In terms of your editing (links #2 and #3), I absolutely stand by my concerns about your ability to edit in a NPOV manner on the subject of race: you reject that calling blacks "monkeys" is racist[136], you vociferously opposed the inclusion of any mention in Reagan's bio about the administration's opposition to sanctions on South Africa over apartheid (which led to a very rare and prominent move by Congress to overturn Reagan's veto)[137], and then you cynically scrubbed the single most notable thing about
talk
) 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about me. Disagreements on subjects are not unusual in the editing process. (I'll remind you that a RFC you started on the subject of South Africa on the Reagan page was rejected (to cite one example).) This is about how you are conducting yourself here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
All parties involved in a thread opened on ANI will come under scrutiny, including the thread opener. So yes this is also about you. Canterbury Tailtalk 01:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll put my conduct up against this person's any day.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop misleading the readers: There was one RfC on including the apartheid stuff to the body (which ended in consensus to include because this was by any standard highly notable[139]) and another RfC on including it to the lead (which ended in no consensus to include). You opposed both inclusions.
talk
) 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I sure did (for the reasons I stated). And so did a lot of other people. Again the issue isn't the difference on the issues.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Snooganssnoogans actions.
talk
) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
(
Calidum of racial bias [[142]]. Snoogans is very active in the AP2 space and no stranger to accusations of incivility. This behavior needs to stop. Now just to play devil's advocate, what if Snoogan is right, what if Rj really is totally blind to their own bias? Isn't that why we have the consensus process? So long as they are civil in their talk page comments and reasons/arguments then it shouldn't matter if the edits they want have a bias problem. Consensus will go against them and that is that. If consensus isn't clearly against Rj then Snoogan needs to stay civil in their disagreement and consider that perhaps the issue isn't some sort of blind eye to racism. Accusations of such should not be tolerated. Springee (talk
(i) Springee's comment should be judged by the deception it starts with: There was one RfC on including the apartheid stuff to the body (which ended in consensus to include because this was by any standard highly notable[143]) and another RfC on including it to the lead (which ended in no consensus to include). I explicitly said that Rja13ww33 sought to exclude any mention of the apartheid content. (ii) The gist of Springee's comment is that editors should not be allowed to raise concerns about the well-documented
talk
) 01:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The manner by which you "raise concerns" here is what is at issue. You are violating AGF. There is nothing deceptive about his comments. Checking the archives here show you have had all sorts of issues following the rules here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be misunderstanding
WP:AGF. It does not call for anyone to maintain their initial assumption of good faith in the face of evidence of disruption, such as, for instance, racist remarks or racist editing. Every editor has a moral obligation to protect the neutrality and accuracy of the encyclopedia, and racist content -- as opposed to reporting about racism -- definitely qualifies as non-neutral and inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk
) 02:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Look at [144]. Where is the initial assumption of AGF to Calidum? Where are his/her racist comments?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that I did not call anyone a racist. The only I said was that the downplaying of racism (e.g. denying that calling blacks "monkeys" is racist, saying that racist slurs are "utterly irrelevant") is an example of racial bias.
talk
) 02:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
And that isn't appropriate either. How did you (for example) know Calidum has a "racial bias"? What history do you have with him/her? That was the first time I've seen him on the Reagan page (that I can recall).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
In saying: Great example of Racial bias on Wikipedia: Racist slurs are "utterly irrelevant", Snooganssnoogans is not saying that Caldium has a racial bias, he is saying that the comment which dismissed racial slurs (re: blacks as "monkeys") as "Utterly irrelevant" is in and of iteself an example of racial bias. It's the difference between commenting on the editor, and on the editor's expressed views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well I disagree. Replying to Caldium's comments [his first on that page] with it's a "Great example of Racial bias on Wikipedia" is ridiculous and doesn't AGF. Where is conversation with Caldium first? How does he/she know it's a great example of anything without knowing his/her motivations? They aren't going to ask him/her (for example) for a bit more reasoning for WEIGHT/DUE? It's better to just start slinging this kind of stuff around? That's your idea of having a civil process here? Really?Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Why the heck would S. have to talk to C. in order to express their own opinion about what C. said? It's not like the comment by C. was enigmatic or ambiguous, it was a straightforward expression that was abundantly clear and left no margin for misunderstanding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You think someone simply saying: "In the grand scheme of things this one-off comment is utterly irrelevant." is enough to start slinging accusations of "racial bias"? Especially when that person is unknown to the other user? I ask again: that's your idea of a civil, collaborative process of editing/discussing? This is what you want here? (Including posting these personal attacks on someone's user page?) If that's what you want....that's great. But hopefully others will weigh in on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You should read Freudian slip. It is often in these unguarded "slips of the tongue" that a person's true feelings come out. It certainly should not be given UNDUE weight, but it is significant -- even in the "grand scheme of things" -- in light of Reagan's reputation. It is as least as significant as Jesse Jackson's 1984 "Hymietown" reference to New York City, to which we give a full paragraph in our article on him. See: Jesse Jackson#Relations with Jewish community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"Hymietown" impacted Jackson's campaign(s) for President. Big difference. it is yet to be seen if this will have a lasting impact on Reagan's image.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There's an important piece of context missing in that analysis. Caldium's "expressed view" was prefaced by "In the grand scheme of things...". Objectively speaking, this is a way of saying the comment has UNDUE WEIGHT and does not necessarily speak in terms of racism, and certainly nowhere near saying all racial slurs are irrelevant. Drawing that conclusion may not be a personal attack per se, but it's uncivil to say the least. We can do better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: it isn't beneficial to any discussion if your thanks or unhappiness to each participant depending on if they agree with you or not, e.g. Nice job or Thanks for your opinion. But hopefully some others will weigh inNosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll just say the obvious: there's nothing whatsoever in Snoogansnoogans' behavior that is sanctionable, and this thread should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. But hopefully some others will weigh in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
They already have: Trekker said the same thing above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
That's two. I personally would like some more opinions. (And it appears we are starting to get them.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Snoogans did nothing wrong. However, instead of asking for a close like BMK did, I would ask admins (and other editors) to consider whether or not the diffs that have been presented do show troubling racial bias. I'm not sure that this thread should be closed without sanctions for anyone. I find the diff about "monkeys" which apparently kicked this all off to be pretty alarming (even more so with the ridiculous false equivalence, red-herring defense attempts of citing "grease monkey", etc), and in combination with things like the attempt to whitewash the Willie Horton lead, problematic if it's indicative of a pattern of editing. Grandpallama (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to look at any of my history. In the case of the Willy Horton lead (for example) the add to the lead that Snoog wanted to put in was not (IMHO) reflective of the main body. The "dog whistle" aspect of the article was a grand total of one sentence in the article prior to the ad in. There was also an issue with calling it a "Bush ad", when the fact is it was a PAC ad outside of the Bush campaign (although in his corner). Ultimately, we settled on Grayfell's version (for which I thanked him). If fencing with people who are hear to grind axes (and see Snoog's history if you think I am wrong) on certain issues is wrong......then I think people are forgetting [145].Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment on combining threads
Question: Why are there threads about this incident both here and on AN, here? I believe that the AN thread should be moved here and combined with this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The AN thread was Masem asking if they misread a situation regarding comments by MastCell. This discussion is Rj asking for review of Snoogan's behavior. The two overlap but are trying to look at different things. Springee (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't notice that until after I started this section. The issues there appear to be somewhat different. (Although more than one complaint about Snooganssnoogans doesn't surprise me.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Both reports concern two aspects of the same incident, and, already, duplication has occured between the two threads. They should be combined, as separate sub-threads with a master thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Would like check of my actions in a possible NPA caution statement
Springee approached me on my user page this morning [146] about a comment that MastCell left on Jimbo's talk page yesterday [147] in relation to a heated discussion they were in on Talk:Ronald Reagan which was within the context of an RFC Springee had started related to recently released tapes of Reagan using racially derogatory terms towards diplomats: whether they were DUE to include and how/where/what extent to include. Before Spingee commented on my talk page today, I had made a comment yesterday on that issue on the Reagan page , but outside of the heated discussion that MastCell had been involved with.
I reviewed MastCell's comment on Jimbo's page, and reviewing what the discussion was on the Reagan talk page, it seemed, at least to me, very clear that was approaching a personal attack, not explicitly but very close to naming a specific editor as a KKK member, when you read between MastCell's comments on both Jimbo's page and the Reagan page. Enough that I left a suggestion to redact the comment on Jimbo's page on Mastcell's talk page [148]. I had no plans to go any further with that even if MastCell didn't redact, it was just a fair warning that felt was needed. I let Springee know what I did about this on my talk page. [149] I expected that to be it, no other use of the broom.
At which point what I did get criticized by Snooganssnoogans and MastCell, and later Floquenbeam, which has spread between my talk, the Jimbo talk page , and a bit on MastCell's talk page, so I'm now doubt if I misread something and need input if I'm misapply the NPA approach, as I've been told we take a great degree of caution on any possible NPA claims. To be clear, as I've tried to explain:
I'm not touching anything about what MastCell said about the blocked editor from 2008. I have not enough knowledge what happened then, nor is that the point of issue that I saw. I focused on events of the last two days that I can easily decipher from reviewing two pages.
This is specifically how the statement MastCell made on Jimbo's page in this diff [150]: However, there is an ongoing, and likely successful, effort to suppress any mention of this material in our article on Reagan. The excuses range from the desperately silly ("This was a private conversation and there is no evidence Reagan knew it was being recorded", "this was a decade before he became President") to the outright shameful (minimizing it as "an unguarded and foolish remark in a private setting"). The article is full of fulsome trivia about Reagan, so concerns about notability are implausible. Anyhow, maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks, and to basic honesty about notable, well-documented racist utterances from our political idols. It would be a modest start. (with the quoted parts as linked diffs to material from the specific editor in question that I believe was the implicit the target of this NPA in the heated discussion on the Reagan page), reads in light of the whole discussion on the Reagan page. Yes, it is not a direct NPA, but I feel the implication is very clear enough to throw a caution. Floquenbeam had said on my talk page otherwise. [151] If I'm way off, I'll admit fault and leave it be, which is why I am asking.
In the after-the-fact, I do understand the concern of what MastCell has with the editor and issues related to racism. But as I've tried to explain since, it is one thing to call out general behavior and concerns that may make certain editing choices appear racist and make sure that we're not making WP look racist in our edits, while its a whole other issue to call out an editor as a racist, even indirectly. We're not simply supposed to go there with the later, no matter how strongly one feels about the issue. But I will be clear, I'm only asking for my action to be checked, nothing else. --Masem (t) 00:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
In MastCell's comment on Jimbo's page[152], he's addressing two manifestations of racial bias on Wikipedia: (i) allowing self-avowed racists to edit (a long-standing prominent issue that has even been mentioned in the secondary literature about Wikipedia) and (ii) editing with a purpose of downplaying racism (an issue that reared its ugly head in the currently active RfC on the Reagan article where editors argue that calling blacks "monkeys" isn't racist and using racist slurs is "utterly irrelevant"). In no way is he equating the two. There's nothing problematic in his comment. His comment was laudable and more editors, not less, should show as much concern for racial bias on Wikipedia as he did.
talk
) 00:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You seen to be inventing arguments. Who was arguing that the comments weren't racist? There is a discussion of WEIGHT but that isn't a claim that the comments weren't racist. Springee (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The editor Rja13ww33 rejected that calling blacks "monkeys" was racist[153] and the editor Calidum called the racist slurs "utterly irrelevant".[154] It's interesting what kinds of things you take offense to and what things you don't take offense to: you completely misread Mastcell's comment on Jimbo's page and go running to Masem to get them sanctioned, but completely ignore when editors downplay racism.
talk
) 01:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Where did I say anything about sanctions? Please show where I said someone needs to be sanctioned? You are also characterizing the other editor's comments in both cases. You certainly can disagree with them but its not OK to misrepresent what they actually said and it's context as a way to justify uncivil behavior. Springee (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
What was your purpose, then, in going to Masem's talk page? You mention your fear of an unnamed admin (presumably MastCell) possibly taking retribution against you if you commented about "a very problematic accusation." What reason did you have for thinking that could happen, and what was the point of going to Masem instead of making your own comment? You are just as able to give an NPA warning as any other editor. It seems to me that you are a key figure in promulgating this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
BMK, given your history of incivility and false accusations against me I have no interest in engaging with you on this subject. Springee (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so you provoked a warning against someone by running to an admin instead of issuing the warning yourself (and the admin has now withdrawn the warning), and now you wish to throw up a smokescreen and disengage. There has been no incivility here. As for "false accusations", you went to Masem, you made extremely strong comments both on this thread and the one above, you -- both here and on Masem's talk page -- are more worried about a possible "witchhunt" then you are about the downplaying of racist comments; those are all true and verifiable, so there have been no "false accusations".It is true that we have had disputes in the past, and I was not eager to get involved in this incident because of your participation in it, given your history of
WP:CPOV, but my comments have not been based on that, they've been based entirely on my reading of the facts and policy. I did not come in guns blazing, as you did above to Snoogansnoogans ("Snoogans has a troubling history of being too aggressive when dealing with editors with whom they disagree."), did I? So let's be clear about the facts, shall we? Beyond My Ken (talk
) 05:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be dense but I can't see anything warranting discussion here. At Jimbo's hallowed talk, there is a long discussion of racism and MastCell posted some examples that he considers show a problem with how certain topics are treated here. There is no suggestion that KKK members are currently active at Talk:Ronald Reagan, and certain comments at that talk were described as "silly" and "shameful". No one is accused of being racist. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: When reaching out to Masem I did not believe MastCell's comments were directed at me. At the time and even now I think they were referring to an editor with whom they were arguing on the article's talk page. I went to Masem not because I felt attacked personally but because I think the MastCell's comment was a chilling accusation of racism that suggested an editor may be an active KKK member. Had Masem said I was misreading the situation I would have been fine with that. Instead they saw the same thing I did. MastCell says our interpretation was wrong. I'm happy to accept that was not their intent. Unfortunately they didn't take this as a case of ambiguous language leading to an honest misunderstanding. Instead they dismissed that such a reading could have been reasonable and then added accusations of bad faith editing into the mix. I think this is very unfortunate given the general respect MastCell has around here. I regret that my concern had resulted in so much grief for Masem. Springee (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Calling out racist editing when one sees it is not a problem, it's what we all should be doing, as long as we're prepared to back up that contention with diffs and arguments. That such actions might have a "chilling effect" towards racist editing is not a bug, it's a feature: we don't want racist editing here, and if it can be shown to be occuring, that's a good thing for Wikipedia, because the editors responsible can be sanctioned in whatever manner is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and a cliam of racist editing which can be backed up with evidence cannot be a personal attack, by definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Stopping racism is a good thing. However, we must be careful that our quest doesn't land us in Judge Danforth's court where anyone who disagrees must be doing so because they are a racist and for no other reason. Springee (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, don't trot out that hoary "witchhunt" analogy again, it's been done to death in the last 3 1/2 years. Let's deal with facts and stay away from stuff like that, which only serve to muddy the waters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Question: Why are there discussions about this incident both here and on AN/I, here? I believe that this thread should be moved to AN/I and combined with the thread there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
While its around the same discussion issues, to my point here it only involves my action on MastCell's talk page and nothing else, and i'm only asking for review and input. Whether other actions are need against other editors, that might be needed to explore given that ANI but a wholly separate matter that I wan't involved with at the core. I would suggest that there's back and forth already happening here that should probably migrate there. --Masem (t) 01:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also discussion on the AN/I thread which -- although you are not specifically mentioned, at least yet -- could have a bearing on the appropriateness of your warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Then let's combine if that's best (though subsection this one I think) --Masem (t) 02:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Should I just move these comments and leave courtesy pointer (since I dropped messaged to those above) to the ANI thread? --Masem (t) 02:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the best idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything in MastCell's comment that is an explicit or implicit personal attack. It seems fairly clear that he's recounting an absurd episode in Wikipedia's history in which a literal, self-outed KKK member was not only editing but being encouraged to edit, and suggested that not doing that would be a step in the right direction. He seperately discussed his apparent disgust at his perception that the Reagan article was being whitewashed of a racist incident, but he quite clearly was not even attempting to imply that anyone involved is, or is related to, the KKK member he was referring to. Emotive venting has always been permitted on Jimbo's talk page. There is very little real estate for frank meta-discussions on Wikipedia and Jimbo's talk page has always been a low-stakes neutral ground. I'm more concerned that this has been met with a warning and brought to the drama boards than I am that some editors are attempting to discuss the serious issue of racism on Wikipedia. ~Swarm~{sting} 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the original warning was not at the drama boards. Masem said it to MastCell on their talk page. When other editors didn't see things the way Masem (and myself) did, Masem opened an AN discussion to check their grounds if you will. A short time later Rj opened a discussion here related to Snoogan's behavior. Since some of the background information overlaps Beyond My Ken asked why these weren't combined. I'm not sure they should be as one is a question about Snoogan's civility while the other is Masem asking for community input regarding their own read on a situation. Personally I don't think the two threads should be overlapped as the core questions each is trying to answer isn't related. Springee (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where the warning occurred, that has no bearing on whether the warning was justified or not, which is the issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
However, the factual background is the same, and the participants (you, for instance) overlap. In any case, they have been combined into one thread, in separate sub-secions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I read through that entire thread quite carefully, and see no evidence that he is referring to a specific current editor as a KKK member. Also, even when discussing current editors, MastCell is very specifically discussing behavior, and not the editors themselves. I don't see the warning as being justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So taking Johnuniq, Swarm, and Vanamonde93's comments above, as well as what MastCell, Snooganssnoogans, Floquenbeam had said before, this wasn't anything I needed to caution MastCell about from the state, so I know where that line is drawn better if such comes up in the future, and I publicly apologize to MastCell for the situation. (I'll reiterate that on that talk page and redact my prior statement next). --Masem (t) 04:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
That's very decent of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2020 (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 non-admin account created half an hour ago just closed an AfD which was opened today as "delete". Does anybody else (besides me) feel that that is a clearly out-of-process close (it seems quite a bit too early to invoke WP:SNOW) which should be undone? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Uhh, anyone can close an AFD, three delete votes with good rationale. BeastyBirea (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@
SNOW closures. What made you take a particular interest in AfD so soon after creating your account, if you don't mind me asking? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page
Happened upon a page with an AFD tag. clicked an plugged away. But keep in mind these pages, like any other pages on Wikipedia are open for everyone to edit. Moreover, if there is a consensus for delete -- first three comments pointed to that -- then there's really nothing to be concerned about. BeastyBirea (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2020 (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.
Redirect links to <redacted>
Per
WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, I don't see what purposes these(Redacted) redirects serve other than to make it easier for someone to harass a non-notable person. (Redacted) estranged wife has filed a petition to change her name, we shouldn't be making it easier for people to out her. I don't even think we should have her former name redirecting to her husband, but I'll leave that be for now until others weight in. (The inclusion of her name in the article is also being discussed at here, but my gut is that the redirects should be revdel'd.) OhNoitsJamieTalk
22:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I deleted a bunch of these per
WP:CSD#G10 (see deleted contributions of Jax 0677) but if the consensus is that it was an inappropriate deletion then it would be easy to recreate them. There was no content there, just a redirect, but one apparently intended to out this non-public figure. I think this is covered by the "purely to harass" clause of G10. —David Eppstein (talk
I am concerned that some contributors will interpret a decision to obfuscate her name implies that the article on her spouse should include no mention whatsoever of the ten year marriage.
They met and married in 2010. In multiple interviews in 2018, after being chosen as (Redacted), she described him as a gentle loving person -- as if they were still in love.
I wrote, on the talk page, that RS were characterizing him as a complete racist. I wrote I am keeping my eyes peeled for RS that point out that he chose to marry someone from Laos, suggesting that if he was a racist that racism was not complete, and did not extend to Asians. If I find RS that say that I would like to cite them in the article. If we are honouring Ohnoitsjamie's decision that her name can not be mentioned I think aspects of his marriage can be mentioned without explicitly naming his ex-wife. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The woman's attorney has been quoted by major newspapers as saying "Her family has been harassed and threatened based on multiple incorrect reports." This is a situation where legitimate real world issues combined with BLP policy require us to be extremely cautious. I have blocked an editor who was being reckless regarding this matter. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like we all agree that there is no need to mention her by name in Wikipedia. I think it's sufficient to mention that the subject's wife file for divorce after the event; yes, there are additional details in some media sources, but Wikipedia need not exhaustively cover every bit of minutiae and pundit speculation. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Anne Frank
Resolved
It is agreed that semiprotection should not be downgraded (or upgraded) at this time. El_C 00:21, 13 June 2020 (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:BLPRS. Would this article be a good candidate for pending changes protection? Argument against: not enough disruption. Argument for: stable article often read by grade school students just learning about the subject for the first time, so being wrong even a small part of the time is undesirable. --Guy Macon (talk
) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Anne Frank died in 1945. How would her article be under BLPRS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I'm assuming it's because Jacqueline van Maarsen, who's been the subject—along with Anne herself—of some of these poorly sourced additions, is still very much with us. ——Serial# 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the article is still semi-protected...do you want us to downgrade that to pending-changes protection? Or upgrade to extended-confirmed protection? Lectonar (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Went through the article history....disruption concerning the use of sources is not that great, but often goes undetected for some time. As a first measure I have watchlisted; more people watching the article might help alleviate the problem. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think semi-protection is fine. The article was and, if unprotected, will continue to be a perennial problem. No need to experiment. El_C 11:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
PC is good for low traffic articles, but imagine the amount of editors' time that would be taken up responding to them! ——Serial# 11:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading the above, I agree. I think we can close this as resolved. If those reading this would consider adding the article to their watch list that would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2020 (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.
Possible chronic and intractable behavioral problem
KhanQadriRazvi is seemingly attempting to impose their point of view on Wikipedia without success. Their behaviour is now resulting in continuous disruptive activity (whether deliberate or through frustration or through a lack of competency I cannot be sure). Their talk page show an almost daily set of problems at present. The disruption to Talk:Grand Mufti of India[155] in a poorly formed edit request disrupting main space. The sheer quality of a newly created article this morning also is very inconsistent with linguistic use on e.g. Old revision of File talk:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg is also a concern.
Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:CSD for a copyright violation? This seems yet more disruption and I am minded you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Do you have any response or explanation? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk
) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Respond or Explanation
I,have said repeatedly that the tone of my article may not be neutral. If copyright matter, I will look into it, and I, will try to write in my words, So that Wikipedia does not have any copyright problem. It's your misunderstanding that I'm imposing my point of view on Wikipedia, and came here with different purpose. Whoever comes here, they come here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, I, also came here with the same thought that whatever I, know or read it somewhere, I, will share those things with everyone.Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I, just don't get it this thing, when newspapers has written about both person, then how can you choose the one person, so I, have suggested of this article, in which both are treated equally.
"Chop off the Snake’s Head" Delete the page, It may be best solution for this problem. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:UNDUE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I am however re-looking at Grand Mufti of India and talk to see some useful comments having been somewhat distracted by your intervention. Every source and its use needs to be considered on merits .... and these sources are very difficult to use. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 23:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Response or Explain
@Djm-leighpark You can delete my account instead of ban. It does not matter to me, If I, talk about my point of view then it will not be right, because there are many things that you will not be able to understand, when you not understand, then it will not be beneficial to speak because you do not belong to this field. According to me that if you do not know about the field /subject then it is good not to say anything on this,
Now let's talk "Grand Mufti" ie "Qadi al-Qudat" (Chief Justice), Qadi al-Qudat would have been the one who would be above all as I have said, That Hanafi cannot follow other Imam jurisprudence, however, other Imams may follow Hanafi Jurisprudence, as Imam E Azam is the greatest Imam among all the four Imams. I am not saying this, but it is Islamic Shariah.
Now let's talk "Electoral College" India is a secular country, so where did "Electoral College" come from? Where is the Electoral College office, it conducts elections under the supervision "Election Commission of India", to explain a little more about "Electoral College".
Now let's talk on the list of Grand Mufti.
1) Abdul Qadir Badayuni, appointed by Akbar, was not an "electoral college" at that time.
2, 3 and 4, do not know any information about it.
5) Shah Fazle Rasul Badayuni appointed by the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, even at that time there was no "Electoral College".
6) Who appointed Kiphayatullah Dehalvi does not know yes but "Electoral College" did not appointed him.
7) Mufti Muhammad Amjad Ali Azmi (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ala Hazrat, not by "Electoral College".
8) Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri Noori (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was never written for some reason) not by any "Electoral College".
9) Taj Sharia Akhtar Raza Khan (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah from the stage of Urs E Razvi and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not written this time also for some reason) He was not appointed by any "Electoral College".
10) Abu Bakr, Talking about Abu Bakr, who has appointed him (let's see elected and appointed by All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyathul Ulama{mentioned in article}) this is what “Electoral College”? Are you talking about? According to you ‘’All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama’’ is “Electoral College"? Which appoints Grand Mufti of India in India?
Is Wikipedia (Grand Mufti of India’s Article) propagating false information to the people?
Same process was adopted for Mufti Asjad Raza Khan also which was adopted earlier for adopting Grand Mufti of India.
Mufti Asjad Raza Khan was appointed by 67 Scholars and Jurists at the 16th Annual Fiqhi Seminar (Note: Even this time also the name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not mentioned for some reasons).
When, I saw the table of Grand Mufti of India. I, found many mistake, but you guys are masters in this field (done PhD in Grand Mufti of India), so, how can all of you agree with me?
I, don't know when “National Assembly of Islamic Community of India"(mentioned in article) founded? And when started Nominating Mufti for the Post of Grand Mufti of India. Which Electoral College (mentioned in article) is appointing Grand Mufti of India.
When was the last date of nomination? Where is advertisement for nomination? Where was voting details? Where is official website? List of nominated Candidate? Where is result?
I, asked this questions on the basis of Article of Grand Mufti of India and replies. If you want I can ask more questions on Grand Mufti of India’s Article.
Now you (@Djm-leighpark) tell me when you (@Djm-leighpark) are answering me.
And one thing, don't blame me without proof. I have no problem with Abu Bakr.
WP:BIAS in the Grand Mufti of India article by distracting from valid points previously made at the article talk. You raise many points at me, and I am but simples, and unfortunately we seem not to have a published independent PhD thesis to work from. Per your last refused edit request changes are best done in smaller, clearer pieces. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 23:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You (@Djm-leighpark) can do, because you are master brother. Or else find some way so Admin can delete my account immediately.
If someone does not agree with you (@Djm-leighpark), then he does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc.
Brother (@Djm-leighpark) don't talk this things please.
I, used that phrase for the Article Page of Grand Mufti of India only.not for a person.
Do not talk here and there thing Brother (@Djm-leighpark), answer the questions which I, asked you (@Djm-leighpark). so far didn't receive the answer of my questions from your (@Djm-leighpark) side.
Was there any mistake in that article Which I, suggested? Just added a name to the list and removed the infobox official post,and written both names as a Grand Mufti of India. As far as I remember I, did that only.
I'm waiting for your (@Djm-leighpark) answer
Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:RFA I might accept to prove the level of support I would have for suitability for the role. I have in general no answers to your specific questions, I have been mentored there is no such thing as a stupid question; though I have sometimes mentored managers on the questioned that needed to be asked to get the useful and usable answer rather than the question that only yields an inappropriate answer. I do feel you have hindered my consideration in placing a Template:POV on the Grand Mufti of India article which was previously removed (or perhaps a Template:Systemic bias tag) ... I feel I need to have solid confidence to defend any tagging if I were to do that ... and prepared to follow through on any inappropriate removal. Per your last edit request which was refused as "A full rehash and replace of the article cannot be readily evaluated. You need to propose changes in smaller, clearer pieces" ... I did attempt to place my concerns on your suggestion on my edit at "21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)" above where you made significant claims. My next post here indicated I intended to review sources for the Article .... though such a review is complex and I give no commitment to any actions I might take or what the timescales are. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I, told don't talk this thingshe does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. and asked to response my question which I, asked to you (@Djm-leighpark).
Just tell me one thing that Article "Grand Mufti of India" needs correction or not? after seeing my question?
You (@Djm-leighpark) are telling that entire article can't be changed at once, so you should change it in small - small part?.
Am I getting it right? Do you want to say this?
Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
In general I would suggest when new or encountering problems doing smaller pieces slowly are with attention to detail will often be more successful than larger changes. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal (Islam in the Indian subcontinent)
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the topic area.
Support as proposer; this has gone on for far too long. The drama between Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis, and countless other sects present in the region really doesn't need to be making its way onto Wikipedia. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand the sentiment, but wonder if the drama would be eased if admins used discretionary sanction powers to issue final warnings to problematic editors insisting on operating in the ipa topic area. Removal of autoconfirmed user permission (if possible) would in my opinion be sensible, but I am unsure if admins can specifically do this. Semi-protection has helped in Grand Mufti but it has moved the problem to the talk page with disruptive edit requests.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Admin should understand that editors at Islamic pages are generally belonging to one school or other. Some may be good in editing some may not. Taking strict action should be avoided. Semi-page protection in case of page disruption is suggested. In case of user
Barelvi related articles. The reason is very clear most of Sufi Sunni or Barelvi or Deobandi scholars are rarely covered in mainstream media or reliable sources. The scholars who have millions of followers and number of books to their account get little or no space in English sources specially in India and up-to some extent in south Asia. Most of the Urdu/Bengali/Hindi sources are not online. These are some of specific reasons that many times articles are even deleted due to lack of notability and users/editors are at receiving end. ScholarM (talk
) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The warning needs to occur. Perhaps early intervention with advice like
Oppose Too unilateral and unproductive. If you want such imposition then list all the pages where disruption is being caused by non ECP users. But remember that there are thousands or millions of pages related to this subject and disruption on several pages won't justify the proposal. Azuredivay (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Azuredivay, but understand the reasoning. Unfortunately preparing good edit requests is actually for a semi-protected pages is a very skilled art and the risks of unpracticed failing and falling into frustration are very high; its also expensive in terms of talk page area, pending changes sometimes works better unless the summaries are being abused, in both cases its unwise if one person handles all edit rejections as disastrously happened in a case earlier this year.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't believe that the extent of the problem as presented is such as to justify this rather onerous sanction, which should be held in reserve for the very worst problems on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing Problems
This edit [159], on a talk page of a claimant to the Grand Mufti of India title and within the scope of discretionary sanctions, this morning perhaps could have raised a reasonable associated point but seemed more framed, including the summary, as inflamatory and not in the spirit of WP:Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Further repeat attempt on 8 June 2020 to overturn lede of Grand Mufti of India against "reliable sources".[160], (I would note I am possibly minded the "reliable sources" just might be challenged at
WP:RSN under very close scrutiny), but this sort of request is repeatedly naive and continually disruptive and wasting everyone's time.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent
GorgeCustersSabre at [161]. Both have been advised of discretionary sanctions for ipa withn the last year.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 07:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear
talk
) 08:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@
GorgeCustersSabre: Whatever happens do not back off Grand Mufti of India title thing permanently. It needs utmost scrutiny to see sources are being used correctly, sometimes difficult when five are thrown together. I have little doubt team AP has won the title, possibly by superb manoeuvrings and marketing, and furthermore they have the website. The counter-response by team EK was not persuasive to me. But these are things that should probably be mentioned on the article for balance. (and some of KhanQadriRazvi's points are likely not invalid, it is not the points that have been made, it is the way they are being made which is my concern). Oh for good, neutral, and in-depth investigative journalism. Obviously I am around GMoI related myself hopefully improving things, which is piece of cake compared to UK railways L&MR inter-city and Mole Valley and Sutton Lines issues. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk
) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Attitude towards a coi issue on talk page [162]Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring and sockpuppetry to add copyrighted text to Columbia University
WP:COMMONNAME, a talk page discussion was initiated by me after the 1st move. Editor has not used the talk page and has simply moved it to his preferred term. Bringing it here largely because I could not figure out whether this was a suitable candidate for the edit warring page? WCMemail
15:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, user blocked for 48h, page move reverted--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The user is only interested in two connected articles, which are currently not up to our standards (though notable). They removed {{
advertisement}} three times, after which I warned them and asked whether they are a paid editor. They did not respond and instead removed it for the fourth time by their first edit after warning. I blocked them for 31 h for disruption. I will welcome suggestions on whether the block should be converted to indefinite for undeclared paid editing. I obviously only have circumstancial evidence, I have not seen any ads anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk
got the message about the username but chose to ignore the "promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose" text. I'd say it's UPE. Cabayi (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Even the headshot CMZT uploaded, File:850 1109-Edit21.jpg, "Copyright holder : nancy_coste_photography", "Dr. Susan Saxton on the AUBH Balcony" screams UPE. Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, this is a good argument, I have not noticed that. Unless there are very strong arguments not to, I am going to indefblock the account and semiprotect both articles they were involved into. The article for the rector, Susan E. Saxton, is probably eligible for a speedy as a creation of a blocked sock, but I had in the past some issues with deletions according to this criterion, so I am not sure whether this is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
She doesn't appear to be notable anyway if that's the best sourcing they can come up with. A lot of sources, but none are actually about her apart from the primary ones. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. I re-read
WP:NACADEMIC #6, and she does not pass. Deletion as an article about a non-notable individual is probably the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk
) 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I was reading, and CSD'd per Ymblanter "blocked sock". Let's see. -Roxy the elfin dog .wooF 10:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Only the blocked sock had contributed significantly, so it seemed to fit the criteria to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for reactions. I reblocked the user indef and protected the remaining article for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Quiet socks
Bottom line question up front: what do we do with promotional socks who are not currently active?
I had reported what appeared as a straightforward case of socking -- several similarly named SPAs at two or three closely related articles, account creation times within tens of hours of each other, making promotional edits. The SPI team declined it as they are not currently active, last edit was early this year. Is there anything else to do with this? Do we have a procedure for quiet socks? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I find it is useful to ask them a question, or edit the page they have been socking on, before filing an SPI. That way they may login and provide more recent data for CU that is within the 90 day retention period.
talk
) 21:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s clever! I never thought about that. On the verge of baiting, but seems legit enough. — MarkH21talk 21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I should probably modify that to say I ask if they have a COI, or edit the page to improve it before filing the SPI. Just a matter of doing the usual things, but in the right order. Anyway, this is not really discussion for ANI.
talk
) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive accounts that haven't made any recent edits sometimes don't get blocked. Some admins consider it to be busywork to block an account that hasn't edited in a long time. It depends on the admin and how disruptive the account was, though. Some sock puppeteers have a history of reviving inactive accounts, so all their accounts get blocked as soon as they're discovered. Particularly nasty vandalism sometimes results in a block even if the account is technically too stale for AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin to intervene here please. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do you need an admin? I don't see behavioral problems, I see editors disagreeing with each other, which happens now and again on Wikipedia. Why not start an RfC about the lede image? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Umm, it's a never-ending "discussion" (starting in April 2017) about something that will never happen (smallpox is never going to be illustrated with a bowl of flowers). The who-cares response to a situation like that is to say that an RfC should be held, but there is no clear proposal other than that a small number of people do not want to see a picture of smallpox in the smallpox article (or perhaps not in the lead?). They should be told to make a firm proposal in an RfC. The problem is what to do if they don't follow that advice, but continue complaining. The matter would need ANI attention then. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the "bowl of flowers" folks have a point, I'm just saying that if you hold an RfC, it attracts other (presumably reasonable) editors who drive the consensus towards the common sense outcome, and the question is settled. Then disruptive editing can be dealt with, and an AN/I report is not necessary to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope, use available processes to fix the problem instead of asking for authoritarian intervention to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Good, but who should create what RfC? Rather than an admin telling the newbies to make a proposal or keep quiet, the squash-newbies approach would be to hold an RfC on whether the current image should be endorsed. However, such an RfC is problematic because inevitably people faced with such a question would have a variety of opinions with some thinking another smallpox image would be better etc. IMHO it's really up to anyone wanting a change to make a proposal, then accept the consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Theredproject, per the bright yellow notice at the top of the page when you edit it, you are required to notify users of a filing at ANI on their own talkpages; simply pinging them is insufficient. I have done so for you, but please remember to do so in the future. Grandpallama (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The personal attacks made by this user are extreme and over the top. The thing that also sticks out as over the top is that they have been editing the article
talk
) 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading through the comments, apart from the assertions, there's some obvious
quacking going on, both within the current deletion discussion and connected to the first deletion discussion. It's amazing how all of the SPAs happen to use not just similar language, but similar phrases; for instance, they're all consumed with how coverage is both "national and international". Grandpallama (talk
) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Much as I hate to be on the same side of any argument as Johnpacklambert, he only acts out of incompetence and bone-headedness rather than racism or other bigotry, and everyone else has acted perfectly well. Just block WeAreAllStars.
Yeah I would support a block if someone proposed it. The butchering of the Figueroa article with what is possible the worst editing I have seen here, the original ANI problems and the current instnances of calling people homophobic and white supremacists sort of means the wiki would be better off without them.
talk
) 20:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Musicislife777 is Confirmed to WeAreAllStars, and I've blocked both indefinitely. I'm not really impressed by Phil Bridger's commentary above and would advise keeping such comments to oneself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Why should I keep the truth to myself? Have you ever seen a comment from
This is worse than I thought. The attacker is incapable it seems of probperly writing what I stated. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The failure to properly write the name of an organization someone else belongs to is a clear case of failure to show them respect. I am tired of not being shown respect. I am tempted to point out that as a white man with a black wife, who works as a resource room coordinator at a government Career Center in Detroit where 95% of the participants we seek to assist in training, resume development and other aids to place them in higher paying more fulfilling careers are African-Americans, trying to call me racist flies against the truth. Of course I have also watched American Son and so know that in some circles some feel that pullign the "I have a black wife" card is a way to cover for racism, but it might be relevant here. I am still most mad that the person in attacking me refuses to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the proper way. I have been insulted long and hard enough on Wikipedia that I am ok with it, but I ask others the courtesy of refering to the Church I belong to be its correct name. I seek to grant others the ability to be refered to by their chosen names, and so have sought to increase the frequency of articles where we refer to Utes, Navajo and Lakota instead of using undifferentiated terms that refer to amosphous groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: To what are you referring? The shortening of "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to "Church of Latter-day Saints"? I hardly think that was the intended insult. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Unhelpful snark and ABF from an admin who should know better
Content dispute, per El_C. Filer directed to article talk page. ——Serial# 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:United_States#Issues_with_the_lede and User_talk:Drmies#Talk:United_States_unhelpful_commentary. It is not a positive editing environment to write a constructive critique of numerous factual issues in the lede of one of our most viewed and most important articles, and be met with this sort of insulting, ABF snark from an admin who should know better. I should note that the very same user inserted a blatantly false claim as part of a series of edits to the lede[167] (that Native American slavery was crucial to US economic power into the 19th century) into the lede (although later removed by another editor) and is now going after me for daring to critique the various issues with the lede, including this section. When I spent nearly an hour writing up that talkpage post, fact checking and doing some research as I went, to be met with this response, is completely unconstructive and goes against our principles of a collegial editing environment. I'm not asking for any sanctions, but a formal warning would be nice since Drmies refuses to see the problem and continues to snark at me over a completely good faith critique of an important section of an important article. −−−CactusJack 🌵 15:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This ANI report is premature. There is a content dispute, so use the article talk page by
focusing on content. Adminship is irreverent here. El_C
15:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. I wrote a short essay on the many factual issues with the lede and was met with irrelevant snark that had nothing to do with any of the points I raised. When I asked Drmies to retract they simply dug in further and continued to display astonishing ABF. I don't know if I poked a hornet's nest or something, I just noticed errors regarding a topic I know a lot about, and wanted to take it to the talk page first instead of being bold because it's such a high visibility article and it's important to get things right. It's a GA for chrissakes. And that Drmies is an admin absolutely does matter. Admins should be held to higher standards than other editors, not lower. Power comes with responsibility. −−−CactusJack 🌵 15:09, 12 June 2020 (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.
Killing of George Floyd article repeatedly vandalized
NOT AN ISSUE FOR THIS FORUM
This is a content dispute. Use all the steps outlined in
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edits about the Minneapolis city charter keep getting erased, and I would like help, even if it means a compromise.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
talk
) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
Already have discussed it. Yes, I should be on, as the user is unwilling to type back.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You've 'discussed' it in edit summaries whilst near-edit warring. That isn't an honest attempt to obtain a consensus or resolve the dispute. Please do give
WP:DR a read and at least make an attempt at dispute resolution first. Here, you say you want a compromise, but you haven't even attempted to discuss the matter with EEng
on talk yet, never mind the various other DR processes.
You haven't even followed the process for ANI - you have not left the required notice on EEng's talk.
talk
) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You started the discussion recently; it takes time for others to respond. You should allow time for a discussion and if that fails, use dispute resolution. This does not require an administrator unless there is edit warring, including by you. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal insults by Dan arndt
CLOSED
A.Savin accepts an apology from Dan arndt for an unintentional insult. Deb (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (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 do not think that it was a personal attack. As other people said, including Dan arndt; you may be understanding his claim wrong. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Paranoia is not a mental disorder, rather a thought process which is believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear. It certainly wasn't a personal attack as you seem to assume. Dan arndt (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I never said you had PPD or Paranoid schizophrenia. Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I would just suggest that Dan arndt (talk·contribs) withdraws those comments and the incident can thus be brought to a peaceful close. Deb (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I am all for peace Deb happy to withdraw any insinuation that A.Savin has a mental disorder as that was clearly not what I meant by my comments. Dan arndt (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I would add that if Dan had said that you had a mental disorder, which I'm sure was not what was meant, it would have been an inappropriate medical diagnosis, but not an insult. Some of my best friends have paranoid schizophrenia.
Maybe if A. Savin would quit hounding Dan arndt on his own talkpage, they'd be a little happier? Suggesting that Dan, who's responding to incessant nagging from A. Savin [168][169], should withdraw anything instead of telling A. Savin to find something else to do, seems to miss the point. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh really, I'm hounding them? I just try to find out all the time, why Dan arndt is hounding me, monitoring all my edits, and reverting most of them for void reasons; why my edits are bad by default for them. That said, if I didn't try to talk to them on their page, surely you would have accused me of ignorance or something. Now I tried to discuss -- and am being accused of hounding. Wow. --A.Savin (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh really, I'm hounding them? Yep. Walk away, stay off their talkpage, and go on with your Wikipedia life. If your edits are being hounded, as you claim, start an ANI and provide diffs to that effect; right now, the problem is that you are pestering Dan arndt, not the other way around. Time to let it go. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What?! 'BhagyaMani undid these edits 4 times without giving a single reason and neglected to participate in the opened discussion. His most recent undoes are still misleading: "revised" when it just status quo stonewalls to the old version!
Now BhagyaMani claims that the undoes are okay because "Your proposed changes are NOT consensus", but still refuses to give a single reason against any of the edits. Undoing for the sake of preserving the old version without giving a single reason is disruptive stonewalling. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
BhagyaMani still hits undo for other people's edits as "Test" when they are clearly not tests! AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
BhagyaMani is still undoing my edits as "revised" while this ANI discussion is open. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
C'mon, this stuff is ultra-
WP:LAME. Just live with whatever the first sentence happens to read right now for a day or two, then implement the result of the talk page discussions. Running to AN/I because of a negligible phrasing issue that is in the process of being sorted out is... not a good choice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs
) 16:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
status quo stonewalling
after he was told these are disruptive. You cannot undo an edit 4 consecutive times without giving any reason and neglecting to participate in the opened discussion.
This also was not being sorted out in the talk discussion until after this ANI was opened. AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
User:El C: Isn't this "objecting to an edit on the basis of no consensus alone" that you said should not happen? AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
In the past 10+ years, thousands of my edit summaries contained just 'revised' and reverts just 'test', latter in particular for edits by anonymous and newcomer folk like you. But you are the first who thinks this appropriate to use this as a reason for an ANI. What a stark debut!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani: And that’s how new editors get discouraged from coming back to the project. There’s a cogent point that edit summaries like test and revised shouldn’t be used if they don’t describe what‘s being done nor describe what’s being reverted.Just don’t repeatedly revert if you fail to give a reason and fail to go to the relevant discussion, and use better edit summaries. Also, no consensus isn’t a valid justification if no policy/guideline-based reason has been given.There seems to be a discussion now at the talk page linked above, so there’s nothing to do regarding the underlying content dispute. — MarkH21talk 07:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I indeed gave this user a reason for my reverts on my talk page + suggested to take this to the resp. pages' talk pages. But did not think it necessary to repeat my argument on these talk pages, rather to give other contributors to these pages the chance to reply unbiased. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems that at the time that this ANI thread was opened, the only reason that you gave was that no discussion has taken place? I.e. back to my point that preserving the status quo and no consensus aren’t legitimate reasons.By using clearer edit summaries and avoiding solely status quo-type arguments, we’ll have fewer agitated new editors like the one above and hopefully things will be easier for all of us :) — MarkH21talk 07:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Between late 2017 and about early 2019, the lead sentence of these pages was revised several times by several contributors, until we all agreed on this solution thought optimal by all. Therefore, I did suggest to check the histories of these pages for the consensus reached at the time. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
reverting due solely to "no consensus" is generally ill-advised. El_C
11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure can consensus change over time. Note that in AnomalousAtom's very first edit to these pages, s/he did not provide an edit summary, nor did s/he attempt to seek a new consensus, but only after I suggested to take this to the talk pages of the pages in question. And then s/he reverted the lead sentence before a new consensus was discussed and achieved. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that
bold edits are fine, though an edit summary is preferred. El_C
13:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Magnovvig and irreconcilable personal attack issues
I've been dealing with edits and comments from Magnovvig for a few days now, and based on what Magnovvig themself actually described as a clear provocation to [me] and only [me][170] I read more of their talk page and I feel their routine hostile attitude and personal attacks need to be addressed.
From this talk page, it is evident that the user has never employed a courteous tone and routinely seeks to belittle or mock editors that seek to discuss with them, especially RexxS. The first comment by Magnovvig on their talk page is the passive-aggressive thanks for your help. It would be even more helpful if someone were to amend the (cumbersome) AfC process to inform editors of the Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects in order that we would not need to have this conversation. Following that, there is your last full sentence is nonsense. Although I disagree with your deletion of the word "thwart", I have amended the language to which you object - in this case relating to insertion of said NPOV language on a controversial political article.
Some of the worst has to be the openly insulting and degrading language used to speak to an administrator who was merely asking for Magnovvig to use sources more accurately, starting in the User talk:Magnovvig#Neil Ferguson section: Are you naive or just a hack? and then Only because you have more seniority in this forum than me and can use it to silence me, I will back off my edits, which is openly asserting Magnovvig's belief that RexxS would block them in bad faith. In a separate discussion, Magnovvig brought up RexxS's editing as an excuse for their own mistake, and continued to insult him. RexxS tried to politely engage, and was responded to with this: What is the problem with my behaviour? Do tell. How dare you touch my talk page comments. You seek to tilt the playing field to your advantage. That's not very gentlemanly of you, is it? I refuse to lower myself to your level. We could honestly keep going with comments towards RexxS, but let's jump to users Magnovvig should have nothing against:
An editor tried to address a misunderstanding at
Isolated protein
, and was attacked with rather than delete and destroy my work; when asked not to machine-translate articles, Magnovvig responded oh is there an official guidance on that? I'm surprised at your remark; when asked not to add unsourced information or edit war, they said FYI your edits make no sense. Did you not read the tags that I sent? If you like we can just strip Michael Hood of his chestful of medals. Are you that unfriendly to the armed services? I puzzle at your behaviour, to put it very mildly.
And then the issues that brought me here. I tried to openly discuss their disruptive changes to the title of Hong Kong national security law - perhaps it could be improved, but as a current and controversial article, moves should be discussed, and it should not be moved to the incorrect titles Magnovvig did. I tried to reason with them, only to be attacked when I didn't just bow down, with the belittling comments Wiki needs to reflect reality, to tell it as it is. Is this clear now? and I made the second move to fix your mistake. I ignored them, and explained the issues again (in case you're interested, naming the article 'bill' when 1. it's about more than the current attempt, and 2. there isn't even a current bill). Magnovvig's comment this time began with You premise is mistaken, so I have difficulty with everything else you've written. You're flying off into barking madness with your "theory" comment and ended with Side note: have you declared your interest (pecuniary or otherwise) in this topic?, subtly accusing me of paid editing without even a hint of reason to suspect it. Guess what, I ignored this again, even saying I agreed with them on some of their comments about a different article. This was pointless, because they then openly attacked me in an edit reason at the article [171]. When I left a warning comment about it, they said Come on @Kingsif: if you can't understand a clear provocation to you and only you, you need to back off, admitting to a personal attack and effectively calling me dumb for not taking it, then saying they added a completely fictional unsourced opinion to the lead because I knew that it would get your attention and thereby receive your attention. I have no idea what this guy's MO is, but it looks to be baiting and attacking anyone that calls out their bad edits. I think the best course of action is a block, but short of that an official warning that they will be banned if any more personal attacks are made seems necessary.
Pinging both @Magnovvig and RexxS: because of involvement. Note that this mountain of offenses does stretch back to September 2019, but is mostly in the past few months, which seems truly remarkable. (Feel free to collapse some of this comment if appropriate, I know it's long) Kingsif (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised at @Kingsif:'s behaviour. As only one example above: rather than delete and destroy my work is a legitimate complaint.
I have been here since 21 September 2019. How would I have made 3,353 contributions if I never employed a courteous tone? This is quite honestly risible and abusive. There is no routine hostile attitude because I haven't been questioned on my talk page more than a handful of times. For example, I'm quite happy with my behaviour on
Isolated protein
. What is there to complain about in this instance? I made a query in language that elicited the response I sought. It is Kingsif who is seeing things through a distorted prism.
The Michael Hood page is an good example. There were three editors involved in that instance. I was surprised by editor 2 when he removed the text which merely repeated what was indicated by the medals in the diagram, **without removing the diagram**. If you remove the one logically you must remove the other. So I said If you like we can just strip Michael Hood of his chestful of medals. because I was honestly puzzled. Why remove the text and not the diagram? I received my reply implicitly when editor 2 removed the diagram. Ok! This made sense to me. Remove the text AND the diagram. Great! The Michael Hood wiki made sense to me once more. I made no fuss with his threat to block me never mind that I simply restored material from another editor. User:Dormskirk's conduct here was distasteful but I let it slide. Hey. Wait a minute. Doesn't that contradict Kingsif's assertion? Well I digress. Getting back to the main point, lo and behold, editor 3 came to the rescue of Michael Hood: S/he pointed out the photograph in some article **which showed Michael Hood's chestful of medals**, and the diagram and the text were restored. And I didn't need to restore them. They came on their own out of the woodwork as it were. So editor 2 and editor 3 and I were able to progress Michael Hood's page rapidly and with a minimum of fuss. That is a success story for group editing with global editors if I ever saw one. Again, Kingsif sees things that aren't there.
If I helped to bring Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist)'s behaviour to light in the tiniest fashion by my editorial conflict with RexxS I will have done my job. I did nothing more than to bring to wiki certain inconveniences that were on the record but not wiki. So what if I ruffled a few feathers along the way? Evidently it needed to be done.
With respect to the (misnamed!) Hong Kong national security law page: I am satisfied with my behaviour. Kingsif may not like it, but starting with the headnotes the page was a mess. I'm glad it was improved indirectly by my edit... And it is a **bill**. Wiki is inaccurate and wiki misleads readers. Yay team!
I wish that Kingsif would retract at least the words routine hostile behaviour and the sentence which includes never because they are grossly abusive. And I wish that this grossly abusive conduct be noted on the User talk:Kingsif page. Magnovvig (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not normally post here but I have to say that I found the comment Are you that unfriendly to the armed services? really quite distressing when I received it on VE day. Magnovvig has so far not apologised. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
As evidenced by the 'defense' above, Magnovvig either can't see or is unwilling to see that the issue is less the content, but their comments and interactions with other editors. And in said 'defense', they openly admit: I made a query in language that elicited the response I sought [...] So what if I ruffled a few feathers along the way? Evidently it needed to be done. They also write that I must be deluded to accuse them, a final form of weak defense and something they have done in past comments to other editors, which is gaslighting. Well done, Magnovvig, I think you argued this one for me. Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This user contributes on Romanian football articles, like I do. I added a lot of content on pages like Florinel Coman, Darius Olaru and Dennis Man, which he continues to remove and add back his poorly-written content with unsourced phrases like “one of the best in Romania”, “has been compared to [one of the best players in the world]”. Also, most of what he writes about is “rejected” offers from other teams which are mostly fake or unverified.
I appreciate that he is updating player stats, but this has to stop. Instead of at least merging my content with his he just removes it completely, even after being warned by an admin and by me personally. Here are some difference links:
Florinel Coman 12 June - he then proceeds to undo his own edit and bring my content back]
Dennis Man 12 June - removed parts of a reference I added and adding back gibberish about rejected offers (I write about rumours too, but his are just obviously fake) and promoting the players of the club he supports (“One of the brightest wingers in Romania”)
I’m tired of reverting his edits, I don’t want to get in an editwar. He has been warned already, amd he just won’t stop.8Dodo8 (talk·contribs) 10:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This user has replaced our trimmed and despammed article
WP:GS/CRYPTO
in September 2019 when they last tried to do the same thing with this article, and was briefly blocked at the time. I reverted and warned them again today, and they immediately reverted back to their unsourced promotional version.
I have a conflict of interest with this topic so would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to intervene. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeffed with first year and topic ban under community sanctions. I also hit the article with indefinite ECP for good measure. MER-C 14:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous editor defaming living person in edit summaries
The following discussion is closed. 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 78.144.90.55 is defaming this living person in edit summaries here and here. The first of those edits removed material supported by RS (which indicates “Piers Robinson, a scholar of the CNN effect at the University of Sheffield …”).
How to handle? Block, ban, sock puppet check? (I’m new at such issues.) Humanengr (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the edit summaries. Looks like the user was issued a warning for adding defamation after the fact and has not edited since then so I don't think there's anything else we need to do here. You were right to come here though, and please re-report if necessary so we can block them. ~Swarm~{sting} 21:57, 13 June 2020 (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.
Talk:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
User has been warned, instructed to review BLP, and made clear on the fact that Twitter is not a reliable source. Nothing left to do here. ~Swarm~{sting} 22:07, 13 June 2020 (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:PRIMARY source situation, it's a partisan's opinion on that person's behavior. On NedFausa's talk page, where I was about to go, he said this should go to AN/I. So, I'm bringing it here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping
! 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit was not
revedeleted. And it wasn't revedleted by NedFausa, who is not an admin. It was revdeleted by Guerillero. And rightly so, that edit is a severe BLP violation! El_C
01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Oh, thank you for helping me get the facts straight! I'm so sorry, I didn't know there was a difference between revdeletion and oversighting. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping! 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not really the point. You've attributed something to the wrong person. You've also failed to understand the nature and gravity of the violation itself. El_C 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that you've now apologized to NedFausa for the oversight (pun not intended). Thanks for doing that. El_C 01:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: No problem. I don't think I have failed to understand the gravity at all, given I immediately brought this to AN/I, even without checking whether or not NedFausa was an admin, on the assumption that he told them to go to AN/I because he is an admin and this is the place to complain about one. I've put an {{ANI-notice}} on Guerillero's talk page. Once again, sorry about that, next time I will be sure to look at the log and not make any assumptions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping! 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but what are you complaining about? That's what I mean when I refer to your failure to understand the nature and gravity of the (
For admins: the revdeleted edit in question is here. El_C 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, warnings from
WP:RD2 and Skarz continues to advocate for its addition, I believe that a further warning from an admin who can see the deleted material is warranted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping
! 02:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood the nature of your complaint. I will have a word with them. Thanks for bearing with me! El_C 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Similar material is being added to the Raz Simone page as well, linked to sources that do not support the claim being made. Grandpallama (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have semiprotected that page and revdeleted the edits (I think I got em all). I have also warned Skarz about making
NEWBLPBAN, I think we are done here. Thanks to EL_C for their admin actions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi
02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
So wait everyone is upset because I was informed that my edit violated a policy (still have not had that one explained to me) and I tried to have a discusson on the Talk page and now I'm somehow inciting a riot and disrupting the peace? This CHAZ situation has been developing for less than 36 hours and has a full-fledged article on it. I don't appreciate the allegations and chastising when I'm simply adding information to an on going event based on events that are actually happening (video evidence). Skarz (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Request a link to Wikipedia policy on using live video as a reliable source? So if mainstream media doesn't pick this up (doesn't look like they will at this point) this incredibly important event just fades in to the oblivion and goes unnoticed? What's the point of Wikipedia then if you are not documenting attempted usurpation of powers in an event that is important enough to have its own article? Skarz (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
<redacted> - Skarz (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You really can't help yourself, can you? Go ask on the article talk page WITHOUT REPEATING THE BLP-VIOLATING CLAIMS and see what reception you get. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:HOUNDING. Counter to Calton's suggestion, he never brought the issue to the talk page, and is now trying to attack me for perceived errors (even after my concession) in which he was not related. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping
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.
Unanimous support for an indefinite community ban for harassment. JzG, will you do the blocking honours? Thanks. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please have a word with User:89.159.44.130? He or she is posting harassing messages on my User Talk page. This morning, I also received a harassing e-mail message - sent to my work account, sent to one of my personal accounts, and copied to others at my employer and Wikimedia staff - presumably from the same person. He or she is also using37.165.33.241 so a CU may be illuminating although the harassment is not (yet) so widespread and persistent that I suspect a sophisticated operation. This same editor also posted similar harassment on Dawnseeker2000's User Talk page, too. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ ElKevbo
Please stop to lie and stop to abuse your moderator power on Wikipedia. What you are saying is UNTRUE.
You are removing content unfairly while keeping similar pages and content.
Can you post the email you talk about here so that everyone can read?
It is simply a complaint against your autocratic behaviors on Wikipedia, no more no less.
You are damaging the popularity of Wikipedia by your autocratic behavior. Wikipedia is popular because it is open and transparent. Do not damage it with your personal ego.
If you continue to remove contents, I will stop to use Wikipedia and to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.44.130 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: - this not not "harassment". Do you have any other diffs which show behaviour from the IP what requires administrator intervention? Please also note that CUs will not link IP addresses. GiantSnowman 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Are you seriously saying that multiple messages posted to my User Talk page accusing me of lying and abusing my "moderator power" - posted using multiple IP addresses including one message posted after I deleted the previous one - is not harassment? Are you really telling all of us that an editor looking up another editor's personal and work e-mail addresses - not using Wikipedia's built-in e-mail function - and sending that editor, his employer, and Wikimedia staff the same kind of message as he or she wrote above is not harassment? If that is your stance then you need to resign your admin bit; harassment of Wikipedia editors is a serious problem and if you can't help address the problem then you can at least not dissuade others from trying to address and stop gaslighting editors who are being harassed. ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: The opening remark from the IP was "Why are you removing referenced contents from Wikipedia?" - the dispute then escalated because you did not respond to that reasonable comment, but stuck your fingers in your ears, getting them annoyed. Can you provide me with a diff of the dispute so I can understand what's going on? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, sorry but I don't see any point here where the IP first made a "reasonable comment" and then ElKevbo failed to respond. I'm also not seeing any "escalation" afterwards. The only thing I'm seeing is the IP – evidently some kind of COI/fringe-pusher – coming to ElKevbo straight away with guns blazing, with a stream of wild, personalizing accusations. And whether or not you find that first message over the top enough to count as harassment, the mails to off-wiki third parties are clearly far beyond the pale. This needs an immediate block. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know; they haven't provided any specific details and the messages to my User Talk page and the e-mail message was the first time that I heard from him or her. Maybe it's related to this article but I don't know. He or she does appear to be editing solely to promote one specific author/researcher and many of those edits have been removed by multiple editors so I have no idea why he or she has decided to target me with wild, vague accusations. I did specifically ask if he or she is connected to that author/researcher but he or she has not responded to that question. ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: You posted one diff - now you complain about multiple messages. Like Ritchie asks for, we need evidence. GiantSnowman 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two links in my original message and you also have ready access to the contribution history of both IP addresses which are rather short. And if you don't see the messages I've shared - they're similar in tone and comment to the ridiculous message posted above by this editor - as harassing then you need to reevaluate your standards about what you think is acceptable for Wikipedia editors to write about and accuse one another of doing and being. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm disengaging from this thread and removing ANI from my watchlist; please post a message at my User Talk page if you need anything else from me. If the information that has already been shared doesn't convince you that there is a problem here then I can't convince you. It shouldn't be acceptable for editors to make the accusations that have been made, post multiple messages to User Talk pages making these accusations, and e-mail editors and their employer to repeat the same accusations; if administrators can't understand that then I'm afraid that this volunteer-run project is in deep trouble. ElKevbo (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, ElKevbo is a long-established and respected editor. If he says emails were sent to his employer, we can believe him, and that's harassment for sure. If he needs to submit evidence to OTRS or whatever, I guess so, but this committed skepticism is uncalled for. EEng 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng, yes, we should take claims like that at face value from established editors. The lack of any actual detail of what the dispute might be doesn't obscure that fact. On the face of it, this is a disgruntled refspammer. I am minded to prevent this bullshit wiuth an edit filter for now. What do others think? Guy (help!) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add my little voice to EENg and JzG. astonishing. -Roxy the elfin dog .wooF 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Especially since the IP admitted the emails were sent... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) If people want to check on the original editorial dispute, see the last two dozen article edits by 89.159.44.130. The IP keeps on posting mentions of a scholar named Khaled Moustafa to a variety of different articles. He also wants to promote a new Arabic-language preprint server called arabixiv.org, created by Khaled Moustafa. The IP user has protested indignantly against recent admin actions at User talk:89.159.44.130, in threads like 'Stop to abuse of your moderator position'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Per Alex Noble's link above, I confirm ElKevbo's story: there was an email sent to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], email addresses that appear to be ElKevbo's personal and work emails, and an email address that appears to belong to his employer. The email complained about ElKevbo's "autocratic" actions, stated that "a lot of people are complaining about [it]," and threatened to stop donating to Wikipedia, among other statements, and was generally similar in tone and content to the IP's post here and on ElKevbo's talk page. No further confirmation from ElKevbo should be necessary.
</hat>
talk
) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Creffett, I think there's a "FOAD" template for that on OTRS. Guy (help!
) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Khaled Moustafa
The IP in question is essentially a
WP:SPA devoted to adding articles and content related to Khaled Moustafa. This appears to have been going on sporadically since 2014, all from IPs allocated to SFR
(mainly through its Numericable / Gaoland acquisition).
Not cool indeed. An edit filter like you suggested above would be cool though. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
In Impact factor the reference removed as "spam"[172] was added as one of two sources for the sentence before it; it was not just added as a reference with no content - both were published in Science and Engineering Ethics. Based on Special:Contributions/Corio, if one of the references is spam it's more likely the one that's still in the article. Peter James (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Peter James, that journal rings a bell. It's also where Brian Martin (social scientist) published his diatribe about how biased Wikipedia is because it is less glowing about him than about all the other social scientists who don't have a history of publishing or enabling anti-vaccine conspiracist bullshit.
I am beginning to wonder whether it functions as the axe-grinders' journal of choice? Guy (help!) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support sanction. Posting confrontational notices on El Kevbo's talk page is one thing. Reseaching their real-life identity and sending a message to their employer is altogether different and totally, totally unacceptable. The subject user has admitted sending such a message. This kind of conduct is chilling and needs to be met with a strong sanction, preferably a block, IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a block would be lenient. Off-wiki harassment that includes emailing an editor's employer (potentially compromising their job) should result in a community ban IMO. Number57 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, sod blocks, that's siteban material. Guy (help!) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Site ban sounds good. My message was meant to express outrage at the extraordinary off wiki harassment presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The obvious...
The anonymous SFR user promoting Khaled Moustafa is indefinitely banned for harassment.
Support. I haven't looked at the on-wiki stuff, but contacting someone's employer about a content dispute on Wikipedia is clear cut harassment and must not be tolerated. GirthSummit (blether) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Number57 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. Door. Backside. Don't let it hit on the way out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. "You won't be seeing that guy again". ——Serial# 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Unacceptable behaviour.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong support and indef block for these IPs. Harassment is not excusable at that scale. I would like to give IPs chances normally, but this time i am not.
Support and it should have been immediate. Further, not that we get any say in this, the WMF should push the authorities in whatever country it is applicable to prosecute the offender if possible under their laws. John from Idegon (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support an indef block and site ban. Contacting your employer, really? This level of off-wiki harassment is completely unacceptable, and I agree with John from Idegon that the WMF should look into possible legal action, and I would appreciate an update. If we can't make our editors feel safe, we risk serious damage to the community. I see substantial and unanimous support here, so please enact the remedy at once, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per all, make it official already. The Moose 04:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Support, harassment is inexcusable.--Hippeus (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2020 (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.
LTA or not, they're edit warring, so I think a block is in order, longer if they're the LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Both IPs blocked for 3 months. Article protected and offensive revisions revdeleted. Between myself and Ad Orientem, I think we got it sorted. El_C 03:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Admin teamwork! Well done, you administrative free-lancers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is nice to see the American monarchist administrator cooperating with the administrator who has a little shrine to V. I. Lenin on his user page. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have always had great respect for Ad Orientem. His politics was never factored in in my admiration for his professionalism and sound judgement. El_C 17:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, could you mark this as resolved for me? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:49, 14 June 2020 (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 DC talk page and the main page. Unfortunately, he refuses to respect RfC consensus and has attempted to come up with various reasons to take matters into his own hands and simply disregard that consensus. He refuses to reconsider his behaviour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Darryl refuses to listen here. For months, the standard was that only the top two candidates went in the infobox because everyone except Biden had withdrawn. There was no pushback and I didn’t even think twice about it. The second place candidate, usually Sanders, went up because of a 2017 Rfc stating that there always had to be at least two candidates. There is an Rfc that I participated in and strongly agree with stating that candidates should go in the infobox if they get more than 5% of the vote, but nowhere in this Rfc does it say that this includes candidates that have withdrawn, and clearly that’s how everyone except Darryl interpreted it because that’s how it’s been for months. The only reason other candidates are included in
2020 Democratic presidential primaries is because they won a contest. Darryl clearly has no consensus for the changes since it’s been like this for months, there is no reason to accuse me of going against the 5% rule. It makes no sense to include candidates that have withdrawn inside the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary. They belong in the results table. If Darryl wants to change what’s been the standard for months with no pushback until now, a consensus is needed. My behavior has not been disruptive in the slightest, I am simply protecting the standard. Smith0124 (talk
) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
As you have been told, the recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so. It was also considered in the context of the main page, again no consensus to remove. The consensus reached was to include all candidates which receive 5% of the vote. As you have been told before, if you don't like it start another RfC, but you don't just get to disregard the consensus reached.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
No consensus means no consensus. Not that they should be included. Clearly that's how everyone else saw it. Smith0124 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This is what I mean when I say Darryl doesn't listen. The consensus is for candidates still running, that's how it's been interpreted on all these pages for months, with no pushback. No consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been to not include them. I hate repeating the same thing over and over. Smith0124 (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not how it was uniformly applied, and that was while the RfC was underway. We now have a positive consensus from the RfC. You are also disregarding the fact that, many articles had a de facto loose polling consensus for before the contest actually happened. That meant that only Sanders and Biden were in the infobox for most articles before the election occurred. After the contest (when we have reliable data/votes) we have a consensus that ALL CANDIDATES THAT RECEIVE 5% ARE INCLUDED IN THE INFOBOX. What part of the RfC consensus do you not understand? I can only explain it so many times.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You admitted that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates. No consensus. I agree with you that there is a consensus to put candidates who have more than 5% of the vote, but by saying there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates they are clearly separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. They are clearly separated in this consensus and that's how it's been on the state by state pages for months. If you want to get a consensus to change that, go ahead, but there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates. Smith0124 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
There IS A CONSENSUS to include all candidates that receive 5%. If you don't want to follow that consensus, start a RfC to reconsider it. The current consensus is to include them. Simply asserting a new criteria to ignore that consensus is disruptive and not appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"The recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so" in your own words. No consensus means you shouldn't break the standard. If there had been a consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates I would agree with you. The standard for months has been to not include the withdrawn candidates, and as you said there's no consensus, so if you want to change the standard for the state by state pages that have not included them for months I encourage you to get a consensus. Your words prove my point, I'm sick of arguing and I've presented my argument which I believe settles this. If you want to keep ranting in all caps go ahead. This is my last response until we get a third person involved because this is getting us nowhere. Smith0124 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
What part of this do you not understand? There was no consensus to remove withdrawn candidates (you insist on doing so anyway). There is consensus to include all candidates that receive 5% of the vote after a contest (you refuse to do so). You are disrupting the application of the consensus that was reached. STOP.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have to respond to this I'm sorry. It wasn't just me, it was basically everyone else. These are commonly edited pages that are edited by a lot of different people, plenty of these people could've objected in April or May but not a single person did until now. That is because everyone else that has edited these pages in the past few months realizes that the consensus on the Rfc didn't apply to withdrawn candidates, that by saying there was no consensus on withdrawn candidates the Rfc was separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. I could just as easily say that there was no consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates because it means the same thing. It is not just me. That's why I say it's the standard, because everyone else who has made these infoboxes has done the exact same thing as me. The only way to prove me wrong on that is to start an Rfc yourself on withdrawn candidates specifically and get a consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The recent RfC was closed on May 22. Before that, we didn't know for sure what the consensus was. But you had agreed in this participant discussion, meant to narrow the issues, that the consensus was "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in result infoboxes if they have earned a delegate OR 5% Popular Vote in that race." Many of the sub-articles edited in April and May concerned contests that had not closed, so as I said only Sanders and Biden were included before the election (on the view that others were not polling above 5%). In other sub-articles, only Biden or Sanders received over 5%, so after the primary only they were included in the infobox. But none of that matters, because when the RfC closed on May 22 the consensus was to include all candidates who received over 5%. I have spent far too much time trying to explain things to you, which you are either unable or unwilling to understand. I will try not to respond further and instead try to let others explain why you can't just disregard consensus you don't like.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I will also wait for a third person. But I will say that the close was on March 10, it was archived on May 22. The most recent message from anyone on that section that I could find was on April 9th, though substantial discussion about the consensus largely ended on March 22. Smith0124 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, what are you talking about? The RfC was closed by SpinningSpark on May 22, 2020. They added closing comments then... you know... when it closed. It remains un-archived on the regular talk page, not in archives.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That was just a brief statement. Davemoth wrote up the consensus on March 10. Nobody objected to part B. The consensus was effectively reached then and it was used from then on, the May 22 statement came months after and was only done so it could be archived. Users were well aware of the consensus months before May 22. To this day there is still no consensus on withdrawn candidates as stated in that Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That was a participant discussion meant to narrow the issues and make a formal close easier for the impartial closer. Davemoth (an involved party) never purported to close the RfC and it continued until it was formally closed by SpinningSpark on May 22.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Davemoth had every intention of establishing a consensus, as that's exactly what he/she did. Substantial discussion largely ended on March 22. By then everyone probably read Davemoth's consensus and that was what was used from then on. Smith0124 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Smith0124, I am not sure which part of "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest or received 5% of the vote" is confusing. Consensus seems pretty clear there, and the consensus for withdrawn candidates was not determined for the main article. Why don't you just open up another RfC that simply asks "Should withdrawn candidates be removed from the infoboxes of the individual primary articles?"? A. Yes, if they did not receive a delegate or received less than 5% of the vote. B. Yes, all withdrawn candidates should be removed. C. No, they should not be removed under any circumstances. You have to be specific with your RfCs otherwise you end up with unfocused discussion and impossible to evaluate consensus. Nihlus 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If the consensus was clear on withdrawn candidates, it wouldn't have taken all the way from March 10 to early June for someone to pushback on the notion that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, as said in the Rfc. The May 22nd closer did mention that he/she thought the Rfc was unclear. I fully agree that a new Rfc is the best solution, but until then the months old standard of removing the withdrawn candidates unless we need a second face in the infobox should stay. That's the rules I believe, the standard sticks until there is consensus to change it. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This RfC was for the main page. I don't see a consensus to remove or keep withdrawn candidates from the individual primary pages on that page, however. I think the best thing would be to keep whatever was in the articles prior to today and to start a new RfC as mentioned above. There is no sense in edit warring over that while the discussion is taking place. Nihlus 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
My way is the initial way. I can make an Rfc, I assume it should go on
I am not familiar with where most discussion for those pages takes place, but given that the talk page has been used before, I imagine that would be fine. Nihlus 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s where the initial Rfc was. Thank you so much for helping us sort this out! I very much appreciate it. Smith0124 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This RfC was for the sub-pages. It says we include them. If Smith wants to do a new RfC he can have at it, but the existing consensus is to include them. We are not going to erase candidates who have received significant support from the infoboxes pending the two months it will take for that RfC to run its course, after we just did that. How many RfC's do we need to hold for participants to respect the consensus that is reached in them? Another editor went through and removed them saying only candidates that received delegates should be included, though they accepted the consensus when pointed to the RfC. Smith hasn't even articulated a clear standard here. He has removed some candidates that have withdrawn, and not others. He thinks only one withdrawn candidate can be included, because apparently there is some unwritten rule of two. Otherwise, only Joe Biden would be in any of the infoboxes. He has removed Bloomberg from the Minnesota despite the fact that he withdrew the day after, and left in a Warren as a third candidate for some unknown reason. He has removed Warren from Washington despite the fact that she had not withdrawn when voting began. Are we really going to refuse to implement the RfC consensus and instead just use the Smith says so (based on nothing) standard? I do not accept, that we ignore the RfC consensus until a new RfC is done. Withdrawn candidates were considered in that RfC and consensus was all candidates who receive 5% are included, not all but those who have withdrawn.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NORUSH to get this resolved and fixed immediately. Nihlus
05:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The consensus in that RfC clearly states that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. There was not a significant debate in that RfC about withdrawn candidates, but it was considered and discussed in passing and nonetheless the consensus formed was that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. Now one editor is trying to claim that it was always accepted that withdrawn candidates had to be excluded. He has not even been applying that standard uniformity. I am sure there is no rush for
WP:RFCEND, it can be closed early for many reasons. With the way the votes are going now, it appears a consensus will be formed sooner rather than later. I understand things are a bit heated, and it probably seems overly bureaucratic, but you'll be in a better position to handle future conflicts going down this route. Nihlus
06:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, RfCs can in theory be closed after less than a month, and a close can come earlier, but in my experience they tend to take two months or longer from open to close. I invited Smith to start one early on to alter the consensus as he is proposing, but he decided instead to make edits contrary to the existing consensus, then start this RfC and demand the "status quo" (that he unilaterally created) be maintained. What is to stop him from finding a new reason to refuse to follow the next RfC consensus? Nothing apparently.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
This Rfc is very specific and straightforward. I promise to follow it. You can take my word on it. Smith0124 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This user has also been removing polls that they deem unimportant based on their own personal criteria, for which they do not have a consensus for. I noticed this at 2020 United States Senate election in Maine but they have done this elsewhere. I've asked them to gain consensus for their criteria and self-revert but they have declined. (the polling was restored first by me and then by someone else) 331dot (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
That polling is junk. It assumes that the primary elections won’t happen and pits either a bunch of Republicans against one Democrat in the same poll or vise versa. That’s not how an election works, that’s why primaries exist. We need to not include them because they are deeply misleading and don’t represent the actual election. It’s something that would never happen. Smith0124 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:BRDDISCUSS specifically would be helpful for you as well. If your edit is challenged, it's best to discuss it rather than edit war about it. Nihlus
20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Smith0124 That's your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but you cannot impose it by fiat. This is a community and you need consensus for your change, especially since you seem to have some sort of personal criteria as to what you deem to be a 'junk' poll and what you don't. All I am asking is that you be more collaborative and seek a consensus for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
PutItOnAMap had a good solution which was to combine all the Democratic and Republican candidates and put a note about how much each candidate got on their own. You can see what I mean on 2020 Montana gubernatorial election. We are in agreement so let's just leave it at that. Smith0124 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think all polls matter to provide a full picture of how the election developed, so I see nothing wrong with the way things were prior to your edits. I await any consensus you develop. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Easy solution: Have different inclusion criteria for infoboxes of elections & infoboxes of primaries/caucuses. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Interaction Ban
I would like an indefinite interaction ban for me and Darryl Kerrigan. Don’t care if it’s one way or two way because even if it’s one way I’m gonna not talk to him/her ever again. I would like Darryl banned from my talk page. It would also be nice if someone tried to calm Darryl down and ask him/her to stop arguing. Darryl refuses to stop arguing after an earlier incident here was settled, and I can’t stand it. It’s been two days of Darryl finding every place he/she can to complain about me and how I’m a horrible person trying to break every Wikipedia rule in existence when all I did was put up an Rfc about withdrawn candidates, something that was not specifically addressed in a previous Rfc on infobox criteria for political candidates. Not only does Darryl refuse to assume good faith, but I keep having to be dragged into the same argument over and over, as Darryl refuses to stop, calm down, and let the Rfc play out, saying it’s “a stain on the organization”. I don’t want to discuss the Rfc any further because I’m sick of talking about it, I just want this interaction ban. Thanks. Smith0124 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that you avoid notifying administrators of this discussion as it could be seen as
WP:CANVASSING. You are free to ask that others not comment on your user talk page without a formal ban. (maybe you have) 331dot (talk
) 09:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize. I’m just very upset about this whole thing. I would like a formal ban though. Darryl doesn’t know how to stop, I’ve asked him/her to multiple times and it’s not just my talk page. Smith0124 (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: I’m not exactly sure what you mean by diffs but the endless arguing by Darryl has spawned across my talk page, [[Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#:::@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
A diff refers to linking to the actual edit demonstrating what you claim; the following is me linking to my last edit to this page: this diff. You find these in the edit history of the relevant page. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I oppose an indefinite interaction ban.
I asked for a formal close. He went to the Requests for Closure page to oppose any close, and then ten minutes later came here to propose a interaction ban. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
) 14:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: This is exactly why I need an interaction ban. This is now like the sixth place Darryl has argued this and he’s already failed four times. Doesn’t know when to stop.Smith0124 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't exactly propose a indefinite ban against me, and expect me not to respond.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I was proposing it because you won’t stop arguing. I’ve heard your points a million times now. Responding by starting the same argument again is just proving my point. You’ve made yourself loud and clear, it’s time to walk away from the matter until the Rfc closes. I specifically asked in my request not to talk about the Rfc, which you clearly ignored. Smith0124 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Your RfC is invalid, as you have been told by others. As is the way in which you are trying to use it to freeze your edits in place. It is completely appropriate for me to ask for a formal close and attempt to get this matter resolved quickly. Leaving your edits in place for the time you think the RfC should be allowed to run its course is disruptive. Demanding that I not bring up your RfC (a big part of why we are here) is not helpful either. Nor is making edits to the ANI page to try to recast things.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Still can’t stop arguing. Please keep proving my point and telling everyone why we need this interaction ban for me because you’re doing a great job of that. Smith0124 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@
edit something else or work towards improving those articles in a separate way. You are the one who is going to come out of this situation looking bad if you don't cool your jets. Nihlus
17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem staying off his talk page (as I have already agreed to do), but I will respond to his allegations against me here if necessary. I will only respond at
WP:BREATHER that only leaves these invalid edits in place and RfC ongoing, means that the wound will continue to fester. Refusing to address the underlying issues here is a problem. It is not going to be fixed by walking away and ignoring it. I brought this to talk pages, and then here to try to resolve the issue. I have not edit warred with Smith. But if the issue is not addressed this is going to continue to be a problem.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Deescalating is not the same thing as ignoring. The RfC will be closed soon enough and then everyone can move forward with that consensus. Nihlus 17:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be. Nihlus, I will do my best not to ruffle feathers. But telling me not to revert edits that were against consensus in the first place, not push for a close of a RfC that is disruptive and others have called invalid, while doing nothing else to remedy this, IS ignoring the problem. If the community can't or won't deal with disruptive behaviour, then we are failing. Justice delayed is justice denied. Sometimes the deadline is now. If Smith didn't believe so also, he wouldn't have ensured his edits were the "status quo" before he launched his RfC. I hope we can deal with the underlying issues because a breather is not going to remedy them. If you have any suggestions to resolve this issue promptly, I would be more than happy to hear them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I will not interact for as long as needed to deescalate. Wikipedia rules are that things stay the initial way until a consensus is reached, and how the articles are now is the initial way because it’s how they’ve been since the start. So let’s just wait for the Rfc to close as Nihilus said. Smith0124 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
In the spirit of not interacting with Smith0124, I would appreciate if someone else could undo this edit in which he has hidden my request for a speedy close. It is not appropriate for him to alter talk pages in this way. A previous edit doing the same was already undone by another editor. Now Smith0124 seems to be warring about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My gosh, PLEASE stop accusing me. I didn't revert your edit I only saw that you had a problem with it on this page after I did it. I'd like to take a breather too but you're making it impossible by continuing to accuse. So don't even reply to this and let's call this the start of the breather. If you don't like the edit then have someone revert it. It was just bad timing. Smith0124 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, it has been another day. Can we maybe deal with the underlying issue now? The original RfC which created the consensus, that is now being ignored, was started on February 26. We are now well into June. The RfC that was started to re-litigate this matter has now been running for three days. We are currently at seven votes to respect the consensus and one (the opener) against. Can we move on? I am trying to be respectful here, but our failure to deal with this in any sort of timely way is mindbendingly frustrating. If the deadline wasn't now in February, if it is not now now, then when? How long do we put up with the nonsense?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Admins are unlikely to mess with this
wall of text of back and forth arguing. Either way, this is not likely to rise into an incident requiring admin intervention. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it became clear the underlying issues were not going to be addressed here. If matters like these are not dealt with swiftly they tend to fester into
WP:WALLSOFTEXT, as you say. I have gone ahead and closed the RfC and restored the sub-pages inline with consensus. Hopefully, that is all on this matter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Darryl and I were told to take a breather. Darryl obeyed for about 16 hours or so and then reverted all the edits he/she was not supposed to revert until the Rfc closes. This is proof that we need an interaction ban, the guy never stops. I already promised to obey the results of the Rfc, Darryl just has to wait for the process to play out fairly. Wikipedia rules state that in a dispute the edits remain how they’ve been and they’ve been my way since the beginning. Smith0124 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We discussed a breather of a day, more than two days ago. I respected that, but I was clear I wanted the underlying issue dealt with. You had time to think over your behaviour and what folks were telling you, about withdrawing your RfC and putting down the stick. It is clear you have decided not to. A "breather" is not a tool to maintain your disruptive edits indefinitely, unless you ARE indeed
I don't take orders from you. Only you have asked that I "put down the stick". No matter how many times you say the same thing I'm not listening to you as you are not my boss. Smith0124 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not just me. You would have been wise to consider some of the feedback you got when you started your RfC. I see that you have not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, so now Smith is back to edit warring to ignore consensus. I will not continue to undo his edits for a while, but it is troubling his disruptive behaviour is being left unchallenged here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You are not allowed to close the Rfc yourself. Rfcs must be closed by someone unbiased who wasn’t involved. You also didn’t write up a consensus, you just collapsed it and tried to hide it. Also, you are the one edit warring by trying to impose your edits before the Rfc is closed. That is also against Wikipedia rules. Smith0124 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I did write a closing comment, again you are playing fast and loose with the truth. Generally, RfCs are supposed to be closed by an uninvolved party, but I asked for a close and one was not forthcoming. I boldly closed it myself and gave reasons. I had previously asking for a formal close which you opposed, and noted that if one did not occur that I would close it. This should hardly be a surprise to you. The fact that you refuse to get the point here and insist on arbitrarily imposing your view on the articles against consensus is galling. It is pretty clear you are not here to build a better encyclopedia, or have serious competency issues in understanding consensus and how it applies to editing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m here in good faith and I don’t care if you believe otherwise. I do support formal closure, I just wanted all voices to be heard. You tried to close it immediately which wasn’t fair. The problem isn’t a formal closure by an unbiased person, the problem first was that it had only been one day and now that you tried to break the rules and close it. I’m all for a formal closure that actually writes up a consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You wrote a bias and invalid RfC and refuse to withdraw it when others point that out to you. You also insist your edits must be maintained while you continue this bias and invalid RfC. Who do you think you are fooling?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Both editors blocked
Because this is ridiculous and is just one example of the edit warring between these two today. I've blocked Darryl Kerrigan for 48 hours and Smith0124 for two weeks as this is their fifth(!) block for edit warring since January of this year.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, I believe there's a 1-RR restriction on post-1932 US political articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I thought there was only 1RR on articles in that area when an admin imposed it under the DS regime (it's one of the things that DS authorizes them to do). I don't think it's automatic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Good block, especially on the two different lengths; the problems on display were not equal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: Smith0124 has been blocked as a sock of an indeffed editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2020 (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.
Non-Custodial Parents Party, was courtesy vanished. However, the user has contributed a number of times since then, most recently with extensive edits to the NCPP page. I asked Nihonjoe, who performed the vanishing, if the vanishing could be reversed, but they have advised
that changes in global accounts have made this difficult, and suggested I raise the matter here to seek a solution.
To be clear, I think this has all been done innocently enough and am not seeking sanctions of any kind. I just want to ensure Jef04 is contactable as they are once again editing. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't suppose there's a way to merge the contribution history? Or does one simply link to the vanished account somewhere? Frickeg (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Battleground beheavior by bender235
Commenting editors do not see sanctionable conduct. starship.paint (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings. There was recently a
WP:SNOW. I then immediately went to the main administrators noticeboard for a review of that close
, which was sustained. That thread was also closed relatively early.
One common thread in those two discussions was persistent
, who badgered participants relentlessly, spinning out several long sub-threads and repeatedly making the same points over and over even after it became clear that the people they were talking to understood the point bender was trying to make and weren't going to change their minds.
In my close of the AfD, the first line of the rationale was "Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place." (blue mine). That line was specifically in regards to the disruption being caused by bender (though not entirely him). In the close for the AN discussion, the closer's rationale was "Speedy close at AfD endorsed. Closing a bit early as heat to light ratio is rapidly increasing" (blue mine). I suspect John from Idegon was also referring to the disruption by bender.
bender235 is now taking the same issues that he raised at the AfD and the AN and bringing them into the did you know nomination for Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman. If he could be excused for vociferously arguing his points at the AfD and AN, there's still no reason to bring them up again at the DYK nomination.
I am asking an uninvolved administrator to tell bender235 that he needs to drop this issue, and if necessary, impose a topic ban around any content related to Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman.
A topic ban would definitely be overstepping here. Continuing to raise concerns about the article at the DYK nominated by the AfD closer isn’t the same as
WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct; I don’t see incivility nor a “need to win” type of behavior.At most, this just a concern about bludgeoning that could’ve been raised at their user talk page before opening an ANI thread. — MarkH21talk
Your concerns at the AfD were valid, especially when it came to the flood of new participants, and I tried to specifically address the issue of new editors coming in solely to participate in the AfD in my close. It's also clear that you have very strong opinions on how social media-based figures fit into our inclusion criteria, and they're worth discussing, but an AfD is not the place to argue whether the inclusion criteria need to be adjusted.
The problem is not that you made those points, it's that that you kept arguing, and arguing, and arguing, well past the point where you were adding anything new to the discussion, have now done that in two related discussions, and had started down that path in a third. After you've made your point, continuing to hammer it over and over again in the same thread becomes disruptive.
I recommend that you spend some time putting together an RfC to see if there's community consensus for changing the way that we define notability for social media-related topics/people, and then once it's ready, post it and take a step back and let the rest of the community hash it out. Then, either you'll get the changes you want or the community will agree that the status quo is fine, or something in-between those two options. That would be a better way to channel your passion for those issues than what you were doing in the AfD and AN threads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:ACADEMIC
to a person that defines herself as an economist. Quite frankly I don't know what our notability thresholds for social media personalities are, so maybe Opoku-Agyeman meets those. As I can see, her article has by now been modified to reflect the fact that she's notable as an activist, not academic.
No action needed - behaviour is not at a level requiring any actions IMHO. Cheers,
talk
) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussions, I completely disagree with the OPs characterizations and I think it was inappropriate for them to include such an aggressive characterization in a formal reading of consensus. It seems fairly clear that it's incorrect to call Bender's conduct "disruptive", or "battlegrounding" in either discussion. Battlegrounding is, essentially, malicious, personally-motivated argumentation. Bludgeoning is employing the tactic of excessive and overwhelming commentary to disrupt and derail the consensus-building process. Neither concept suggests that someone who is involved or invested in a discussion cannot counterargue or ask questions, simply because they're in the minority. Bender did repeatedly comment in the discussion, but not remotely to the extent where any of the exchanges became unreasonable or excessive to the level of being disruptive. With the exception of one brief exchange that got slightly heated, it's clear that Bender was simply asking questions and offering counterpoints concisely, civilly, and in good faith. In fact, if you actually read the behavioral guidance at
WP:BATTLE, Bender was perfectly in line with it. Nothing here rises to the level of any action, much less a formal or informal TBAN. I think the best thing is probably for the OP to divest themselves from worrying about Bender before their aggressive condemnations get any closer to simply being personal attacks. ~Swarm~{sting}
21:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I was involved and completely disagreed with Bender in the AFD, and in particular am concerned about their black and white interpretations of our guidelines, without reading the room. However they remained civil and never crossed a line. I don't see a concern here worthy of discussion at ANI. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2020 (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.
Following the addition of a new identifier to the 'cite' templates, some editors have used Citation bot to make multiple rapid edits that remove the link to the article from the title in the citation. Examples are:
I had earlier raised my concerns at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title without result. AManWithNoPlan then commented "I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion ... Lastly, I do not have time at this point to make changes to the bot to implement a new consensus. I took this as a clear indication that he intended to continue removing links from titles, and I have now blocked him until he no longer poses a further threat of disruption.
I am bringing the block for review to this board, and I appreciate other thoughts on how best to proceed. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It kind of seems you warned him, justifiably, but blocked him before he actually made any actions against your warning. ie: a pre-emptive block, which is not something we normally do. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. We normally don't block until an action is repeated after the final warning is given, regardless of their expressed intentions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an epically bad block. If the bot is malfunctioning (which it wasn't, that RFC supports autolinking from free identifiers, there's still consensus to use identifier parameters to put identifier in instead of |url=), block the bot, not the user per
b
} 23:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the links from titles in citations. Quite the opposite as demonstrated in the RfC. It is also well established that a user who initiates a bot run is responsible for the edits performed. I've yet to see any sign of anyone offering to clean up by relinking all of the titles that have been unlinked. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Whatever 'damage' there is can easily be 'repaired' with OA bot running on pages with |s2cid= set and a template update to CS1/CS2 templates autolink when |s2cid-access=free is set.
b
} 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The damage is the removal of links from citation titles; it is real and there's no need for scare quotes. Or do I have to ask all of the other editors who are against removal of those links to explain their objections to you again? If the damage is that easy to fix, then why hasn't it been done already? --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You have to know there's an issue before you can fix the issue. For templates updates, go to
b
} 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Either way, the block to AManWithNoPlan is bad and should be undone.
b
} 00:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Headbomb: I alerted you to the problem quite clearly at 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and yet you still used Citation bot to remove a link from a title at 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) as part of a huge bot run which undoubtedly has unlinked more titles. You seem to believe that you can edit in any way you choose, regardless of the damage you do. I have now blocked Citation bot to prevent further damage. You need to carefully consider your position and start looking for ways to clean up the mess you've caused. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
If the bot was not functioning correctly wouldn't the first thing to do be blocking that bot? Why was that not done first? I see you started a discussion on the bot page which is good, but that did not seem to completely agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS Do you plan on addressing my concerns or anyone else that brought up the same points? PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
So you blocked someone for using a permissible bot and then for not respecting your authority, when you could have just blocked the bot? You also supported the underlying RFC so I am not sure how uninvolved you are. Bad blockAlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Many of the links point to copyright violating PDF copies that S2 scraped, which is one reason why converting URLs to S2 ID's was strongly encouraged (similar to citeceerx conversion, which the bot has been doing for over a decade). IDs largely avoid the direct copyright violation, that the links have. Although, this discussion should probably be had on the bot page or on the copyright pages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, this was a bad block that served no purpose. The block should have been on the bot first with you following up with a discussion with the bot owner and those using the bot. I don't see any attempts by you to reach out to Smith609 or the other editors who were using the bot. Additionally, your comments here towards Headbomb are concerning, as you are claiming that he is openly defying your "orders" when it is possible that they submitted the bot job prior to your comments and claiming that he "damaged" articles like they are physical property. He has advised you how this could be corrected and you respond with threats? I just see a lot of missed opportunities for deescalation by you. Nihlus 01:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
When I raised my concerns with Headbomb, he had the opportunity to address them by stopping the bot run as he knew it would be continuing and I didn't. Why should it be my job to fix the problems he caused when he knows the extent of it and I don't? --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is advisable to blame someone for not knowing about your lack of knowledge about a bot. Nihlus 01:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Why should I be expected to know how many edits the bot run was going to make? Which of us has that information? --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You would ascertain that information by monitoring the bot. Nihlus 03:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No you wouldn't. Monitoring the bot tells you what edits it has already made and gives no warning that it's due to make another thousand or however many. The only person with that information is the editor who initiated the bot run. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, yes, you would. You would see that it is continuing to edit. A reasonable person would simply ask more questions if they were unfamiliar with how the bot works or simply block it until things were cleared up. At this point, though, I am more concerned with your lack of owning up to the mistakes you have made. Nihlus 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The only mistake I can see is that I didn't realise the bot was still running so didn't check its contributions. What else are you seeing? --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Your block of AManWithNoPlan that served no purpose, your potential
involvement in this situation, and your barrage of incendiary comments towards Headbomb in this thread. Nihlus
17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The block of AManWithNoPlan prevented him from running the bot again. I have no
involvement as my actions were confined to warnings and blocks for behavioural issues. Every comment I have made concerning Headbomb has concerned his behaviour and your assertion is baseless. Got anything constructive? --RexxS (talk
) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but you just continue to ignore my comments as well as everyone else's in this section. Nihlus 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've read and digested every comment. I know the mistake I made in not checking the bot's contributions sooner, and I'll make sure that I won't repeat that mistake again. For the rest, I simply disagree with those like yourself who are intent on making editors who run a bot immune from the effects of the consequent bot edits. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot policy is clear (see
b
} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've neither said nor implied that, so please refrain from casting aspersions. Nihlus 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: The bot policy is clear and it doesn't say what you claim: "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." BOTBLOCK doesn't provide immunity for you to ignore valid concerns and blame it on the bot. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
At no point was AManWithNoPlan running a bot on their account.
b
} 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says either. There's no distinction about whose account the bot is running on. There is no doubt that you and AManWithNoPlan each initiated a bot run, and you can't wriggle out of responsibility by pretending somebody else should be accountable for the edits made. Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action (diff would be useful)? --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what the policy says. If someone is running/is suspected of an unauthorized bot on an account, block the account as a malfunctioning bot. AManWithNoPlan never ran a bot on his account, so there was never any grounds to block them.
b
} 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The policy says "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." The account is what is being blocked. You're not seriously suggesting that if you initiate a bot running on some other account, you are somehow magically absolved of any problems it causes? So, I'll ask again: Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The account suspected of operating an unapproved bot. At no point was an unauthorized or unappoved bot running on the
b
} 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot doesn't need to be running on an editor's account for them to operate it. You're playing semantic word games with the word "operate". It's absolutely clear to anyone using plain English that the editor who sets up and initiates the bot run is operating it, and they need to take responsibility when someone tells them their bot run is causing problems. Both you and AManWithNoPlan did just that and both of you took no action when the concerns were raised with you. You didn't even bother to tell me that the bot was still processing your run, which would at least have saved a few hundred more citation titles from being unlinked. Nobody who responds to concerns in a collegial and open way is going to get blocked, so you can ditch that canard. Now, as you've failed to answer the questions I asked, were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Then propose an RFC to change the bot policy, because the bot policy is about malfunctioning bots. AManWithNoPlan was not a malfunctioning bot, nor was he running any bot on his account. If there's an issue with a bot, you block the bot. That you can't understand this after you've been repeatedly told so by multiple users means you are unfit for the bit, or at the very least unfit to take admin actions in the area of bots.
b
} 13:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something (or if other cases are different than all the cases on all of "my" articles), the title unlinking here as it turns out was probably correct. In all of the articles I follow, check and corrected, the title unlinking was either because the free full text no longer existed (presumably Semanticscholar took down some copyvio links?) or the free full text link when to a copyright violation, which we should be delinking. I think. Repair in my case meant checking each link, and in some cases finding new free full text links, but no semanticscholar link that was removed was removed without good reason. Sorry if this is off-topic or over my head ... but that's just my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Bad block - as per AlmostFrancis. Also, the section below about Headbomb seems to be vindictive retaliation. Cheers,
talk
) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment I have no authority to judge whether this was a bad block or not, but what I will say is that this is a gross abuse of power by RexxS. Clearly just blocking and harassing people they don’t like and who speak out again them, when they could’ve just blocked the bot or not blocked people preemptively. This behavior is totally unfit for an admin and I think RexxS should have his/her admin status reviewed. Smith0124 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Bad block. It is pretty standard that when a bot is making bad edits (or you think it is) that you first block the bot, which is a less aggressive action than blocking the person. There seems to be a legitimate question as to what the bot should and shouldn't be doing, which is what talk pages and RFCs are for. Also, WP:AN could have been used (before or after the bot block) to get input. I'm not sure how WP:involved you are, but you have some interest in it, demonstrated by your participation in the previous RFC, which (justifiably) raises some eyebrows but doesn't automatically disqualify you. RexxS, I'm basically saying this could have been handled better. What still bothers me, and you haven't addressed even though I was the first to respond, is the fact that you warned him, then blocked him preemptively. This isn't something we normally do and I would expect a detailed rationale explaining why this was necessary to protect the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, Dennis Brown, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. When I saw the bot editing two articles on my watchlist, I looked at the popup diffs and was concerned that it was likely removing links from the titles in citations; when I checked i found that was the case. We went through a large RfC at Village Pump not long ago that expressly supported the principle of having those links, and I was concerned that the bot had removed them. As the bot edits were done some time before I saw them, I didn't think they would be still be running. I therefore went to the Talk: Citation bot to complain that the bot had been removing the links. I was met with requests for me to fix the CS1 code (as if it were the fault of the citations themselves) and then a denial that there was any consensus in the RfC for the principle of linking titles. So I then posted on Headbomb's talk page and AManWithNoPlan's talk page asking them not to repeat the action that led to the titles being unlinked. Just as he had done [[in March, AManWithNoPlan denied responsibility (in his edit summary). I then warned him that he was responsible for the edits made by a bot that he initiates, which he disagreed with (in his edit summary). At that point I was unaware that the bot was still running, but it was clear that AManWithNoPlan saw no problem with the edits he had initiated, and I sincerely believed he was quite willing to initiate another run. When a bot alters dozens, sometimes hundreds of pages at high speed, it can cause damage that is very hard to unwind and I believed that it was best to block AManWithNoPlan to prevent him initiating another run. Neither he nor Headbomb had suggested that the bot was still running, removing even more links from titles. I posted here immediately afterwards for review and to seek broader input on what steps would be needed to undo the damage done by the bot runs. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
On many of the basic principles here, including accountability, I agree with you. What I don't agree is how you used the tools. Since the purpose of the block button is to prevent disruption, you should have blocked the bot, then either continued discussing, or preferably taken the issue to WP:AN. Your participation in the RFC means you have a bias in the outcome, so it would have been the preferable thing to do in this case, even if it isn't an obvious WP:involved issue. The actual "damage" was caused by the bot, and your block did nothing to stop it, which is odd. There is also a lack of clarity of the finer points of the RFC, which is what the discussion at WP:AN could have addressed. What you did instead was cause drama and for 2 hours and 27 minutes after blocking AManWithNoPlan, the bot continued unblocked. I know you didn't mean to do this, but you can either argue about it, or step back and see why it was a mistake. I've devoted a fair amount of time on this, and NONE of it has been regarding AManWithNoPlan. Not because he didn't make mistakes (he did), but because first I feel I need to address the admin who made the mistake in handling it. Mistakes happen, but until you recognize it, I can't help but be focused on it. I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You can choose to believe me, or not, when I say I was under the impression that the bot run had finished, when I asked AManWithNoPlan not to do another run. If you don't believe me, then we've nothing more to discuss as you would be basing your assumptions on a false premise. If you can see that I wanted to prevent another bot run by asking the initiators not to start the bot again, then I don't see how you can characterise the block as anything more than preventive, given AManWithNoPlan's responses. I have already stated quite clearly on this very page that I understand I made a mistake in not checking the bot's contributions until much later, and that I would be sure not to make the same mistake again. I'm disappointed that you choose to continue to focus on that and not the disruption caused by AManWithNoPlan's and Headbomb's use of the bot. That's your privilege, but please don't pretend that you're being even-handed here, particularly in your incredible stretch of INVOLVED; Headbomb himself !voted in favour of the RfC, so I really don't see how I could be accused of "a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to" because there's no dispute about that RfC, which was even closed early because the support was so overwhelming. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Wut? Emergency shut off button is a thing. If that doesn't work, block those fighting over the button, or worst case the bot itself. The immediate bot block plus the botop plus threats to headbomb is overreach and this looks like a long-term involved thing. And seeing good arguments for the bot's behavior, it is not black and white. Maybe RexxS should instead try the shut off button, and if that doesn't work seek help from an outside uninvolved admin. -- GreenC 13:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the
WP:BRFA approval for these edits (Special:Diff/961260133, Special:Diff/961352757)? I'm not seeing it at User:Citation bot. If a botop or asst botop programmed the bot to do something without BRFA approval and refused to reverse/stop it when asked, then it's a good block of the op and the bot. If BAG approved these edits, then it seems like it would be a bad block of both. But it should have been a short conversation: "Are these edits approved?" "Yes, here: [link to approval]". I'm not sure how it is that didn't happen. Levivich[dubious – discuss
] 20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot has approval for converting hard-coded URLs to their specific parameters (see
b
} 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot approval for Citation Bot 8 is for "Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates". Converting bare urls is not in question here. These are the three examples I already quoted of the bot unlinking the title in an existing templated citation: unlinked first and third titles, unlinked title, unlinked title. Where is the bot approval for those edits? and how does it square with the principle of linking titles expressed at Village Pump? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I believe the citations are still linked. The link is moved from the title to the DOI or similar parameter location.
Your responses and comments haven't indicated that awareness.
Am I wrong about the link? Are you aware if I am correct? —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Philoserf: You seem to be unaware of the RfC I suggested you look at. There is overwhelming support for the principle of linking the title of a citation. Removing existing links from the title should not be happening. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb: I read all nine approvals linked at User:Citation bot#Bot approval, I don't see anything about removing|url= in favor of |s2cid= under any circumstance in any of the approvals. What am I missing? When was Citation bot programmed to remove |url=, and by whom, and why? Levivich[dubious – discuss] 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing on sc2id specifically, but it's approved for other similar conversions. DOI link --> |doi=, PMID link --> |pmid=, PMCID link --> |PMC=, etc... It's being doing this for years. Now that we have an |s2cid= parameter, it's doing it for S2CID links too. These recent runs are mostly cleaning up after itself, as prior to April 2020 or so, the bot added a lot of hardcoded S2CID links because there was no S2CID parameters.
b
} 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to the approval for removing links from titles, because I can't find it. It seems to remove links to jstor from the title as well. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation Bot 8 covers that I believe. CitationCleanerBot 1 also covers that.
b
} 23:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Then I think you need to read the approval again. The bot approval for
WP:GENFIXES that AutoWikiBrowser uses, but the section Citation templates (FixCitationTemplates) doesn't show approval for removing links from titles. The best you can argue is that it "Removes duplicated fields", but when the url field links the title and the identifiers don't, you can't really claim that it duplicates the function, can you? Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? --RexxS (talk
) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
b
} 13:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The block and justification for it strike me as unnecessarily heavy-handed and authoritarian. Just block the bot if it's malfunctioning, don't issue punitive blocks. ReykYO! 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I should add that blocking me did not stop the bot. I could not stop the bot. I told other people to take it to the bot page where it could be dealt with. People have suggested I 'stop the bot" as if I am somehow the bots operator. Blocking me just made it so I could not take part in the discussions. The bot run in question had been running for over a day, and I was busy and unable to assist so sending people to the bot talk page was helpful. Their failure to listen to and the decision to block me made the "damage" worse. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocking you was done in order to stop you initiating another bot run – a legitimate concern and you know it. You started a bot run knowing that it would unlink titles from citations, and when my concerns about your actions were raised with you, your replies (in edit summaries!) were: Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page and the was not the conclusion reacje. This is the second time in three months that you've refused to take responsibility for your actions and once again you're trying to put the blame on the bot, but bots don't act without being told to. Sending people to the bot page was not helpful as you knew the extent of the bot run, not the editors watching there. You told me nothing on that bot page other than a denial that a problem existed and a statement that you were too busy to fix the bot. How did blocking you then make the damage worse? Where was the "the bot is still running, so you ought to stop it"? which would at least have been constructive. --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocking AManWithNoPlan was a bad fucking block, goes against policy, and did not stop the bot from running, nor did it stop the bot from making any edits, nor did it stop the bot from being activated by others. That you refuse to understand this is beyond me.
b
} 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is starting to become a pattern. Flipping out, going full schoolmaster mode, and imposing overkill "solutions" that don't actually solve the alleged problems. It's not so long ago that he got upset about User:BrownHairedGirl allegedly indenting her posts wrong. Instead of, I dunno, just editing the colons and asterisks to his preference (which nobody including BHG would have objected to) he just deleted her posts wholesale and then accused her of deliberately persecuting the vision impaired. It's one of the most vicious and cruel things I've seen in my time here. And a completely over the top overreaction, just like this. ReykYO! 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Reyk. Yes, RexxS's OTT reaction here is very similar to the rage he got into over colons and asterisks. And it's sad to see again that even when brought to ANI, there is zero sign of RexxS taking a chill pill. It's all double-down and demand complete-compliance. Very much the same mindset as the police brutality videos which the internet has been awash with for the last twelve days, with the same demands for absolute submission. Thank goodness RexxS has no power to mete out physical punishments, or we'd be seeing lots of editors gassed, rubber-bulleted, tased, and beaten. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, BrownHairedGirl, as gently as I can say this, that last sentence is inappropriate. It is a personal attack ("this person supports brutality") and it cheapens the suffering experienced by many in real life. I understand this is raw for you, but I think you're better than this. FWIW, I also think this was a bad block as per Dennis and others. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We will have to disagree on that. I see the same mindset of aggressively demanding compliance and aggressively using all avaiable means to enforce compliance. Feel free to take a different view. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with 78 here; that's going a bit too far. ReykYO! 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb
Despite being warned of the problems caused by Citation bot removing links from titles, Headbomb(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has continued to run the bot, making around 100 edits per hour, many of which remove links. I would like to see Headbomb held responsible for the damage done and required to restore those links which were removed. Failure to do so should result in sanctions. It is unacceptable for editors to initiate bot runs that make sometimes thousands of edits without any sensitivity to other editors' concerns. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Get off your high horse.
b
} 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the authorization to make this run? Where is the consensus to remove the links? No consensus, no authorization, please block the editor until they clean up their mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot was operating, so I asked the bot to edit articles (I asked the bot to make its run prior to seeing RexxS's message for what it's worth). The bot misbehaved, so now it's blocked until the bot code gets updated.
b
} 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
He ran a permissible bot which was unblocked at the time. If you have blocked the bot originally as opposed to going after the user this would not have been and issue. What sanction do you even want.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I should note that blocking individual users did not stop existing bot runs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors need to take responsibility for bot edits that they initiate. When a concern was raised and you knew that the bot would continue to edit, why didn't you follow the instructions at "Emergency shutoff" or just ask an admin to block the bot? Why are others always expected to fix the problems you and Headbomb caused? --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You argue for linking of titles since people cannot figure out the blue links after references then you argue that i should have a list of of admins on speed dial. Please be more consistent about your expectations of others. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Triply dumb when RexxS is himself an admin.
b
} 01:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:ANI to request a bot shutdown and the noticeboard is well watched by admins. My expectations of you remain that you take responsibility for edits that you initiate, and that you take responsibility for fixing problems that you cause. --RexxS (talk
) 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
So if you knew running the bot was permissable and knew how to stop it what is your excuse for blocking the user, other than personal pique. You knew that blocking the user wouldn't stop the run but blocking the bot would. I don't see a goal other than excerting control over someone who did not obey you. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that there is any consensus for the bot or anyone else to unlink titles in citations. As I was unaware that the bot was still running, I don't see what point there would have been in blocking it. As AManWithNoPlan was denying that there was any problem with the edits he initiated, what conclusion should I draw other than he intended to run the bot again? There has been a repeated refusal by editors who perform bot runs to accept responsibility for the edits made, and your attempts to give them a free pass to continue causing damage are unhelpful. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot has a valid BRFA, was unblocked and was therefore permissible to run. The point of blocking the bot is that per Wikipedias policy it is the proper way to handle a malfunctioning bot. Your refusal to follow policy, which judging by your most recent comments are based on personal dislike, is what is not helpful.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You keep saying the bot has a valid BRFA, but where does it say that the bot can remove links from the citation title? The bot users were causing edits to be made against the wishes of the community, and no amount of wikilawyering about it being the bot's fault will cut any ice. If you think that editors who start a bot run should be granted immunity for any problems caused by the bot run, try starting an RfC at VPP to get that into policy, but until that happens, those editors need to recognise their responsibilities. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you agreed to no longer administer around the users and bot so I don't think arguing with you really serves a purpose. You will either take on the input that your block was bad or you won't, and will either start blocking only within policy or not.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion (Citation bot and its operators)
Imho the block was unavoidable, after all previous discussions, in some of which I was involved too. The block, however, does not resolve anything in itself: it is an emergency brake, bringing a train to a standstill, but does not repair the train, nor resolve irresponsible behaviour by its conductors. The train, i.e. citation bot in this comparison, is an excellent tool, so, just inactivating it is not in itself a solution. Either its conductors, i.e. AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb, get more responsive when issues are raised, or they should be removed as operators of the bot (i.e., they should no further operate the bot). Then there's no other solution than keeping the bot in standstill (i.e. blocked) until other operators are found, that is operators who are sensitive w.r.t. potential issues & responsive when issues are raised. I don't want to run ahead, and think AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb still can commit to a behaviour change by stating so explicitly here (& explaining which modifications to the bot code have been undertaken), which, when approved by the community, may lead to the bot being unblocked with them as operators. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I do not understand this conversation. It seems like a lot of noise with too little context. The Citation bot is to useful to sit idle. What can I do to A) help get a constructive conversation going and B) get the bot back on the job. Also, I am appalled at the personal attacks I see in comments by some editors in the conversations above. Do they not violate a policy? Can we quench the fire and have a fact based discussion? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Philoserf: a concise summary, as neutrally as I can: citation bot is currently programmed to remove bare urls pointing to Semantic Scholar, and replace them with a a parameter named "s2cid" that links to the same place. (Example: [188]) Apparently the semantic scholar people asked for this to be done. The argument is whether this kind of edit falls within current consensus. Citing the recent discussion where many users expressed support for the need to link titles, User:RexxS says there is no justification for removing urls, and has blocked User:AManWithNoPlan for being the one invoking the citation bot to make the edits. Forbes72 | Talk 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
b
} 13:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"Blocking this account is causing disruption. User:RexxS can you please unblock it?" is a quote I found on User talk:Citation bot. I believe that views is predominant. Can we get this resolved quickly? How about a speedy unblock? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, I thought so too. What I see is actually happening is that it does all the analysis, prepares the edit, then is stopped. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps because of this half-run behavior, the Citation expander gadget appears to still work. This can be a workaround to edit individual pages while the bot cannot be run. —Ost (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Can this be fixed just by editing the template to render an inline link when s2cid is specified? I'm assuming the request is something to do with them wanting to be able to change the url syntax at some point, that bit seems fine. Guy (help!) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
When |s2cid-access=free is set. I believe there are some changes in the sandbox for that although I don't know if they covered this one specifically. Not all SemanticScholar links are free/copyright checked or whatever.
b
} 15:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This discusion is happening on at least four pages. RexxS has accidentally mischaracterized me and has made statements that only someone could read my mind could make. I have always been willing to discuss the bots actions on the bot pages. Discussing them all over the place has historically lead to editors being harassed and even threatened on multiple occasions. That is why inso not like to discuss the bots actions on my personal talk page. It also fractures the discussion. I could easily see different pages come to different conclusions and people being left out completely. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for mischaracterising you. However, you need to be willing to discuss concerns about your actions (such as initiating a problematic bot run) on your user talk page, the same as any other editor, and I'm not sure who I would be leaving out in that dialogue. The talk page for the bot is an echo chamber for a particular point of view, which is not shared by the community at large, and has historically led to insulating editors from the edits that they cause to be made. The alternative to discussing your actions at your talk page is to discuss them here at ANI. I am always happy to discuss your use of a bot to edit for you at your talk page in a collegial manner without any harassment or threats if you're prepared to engage in the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This feels remarkably like the last time this issue was discussed at a noticeboard. Editors asked Citation bot to stop doing something and AManWithNoPlan decided that those with the technical ability to push the changes through didn't need to heed the concerns of other editors. AManWithNoPlan actually ended up blocked during that debacle for repeatedly accusing editors who were raising concerns in good faith of lying. Before this peters out again and Citation bot is unblocked (as it inevitably will be, sooner or later) to carry on regardless (as it inevitably will, because its maintainers believe they are the sole arbiters of citation formatting, consensus be damned, and therefore refuse to address the problem), we should look at a longer-term solution. I would suggest starting by banning AManWithNoPlan from triggering the bot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about bots. I do know that citation bot makes mistakes and ignores editor CITEVAR preferences. But when non-technical editors ask technical editors for help, we're regularly snubbed in language we don't understand. RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer. A solution to the bot problem would be appreciated. SarahSV(talk) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
PRECISELY! Citations get messed up by the bot, but the real frustration is trying to get answers in English about what the problem is. (Start here and read the rest of the page for a true exercise in frustration.) There is a communication problem here, and we need a better solution than being sent to the talk page of a bot, where we get even more language that doesn't answer the questions or address the issues for a person who doesn't speak bot. For more than a decade, I maintained a manual citation style in the Featured articles I nominated, so I would not have to deal with this. Recently, I converted to citation templates, and since then, it has been one long problem. We need a way for bot people to speak to non-bot people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see what's confusing or frustrating about the "Me again" conversation. It's probably also a discussion that should have taken place at
b
} 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, you have perfectly illustrated the problem in that you don't see what is frustrating there. I understood almost nothing of the earlier interaction with AMWNP at the Me again section, but kept asking and asking, and the second thread has led to all kinds of contradiction, until I pinged in someone I trust (Diannaa) on this. And going to the talk page of the citation bot has always yielded even worse results, as covered by SarahSV above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) There you have it, Headbomb. An editor tells you that they don't understand what's being said, and your response is "I understand it, I don't know why you don't."You need to accept it on good faith that the editors who tell you that you folks are not communicating effectively are telling it to you straight, from their PoV, and make some effort to talk to them in standard English, not technicalese. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I can entirely appreciate that someone can't understand technical terms, but I fail to see what's particular technical or unclear about that discussion, or what's particularly frustrating about it. It's also why having the discussion at
b
} 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You think the following is a clear response? "S2 actually has asked for the parameter to be added and for the urls to be converted. The comments should block to url to ID conversion." SarahSV(talk) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
S2 is SemanticScholar. The second part should be "The comments should block the URL to ID conversions". Or, in other words, if you put a comment in |url=, such as |url=https://semanticscholar... <!-- -->, it should stop the conversion. This is should work in general for any parameter you don't want the bot to touch. See
b
} 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact you have to explain who S2 is and in other words illustrates the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Quite. The fact that you don't realise that 99.a lot% of English speakers wouldn't know who or what "S2" is demonstrates that you have a communication problem. I'm actually quite flabbergasted by this discussion, because my experience has been that
I'm not defending the defensible, I didn't understand the source of frustration, it was pointed out, and I explained what things meant. I'm also not responsible for how others communicate. Which is also why you should ask questions about Citation bot 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.
RexxS actions are out line and have disrupted the proper functioning of this encyclopedia. RexxS has been hostile towards Headbomb, AManWithNoPlan, and bot operators generally. To avoid further disruption, I propose RexxS be topic banned from bots and prohibited from interacting with Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan. Товарищ конрад (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Unwarranted and way out of proportion to any errors made. Also ignores the real problem, that of info being stripped out of citations against consensus, using a bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as ridiculous, but admins might want to take a closer look at the proposer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know who this sock is?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(
not the purpose of blocks in this website, let alone TBANs and IBANs. Should the admin's actions be scrutinized? Absolutely yes. But does it warrant a TBAN? No. Come back with this proposal in about 3-6 months time if things fail to get any better by then. --letcreate123 (talk
) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Observations: RexxS’s actions and behavior are unprofessional and disruptive. His failure to engage w/o accusations and personal attack are unbecoming. His hyperbole hide the actual issues. He also does not appear to understand the blocks relationship to the tool, citation bot. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Additionally I am uncertain that the consensus he claims actually exists. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This is something that I come across regularly on Wikipedia - a refusal by "techies" to acknowledge that everyone is responsible for their edits, whether performed manually or by a bot. The only time I have ever been threatened with a block (by a since defrocked admin) was over this very issue. If edits are disruptive and against consensus then action needs to be taken to prevent them continuing. Maybe
Oppose FWIW. Only note that the proposer has about a dozen edits, ever, so this seems fishy. ValarianB (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose obviously ridiculous proposal (by 16-edit contributor who just happens to know about IBANs). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Trivia: It seems Rexx made a new friend, whose username translates to "Comrade Conrad", which is the name of a Bill Evans song from his album, "We Will Meet Again". Clever sock. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal (Citation bot and RexxS)
I propose the following:
No further bot runs for this purpose until the citation template is fixed to render an inline link, thus leaving the articles cosmetically and functionally similar.
RexxS to recuse from future admin actions in respect of citation bot and its operators.
Support as I'd dearly love not to have the same arguments a third time. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to autolinking semanticscholar ids to paper titles, if that's what's being proposed here (it's very unclear, but that seems to be the implication). We should only autolink versions of papers that are both free and the version of record (and I'm not especially happy with doing it even then). When the version of record itself is unfree but a semanticscholar version is free, it often means that they have scraped a pirated version and we should not link them at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Support for now. I'm not against RexxS participating, he has the experience to bridge some gaps, but I think in this case, he was heavy handed with the block button (and it seems a consensus above agrees). I've been asking him a lot of questions because I've been trying to get him to understand his mistake here. It isn't the end of the world, but it was a mistake. I don't want him to avoid monitoring and participating, but maybe it's best he didn't use the tools in this one area, at least for a while. And yes, the bot has issues that need addressing, which is equally important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Just to be clear, the proposal also calls for the bot ceasing to remove redundant links for the indefinite future (until a template not maintained by the bot operators is changed in a way unlikely to achieve consensus). Do you also support that aspect of the proposal? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I stated as much. It seems obvious an RFC is needed and some tweaking based on that RFC, as there is some confusing on what it should and shouldn't be doing. It isn't the end of the world if the bot is down a couple of weeks. There is no deadline for building the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose I do not believe that this will help. Citation bot is needed for some pages. And agree with David Eppstein. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Support 1; oppose 2 (restricting RexxS). What would be helpful is a solution to small numbers of editors making decisions, on pages no one checks, that affect all articles that use citation templates. SarahSV(talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot should not be running until we figure out a way to solve not only this problem, but the overarching problem of how to deal with the communication issues. When non-technical editors go to the bot talk page with concerns, they are usually overwhelmed by bot editors or technical types who don't answer appropriately or don't resolve the concerns. We need to find a way forward; I hope not to have to put a deny bots on everything I edit. Separately, I understand that AMWNP was blocked the first time because of personal attacks, but the second time was different, and I hope we also figure out a better way to decide when to block a bot and when to block a person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Whether the title links to the full text article is a function of the template. The bot is only converting links to identifiers. The short term harm of having the link on the identifier as opposed to on the title is minimal. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose I share some of the copyright concerns brought up by David Eppstein for Semantic Scholar in particular, but these concerns do not extend to all sources. For example, arXiv rarely has copyright issues, and there's a strong case for auto-linking the title to the free versions of papers with expired copyright when the original publishers still have those articles behind a paywall. Forbes72 | Talk 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
This seems to me to fix the actual problem. Guy (help!) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What about fixing the citations which have already been changed? Is that not the responsibility of the editors who set up the previous run(s) of the bot? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: If the plan is to change the citation template to mimic the behaviour it has with |url=, that will consequentially fix all of the citations which have been changed, without manual effort. Not opining on whether that's a good or bad solution, merely an observation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta:When will this happen, specifically to the citations which have aready been changed against consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: A very reasonable question. The relevant template is entirely controlled by the module at Module:Citation/CS1 and its submodule, Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers - both of which are (very understandably) fully protected. I see that Trappist the monk has edited them a lot in the recent past - they may be able to give some more specifics on how trivial or non-trivial a task it would be to make that change. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, when the template is fixed. Which needs someone with strong enough template-fu. Guy (help!) 23:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Then, in the meantime, I believe I would be in favor of blocking the editors who created this mess until they clean it up, a standard procedure with problems of this kind. Then, moving ahead into the futre, the changes can be made that will prevent this from happening again.Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That makes total sense, blocking someone until they clean something up, preventing them from cleaning it up in the first place.
b
} 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, you're going a bit Chicken Little there. The fix can be coded by anyone who has the relevant skills (I don't, that template is complex). As long as there aren't any more bot runs there is no need for blocking, that just looks vindictive at this point. Guy (help!) 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote below, I think I'm misunderstanding the situation, and will withdraw from the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No. Making changes to the template code will not restore the templates to their pre-bot-edited states. Templates cannot modify articles. Changes have been made to the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to support the RfC. The RfC is not my doing nor is the code that supports it. Editor Pintoch proposed the change and wrote some code to support the RfC. It appears that the coding process is stalled. See the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Auto-linking titles with free DOIs. As currently written, and were it to be implemented today, the change at cs1|2 would, I think, be disappointing to those who are imagining that changes to cs1|2 will be a magic bullet that restores the templates edited by the bot. These are the changes that the bot made to the example articles that Editor RexxS mentioned at the start of this discussion:
change 2 of 3: these link to the same location; as the template in the article is currently written, the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation (missing |doi-access=free)
Well, that's a fine mess, because I already fixed all "my" articles, as some of the bot edits were good, and some URLs could be replaced by other sources. So now, if all the bot edits are reverted, I have to re-do the work again. And yet, if I add bots deny on articles, someone always complains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The CS1/2 update is the first step, the second would be OABot.
b
} 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually use the pages the deny the bot as debug pages to figure out why we were blocked. Fixed lots of bugs that way. I wish all people that bock the bot would report the problem, like you did. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, AMWNP! And, I can't decipher what Headbomb's response means or how it relates to my post it was responding to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The first step is having the CS1/2 templates (e.g. {{
b
} 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@JzG:I'm concerned about your #2, given SarahSV's comment above "RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) NM, he can still act as a "content-editor whisperer" without taking admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, yes, exactly. I'd have added AMWNP to advocate the template fix as well, but that is a bit pointless as the need for the fix is already established. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal 2 (Citation bot and RexxS) - WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn. I believe I'm misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan are blocked until the citations from which URLs were stripped have the URLs restored.
Oppose as disproportionate. The fix requires one edit to one template, and the holdup is largely around the complexity and need for QA. In the mean time all citations remain usable: courtesy links are nice, but not essential. Guy (help!) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Fucking ludicrous Do you want to block everyone that asked CitationBot to make edits since April? Because that list is fucking long.
b
} 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - seemingly bad faith proposal. Just snow close this proposal. Cjhard (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Not at all in bad faith, please retract that. I will withdraw the proposal though, as I'm obviously misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as excessive, not unlike the original block on AManWithNoPlan. I am not sure why a few users and an admin are demanding retribution and demanding that someone answers for the "damage" done to the wiki.
WP:PREVENTISHMENT are good reads for those involved. Nihlus
23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
RexxS’s behavior
Unnecessary heat/ light ratio. ——Serial# 06:31, 11 June 2020 (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 appalled by this editor’s initial behavior and judgement as an Administrator. I am also troubled by the nature of this editor’s continued conversation on the topic in the threads above and at User talk:Citation bot. I am too new to grok what can or should be done to sanction the initial behavior and rein in the continuing behavior on this topic. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (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 wider bot problem
This is another instance of an already existing bot making changes that are not in its original approval. The point of bot-approval is that large amounts of automated edits are not done without a) independant editors vetting them to make sure it wont cause issues and b)making sure there is community consensus to do so. What can we do to prevent this in the future? Make sure BOTPOL spells out that editors who use a bot to perform bot-edits that are not approved by community consensus will get significant bans from bot-editing (deterrance)? Mandate bots may *only* be operated by their creator/maintainer or those who have been determined to have the technical knowledge to answer and fix queries about it? Or we could split out the bot-approval process into technical (will it break stuff) and approval (does community consensus exist) - a lot of editors do not wish to get involved in the bot-process due to the over emphasis on the technical aspects, when almost all problems that hit noticeboards that involve bots are to do with if it should be doing a task at all, or someone using it inappropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I hate to sound like a such a hard-ass, but we can do what RexxS did here, which is to block bots and bot operators for operating bots outside consensus. Although I don't think the core issue here is bots, I think it's citation templates. I don't think ordinary editors care much about what bots do, but I think they care a lot about citation templates, and any changes to those templates that are wide-reaching (like for example, removing the url link from the title, or create a new red error), regardless of whether those changes are done by a bot, by changes to the template code, or otherwise. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot problem is that many articles can be changed by a bot before anyone notices, and when they do they tend to get met with the attitude "it was done by a bot so it must be right". I haven't looked at any bot approvals for a long time but I share
This isnt really about citation bot specifically, there have been other bots (as any board watcher can recall) which have been used for tasks not their specific purpose. The main cause is that once a bot and its task are approved, there is no ongoing audit process (much like many other sections of ENWP's back office tasks) to check its still doing what it was originally meant to be doing. The first time anyone notices is either when it stops suddenly, or it does something someone disagrees with - and thats the point where people starts looking at what it has actually been doing. RE Phil, the approvals does to some extent look at if its ok to do it, but its not exactly pro-active and the people reviewing it are a small pool.
WP:BRFA very much leaves the work of seeing and demonstrating if a bot has approval (should it be doing the task) on the back of the person submitting it. There are related ongoing issues with bots being approved previously, but are currently used by many people who dont actually control the bot or its code. A recent issue involved a bot-operator who isnt even active on ENWP and doesnt communicate well (if at all). Only in death does duty end (talk
Isenta's behaviour is unacceptable, and they appear to have a tendency to take revenge. They reverted my edit at Thanjavur painting in response to this in which they restored a spam link to gemsfly.com with edit summary rvv (again , and again). I left a warning on their talk page, but it was also reverted with edit summary revert harassment which clearly shows that they are not interested to look at the policies and their only motive is to take revenge and edit-warring. GSS💬 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you should probably rewind it to where I warned you against treating other editors in a hostile manner and you have taken roughly 8 actions against me since then. Including watching a page I was working on as a draft and proposing it for deletion within hours of me finally submitting it after months of work. Isenta (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
How is following the AfD process "treating other editors in a hostile manner"? I'm genuinely curious. MiasmaEternalTALK 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not necessarily in isolation. It is if it's a pattern of targeted behavior that includes lots of other harassing things.Isenta (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide diff to all those "8 actions"? GSS💬 11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Watch out for that boomerang. You shouldn't be allowed to harass people the way you do on Wikipedia. Isenta (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Isenta, calm down; that (calming down) is the way to solve things. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been editing for over three years and had precisely zero negative interactions with anyone until I had the unfortunate experience of crossing paths with this editor a few months ago. Now it seems like every time I come to Wikipedia, I have a new notice from him on my talk page or some rude, dismissive edit summary while he reverts something I've done. He never goes to a talk page to discuss anything, it's always a rude edit summary or a warning notice. And clearly he was watching an article I've had as a draft, working on for months, as he proposed it for deletion within hours. I would ask for admin assistance here. That he cease and leave me alone. And be warned against being so rude to other editors -- as it's not just me. His own talk page and edit summaries are filled with this stuff. Isenta (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I always keep pages in my watchlist that looks problematic to me and so was the reason to watchlist AXLOIE. Since you were registered, I only reverted your edit on just 2 articles, and removed another spam link (woodsequipment.com) you added at Backhoe so your comment: every time I come to Wikipedia, I have a new notice from him is inappropriate. Also, can you please explain how this is "harassment"? GSS💬 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate you being so honest about the various ways you've targeted me. You seem to think everything is spam, I feel sorry for all of the well meaning editors you've run off with this scorched earth approach. And wikipedia for losing them. Isenta (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
If you stop adding spam links and edit-warring then you won't get warnings about such behaviour. And giving warnings and watchlisting pages do not constitute harassment.
I remind you of your duty to assume good faith. If you can't bring yourself to assume it, the least you can do is not to make accusations. The accusations you just made about me happen to be false. However hard it is for you to assume or believe that. Isenta (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That is quite a show of hypocrisy, considering you've accused me of being unable to read while repeatedly attacking GSS and accusing them of harassing and stalking you. AGF only goes so far. You have had your reverts explained to you now by 4 editors. The first revert, I can understand but your persistent edit warring? Sorry but my good faith ran out when you started attacking everyone who dared tell you that you are incorrect. So does AGF only apply toward you but not from you or...?Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Isenta, where I said I targeted you? please re-read my comment, I said "I reverted you" which means there were some issues with your edits and now the same edit has been reverted by user MiasmaEternal and I hope you won't revert them back. GSS💬 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, please explain what was the problem with this edit that you reverted thrice using edit summaries like rvv, next time you get reported. See: BRD and undo 3RR violation, reporting the vandal. GSS💬 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment GSS, I’d invite you to let other users weigh in at this point. I understand wanting to nail down the issue(s), but I think it’s better to let this play out, to avoid bludgeoning. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, they are now edit-warring with Praxidicae at Backhoe so I don't think I have to say anything else. GSS💬 14:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise seeing this here after they started spamming a link (one which they are the only editor to have ever added) and edit warring with me and then adding in personal attacks. I'd suggest a lengthy block for spamming, among other things including their uncollaborative and hostile behavior as well as
WP:ASPERSIONS being tossed out any time an editor tries to discuss something with them. Praxidicae (talk
) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Not one person here has ever tried to discuss anything with me. It's always reverts and warnings on my talk page. If people had been collaborative and kind toward me, none of this would have ever happened. Isenta (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I did (you've since reverted it on your talk page), I also posted on the article's talk page and instead of you bothering to actually converse with me, you decided to continue reverting and implied that I couldn't read while throwing out more personal attacks. Sorry but your woe is me story holds no weight here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't see that on the talk page so yes, one person did try to discuss it with me. By accusing me of being a spammer and scolding me about what isn't acceptable, reverting my edit and issuing a warning on my talk page. I'd ask you to please be nicer to people in the future. Even if you're assuming bad faith, as you clearly are with me. Isenta (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I reverted their reversion of
WP:IRS. A temporary partial block might be needed to avoid further disruption until they communicate that they understand why an industry link such as that is inappropriate without consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk
) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive edit summary. There is no block needed if everyone just leaves me alone. I feel like I'm under attack. Three years I edit in peace and harmony and now I'm getting ganged up on by the wiki mafia. Please leave me alone. Isenta (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project. Nobody has the right not to have their edits challenged.
I guess that's you telling me you intend to start targeting me, too. I don't want to edit like this. Thanks for a great three years, Wikipedia. I'm out. I hope the Foundation is successful in putting an end to this sort of treatment. Isenta (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Nobody (or at least I and I'm pretty sure anyone else involved in this conversation) intends to target you, but that doesn't mean that your edits will not be reverted if they need to be. Just don't edit-war when that happens. And don't ask others to follow rules, such as assuming good faith, when you don't follow them yourself.
I made that Backhoe edit over a year ago. And today there are a bunch of editors super interested in it. I would call that targeting me. If you call it people reverting something that needs to be reverted, we'll have to agree to disagree. Isenta (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can’t speak for everyone, Isenta, but most don’t want to generally chase away editors. I’m sorry you’re feeling targeted, but when you come to a noticeboard, your edits come under a proverbial microscope, so to speak. I know most of your comment was sarcastic, but my edit summary was genuinely intended to help you. Likewise, I wasn’t promoting a total or permanent block whatsoever. Just asking that you acknowledge the advice provided to you so that the edit-warring stops. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
My thank you was sincere. That edit summary was the only action by anyone in any of this that showed any good will or collaboration or respect. If the reporting editor here had interacted with me in that way from the start, this wouldn't have happened. A lot of you guys seem to get really grumpy and dismissive after editing awhile. It's a shame. It drives people away. Isenta (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s good to hear. And appreciated. As a few editors have expressed concerns related to paid editing / conflicts of interest, and if this is the case, you should disclose it. It’s not some cardinal sin in editing, no worries; Wikipedia long ago decided that this was permissible, as long as editors are upfront about it. Should this be the case, see
WP:PAID. If you need help, let me know. If this isn’t the case, you should probably clarify why you made the edits in question. It’s not a big deal. So long as people acknowledge their issues, we all generally move on. As far as what you said before, part of the issue is that a lot of editors have to deal with trolls, sock puppets, and promotion regularly. Good faith is scarcer to come by when people deal with this on a daily basis. I assure you though, it’s more a general issue than a personal one. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk
) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like UPE. Should be blocked indefinitely, methinks. MER-C 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
MER-C taking a look at the history of Cardano, I'd agree but I also think that a block here for a variety of other reasons also applies...the least of which is edit warring at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed another spam link they added at Backhoe which went unnoticed for a year, and then creating a promotional article on a non-notable company does indicate upe. GSS💬 12:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
None of these links are spam. What they are is poor sources. Because they are related to a boring industry without much media coverage. I found what sources I could. If you have better sources, please add them. Isenta (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems you did find better sources. I agree the article is better now and your sources have improved the article. Thank you. All these accusations and assumptions of bad faith were not necessary to arrive at a better encyclopedia -- but here we are. Isenta (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
I didn't want to do this but here we are. Isenta is refusing to stop edit warring and accusing editors anywhere who dare revert them, even with explanation of harassment and continuing to edit war. They clearly aren't learning and don't have any interest in doing so, so I think we're past the point of niceties. I'm proposing an indefinite block for promotional editing, combative behavior and egregious, endless personal attacks. Praxidicae (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm being harassed. You are the main harasser. Please leave me alone. Digging up years old edits just to troll me. Go back to whatever you were doing before you found out I existed and everything will be fine. Isenta (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Provide diffs of harassment. Thanks. Consider this a final warning since you're doing nothing but throwing out ridiculous accusations about anyone who dare ask you about your edits.Praxidicae (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You are not asking me anything. Everything you do is hostile, aggressive and condescending. Why don't you try being collaborative and assuming good faith and open a discussion politely? Isenta (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Isenta You have accused myself and GSS of harassment. Your next edit needs to be providing diffs or redacting; I don't care which. I've tried engaging you, you just revert, accuse me of vandalism and harassment and obfuscate. Oh and edit war. Praxidicae (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A warning on my talk page is not engaging me. It's hostile, aggressive and condescending. If you're not aware of that, it is. Each time you do that to some new editor, that's how they feel. Isenta (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No one is under any obligation to coddle you. Where are the diffs, Isenta? Praxidicae (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You are under an obligation to assume good faith, and treat other editors with respect. You shouldn't be allowed to treat people the way that you are treating me. Nor should the reporting editor. But this culture of hostility I know is deeply ingrained and I'm not going to be able to fix it. At this point, I'd settle for you all simply leaving me alone and finding someone else to harass Isenta (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I’ve blocked per the above concerns with link spam/promotion and the responses here which suggest they
aren’t compatible with Wikipedia because of their inability to listen, edit warring, and attacks on others when the issues are pointed out. They’re always free to appeal. TonyBallioni (talk
File deleted. NAC. –Davey2010Talk 22:42, 16 June 2020 (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.
Deleted. No idea about the bot.--v/r - TP 14:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am at a loss, I was just about to add a load of entries to the list, but silly me, I lost all the work I did, was trying to improve it, but clearly Egghead06 has no interest in helping the article from the way I wanted to change it to and just wants to edit-war. I am fed-up now, clearly some people have no interest in editing articles. I am going to take a break, but maybe someone can have a word with Egghead06. I'm done for the day, Govvy (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No comment on the content, but per
BRD, you should've started the talkpage conversation when you were reverted. Right now, you look far more guilty of edit warring to force through a preferred version without seeking consensus when your edit was challenged. Grandpallama (talk
) 15:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
If you get an edit conflict, considering copying from your edit to a sandbox straight away especially if it's a lot of text to avoid accidentally losing anything. And if you are on a desktop, consider choosing a browser which doesn't tend to lose form data when you go back. Anyway putting aside edit warring issues, Egghead06 isn't required to agree with "the way I wanted to change it". That's often why
WP:ABF. Frustration is one thing and stopping editing when you are frustrated is often a good thing, but random ANI complaints asking people to speak to someone over a content dispute, not so much..... Likewise I also don't understand why you failed to notify Egghead06 of this thread as you're required to, but I let them know for you. Nil Einne (talk
) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Large chunks of this article were removed with the edit summary of “Revamp”. Hardly useful as any explanation for content removal. My most recent attempt to engage in discussion with this editor were met with swearing. I’m pretty sure that isn’t how it’s supposed to work!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, the article is at AfD. However, an IP has closed the discussion citing that the AfD was created by a sock. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the IP editor is evading a block. That much I can say for sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There are clearly issues with the article, otherwise I wouldn't of done the edits I did, certainly there would of been an AfD if otherwise?? I love the fact that everyone seems to have missed the 3RR, bordering an a user who wanted to edit-war with me for some reason, when I posted here about it, not the content issue, it's always ignored, the last time I mention this style of dissatisfaction, that 3RR was ignored. I really don't know why I bother posting here. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
a user who wanted to edit-war with me for some reason Why are you accusing the other editor of edit warring? Why, after making a major change to the article that was reverted, did you not follow
BRD and discuss your proposed edit on the talkpage? Why did you instead initiate an edit war by reverting a revert? Why does concern about borderline 3RR apply to the other editor, but not to you? Grandpallama (talk
) 22:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll reply to you on your user page since I probably should posting long comments which are mostly personal advice. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Chronic edit warring, blatant COI by a school, copyvios
Came across edit warring at Victoria College, Jersey yesterday. Looked like a mess. Apparently the issue hasn't resolved, and at a closer look, there's more issues than originally thought. Overall, I recommend just looking at the history with limit 500. But, in particular, these diffs (also see edit summaries, quoting a select few):
The edit warring is actually chronic, since June 2019.
Beginning of reverts by IP block: Special:Diff/902103334 (with suggestion of COI: Re-Added information regarding the school uniform following further vandalism by ‘FormulaOneWiki’ whoclearly has no association with the college.)
A stronger, acute edit war begins: Special:Diff/962342117 (sidenote: see edit summaries, quite amusing)
Denial of COI: I am not an employee or associated to the school. The school is a prominent local landmark, information on what flags are flying is relevant to the community (especially on flag days - do you even know what these are) stop mis-interpreting guidance on wiki pages to suit your Elizabeth College view on the world. - evidently a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies, not just ignorance
I added
WP:OWN
is visible in edit summaries since end war stopped.
Formulaonewiki pointed out the following vandalism, recently done by IP block, to other school articles edited by Formulaonewiki (particularly note edit summaries and content changes). Apparently as 'retribution':
Copyvio: Formulaonewiki had added his account of the matter here. In it, he includes information on copyright violations within the article, including a few specific extracts of blatant c+p from other websites. Copyvio report.
No clue why this wasn't brought to admin attention earlier, since it's been going on, on-and-off, for years.
talk
) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is indeed concerning. The /24 mentioned above (unsurprisingly) geolocates to Jersey, though it isn't provably the college doing the edits. My thinking is to either semi the article for a while or pblock the range from the college (with the intent to get the problematic IP editors to engage on the talk page).
talk
) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This saga was a fascinating read. I especially appreciate the twist at the end where, after a dozen lengthy edit summaries demonstrating they do not care to learn what is acceptable on WP; do not understand what or where an article's or their own Talk page is; did not follow any of the linked policies or guidelines; and will not acknowledge or respond to the specific policies even when spelled out for them on apparently the only wiki forum on which they communicate (edit summaries); all the while berating
Formulaonewiki for "not being associated with the school" and accusing "... repeated vandalism by FormulaOneWiki. Traditional information is verified and formal citations are not required. (diff); the IP is now allegedly [re-adding] ... valuable contributions by FormulaOneWiki in an appropriate manner. (diff) JoelleJay (talk
) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
While I am ashamed to say I resorted to blatant edit-warring when, quite frankly, I really should know better, I hope it is seen that I was doing my best to explain the reasons for all of my edits and went to great length to explain the issues with the article on the article's talk page. In my view, the best outcome would be that the page is returned to the most recent edition left by me here, and that I can address any purported issues or inaccuracies described by the IP user (which appear genuine amongst the rest of nonsense they've sent in my direction) to achieve a genuinely good article for the school. I'd like to note that I've gone about improving several school articles in the Channel Islands including
wiki
00:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I should add that there appears to be a response from the IP editor here. I note that they seem tremendously averse to the ISI report conducted in 2017 (arguably the best independent, secondary source available for the school) and are concerned for some reason with my previous contributions to
wiki
01:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It's amusing how frequently the edit summary complaints mention an unnamed adversary from Guernsey or some Elizabeth College, Guernsey editor, as if such qualifiers are self-evident indictments of encyclopedia-writing. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The Child abuse scandal is covered and the definitive report cited. This like others is a clear false accusation.
There is no 'averse' feeling towards the ISI inspection, it however has limited scope and concentrates on the present rather than the history of the site. If entries had been updated with this info this would have been more appropriate than re-writing the entire article based on such. Such additions have now been made, without losing any historical context.
Furthermore, regarding what a 'school-page' should 'look like' and the guidance that should be followed - we refer you to the page for Eton College. When the school has a prominence beyond a it's local community the information that it is beneficial to include goes also beyond what a school page typically contains.
However when the school has, for example, a large co-curricula programme to solely focus on matches in: Shooting, Hockey and Cricket against Elizabeth College is staggeringly short-sighted given the omitted events that are more important such as the annual MCC matches, Castle Trophy and Caribbean Cricket tours, the Greshams Hockey Tournament and successful Bisley participation. These and many other events such as the: Lord Jersey Rugby tournament, CCF camps and state ceremonial participation and the many OV team events has never been included as they would be considered trivia and not historical context of interest to the wider population. This is clearly lost on the editor associated with Elizabeth College who fails to see their own COI whilst accusing others of one that doesn't always exist.
If there are any further issues other than the lack of citations, please do raise them, now we have been provided with a link to the 'talk' and 'admin' pages we can interact positively. (Unfortunately my friend had no idea what these were yesterday and acted regrettably out of frustration (with no other obvious outlet to resolve such) at what was perceived to be regular vandalism by an editor with an agenda over the last couple of years.) - until then restoring the citations is what he/we will continue to concentrate on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.166.160 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not make edits in ANI to messages that aren't your own,
talk
) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
How can you say it is a 'clear false accusation'? The evidence is literally right here: Special:Diff/916246076 with edit summary "Removed scandal as school do not want it visible". While perhaps it was not you yourself who made that edit, it is irrefutable that at least somebody associated with the school attempted to censor that information.
You evidently have still not bothered to read any of the breakdown of the guidelines and Wiki policy I have very clearly written out here. On a number of occassions I have invited 'your friend' to partake in the discussion and explained where the talk page can be found, so any claim they had "no other obvious outlet to resolve such" is rubbish and most certainly does not justify vandalising other articles.
Nobody is saying content beyond the guidelines at
WP:PROVEIT
.
Where has there been any suggestion that I am associated with Elizabeth College? In fact, in contributing to that school's article, I have been involved in discussions with associates of the school who did indeed have a COI. They listened, understood what COI was and why that's an issue, and we worked constructively to improve the article with their help. You'd do well to do the same. The only 'agenda' I have is to improve the article as well as ensuring good encylopedic practice. —
wiki
11:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no blatant COI by the school, you are conflating multiple editors and making assumptions. When similar is done regarding your COI you object thus proving the point being made.
It is beyond us why you continually reference an individual edit a couple of years ago that was reverted and which content remains in the current article in a succinct summary form with the report cited. This just further discredits your motives.
As mentioned previously the expired or removed citations were there originally, it is better to restore such than to repeatedly delete the information.
I myself being a total amateur at this will happily take procedural advice, as you should take content advice given your erroneous attempts to improve so far have not been successful. Evidence of other extra curricular events are all over social media as unlike with Wikipedia - the school maintains their Facebook, Twitter & Website. They just like the Elizabeth College matches are not historically noteworthy though.
NB: there is no obvious link to a 'talk' page on the main page and it'd seen any directions you might have offered were lost in the dross at the time. The regrettable counter-vandalism is in-excusable, no matter how upset my friend was, but he is even less tech-savy than myself.
At this point I do not see you making any concessions as we have done, so I'll wait for further input from a reputable admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.166.160 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The contributions of all the IPs listed above can be viewed as
WP:3RR even if you believe you are enforcing policy. Ask admins for assistance before doing so. EdJohnston (talk
Already blocked. (And unblocked, and reblocked.) —
Cryptic
00:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic, looking forward to DeltaQuadBot's appeal on UTRS being spammed... Guy (help!
) 16:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop Yapperbot NOW
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing as issue seems to have been resolved, Naypta stated here that "the bot was working through a backlog of all the RfCs that were still pending. That's now cleared, so you shouldn't ever receive such a large volume simultaneously again" so hopefully this wont be repeated again. Closing as no further action needed. –Davey2010Talk 13:48, 16 June 2020 (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.
Need an admin to please press the big red button at User:Yapperbot immediately! Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:FRS and it's obeying - you have a number of different category subscriptions with relatively high limits, which is why you're seeing a fair few messages at the moment. As explained on the bot's userpage, on my page, and also on the FRS page, the volume of messages being sent is higher at the moment than it will be once it's settled in, but it's still respecting everything you've set. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page
| 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I realise that if you have high limits set on the FRS page and you weren't expecting this, it's frustrating, and I apologise for that - I'd not realised quite how many people had such high limits set! As a rollbacker, I'm happy to rollback all the bot's edits to your or anyone else's talk pages on request) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to rollback. I've added a bots deny (after a half a dozen edit conflicts, I wised up and had the whole page in my clipboard, and slammed it in there one second after the last change, and managed to save it). Let's see if it respects it. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: It won't respect bots deny, I'm afraid, because it's a separate subscription list - this was addressed in the BRFA for it. You can remove yourself from the subscription list to opt out, although after the end of this single run to start it off there'll be far fewer messages being sent to you, as it won't have a backlog to deal with. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you won't respect DENY, then TURN IT THE FUCK OFF RIGHT NOW!!! Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, that is shouting; first time in 14 years. Sorry.
@
WP:FRS. I've again double-checked the listings there, and it has respected your preferences, not going over the limits that you've set on that page. I appreciate that this is frustrating when it's unexpected like this, but it is doing exactly what it's designed to do, and what you opted in to - albeit in a sudden way, unlike the normal more spread-out way that you'd receive these messages. Of course, from now on, the messages will be spread out again - only firing when a new RfC is added. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page
| 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: the bot is after all just doing what you told it... ——Serial# 08:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
When someone works out their preferences to accept N per month, over however many different categories, knowing that that translates roughly into, let's say, one a day (or whatever number) over all categories, then if it starts up again after a period of being shut off, it needs to respect that rough frequency. It is *not* a reasonable design, to dump a whole bunch of Rfcs at once like that; that is maybe bot-friendly, but not human friendly. If you need to do a first pass through the whole file, to read all of a user's categories and then calculate a total frequency per month for that user to come out with "average one every 25.6 hours over the whole month", then do it. Send one to the user, look in your hash, realize that you sent the last one to that user three seconds ago, but user frequency is one per 92160 seconds, and don't send another one yet. How hard is that? Favor the user, not the program. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You've literally left yourself open to sixty—count em, sixty—feedback requests a month. ——Serial# 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
To be fair though, thats 60 spread out over a month. Not 30 in as many minutes (which is close to what Mathglot got). It wouldnt have been too difficult to send out a message to everyone on the FRS saying 'We are changing bots, you are likely to recieve lots of messages in a short period of time. You have 24 hours to change your settings at FRS'. Or just warn people they have 24 hours to temporarily put bots deny in, and have the bot actually respect deny. This was an entirely predictable sequence of events, which should have merited a bit of forethought in letting people know it was going to happen in advance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1) This is this user's first bot, cut them some slack.
2) This will literally never happen under normal circumstances. In every other situation the bot getting around to it's task on time is a good thing, and impeding that for an edge case that'll likely never happen again is pretty silly. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 09:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Moonythedwarf and Mathglot: It is doing what it's meant to, but I sympathise with the problem - I understand why people are frustrated, even if the bot is obeying the options that they have set. The option of dividing a rate limit wasn't one I had thought of, and is a good idea - if I were to make something similar again, I would implement that sort of a system. I appreciate the feedback, because at the end of the day, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Mathglot that per day is what editors probably want, NOT per month.
As for exactly how that should be coded, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the specifics of Mathglot's method to check. [more to be Added.] --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Rather than add to the above, I would like to continue this discussion about implementation at
WP:BON per Serial Number 54129's suggestion below. @Mathglot: Since you were on top of this first, would like to create the (continued) discussion and section with best title? --David Tornheim (talk
) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, since the bot has finished its run, and we have assurances that this won't reoccur, the issue is moot. This thread can now be closed and any further discussion continue at BON or the bot's talk page. ——Serial# 09:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it should be closed until everybody has had their say. It's night time in much of the Western Hemisphere; let's give people time to wake up, and react. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(
Discussion moved to}} template below, so newcomers can find it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk
) 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this?See continued discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would only be comfortable with closing if these two conditions are met:
(2) an independent bot coder has reviewed the code, looked at the progress of the bot, and testifies that the bot is indeed caught up, ideally providing evidence that is the case.
If the bot has indeed finished getting caught up, then I would be opposed to turning it off. I do want us to start getting the notices as we are supposed to, so on would be better on than off if damage is past.
However, I'm not at all convinced it will not happen again per Mathglot. There should be a max. notices per day option IMHO no matter how hard it is to code to avoid these notice dumps.
I believe this should have been caught during code review, and that editors on the list to be notified should have been asked if it was okay to get a full month's worth of notices all in one day. They should have asked about this before the bot was fired up. I think this could and should have been avoided.
I must admit, I had concerns this would happen, and I regret I didn't express them earlier. I think it will be annoying to many other editors who put 30 or more per month.
I am happy to help with code review. I have tons of experience with coding, but admit I have yet to look at any bot coding here. Might be time to start. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) P.S. Yes I agree we cut slack to the new bot editor, who did his/her first bot. We are all volunteers. And it goes without saying that we appreciate your willingness to fix a bot that has been broken. However, when something impacts this many editors, the stakes are high. Whether you are new or old, you are on the hot seat when the work you do affects many and has high visibility. So you have to have a thick skin for inevitable criticism and/or pushback. It may be embarrassing to receive such seemingly criticism when praise is desired.
If you work through it successfully, admit there might have been a better approach, be completely honest about implementation, alternatives that may be more satisfactorily, be willing to work out bugs (even if you don't think they are bugs), people will forgive you... That's how it is in industry and your boss says his/her boss is very upset that your code is not working as expected... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim and Mathglot: The code is entirely open source, so feel absolutely free to review it! Of course, this is a project I've done in my spare time, so it's not commercial quality code, but it is all functional. As to verifying that the bot has caught up, you can verify this independently, because the bot keeps all of its data on-wiki. There's no database powering it - all the data is stored in JSON files. As such, you can see the "internals" of the bot on-wiki: the list of completed RfCs that are still in the category is here, and the list regulating the number of messages sent to users is here. I have no interest in this being closed, in any way - PRs are very much welcome on the GitHub repository, and any suggestions from people who aren't technical (or who are, but are disinclined to read through hundreds of lines of Golang code!) are very welcome and gratefully received.I'm happy to continue this discussion wherever people want, I'm not fussed by the exact location - but I would also like to make sure it is continued! As with everything on and off-wiki, this is a learning experience, and I want to make sure that things get better over time Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Per Naypta's invitation. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot:, @Naypta: Shouldn't the discussion be continued at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service or User_talk:Yapperbot? Editors will not expect a discussion about a bot to be on the talk page of the original programmer of the bot. Editors trying to find the discussion in the furture will not be able to find it and refer to it. I strongly believe it belongs in one of those two places. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Noted this at the discussion on my talk page, but I'm happy to have this discussion wherever people feel is best. I'll be leaving the notices up explaining the backlog run on the relevant pages for at least a week or so I should think, so there ought to be time for people to get involved. All of the relevant pages are on my watchlist anyhow, so I'll see discussions wherever. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:14, 16 June 2020 (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.
Post-script: David Tornheim, I thought so as well, which is why I put it there in the first place. Until I noticed the boxed message at the top of the page, so I self-reverted, and moved it to the user talk page instead. That boxed message has since been removed. It's still Naypta's call, where he wants to have it. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Since Naypta said s/he didn't care where the discussion was -and- both of us agree that it is better at the bot page, I have restored the discussion continuation to
Works for me; see you there. (Btw: Naypta is he/him, per {{They|Naypta}}.) Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:84.203.69.48 was blocked several days ago for 60 hours due to disruptive editing. Now that their block has been lifted, they proceeded to restore the same disruptive content that got them warned, reported, and blocked. The user has not learned their lesson. A longer block needs to be enforced or at least a page protection to the articles. Armegon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (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 threats at Southwest Georgia Academy
Copyvio sorted out, will monitor. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2020 (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.
All is understood and retracted. However, after reading the SGA page and several other "articles" about private schools in the south, it's painfully clear to me that you really can NOT believe anything you read on the internet. I used to use Wikipedia all the time as what I thought was a reliable information source, but have learned otherwise today. Kelhaddock (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a
reliable source. However, it uses them. Sources show SGA and many other private schools founded in and around 1970 were founded to avoid integration. It is hard to believe someone would deny that, but it happens on a very regular basis. Jacona (talk
) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources are difficult to come by, but it's clear that the school still is segregated. The town is 64% black, and the county 49% black. The school is 100% white. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Canadian}
00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@{ CrypticCanadian } No. We do not own or have any stake in the school.
All three of Kelhaddock's edits to the article, and those of the IP preceding the account's edits, are copyvio from this barelink history of the school, cited as the first reference. The history contains useful information, but the copyright violations need to be scrubbed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2020 (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.
Use of the G5 speedy deletion tag
@Amanuensis Balkanicus: is an editor who was in many content disputes with Fa alk (talk·contribs). A few days ago, Fa alk was blocked as a likely sock after a report by Amanuensis, who in the past has nominated to AfD several articles created by Fa alk -many of whom weren't deleted [190][191] Now, Amanuensis Balkanicus is going around and tagging every article that Fa alk has ever created. These include not only articles which should be probably be redirected but also articles with verified notability and even good and expanded articles. What is the point of deleting Pasquale Bruti or Convention of Dukagjin or Benedictinism in Albania just because an editor blocked as likely sock created them? The fact that a blocked user created an article is not a reason to delete it without taking into account any other criteria. AB is also nominating articles which other editors have worked on like Convention of Kuçi, an article which I have rewritten in its entirety a few months ago. I think that the editor in question is indiscriminately CSDing every article Fa alk has created because of their content disputes. I think that this harmful to the project as a whole as notable subjects shouldn't be deleted just because the editor who created them was blocked as a likely sock. I have contested and improved some of these articles, but I think that an admin should give a more thorough opinion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Side comment: many of these articles would never be deleted in an AfD process. At most, they would be improved. In fact, many of them have passed the page review process. What is the point in asking for the deletion of Giovanni Renesi. Does that improve the project at any rate?--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly within my rights to request the speedy deletion of articles created by blocked sockpuppets, as per
WP:G5. If you wish you can contribute significantly to each and every one so they no longer meet the criteria. I will also be requesting the speedy deletion of articles created by Kadribastrica's other sockpuppets that haven't been substantially edited by other users. And for the record, I haven't sought, nor will I seek, the speedy deletion of every single article that this particular sockpuppet created (see Crime in Albania and Merchant fleet of Ulqin). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk
) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Amanuensis Balkanicus is claiming that it is perfectly within his rights to nominate for deletion
Mikel Suma, an article about a Roman Catholic Archbishop - which would never get deleted if it wasn't created by an editor blocked as a sock is in my opinion a flagrant and disruptive use of the G5 tag. The fact that Amanuensis has nominated articles of Fa alk unsuccessfully in AfD (some of them related to Catholicism), thus has a history of such content disputes with him, makes it even more of a problem that now he is using the G5 tag in a way that was definitely not intended to nominate for deletion articles about Catholic archbishops and the history of Roman Catholic monastic orders in a country (Benedictinism in Albania. Amanuensis Balkanicus has nominated for deletion with the G5 tag over 30 articles so far. Some should see a redirect, but most would never get deleted which makes this an even more blatantly misguided use of G5. --Maleschreiber (talk
) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
[192] Back-and-forth reverting has began in Gjini family (another perfectly notable topic, which is expanded). Another editor made a further expansion and removed the G5 tag, but Amanuensis is reverting it back. @Βατο: Another example of very misguided use of G5: Francesco Maria Da Lecce, the author of the first work on Albanian grammar was nominated just because Fa alk created it. AB who is an experienced editor knows that in no situation would this ever get deleted in AfD, but he went for G5 nonetheless.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
How is it misguided? It seems that many edits were made in hurry just in order to have an accuse to stop the deletion process, as topics are something you are intersted in. I can also see a lot of subtle accusing, not healthy really - and not helping. A number of articles created by his socks are good and ready for deletion, regardless of anybody liking it or not. For example, I like his article on piracy, but that is not an accuse. @Maleschreiber please read Red herring and try to be on-topic and don't get emotional, and I sympathize that it's not easy. Sadkσ(talk is cheap) 02:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
talk
) 02:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Having the right to use a tool, doesn't mean that one should use it indiscriminately. CSDing an article about an archbishop and the author of the first Albanian grammar is not what the tool is intended for and I can only explain it in the way that I did when I created the report. The tool is not intended for articles that have passed a page review. If AB thought these should get deleted, he could start AfDs at any time. @
Creffett: on Giovanni Renesi, I added a source and have contested the deletion so the article just needs cleanup because it already had a good bibliography section. Should I just remove the G5 tag now that it is inapplicable?--Maleschreiber (talk
) 02:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason why even articles about notable subjects can be deleted per
WP:BMB. Leaving their work standing because it's worthy of inclusion essentially gives those editors a free pass to violate their ban. Regards SoWhy
08:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to completely re-write such an article from scratch, leaving no sign of the banned editor's work. If the subject is notable, sooner or later someone will create an article about them, so it's not the existece of the article that's a problem per se, it's the existence of the particular article, which includes the banned editor's work. Save a copy of the article, delete all the text but save the references, and use them to create a new article, or go along in the article and rewrite every sentence so that it's not longer the work of the banned editor. Either of those should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
talk
) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Which though allows prolific but otherwise problematic editors, who were correctly banned, to edit Wikipedia "through the backdoor". Personally, I, too, don't like G5 / BMB from a "what is best for the reader?"-perspective but in these cases, what is best for the reader is not necessarily best for the project which is trying to enforce restrictions. Eating the fruit of the poisonous tree might yield satisfaction in the short run but it will hurt you in the long run. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) From
WP:G5: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. [emphasis in the original] [...] To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." That wording strikes as clear and unambiguous. Narky Blert (talk
) 13:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not an issue here. Fa alk's first edits were in 2019. The alleged sockmaster was blocked indef in 2015. If Fa alk is indeed a sock, then everthing they have done under that username is in violation of a block/ban. See SPI. The more relevant section is a couple of lines down in G5: "When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5." Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
G5 says you CAN. It does not say you MUST. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive user Chaipau
Firstly, Chaipau made 12 edits on the Miya people article. The Miya people are a migrant community living in Assam, a state in India, who migrated there from what is now modern-day Bangladesh. The controversy with these articles is their identity as Bengal-origin Muslims living in a Hindu state in India.
The content of his edits were mainly "good faith" but removed a large chunk of my work on the Etymology section of the article. The term Miya is a Bengali language variant of a Persian language honorific "mian", and I provided a dictionary reference to show that Miya is Bengali for "Muslim gentleman". The term "mian" can also be found in the Urdu language spoken in North India and Pakistan (nowhere near where our topic is). The Urdu term, like the Bengali term, both derive from the Persian language. User Chaipau removed all references to "Bengali" in his edits stating that I was pushing a "Bengali POV" and then added that the origin of the word is from Urdu, even though it doesn't make sense at all as they are Miya (Bengali variant) not Mian (Urdu variant). The migrant community originated from Bengal and were pejoratively called "Miya" because of their identity as Bengal-origin Muslims. There was no relevance of Urdu in his edits.
User Chaipau then comes on to the talk page and says that mian is from Persian and that it doesn't matter if Bengali is older than Urdu. I never brought up the Urdu language first, I just forgot to write that it was a Bengali term of Persian-origin. My argument was that it is not an Urdu word, yet Chaipau made it seem as if I was trying to say it was a purely Bengali term and not Persian at all. He made little things a massive issue starting an argument over why I used "Bengali Muslim" and not "Bengal-origin Muslim" even though I never edit warred with him over this. (When he changed Bengali Muslim to Bengal-origin Muslim, I left it how it was yet he started an argument over it).
The two main terms the community is known as is "Miya" and "Na Asamiya" (an Assamese language word for "Neo-Assamese"). I added these two words on the infobox and lead with
Assamese script and it wasn't even in the actual article (I only kept it in the infobox) so WP:MOSIS wouldn't apply here. Other Indic community articles such as Punjabis, Bengalis and Tamils
The only Bengali-related thing I added to the article was the fact that Miya is a Bengali variant, yet Chaipau accuses me of POV pushing whilst adding unsourced things like "it's an Urdu word". I've noticed he is a very disruptive user for months now involved in many arguments in related pages, although this is our first encounter. Looking at history of the article, I've contributed so much and Chaipau is here removing my referenced work and adding unsourced claims. UserNumber (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Chaipau is also adding promotional image to history of Assam. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Assam&diff=960745019&oldid=960732362 . 2409:4065:93:6D9C:15A6:1400:78FE:B4FA (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and talk page harassment
I have final-warned LoganBlade about the multiple issues with their editing. A block will follow in short order if they continue down this road. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2020 (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:DRIVEBY tag Feminist views on transgender topics with multiple unexplained content tags, including "Systemic bias", in between threats of being banned for removing her messages on my talk page and other uncivil comments: 1, 2, 3. When I stated that I would be taking the matter to ANI, LoganBlade left a new message on my talk page consisting just of an inappropriate picture. --Equivamp - talk
I fixed an extremely biased section of that article and Equivamp decided he wanted to edit war instead of discussion so I left an edit warring notice on his talk page which he disregarded and continued
User literally only writes about transgender topis and writes like a huffpo author not a Wikipedia editor. User is not neutral in his writing
Tags tagged are extremely appropriate for that article as anyone with their head partially inside of or fully outside their ass are perfectly awware
LoganBlade's recent contribs to Equivamp's talk page are completely out of line. Disruptive edit warring over a template removal, PAs + harassment are not ok. Mysticdan (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
your honor if i may submit into evidence the prosecutions edit history and userboxes
There are three problems with LoganBlade's editing here (1) Not following BRD - theirs was the bold edit, it was reverted, but they did not discuss but instead reverted again and told the other editor to discuss (2) their personal attacks including in this discussion (3) their edit-warring to include a negative assertion about a BLP subject written in Wikipedia's voice, which I have reverted. I have given LoganBlade a warning on their talkpage that they may likely be blocked if this is to re-occur. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2020 (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.
Guy
An appropriate clerking action was taken, nothing to see here Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:06, 19 June 2020 (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.
Don't reopen closed reports, file a new one. Always assuming you don't get topic-banned first, as happened at ruWP and as dicusssed above. Guy (help!) 14:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
What is the standard operating procedure on the EW page, for closed cases? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the bot archives them after 48 hours of the "result" being filled in? Or some techno thing ike that... ——Serial# 14:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, no clue, all I know is that the OP reinserted this archived case on the active page [193] and removed it from the archives [194]; he then removed it again from the archive, and reinserted it again on the active page.
Recommend this ANI report be closed, as no action. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
As the discussion above shows, he is already topic banned from North Korea on the Russian Wikipedia and has been indeffed there twice. Guy (help!) 15:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
(
Canadian}
14:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I also support Guy acting as an uninvolved admin with a correct edit action. El_C 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Close this before the WP:BOOMERANG comes out. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2020 (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.
Revdeleted and indeffed. But, NedFausa, please don't use this noticeboard for revdeletion requests. It is too high-traffic of a venue. Make the request to an individual admin, instead. Thank you. El_C 22:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A registered user is persistently deleting talk page comments by IP users
While watching some pages that we all interact in, I noticed User:Binksternet is quite persistently deleting, striking-through, edit-warring, and casting aspersions against some (non-blocked) IP users, accusing them to be User:Asdisis. I reverted most of his deletions, but then he reverted my revert a couple of times, so I think I have to take this here.
Nice work. While you were looking through my edits to see where I was "casting aspersions", I was researching the Asdisis case to create the LTA page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asdisis. Asdisis has been a hu-u-uge problem on Wikipedia, an ongoing problem, and your efforts here are unfortunately in support of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:EVADE does not offer any presumption of innocence. Nothing would get done around here if block-evading IPs were allowed free rein. The institution of Wikipedia acts swiftly in self-defense, without spending a lot of time on procedure. Binksternet (talk
@TParis: Obviously, doing that led me here. I assumed good faith on part of the IP user... Are you saying less faith should be given to IP users, specifically? Notrium (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You assumed bad faith on the part of Binksternet.--v/r - TP 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@TParis: Actually, I assumed Binksternet, too, is acting in good faith, but misunderstands WP policy and guidelines (which was false, I guess now). In case it's not clear, I'm trying to get guidance from you of what should I do in the future. Notrium (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
, uninvolved editor commentNotrium, Binksternet is clearly very experienced (one can see from his Userprofile) so yes, one should assume good faith when he edits or any other editor with experience. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }- 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1: I said that I am assuming good faith on Binksternet's part, but it was clear at least from his "vandalism" report that he does not fully understand relevant policy. Please see my question below. Notrium (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Notrium, you don't have to keep pinging someone in an active discussion. Regarding AGF, good faith is assumed in the absence of evidence otherwise. Once evidence shows a lack of good faith, then the courtesy of AGF is changed for something less than that, as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I support Binksternet, I suspected from some of his comments that the IP was Asdisis. I'm not sure other editors realize what a persistent sock Asdisis is. Also this is occurring in a very acrimonious RfC. Binksternet is an extremely well regarded editor. --ChetvornoTALK 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
General questions
OK, I don't care about Binksternet or that specific IP anymore; but there are definitely some things that need to be clarified here to prevent problems for me in the future:
How am I to distinguish legitimate removal of non-blocked users' comments on talk pages from illegitimate? This consists basically of two questions: which users are legitimate targets for removal, and which comments of theirs are legitimate targets for removal.
Is Binksternet (or anybody else) now authorized to remove any comments (at the RfC and similar) at his discretion? Even though he's not an admin? Keep in mind that even with assuming good faith on Binksternet's part, I cannot assume infallibility. Notrium (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The guideline at
WP:EVADE says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." This allows quite a lot of leeway. "Anyone" means not only admins but anyone. Of course, if you think the removal is wrong, you can restore edits and communicate your views about it. However, EVADE also says you should not be aiding a blocked editor, so if you know the editor is blocked then restoration would be wrong. Binksternet (talk
) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Notrium: You should probably read Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Asdisis to understand why Binksternet is convinced this is a sock. Then raise the issue with Binksternet if you disagree with their rationale.--v/r - TP 00:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That list is huge. Surely there is zero chance of all those IPs being Asdisis? And I do mean zero. As I said, Binksternet is not infallible, nor is he omniscient. This completely backs up my point of "authorized to remove any comments [...] at his discretion" (FTR, I don't know if they are still present, or if B is working on removing them). I mean, unless I'm wrong, this whole sock-recognition thing is based on stylistic analysis, so almost any comment of only moderate length can't be confirmed to be Asdisis by a non-CheckUser.
And please don't tell me anyone in Croatia could be Asdisis, there are a couple million people in Croatia. Notrium (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Make up your mind. Either this isn't "about Binksternet or that specific IP anymore" or it is.
It's one thing when an IP or a new user makes such talk page deletions, but I would suggest that when a very experienced editor (100s of thousands of edits in this case) tells you that he or she is deleting block evasion by an LTA you simply accept it and move on. If you don't recognize experienced editors by name or know how to see their long term edit counts and history then you are likely not experienced enough (or active enough) to be worrying about this. Meters (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Meters, as I said this is more general than just Binksternet, but still, the RfC and other discussions, which are immediately relevant to this issue, are ongoing.
Regarding your comments about "experienced editors", I abhor them. If nothing else, it sounds like you're "protecting your own"; and as I already said Binksternet is not infallible, and the mentioned "vandalism" report really does not speak to his experience in these matters. Notrium (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nortium: That IP range is actually quite small and it's entirely in the realm of likely that Binksternet is accurate. You're exceeding my patience here.--v/r - TP 01:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, I glanced through some IPs you listed in your new big page on Asdisis, and some older IP was espousing the viewpoint that Tesla was not a Serb, while "our" IP was AFAIK consistent on recognizing Tesla as a Serb. How can you possibly reconcile that, unless you're just listing every IP who remotely disagrees with you in relevant issues? Notrium (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I am not accusing you of bad faith, everybody has their biases; that's why we need many representative voices to achieve NPOV. Notrium (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your comment that there is "zero chance" of the LTA page on Asdisis being 100% accurate, I should point out that this is Wikipedia, with everything in motion, and nothing really set in stone. If you think one or more IPs should not be listed, take them out. Or tell me why you think they are wrong and I'll take them out. Mathematically it's more likely that I have failed to include some Asdisis IPs than wrongly listed non-Asdisis ones. Also, the clues about who is and who is not Asdisis are more than just the style of wording. Finally, I don't think of Asdisis as a static entity; I imagine he's human and that he has changed over time. He might have started out denying Serbian ethnicity but in the face of impossible opposition shifted his position to downplaying Serbian ethnicity. Certainly his English has improved over time. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Nortium is indeffed on hr.wiki. Google Translate is not very useful at translating why. But I'm starting to get a feeling for it nonetheless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It's Notrium, and if you knew the first thing about hr.wiki you would know that that place is basically a closed group for fascists, that's why I'm banned. And the admin who banned me is not even literate (neither in english, nor in croatian). Notrium (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI I don't know why Notrium is banned at hr.wiki but I can confirm that (a) it's a closed group for extreme nationalists, and (b) they ban anyone who doesn't share their groupthink. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"exceeding my patience here" - OK close then; but, FTR, my questions weren't answered, and especially "which comments of theirs are legitimate targets for removal" was completely evaded. Notrium (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The answers to the two questions you asked are pretty simple. For the first, if you see an established editor removing talkpage comments, ask that editor directly and politely on their talkpage as to why they're doing it. Usually they'll direct you to a relevant sockpuppet investigation or LTA page. If they don't or can't, you can always ask an admin what's going on. The other parts of your first question are answered by the policy pages you were directed to. As for your second question, no, you and others don't have carte blanche authority to remove comments from talkpages or RfC pages, and if you do so, you'd better be prepared to have strong policy backing to explain your actions (as Binksternet did in this case) when an admin comes calling. In other words, if you're not a highly experienced editor involved in fighting socks or complex vandalism, you shouldn't do it. In objecting to these particular removals, while you may feel you are attempting to uphold principles of AGF, you are inadvertently aiding a damaging editor, and have been advised by admins that Binksternet's actions are appropriate, so should drop the matter. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And that pretty much sums it up. Make sure you can reasonably back up your actions with policy if someone comes asking.--v/r - TP 13:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also point out from that from a number of the earlier links, it's not like Binksternet just removed comments without making it clear why for DENY reasons or something. Quite a few of them specifically named Asdisis, indeed Notrium started off this thread mentioning Asdisis. So frankly it was easy to investigate why even without needing to ask Binksternet. If after investigating the history of Asdisis you had doubts over the identification, you could have still followed up with Binksternet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Ylevental paying for edits in order to advance AfD goals
....this is the weirdest case of paying for edits I've ever seen. Praxidicae (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want the page to be turned into an infamous quagmire like the
talk
) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought that one month was long enough, but I might have been wrong. The other incident you referred to was a few days after deletion, since I thought that articles could be re-listed right away. The paid editor disclosed on
talk
) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You should also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. While technically disclosing on the talk page alone may be sufficient assuming that's the only page you paid them to edit, disclosure on both the article talk page and on their user page is strongly encouraged. Ensuring anyone you are paying is sufficiently disclosing will reduce concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
My, oh, my. This is extremely hilarious. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like Ylevental has been frequently editing the page that he nominated for deletion? I'm confused. 50.239.129.122 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
At very least Ylevental has COI if they are paying for edits.--Hippeus (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
My favorite part in all of this is the reasoning (If I edited it myself, I would seem biased.). Bias concerns and COI avoided! Grandpallama (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yup. "Hired goons" makes it a conspiracy as well as whatever nefarious deeds result from it. DMacks (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was hired by
WP:NPOV and did not clean-up mindlessly, I was aware that removing referenced content is considered vandalism in Wikipedia, so my edits only involved removing repetitive information which just served to create a lengthier page. My edits are visible here - [214] and here - [215]. While editing the article, I disclosed the paid status on the article talk page according to this - Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose, which clearly mentions that 'paid editors must disclose paid editing on their main user page, OR on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, OR in edit summaries. Further, I do not know why Ylevental wants to delete Shain Neumeier's page, but I am certainly not the same person because I was just hired by him to clean up the page. --Podcaster7 (talk
) 16:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Podcaster7 Guess you missed this part of the paid policy: Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.[3]Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright Praxidicae, never came across this. However, I was wondering that any editor can share any freelancer profile link which can't be authenticated. That's why I feel its best to mention the paid editing disclosure on the article talk page.--Podcaster7 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Podcaster7 It's pretty clear in the paid editing page that this is required, but let me get this straight: you took on a job for a project which you've never really edited and have no experience and didn't read the terms of use? Have you added your freelancer or Upwork or whatever site you advertise on profile yet? Praxidicae (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(non admin comment) Isn't this essentially a complex form of meatpuppeting? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Removing comments and edits of a blocked sockpuppet
Where can I request that the comments and edits of Smith0124, who was recently identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of the previously blocked Peterjack1, be removed/struck-through and reverted? This editor has made substantial edits on more than one hundred 2020 primary, caucus, and other election pages (e.g., deleting candidates from info boxes).
One area affected is Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries where this sockpuppet created two poorly constructed RfC's ([216], [217]). Can these be struck through? It would help the other editors clarify the issues without this disruptive presence. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Anybody is allowed to remove sockpuppet edits. State the reason in your edit summary (e.g. with a link to the sockpuppet investigation) if what you're reverting isn't blatantly unconstructive. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with Passengerpigeon, it's probably not a good idea to edit a closed RfC. You could post a follow up under mentioning that the edit was blocked for socking if you feel it is necessary. For the still open RfC it's common to strike out sock edits. However it's likely to be a bit confusing to strike out the opening statement which should be neutral anyway. It looks to me like Smith0124 is the only person with a clear preference against everyone else. You could ask others whether it's worth just closing that RfC but it's probably not worth a great amount of time so if anyone disagrees I'd just leave it.Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I did post a follow up in another section but do think, for archival and reference purposes, a hatnote should be placed atop the RfC § to indicate that "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. Reasons to doubt the intentions of this editor in proposing this RfC are documented here", with a link to the § I indicated. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: I will communicate with the closer about the hatnote; I've also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to see if anyone there cares to help address the removals by this sockpuppet of candidates from infoboxes. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You can strike through sock comments on open discussions without issue. But it's generally agreed that editing closed and archived discussions is more trouble than it's worth. ReykYO! 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Spandan72
User:Spandan72 (talk), has been making several disruptive edits related to disambiguation articles and others. These include: Advertising[218][219][220], addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content: [221], [222], and removal of content for no reason replacing it with red links including broken English: [223]. When I sent him a note on his talk page[224], I received no response and he continued to make the same edits after this. Some help is needed here. SK2242 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That help came in the form of a block. The editor is, I believe, mostly spamming. Unfortunately the edits are so inept that I can't tell exactly what's going on, and whether, for instance, there are phone numbers that need suppression. Thanks for reporting--though I think you could have sent this to AIV as well. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, yes: based on my research, this is a mobile phone number (originally Aircel) from Odisha, which is also where the spammer appears to base his business from his comments. I'd recommend oversighting. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
M Imtiaz, there isn't just one single phone number. I saw a whole bunch--if you can tell me which ones are which, and give me the diffs, I will get to work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, I looked through all of their diffs, and this is what I found. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks--got it. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The editor consistent added unsourced sales information, claiming that the figures are from fan sites or certification, and has refused to add any valid sources on SoundScan sales figures in the article, here for example a few of many edits on Dookie's sales [225][226][227][228] (note the changes in sales figures which appear to be random estimates in fansites). It has been explained many times why the figures should not be used, but there is no sign that the editor will stop doing it despite the numerous warnings and explanations, and some kind of intervention may be necessary. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The editor has continued to add unsourced figure instead of replying here - [229]. All attempts at explanation that the figures are unacceptable have been ignored. Someone needs to do something about this. Hzh (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I must concur with Hzh, this user's edits are purely disruptive. Their talk page is a swath of colours made up of warning after warning and they continue unabated. Leaving a warning clearly has no effect so instead I've rather added my voice to the concerns here. Robvanvee 07:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Is clearly not here an unwilling to obey policy. So far their only contributions have been this [[230]] (which they are edit warring over the inclusion of) and their talk page. The out right repetition of antisemitic canards.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I blocked 2402:B801:2867:0:0:0:0:0/48 for 1 week for antisemitic trolling. Guy (help!) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
IP well over 4 warnings for vandalism
BLOCKED
Blocked 31h. Can't make out what they were trying to say in their defence, but the edits and warnings are not ambiguous.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Responding: You are referencing virtual constructs that have no significance if said unfairly. They seem to have nationalistic motivation and are causing conflict. I have not received any of these website warning codes. I am not the person who is starting "wiki-wars". I am here to see that nobody is treated unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.150.171 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Support block- user has been warned and continues to vandalise. "I have not received any of these website warning codes" is incorrect, the warnings were posted on their Talk page and deleted by them. Cheers,
talk
) 11:01, 17 June 2020 (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.
And the indications are that as usual this editor is unable to see a complete picture only a narrow personal view which is leading him astray once more. Eddaido (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much familiarity with early 20th century automotive technology, but can read, and it's clear that these editors would rather revert and complain about each other than collaborate positively. I'm trying to help there, and see no reason to invite admin attention at this point. I would like to see Eddaido come back and work on it in light the sources that Qwirkle and I have turned up on the talk page. Or not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2020 (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 by unsigned IP address 98.143.68.250
User:98.143.68.250 (talk), has been engaging on reverts without any justification and replacing sourced contents with unsourced and inaccurate ones. The IP adress has received several warnings from different editors/admin but has not responded and continues to do new reverts amounting to VANDALISM on one particular article:
[231]
Brief dustup resolved amicably. The Moose 18:46, 17 June 2020 (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:personal attack—not only in his reply [234], but also in the edit summary [235]. After I objected to the tone of his reply he continued his attack with further comments [236][237]. This is certainly not the kind of behaviour expected from someone who has fourBarnstars of Diplomacy posted on their user page (and The Civility Barnstar twice). AlgaeGraphix (talk
) 16:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit summary is sarcastically suggesting you're missing something. The message itself is sarcastic. But seeing as how it was a response to sarcasm, i don't see the problem. The other two aren't even problematic. Mind you, May I need to go to SpecSavers as well. ——Serial# 16:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Not going to lie, this was more mild than I was expecting. I don't think this was a clear
WP:NPA even if kinda rude. I'd just suggest that AlgaeGraphix you let this go. @Davey2010: Also, come on don't call people blind as an insult. You don't know their life like that. –MJL‐Talk‐☖
16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You misinterpreted Davey2010's arguments, doubled down on said misinterpretation after he corrected you, and are now claiming offence because he gave you a very mildly exasperated reply. What do you want an administrator to do about it? ReykYO! 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment [238] about joining the dots wasn't very helpful either, while referring to someone's "(ir)rationale" like your didhere is hardly civil. Both of you need to stop arguing with each other and let others comment - the discussion closer should be able to judge whether or not arguments without having to plough through a sustained argument.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe while you were examining his user page you could have dropped him a note on his talk page saying you were unhappy with his comments and waited to see what his response was, rather than coming straight here?-- P-K3 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I have a bad habit of digging holes so I'll keep it short - I was rather annoyed with the "Can the dots get any closer" response to a valid question but after that response we both pretty much acted like children, That being said I did sort of try de-escalating it by leaving the FYI (some may not see it that way but I did actually try to deescalate things). Rather disappointed I was dragged here for what I would consider to be childish responses to childish comments. –Davey2010Talk 16:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Apology accepted. As someone who has needed glasses for the past twenty-something years I found your 'suggestions' hurtful. When I first went to your user/talk pages I was struck by the apparent difference between your past accolades and the current debate, which I why I went directly to ANI. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No apology was given and still isn't being given. Happy editing!. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I can understand the frustration here of both parties here. The comments made were rude; whilst AlgaeGraphix' initial comment was snarky, I don't think it passed into downright incivility, whereas I do think using the term "blind" as an insult can be easily construed that way. Going immediately to ANI without bringing up the issue separately with Davey2010 wasn't helpful either, though, and describing a deletion nomination as having an "(ir)rationale" isn't exactly becoming of an editor in my view. For what it's worth, I think it would be best for both users involved to apologise to each other, and move on from there; this wasn't anyone's finest moment, but we all have bad days. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
AlgaeGraphix and Davey2010, if you both agree to move on, I don't think any further action is needed, apart from maybe a {{minnow}} each. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked users have consistently hampered debate. He described too many lies and bullshit that had nothing to do with the subject in debate.
1. I opened the debate. 2. but only improper user attacks or disrupts it. 3. Sockpuppet investigations 4. The debate is already nullified.
It's a vicious circle.
It is hard to ask for an investigation because too many accounts have been used.
He's even using outside forces to blackmail me. He's coming to my talk page and threatening me. [[239]]
He is using only the IP address as much as possible to avoid investigation. I even was tried to hack my ID[[240]]....
Is there any way to banish him? Bablos939 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No, but I dropped a rangeblock, and maybe that will help some. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2020 (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.
Done, blocked as vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2020 (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:Robben
BLOCKED
User blocked for 60 hours. Watchlisted.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Robenn insists in including partial content about the Brazilian Judiciary, even after more than one user has removed his edits. On Portuguese Wikipedia, he was blocked by me after re-including bias content seven times in the article Sara Winter. In this wiki, he also created a hoax, which I submitted to AFD.
Basically, Robben seeks to promote the theory that there is a "dictatorship of the judiciary" due to the judicial decisions against the government led by President Bolsonaro and his family (including, as an example of "partiality", the decision of Justice Alexandre de Moraes that forced the Bolsonaro government to publish the true data of the deaths caused by COVID-19, instead of manipulated data that Bolsonaro tried to disclose; in fact, this ruling was praised by the WHO). He also uses references from Bolsonaro's lawyers and supporters to claim that Sara Winter's arrest "damaged democracy in Brazil", when in fact she was arrested for trying to set fire on the Supreme Court's building.
WP:HOAX. Note that further misconduct is likely to be met by an indefinite block. El_C
15:20, 19 June 2020 (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:BLP
BLOCKED
User blocked for two weeks. Watchlisted.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of Gamerv25's output to date has been repeated insertion of unsourced personal life claims – dates of birth, heights, names of spouses, numbers of children... – to various articles in violation of
WP:BLPNAME. (Case in point – today's edit to Kevin Miller
.)
Despite multiple notices and warnings on their talk page (including a final warning from me on 31st May), the user hasn't stopped and seems unwilling to correctly source their edits. At this point I think a block is in order, but as I've reverted them on a number of occasions I feel that the blocking administrator should be someone other than me. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
living persons. As Guy would put it, this a last chance saloon, with further violations almost certain to be met by an indefinite block. El_C
23:41, 18 June 2020 (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 repeatedly editing an archived deletion 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.
Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2020 (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.
Repetitive abuse from various Australian accounts (Meatpuppetry)
In the last December I had a conflict with User:Kpaspery. I suspected connection with 203.45.30.254, who became the part of the conflict, edited the same pages and even left the same edit descriptions. But according to Investigation, no connection was found, but Kpaspery and his sockpuppet were blocked. Since then I received some weird messages from 203.45.30.254 and 203.45.35.13 (probably dynamic IP) on my talk pages. Past months my activity in Wikipedia was basically zero. But this maniac waited for my edits and just three days after my recent edits I received a threat to hacking my page or may be something worse. Once again it was made from Australian IP. Please block User:2001:8003:3C4A:F700:EC97:8F37:E9DA:2952 and his IP range and start an investigation if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If I addressed to the wrong place, please navigate to the correct one, cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The 203.45.35.13 and 203.45.30.254 IPs are probably too stale to do much with. The rest, I've blocked. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Despite receiving helpful comments at their Talk page they have continued their disruptive editing almost to the point of edit-warring. Today, they finally started responding to complaints: [259]. As can be see from that conversation, language is a major issue and they do not seem to be willing to play by Wikipedia's rules. I think a longer or even indefinite block is in order. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's a problem. I left them a note, after reading over y'all's conversation. "You will not be able to write article content unless you can use reliable, independent sources to verify that content. If you don't know what that means, if you cannot understand even after reading the pages that Robby.is.on linked to, then I'm afraid you lack the competence to edit the English Wikipedia." Drmies (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Since yesterday only I found the way how to respond in TALK option and ask for some explanation. When I started responding, I received sometimes good explanation and sometimes the instructions were confusing. Once Robby.is.on told me that "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". This was very confusing me, but I am not here to play with any policies, just my main problem was the tool in terms to respond early than since I have started. This was one of main issue." Iliochori2 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello for the last 10 days I was providing a good stuff for wikipedia and trying to improve what the users of Wikipedia told me to do, but I didn't know how to respond and ask explanation or tips how to correct my possible mistakes to be in line with Wikipedia policies.
Yesterday the user Robby.is.on wanted me to put a warning and finally yesterday for the first time, I found the way how to comunicate with the user. I have asked several questions but he provided sometimes good answers but sometimes were vagues.
I asked why my contribution were not a good once and good resource. I also he told me that wikipedia are not attendible resourse. I have asked him also, why I have used the same templates that someone else used in wikipedia and he asked me where I found them. I provided the links of the page, but the user Robby.is.on provided me the wikipedia links guidlines, but his explanations were not clean enought. He didn't even mention, about the linke examples that I provided him.
Yesterday the user "Drmies" replied to me that as references in Filippo Inzaghi. He didn't know what I meant with "attendible". I have replied today that I was providing an example of Templates that I was using which were the same in other pages and on my opinion were genuine.
I am not here to abuse of the platform but to improve providing good stuff and material. Maybe I am not familiar with the tool in terms of responding, thats why I have started to respond only from yesterday as I found it yesterday how to do. I have also sent you and email but nobody replyed to me yet.
Thanks for your attention,
Please let me know and guide me what I have to do and if this is the way to respond to my complain.
Regards Iliochori2
I have moved some text which Iliochori2 (talk·contribs) added in a separate section below, and included it in his above response. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
More copy-pasting of copyrighted material in this addition after being blocked for copyright violations in May. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine
SORTED
A sudden outbreak of heartwarming loveliness on 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.
Some people here might remember this article about a fake medical school in Luton, England which prompted the GMC tro close a loophole in medical training. A new
) so I'd like to ask others to look at the edit requests on the Talk page.
Reminder, from the arbitration case:
2) Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned above, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.
I think this still stands. Guy (help!) 16:40, 18 June 2020 (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.
Hello. Coulld an admin please revert this for unexplained removal of sourced content? One of the removed links is blacklisted so I am unable to do that myself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Also semiprotecting. El_C 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been watching editing of Arsi786 for sometime and there are issues that should be addressed because warnings have certainly not worked.
Problems include misrepresentation of sources,[260] edit warring,[261][262] removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries,[263] unexplained POV changes,[264] and extraordinarily outrageous edits like this.
I have suppressed the last of those, as it accused the subject of a serious crime without evidence; adding that is almost sanction-worthy in and of itself. I do not have the time to investigate the other issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The edits warring have been dealt with and the madudi one was not a edit warring as I stopped. Arsi786 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been also watching the editing of Arsi786 and have observed that his editing is problematic in that it includes POV pushing, blanking any mention of minorities among predominantly Muslim nations or ethnic groups, reducing figures of Muslim apostates or Cultural Muslims, misrepresenting sources and edit warring. I will try to explain all these in the next paragraph:
Another example of misrepresentation of sources is here [267], where the Pew source cited that the percentage Sunni Muslims in Morocco is 67% not 70% [268].
Another example is here [269], where he changes the percentage of Muslims form 89.1% to 90.39%, when the given source mentions that the percentage is 89.1%. Instead of changing the source to reflect his new edit or going to the talk page, he just started edit warring.
Another example is here [270], where he changed the information claiming that "the changes he made reflect the source" page 59, even though his new edit reflects page 58, but instead of keeping both statistics, he removed the first one.
Another example is here [271], where Arsi786 claims that his edit reflects the source and that "97% Javanese follow orthodox Islamic traditions", and it's not true; the source mentions that "97.3 per cent of these are officially Muslim", but "Only 5-10 per cent follow Agami Islam Santri". The Agami Islam Santri category is what is considered to be the "Orthodox Islam", while the other practices are syncretism with local beliefs along with Islam.
Another example is here [272], in which Arsi786 reduces the Iranian diaspora from 1 to 2 million, though the tree estimates them as 2 to 4 million; check here for example, so Arsi786 made the change based on what?
In this edit [273], he removed the Roman Catholic minority from ethnic group's box, claiming that "Roman catholic faith is not in the references given", even though the two references given (here and here) clearly mention the Roman Catholic minority. The same problems can be found here [274], where he removed mention of Hindus and Sikhs in the infobox without providing edit summaries. Another example is here [275], where he remove Christianity from the infobox even though, inside the article it is mentioned that "Most Gambians living in the United States are Muslim or Christian".
His removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries can be found in several places: [276], [277], [278], [279]. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
And these are just few examples of his problematic edits. I'm not going even to start discussing his edit warring behaviour. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
2. This is sectarian division among moroccan muslims those 30% said they are just muslim 67% identified as sunni muslim while 3% didn't leave a reply according to pew so what's the problem here exactly I combined both of them together.
3. The official bangladesh census wrote it was 90% but you chose to replace those figures from a usa cia estimation factbook site.
4. Funny the original one was false which I corrected but I agree I should of read it more correctly.
5. You're just bring nickpicky.
6. Did you even bother to check the source it doesnt give the figure of 3 or 4 million but between 1 to 2 million mainly in the usa.
7.My bad I agree I didnt read the sources given at first I assumed you were lying its true 1% of iraqi turkmen Identify as christians. The pashtun one was already dealt with in the talk page the issue always comes back up they aren't considered as ethnic pashtuns.
Gambia is a muslim dominated country there was no references given pf its diaspora in america having christians now.
8. Edit 127 was fixing the spelling mistakes so I just left it.
Edit 128 was the same to fix spelling mistakes while the inheritance part in the quran is only half of her brothers not all men quran.com/4/11 which I corrected. The hanafi part was not true as many hanafi dominated countries allow women to divorce for other reasons not just for those reasons given.
Edit 129 was from a biased source it was not a credible study.
Edit 130 if you bothered to look at futher edits made afterwards we discussed it and he brought actual relevent information in which I left.
Just because I didnt leave edit summaries doesnt mean I deserve to get banned.
Topic Ban for Arsi 786 on India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism articles
Support. Arsi786 has misrepresented sources to push a POV across ethnic groups, especially in relation to India-Pakistan articles and religious statistics regarding ethnic groups. If there is no objection to a community ban for his vandalism of the project (for example, replacing "jurist" with "pedophile" [280]), I would support that too.Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree its a extreme to do a total ban and if you have read the works of madudi he allows and advocates for men to be allowed to marry and consummate the marriage with girls who haven't reached puberty in his exegesis of the quran while traditional scholars were against sleeping with girls that haven't reached puberty so his basic pedophile
Well I can stop if that's a option I don't think I deserved to be banned.Arsi786 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020
Question for @Arsi786: is the above an offer to voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism and move on to editing in other areas? If this is the case I believe this would resolve the issue and give the editor a chance to contribute constructively without the blemish of a topic ban. // Timothy :: talk 00:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this I don't think I deserve to get a topic ban.Arsi786 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020
This case needs to be closed by a sysop. Eliko007 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Support topic or perhaps greater ban - Arsi786 has already broken their promise on 9 June with the following edits of religious articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Promising to play nice to avoid a ban is
talk
) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
My promise was I wouldn't make edits like the ones I made on maududi what's wrong with the edits I made now did I lie now? You yourselves can check the references given in the turkey one if your accusing me of disruptive edits and don't acuse me of things that I didn't even say. Arsi786 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020
TimothyBlue's offer of giving you another chance was based on "voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism". Are you saying that your reply of "sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this" was actually rejecting this offer?? (this is a simple Yes or No question)
talk
) 10:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue was witj madudi not my other edits that I am being accused of I have already explained myself in regards to elikos accusations my issue Is I dont deserve a topic ban just because of what I said about madudi Arsi786 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020
Support topic ban Even though this edit was enough for initiating an indef block, I would still think that topic ban should work for now given the complete failure to address any issues which I had raised above. Shashank5988 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious I promised I won't make such edits again like the ones in madudi just to make myself more clear. Arsi786 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020
@
WP:Bludgeon. Also, if you do respond, please indent your responses properly, one additional colon (:) than the comment you're respondning to. Beyond My Ken (talk
) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This case needs to be closed by a sysop.Eliko007 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - Edits like this and this don't convince me that this editor isn't POV-pushing. —
Canadian}
01:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If you look at all the edit history I was adding back all the things he was getting rid for no explaination why would you only bring this part up also I was the one who put christianity for chechens up there as the wiki article said there are 2% christian minority in kazakhstan out of the total chechens in kazakhstan but unknown amount in there native chechyna.Arsi786 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2020
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.
Repeal on the topic ban
Can I be given a chance or anything because the topic ban invloves religion , pakistan and india which are my primary edits I have never made disruptive edits in pakistan or india related wiki articles in the past few mo nths from memories and for religion topic I agree which I did as with the whole madudi incidentwere I called him a pedofile but I don't agree with the whole topic ban in the first place I would like to be given a chance .Arsi786(talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020
You were literally just topic banned today, less than three hours ago. It is far, far too soon for you to contest your topic ban. It's also really concerning that you say you never made disruptive edits. The community consensus was that your edits were so disruptive as to warrant a topic ban. Please build up a history of edits in other subject areas. It's much too soon to contest your topic ban and this thread should be
@Yamla: Sorry you misunderstood me I said on topics relating to india and pakistan I do admit to the religion one which I did do and I will try to bulid edits up bu I was hoping the topic ban revolved around religion rather than pakistan and india .Arsi786(talk) 22:28, 18 June 2020
I'm not convinced by this ban. I was looking earlier. Some of the disputed edits are different ways of reading the same source, and others are arguably the result of communicating in a second language. A narrower restriction may be more equitable. Guy (help!) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to answer your response to my support of this ban, but I will point out that this diff - where you purposefully re-added unsourced information with a 9-month-old CN tag, and then defended it by pointing to the other editor's lack of explanation - fails the most basic understanding of
Canadian}
01:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Crypticcanadian: Most of the incidents on my talk page got to do with edit warrings in which is not relevant here but I do agree I should talk more on the talk page. Like I said before please go through that edit history that user was reverting a lot and I don't have roll back rights so I had to individually revert one by one and its weird that you chose this edit to make a point I clearly could care less what seraiki are considered because if I did I would still be putting that information back when its not the case even after me someone reverted all his edits.Arsi786(talk) 02:23,20 June 2020
WP:POV and adding fringe/outdated material to the article against mainstream consensus on the matter. Judging from the fact that their second edit after creating their account (in the same day!) shows high mastery of reference usage, he's clearly not a new user! And he knows how how to indent (even experienced editor are struggling with this.) After I reverted his edits he wrote in his edit summary "undid berberist edits". I don't think calling someone a Berberist (a.k.a nationalist) is civil. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I'm suspecting sockpuppetery. Again he said in a discussion that I'm removing reliable sources to push a "berberist agenda". He also show signs of I just don't like it when confronted with authoritative sources (the Encyclopedia Of Islam). -TheseusHeLl (talk
) 06:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: It was Afer Ephraimite, not TheseusHeLl, who took the initiative to start the Talk Page discussion. And this post from TheseusHeLl is quite bitey. Cheers,
talk
) 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The title of the response is a tongue in cheek based on Averroes' response to al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). I don't think that Afer Ephraimite is a new account, that's why I'm talking to him like an experienced editor. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
He mostly complains about articles I created, disputes from many years ago, and even goes into detail about a blog that he is working on against me: "I am in the process of a long winded full examination of his editing in readiness for a page on a blog I am working on, but it is a long job. I'd show it to you but even in it's present form it is huge and I wouldn't put you through that - along with the fact that I am only up to the beginning of February 2019 on it". Completely unnecessary.
As for accusations of bias, I have also deleted articles of activists that are critical of neurodiversity, such as
talk
) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Unbelievable, he just threw more personal attacks against me at
talk
) 01:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I've removed talk page access again. That can't possibly be what User:Sphilbrick had in mind. And, gently, I'm not entirely sure restoring talk page access was the correct thing to do, even if it had been used the way they said it would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
OTRS wanting to contribute on Ylevental's SPI case. Temporarily re-enabling CoF's talk page access was an attempt take CoF's contribution, preserve CoF's real world privacy, respect OTRS rules, ensure that Ylevental could see what was being said against him & by whom, and ensure Ylevental had a viable right of reply
. CoF was asked to present his case with diffs on his talk page which I then intended to link to on the SPI.
That was the intention. My apologies to Ylevental that it went awry. My apologies to Sphilbrick for suggesting it. And my thanks to Floquenbeam for stepping in and mopping up. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Cabayi, I think you did a fine thing. Yes, it went wrong, but in a limited way that was easily fixed again. Guy (help!) 11:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Cabayi, No apologies to me necessary. I take responsibility for the decision. I think you summarized the situation well; when someone purports to have some relevant information on SPI case, but is not permitted to share it because of their block, it seemed like an appropriate thing to do to temporarily permit talk page access. I'm sorry it went badly but as Guy says, easily fixed. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it was crazy or ill-intentioned. And I don't think it was a serious mistake - I've evidently made a far more serious mistake just yesterday, so I'm not judging. But I guess I'm surprised that when CoF offered to provide evidence (the offer of someone who has been blocked (maybe banned, I'm unclear) for 5 years, for reasons that include feuding with Y previously), our response wasn't "no, go away, you are not welcome here". Perhaps the explanation is in the OTRS ticket, and I'd understand if I had access. If so, that's fine. I won't belabor the point further; I'm not posting again because I want a pound of flesh, I'm just... really puzzled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I'd be worried if there was someone here that doesn't make mistakes. We are human (I hope). Making mistakes is what we do. —CYBERPOWER(Chat) 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It takes time for administrators to become cynical. I think it helps if you pass an RFA somewhere around 40 or 50 years old. That allows you to skip directly to the period at which you become grouchy and irritable about the kids today. Give Oshwah another 10–15 years, and he'll be just as grumpy as the rest of us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel able to do any admin re this one at the moment. Had to have our (my late father's) cat PTS yesterday. It's 03:45 here and I've been trying to get back to sleep for the last hour and a half. Am feeling very emotional as it's another piece of dad gone.
I tried a small cluebat but it doesn't seem to have worked. Will leave it to others to decide how big the next cluebat needs to be. Mjroots (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your tragedy, Mjroots. Hope you find strength in memory. Anyway, I dropped some advise to deescalate. Best wishes, El_C 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
AlgaeGraphix Davey2010 is disagreeing with you using stereotypical British humour. It's clear the two of you aren't going to see eye to eye on templates, so I'd advise ignoring him and letting one of us deal with instead. I get a similar response elsewhere on the internet when I talk about various political opinions I have, and I just brush it off, thinking "that guy's an idiot, so I'll flip the bozo bit on them".
In any case, you have both made your points on the bus template TfDs and you do not need to say anything. Please go and do something else, both of you, otherwise I'll have to block you from the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots A loss of a cat can be as severe and upsetting as the loss of a family member - my condolences. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333, been a bit of a shock as she was a stray that dad had tamed. We'd had her about 7 years, think she was about 14/15. Dad passed away 4 years ago and we'd promised to look after her. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
My sincere condolences Mjroots, Losing a pet is never easy but like El C I too hope you find strength in memory.
In regards to the discussion - Like I said on Mjroots's talkpage had I not been pinged I wouldn't of known what was said and therefore wouldn't have returned, Rather disappointed to see "I'd advise ignoring him and letting one of us deal with instead" considering on this occasion I wasn't the one doing the poking (the infobox dumping comment wasn't poking but in hindsight sure I should've left that out).
Again like I said on MJs talkpage I'd rather focus this time and energy on our readers which is why we're all here. –Davey2010Talk 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In this specific case, the bus TfDs are all tending towards the outcome you wanted; you can sit back and let other people make your case for you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In fairness to Davey, he writes: I did indeed remove them and apologies for not mentioning this[281], while AlgaeGraphix writes in response: Another non-apology apology.[282] AlgaeGraphix seems to have taken offense to the word dumped," mentioned later on, but I'm only reading that word to indicate a careless addition. But, indeed, as I recommended to both parties at Mjroots' talk page, deescalation would be best at this point. Because, although this isn't bad yet, it's not going toward a good place at this time. Avoiding interaction for a while would be both sensible and expedient. El_C 12:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Trolling at
Talk:Killing of George Floyd
BLOCKED
IP blocked. If they return - either after the block or on a different IP - then we should promptly topic ban, re-block or rangeblock, as that Talk page has significant good faith new user input and these comments are, bluntly, toxic. Guy (help!) 15:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't normally cry to mom and dad but after several weeks of fairly orderly discussion on a highly (to say the least) contentious topic, we've got a recurring troll [283]. He's been blocked once but the lesson wasn't learned. We have those neato article-specific blocks not so maybe that would a good idea here -- like, for a month. He can edit any of the other 5,999,999 articles in the meantime. Probably best to block him on George Floyd as well. EEng 20:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I've edited this page a little bit so I won't make the block myself, but I'm not sure why we should bother with a page-specific block when the editor has shown little to no interest in editing other pages, and appears to only be here to spout racist conspiracy theories (and attack EEng now too, apparently). GorillaWarfare(talk) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I figured a page-specific block could be longer than the usual relatively short all-page blocks we hand out to IPs. EEng 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was under discussion here; I've already blocked for 1 week.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 17 June 2020 (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.
Carmaker1
CLOSED (FOR NOW...)
I have left a final warning for Camrkaer1: [284]. If the battleground behaviour, edit warring and such continues, then this should move to escalating blocks. Enough already. Guy (help!) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (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:CIVIL he reiterated by threatening me of administrative action and speaking like he owns this site. Seeing that this user has had multiple behaviourial issues in the past, taking into account the discussions on his talkpage and had assured administrators to improve this behavior, appropriate action should be taken seeing this recent behavourial outbursts.U1quattroTALK
20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
...didn't the two of you have an interaction ban going or something? If no, then it seems high time for one. My bad, that was faint memories of the ArbCom case. I'll stick with the Good grief. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Carmaker1, you really ought to know that user edited websites like LinkedIn are not acceptable for use as general references on Wikipedia, and that there is no special carve-out for automotive topics. U1Quattro, you are prone to the use of overly dramatic and confrontational language in the midst of otherwise routine content disputes. I urge both of you to back off, disengage and work on improving the encyclopedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines. It would be unfortunate to allow such a trivial matter to result in sanctions on one or both of you. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have never been good at mapping out where & how to reply on ANI, but anyway: the rejection of using LinkedIn is understood and accepted. I was trying to defend another user's (Gentleraccoon) submission in a collaborative effort (got a tip from @Toasted Meter:) on my talk page, so it's not even my battle to fight. It was helping out a new user, with good faith intentions. It's a point made by the other person (Magnolia677) involved in this discussion about verifiable content and I explained around that course, my own concerns regarding policy. I already have dire issues with bad information entering a Ford article, but I mostly recused myself. Magnolia677 doesn't make policy, so there was no attack on them. Simply, take it or leave it discussion regarding my perspective.
Journalists are not as credible as they used to be, yet there is a blindness to that truth. I am not referring mainstream media either. Glorified bloggers in the automotive sphere, shouldn't be relied on so easily as sources without direct quotes from a relevant party. Just as well as user edited pages (resumes), which is selectively applied on this site by observation.
The dramatic language used by the very user who brought up this ANI matter, I consider distasteful and now feels like one was deliberately baited into defense. I am well within my right, to warn the involvement of a neutral party, if someone going forward casts a negative aspersion on me, unprovoked and the claim made isn't valid. Especially when dramatised for effect to get a rise out of me or simply insult/offend. I did not resort to opening an AN/I over such a small matter, I moved along with editing and my life. Why waste your time, bringing him here? I kept my editing very simple and despite that...annoying witch hunt. I am commenting now and leaving this discussion. Very tiring, manufactured drivel over mole hill.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Casliber, DGG, Joe Roe, and Bradv: Five weeks ago you declined the case in the mistaken belief that it could be worked out after two separate ANI threads and COI thread all showed overwhelming proof to the contrary and look where we are now. Five weeks. I thought you might like to know. And speaking for myself, I'm still very disappointment in you for your failure. TomStar81 (Talk
) 02:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh really, that says a lot doesn't it? There is a saying called "picking at straws" and it's very much not a good look for anyone. Anyone can open an AN/I for any reason they want to, no matter warranted or unwarranted. Just like people can call the police for petty reasons and see someone meet their death, because of overreaction.
I made the right decision, to not bring U1Quattro here over my own grievances. Take a look at my user page and prejudices can be made against me from my self-written description about who I am.
Looking at the source of this even coming to fruition and their user history, it is hardly shocking. I could easily have done so first, but it would be such excessive action on my part. In being premature and obviously frivolous.
Are you going to say, "Lookie here everyone, I told you so" each time anything comes up (with my username), because unfounded nonsense makes its way here? Anyone with an axe to grind, can come up with anything to do/use as bait and come running. "Carmaker1 said to leave his talk page? Carmaker1 fumbled a citation hyperlink? Carmaker1 said not to make untrue statements about his conduct? Carmaker1 blah-blah?" Okay, then. Everyone should use common sense here in that respect.
I have the right to remind a user to mind their uncivil conduct towards me or that I will seek administrative intervention, if they are making false claims against my character and possibly using it as a means to instigate. I don't need to be going back and forth with them, thus I will prevent myself from doing so by seeking others' oversight.
"User Magnolia..." for all their content issues, has been quite civil and so have I in our discourse. Any concerns raised at G20... had to do with policy and not each other. What pray tell, required the rather snippy commentary from U1Quattro on this subject towards me a user, other than past whatever? Absolutely nothing. They weren't summoned, but if wanting to interject, do so politely or cordially. A simple reference to RSN policy like his first set of words, sufficed and truly helpful. Nothing more, versus the bordering on attempted character assasination with the full text, essentially claiming incivility.
We all edit in these articles, but I do not seek their (U1) input, comment on their talk page nor discuss much of anything to avoid any unwelcome issues. I politely mind my business, after dealing with them before. You should know very well by now there are countless people who edit on this site and many have egos to varying degress. Not all of them do, but many. To pretend like I am the only one with an ego, is ludicrous, as plenty of others here are friendly or cordial otherwise, thus having no run-ins and get along well with. In fact, inserted myself in the first place in content matter, thanks to a message from @Toasted Meter.
It is very disturbing to me, what I am witnessing from you already and I obviously know why. And I am well within my right, to make that last comment, as a human being of being "disturbed". By the implication, a previous AR failed your desires versus being a neutral party seeking genuine resolution then. And that is not an aspersion, you said it above regarding "5 weeks ago" and I highlighted it. Bias? Well, I will leave others to judge that.
Done with this, as I have done my part and followed what I said months ago. Suggest U1Quattro watches their language and minds their own conduct, as I have been minding mine and do not appreciate any double standards. There is too much happening with injustice in this world, to be involved.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae I did not cause any disruption in this matter so I don't know why you ought to think that a "one size fits all" approach, interaction ban in this case, is applicable to all behavourial issues.U1quattroTALK 04:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328 I don't know how that dispute was routine. This user has been calling out anyone who disagrees with him and hating on the policy by dictating what should be done and issuing threats of action like he's an administrator all while protecting a newcomer (as see here and here who ought to read the policies of adding reliable sources in support of what he's claiming.U1quattroTALK 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
U1Quattro, I agree with you about 45% of what you said, but you are continuing with what I consider to be "overly dramatic and confrontational language" which I mentioned earlier. That style of discussion hurts your cause, whether or not you realize it yet. Try a calm and dispassionate style of communication instead, which I think that you will find more effective. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@TomStar81: I vote to accept the case, but I'm sorry you're disappointed. If problems are continuing and community isn't able to resolve them, there's always the possibility of a new arbitration request. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae good grief? Why are you insistent about the interaction ban?U1quattroTALK 15:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not insistent about any interaction ban. I continue to shake my head at how the two of you managed to blow this up to knives-out level within a few lines of text, with the maximum of bad faith assumed by both parties; but no further suggestions from my side. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
One can easily take from this, what the intended result was...sneak in dramatic language, to provoke an individual/editor, from being aghast at such an accusation, report and wait-n-watch. No one on that talk page had particularly any serious issues, until of course as you see what happened with the inflammatory claim that someone was flouting
WP:CIVIL? WTH? Who has time for this?
I do not appreciate in the least, what I call "taking the bait" and use it as a credible case to "taint" and "kill". It is absurdly blasphemous to use the warning of "mind your conduct" or I will ask someone else (administrative) to step in, so it doesn't blow up into worse, as a reason for ANI. An utter time waster for everyone. I refuse to be doing back and forth with snippy editors. If the content doesn't fit the article as needed, then it's dead and it wasn't meant to be added.
I've made my point and I am going back to my life, as I have done nothing wrong in this particular matter, than remind someone to mind their behavior and avoid making character attacks.
I really don't have time for this kind of thing and strongly question the validity of this inquiry, when there is much worse afoot and everything is very plain to see, considering the source. If Magnolia677 had such concerns, they would have brought it to ANI or addressed it soundly. I deal with enough prejudice in my life, to be swallowing what happens here on a whim. --Carmaker1 (talk
) 04:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
As seen in the above reply, this user has not improved their behaviour and continues to use abrasive language against others. While I made no claim that my history was clean, or that I didn't have any history of bad behaviour. This user has had a far worse behaviour than mine and this was the one of the reasons they were brought to the attention of the arbitration community. I hereby request the admins to take appropriate action against this user as we cannot have "invested contributors" who express strong hatred over the policies of this site and imply that they own this site.U1quattroTALK 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Stale. El_C 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Stale evidence. El_C 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. El_C 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Done Reverted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed to WeAreAllStars, and I've blocked both indefinitely. I'm not really impressed by Phil Bridger's commentary above and would advise keeping such comments to oneself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![[75]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SylhetFlag.png){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=960288936){kind=link}
