I don't know if this is the right venue for this, but someone (an admin) needs to take a serious look at the article
fringe theory being pushed by religio-nationalists in India, but the article has grown to two or three times the size of an appropriate Wikipedia article. The theory-pushers (User:Bladesmulti in particular) have been editing so tendentiously that mainstream editors have simply been become frustrated and left. This situation and the article need some serious admin attention and a firm hand to bring the article under control. --Taivo (talk
) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's is your proof? And I have not extended the page[1] or written even 3 sentences. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Try the
fringe theory noticeboard that seems better placed as this appears to be a content issue. Amortias (T)(C
) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really. When this went to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard (it's been there before), it was again overwhelmed by the POV pushers and nothing was accomplished. It's not a content issue at all--it's a behavior and result issue. It's the kind of thing that Wikipedia is perhaps incapable of handling, but admin intervention is needed there. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, please. there's a RfC going on, and the opinions are quite clear that IA is fringe; wait for that RfC to close, and wait for me to cut down the size of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely best to wait for the RfC, but this is a real issue on many articles. Fringe theory proponents are usually very devoted, often here for the single purpose of pushing their theory (I've seen a lot of it at
Christ Myth Theory the past months, but there are many examples). As Taivo says, the fringe proponents often manage to cause so much discussions and fights that ultimately everybody else leaves and they get their way. Better policies for fringe theories (in general) may be needed.Jeppiz (talk
) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, because this is something that is necessaril;y both a content and a conduct issue, and even ArbCom only handles the conduct issues. There is no higher authority to keep corrdinated fringe/ideology pushes at bay.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Jeppiz, better policies on fringe theories would be very helpful. Thanks for noticing this, Joshua. I see that you have started working on keeping the size under control. --Taivo (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid I will have to disagree with the argument that Vedic People indigenism is a fringe theory. There is a legitimate question raised based on archaeological, linguistic, paleontological and generic evidences on the Aryan Migration Theory which was earlier accepted by dominant group of scholars as the Aryan Invasion Theory but changed to migration in "batches". This gradual change in the dominant view of scholars which has always been flux in history itself points to the legitimacy of the vedic indigenism argument which remains one of the postulates of the origins of vedic people. The usual attack on the Vedic Indigenism is that is it the work of so called Hindu Nationalists. This one label is used to simply discredit all the research which is done in this field. Unfortunately Wikipedia has become a battle ground for the same. The best way for wikipedia to build
According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." [1].
According to Aklujkar, Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..[1]Indoscope (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
References
^Aklujkar, Ashok. "Letter to S Farmer"(PDF). www.omilosmeleton.gr. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
Please discuss at
Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!
08:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
General Comments on Fringe, and Specific Comments on the topic
Off wiki non-constructive editing related to the English Wikipedia
User:IvanOS has accused me on the Croatian Wikipedia that I have a sockpuppet here, which is not true without initiating checkuser request here. To "prove" their point they added following diffs: 1, 2 adding that the users who made the edits are the same person (me). They used those edits as the "evidence" that I have insulted the entire Croatian nation (!). What is less relevant, but worth mentioning is that surprisingly their reasoning was accepted by an admin there leading to my indef block there. VS6507 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi VS6507, thanks for raising this but I'm not clear what action you'd like taken - the en-wiki admins don't have any control over actions taken on the Croatian Wikipedia, and your account is not blocked and has not been accused of sockpuppetry here. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Be glad you didn't get a warning for restoring the vandalism of the other account.[2] For those unfamiliar with Ustaše, this is like opening Germans with "also known as nazis". I will be kind and assume good faith: Maybe you thought the IP had only reverted your own edit and that reverting the IP would only restore your own edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, PrimeHunter, I apologise because I didn't notice that bit about "also known as ustashi".
I let admins to decide what action needs to be taken as he speculated off wiki about sockpuppetry here instead of reporting it. I give my consent for a checkuser check if someone thinks that that account might be associated with me. Valid checkuser analysis would also be useful to prove hr wiki admins that IvanOS didn't tell the truth and that my account here is clean when it comes to sockpuppetry and other negative behaviours as well. VS6507 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
VS6507 has had some problems with meatpuppetry (across different wikis) in the past - some editors here may recognise his previous accountname - so, if IvanOS suspects sockpuppetry, we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. @IvanOS:, is there any more evidence? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: No, it isn't. --IvanOS 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I closed the RFC NE Ent 12:38, 2 February 2015 (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.
Will someone please explain to
an RfC in which he has been a busy participant? I have now reverted his closure twice. He cites that there is "clear consensus", which I disagree with; opinions are very divided instead. I ask an uninvolved editor or admin close the discussion instead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk
}} 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have posted to the IP talk page confirming that, as an involved editor, he or she may not close the discussion, and that doing so again may lead to a block. I'm afraid I don't have time to make the detailed study of the rather long discussion that would be needed to close it. I hope someone with more time will do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk
) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who started the RFC, it’s run longer than a month, there has been no relevant activity for a week, and there doesn’t seem to be any question about the outcome. I asked
You may not close a discussion in which you have been actively involved. It is totally unnecessary to invoke
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
here, as the close should never have been done in the first case. It would not be at all helpful to start requiring editors to start up the cumbersome process of a discussion at an administrative noticeboard for trivial issues which can be dealt with by a simple revert of and edit which was out of process and should never have been made.
Despite that, Edokter has done what you asked, namely started as discussion here about it, and you have received an answer.
To say "there doesn’t seem to be any question about the outcome" makes no sense, because Edokter has questioned it. Even if you sincerely thought at the time when you first closed it that there would be no question, as soon as your closure was reverted you knew better.
Linking to three reverts cannot demonstrate breaking of the so called "3 revert rule", as that rule refers to making more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk
) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I misremembered 3RR; my apologies. But to your first and third points,
WP:CLOSE advise rather strongly against formal closure if the outcome is obvious. All indications were that the reverts were based on a belief that this was never ever ever allowed and that RFCs absolutely must run for 30 days, rather than any objections to the close itself. —174.141.182.82 (talk
) 21:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There has also been discussion that the closure of RFCs, or of anything else requiring closure, by IP editors is discouraged because IP addresses sometimes change, making communication about closure review difficult or impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are just as much policy as anything else. His judgement on consensus appears to be accurate as well. I say let it stand/ KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Those only hold until actions are contested, and definitely not to be used to push an issue. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Just realized no link to it was included, so, here was my close: [6]. In it, I claimed that there wsa not a consensus for the change (not, as User:Edokter claimed, “clear consensus”). I stand by my closing summary since I honestly don’t see how it could be interpreted any other way, but if anyone does see a clear consensus there (or some other way I was mistaken), please close it appropriately. (Or if an uninvolved editor agrees with my close enough to restore it, I wouldn’t complain about that.) Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That was in reference to your claim that
WP:CLOSE allows closure by involved parties when there is "clear consensus". And it was exactly my objection that there was none, hence why the closure was improper. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk
}} 09:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean at [7]? I misspoke there; I used “consensus” as a synonym for “outcome.” You still haven’t suggested that any other outcome was plausible. And CLOSE does discourage formal closure requests where the outcome is clear. I didn’t do it on a whim; I checked project pages to make sure it was allowed. As far as I could tell, it was. Which was why it was so frustrating to have you repeatedly and
bureaucratically reverting over perceived violations of “policy” found on non-policy (and non-guideline) pages that didn’t even support your objections, and then ignoring requests for clarification. Frankly, I’m getting tired of it. —174.141.182.82 (talk
) 11:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not interested in discussing whether or not some sentence somewhere in some relevant page can be interpreted as meaning that an involved editor can sometimes close a discussion. There is no point in doing so, because nothing in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or any other page is a firm rule that is to be taken as absolute. I have no doubt whatever that there could be circumstances where I would regard it as reasonable for an editor to close a discussion in which they have taken part. However, the following two facts remain: (1) It is almost always better not to close a discussion in which you have been highly active. (2) Once another editor has challenged a closure by an involved editor, it is clear that the closure is not uncontroversial (no matter how strongly one may feel that it should be uncontroversial, and that the editor who challenged it is being unreasonable) and the only reasonable options are either to leave it unclosed or to ask for an uninvolved editor to asses it and close it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk
) 11:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I’ll reiterate my request for exactly that to happen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (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 repeatedly created a hoax article about a later Sui dynasty (not the historical
refusing to hear out any warnings and continuing to ask people for permission and even help in creating a hoax article. When I explained what alternate history is, he cited sources about the historical Sui dynasty as if they were sources about the "later" Sui dynasty, and even sources about the Ming dynasty (which occupies the spot where the "later" Sui dynasty was supposed to be). And no, "Later Sui dynasty" is not an alternate name for the Ming dynasty
.
To put this in perspective, this is like someone trying to create an article about the "second
ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)This is my argument:
Please visit the ctext.org and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " http://ctext.org/song-ming " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention please. The references for Later Sui Empire are:
References
*Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
*梁惠王章句上 page 6
*西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世 孫行者施為三折肱
*廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨
*廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊
*太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》
*《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1
*之 Part 葘
*Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
*Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
Hawley, Samuel (2005). The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch. pp. 195f.
.
Roh, Young-koo (2004). "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth". The Review of Korean Studies 7 (3): 13.
*鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》
*Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
The online version of references can you read at ctext.org, as follow:
I don't care about any fiction made from the Later Sui II Empire.
Please give me permission to make it or in exchange of that please help me make the article.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As I already explained, those are sources about the original Sui empire, or about the Ming dynasty. User refuses to leave Tlön. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll wait for Nyttend to weigh in, but I smell a NOTHERE block coming a mile away. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Dear sir/madam
Please visit the ctext.org and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " http://ctext.org/song-ming " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Giving the guy one more chance: I've told him to drop the subject entirely and edit on something else if he wants to continue, and if he does anything more on this topic, he'll get the indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I work extensively on Chinese history and culture articles, and can verify that none of the long Chinese texts ADHZ07111989 cited above has anything to do with the so-called Later Sui Empire. This person seems to be obsessed with glorifying the
Dương Dynasty (An Nam) (Dương is the Vietnamese pronunciation of Yang), and Yang (state), which was a historical entity but most information he added was genealogical legend that no historian would take seriously. -Zanhe (talk
) 19:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This user has posted a (horribly malformed)
WP:DELREV request here. I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, but I honestly don't feel it's worth fixing either, since it's apparently the same extended content that this user has posted at multiple locations, including above in the collapsed section. In other words, Nyttend, it looks like your advice to drop it fell on deaf ears. --Kinut/c
06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, check the timestamps: he hasn't edited since the advice was given. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good call. I also see that the deletion review has been dumped. Here's hoping that's the end of that. --Kinut/c 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
user:NiranjanUltrasound - possible block evasion
NiranjanUltrasound (talk·contribs) is under an indefeinte block for spamusername, but appears to have reappeared as Tepp Niranjan (talk·contribs). File:Colordopplermagazine.jpg has been previously uploaded by iranjanUltrasound (deleted), and then has been uploaded again by Tepp Niranjan, and their content contribution seems to be there to promote Niranjan Ultrasound, so it's very likely the same person. No request was ever made for a name change under the original name -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Definite block evasion - it's the same person. I guess, you'll have to wait till an admin checks this thread and blocks them as a sockpuppet of NiranjanUltrasound (talk·contribs). --Ankit Maity«T § C» 17:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
, I would like to clarify that 1. Yes, all found sockpuppets are currently blocked, and 2. This is more of a long-term disruption issue than one for SPI. But to get things clear, I'll need to start from the beginning:
Wikia, where IP 50.82.40.187 vandalized the wiki. As I am an administrator over there, I blocked the IP address from editing (see block log
). One month later, the IP vandalized the wiki again, and was blocked again as a result. The user has since then tracked me down to Wikipedia, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages asking to be unblocked from The Sims Wiki, or issue threats to create more sockpuppets if I didn't become a bureaucrat. Since then they have been creating new sockpuppet accounts on both Wikia and Wikipedia and is starting to become a real pain.
The issues on Wikia are mostly none of our business (I'll deal with those) but those on Wikipedia are becoming disruptive and annoying, and the user is continually coming back for additional harassment and trolling.
Administrator or experienced editor advice would be appreciated in resolving this situation. Thanks. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe there's no need for a SPI here (if you just want them blocked). The editing pattern and evidence is enough to support the conclusion, that they're sockpuppets of the sockmaster. I would however recommend, a CheckUser to verify the IP ranges to do an IPRangeBlock if possible, in which case a SPI is required. I am not an administrator, so I don't have the necessary powers to do anything. I recommend you do the latter to get an autoblock issued. However, if your sockpuppets are unfortunately on dynamic IP ranges or clever enough to use a VPN, then you'll have to deal with it. Then, we'll have to go with Long-term Abuse and file a report with the ISP. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Per [9], this is almost certainly user:Cmach7 who has been at it for 3 years now. Nothing new to add, just connecting this new sockfarm to an older sockfarm. —Soap— 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
LGBTory
Block has expired by now anyway. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (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.
Would be helpful if an administrator could intervene here as it doesn't look like I'm going to get anywhere. Several names were added to the patrons list at
WP:BLP violation but I do not know enough about the individuals listed to determine if being supporters of LGBT topics might be electorally damaging to them. I reverted this, initially assuming edits were good faith and offering to include citations if they needed help. Now SleepCovo(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is carrying on where the IP user left off, with similar behaviour: ignoring requests for conversation; reverting changes back to the version that matches the cited source; removing all warnings posted to their talk page; and now trying to rename the article section to get around this problem. The rename doesn't help, as it similarly fails verification for citations and is unencyclopaedic. Both accounts seem to have form for this kind of behaviour. ~Excesses~ (talk
) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the edits they are claiming that these people could be LGBT, which is definetly a BLP problem if unsourced. You cant claim someone is something without sourcing it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The original user has been blocked for BLP violations (the blocking admin said for "scurrilous allegations of living individuals" - sad that "being LGBT" is a scurrilous allegation, but I suppose even in the UK we're not there yet). However, all the names they added to the article were of those Conservatives that are openly gay or bisexual (check their articles). Of course, it is wrong (or at least unsourced) to say they were patrons of the LGBT organization, but I hardly think this was a BLP violation, simply an error on their part. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"scurrilous allegations" almost sounds like an attack, but since we permit virtually all our lists of people to leave sourcing to the articles (if at all), it is no wonder that a newby would think it perfectly fine editing in accord with practice, while technically against policy (which is less likely to have been read or understood). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be a better policy to have a no lists with people without reliable sources showing that the person belongs on such a list, without worrying about whether it's "contentious" or not; but WP prefers more content more than better sourcing. IMHO... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (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.
Copy/paste move with copyright violations
Koko the Clown finally blocked by Diannaa. I knew I was being too lenient, but it does prove that if you give some people enough rope... (Someone please do the requested histmerge). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user editing as both
talk
) 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the previous name you wanted to point us at was
This user is a problem who focuses on adding "keeping in captivity" non-encyclopedic and unsourced information to reptile articles; see AN archive. The actions look minor but the copyvios are persistent and when pressed, the bogus edits are extreme—the deleted Salamanders as pets was a blatant hoax at one stage (the text was copied with bogus changes from here). Two edits at the user's talk were very dubious: diff and diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The user was previously blocked for a variety of problems and many of those continue. I gave them a final warning before coming here. As to whether or not more needs to be done at the moment, I am not !voting. -
talk
) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Another copyvio. They are up at AI/V.-
talk
) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The editor in question has been indefed. The copy/paste move remains. -
talk
) 05:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it will need a history merge, which I have never done. If you could tag it for expert attention using the templates provided at
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging, I would appreciate it. Tired now, logging off. -- Diannaa (talk
) 05:37, 3 February 2015 (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've performed the history merge. Graham87 08:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia offer corporate, real estate, hiring, banking and legal advice now? (Note: the neutrality of the wording of this very question is questioned)
NAC: There is consensus that there was no violation requiring admin attention. Discussion is underway at
the Reference Desk tal page on how to deal with various sorts of questionable questions. No action needed here. Robert McClenon (talk
) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (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.
Immediately after the swift closure of the discussion above on medical advice forbidden as professional advice by our disclaimer: "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area" we have a new thread requesting advice on setting up a new business venue, including the OP asking about, among other things: "finding providers for various [services,] maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir[ing] contractors to build/modify the space, [and] complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)"
I have removed this question on the basis of the above decision that we do not give advice in contravention to our disclaimer. [10]
Nevertheless, both the OP173.49.17.60, and now Jayron32diff have seen fit to reopen this discussion. Do we provide corporate, real estate, and legal advice, or don't we? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(after EC) Your phrasing of the question is misleading--it tends to lead the reader to form the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute. You're mischaracterizing both the nature of my posting and the issue being disputed here. I did NOT request advice of any kind. The text you (Medeis) quoted is about what I expected a business executive would have to address when starting an office at a new location. I did not say I needed to address those issues, and I most definitely did not solicit advice on dealing with issues of those kinds. I invite anyone reading this to refer to my origin posting to read it in its entirety, in context. Given the absence of even a hint of an actual existing situation in which advice is needed, and in the total absence of any particulars about that non-existent situation, there's nothing for anyone to offer advice on.
What I asked about was how business executives acquire the needed expertise to handle the tasks that I expect needed to be handled. A possible relevant answer could be: many MBA programs include a course on managing the practical logistics of setting up an office, so many MBAs actually are educated in that subject. Another possible relevant answer could be: there's actually a consulting industry that addresses this need, the services offered are generally known by the names ABC or XYZ. Still another possible relevant answer could be: this is actually not as hard as you think; it's like house hunting, only a little harder. If someone could start with a local commercial real estate broker, the broker should be able to tell the client what other professionals to pull in for the project. None of these answers, I submit, amounts to offering (regulated) professional service.
I don't claim to be very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but on the surface of it, it only seems to prohibit offering of medical and legal advice (and, I assume, advice whose dispensation is regulated by law.) In your edit to the original thread, you made a blanker comment calling my question "request for advice and speculation", without justification. When challenged to justify why my question supposedly violated Wikipedia policies, you just deleted the question. I am open to be shown wrong, but you never provided anything that amounted to an explanation of why my question supposedly violated Wikipedia policies. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Before Medeis started this discussion, I already had started a discussion at
two venues, especially since the discussion already exists in the more appropriate one. This is the last statement I will make on this matter, as I really don't care one way or the other, I just don't like to see unilateral decisions made for matters which are not clear-cut vandalism, trolling, or inappropriate medical/legal advice. Before medeis deleted the discussion, there was already people who noted it wasn't inappropriate in their opinion, and didn't cross the line. Where reasonable people disagree, one of those in the disagreement shouldn't act unilaterally. Status quo should remain until consensus is reached. If people do eventually agree something is inappropriate, then someone can take action. Otherwise, as I already have noted, I don't see why Medeis feels the need to hold this discussion in two places. --Jayron32
02:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I had started writing this report before I received Jayron's notice. Given there's no horse in this race, I am curious why Jayron accuses me of forum shopping. Given the time stamp of this edit advising the OP to see the decision above, before Jayron's thread in its edit summary, I find the accusation of forum shopping baseless.
I suspect Jayron may have innocently been ignorant of today's decision on not giving professional advice when it's medical, given he apparently did not read @Knowledgekid87:'s closure with advice to head the disclaimer above. Perhaps @Jayron32: will revert his re-opening of the thread given the discussion here? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said (and this is really my last comment) When the discussion at
WT:RD plays out and people have had a chance to comment, decisions can be made. Otherwise, I don't really care. --Jayron32
02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There was no, and I emphasize no, request for advice of any sort (much less professional advice) in my question. Any policy against offering professional advice is irrelevant to the issue discussion here. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Medeis has misunderstood the RD question. The OP is *not* asking for legal advice etc. He is asking where a start-up with limited resources and experience could find such services, amongst others. That's a totally reasonable RD question. There is no ANI issue here and the proper place to review Medeis's actions is the thread at
This is not a request for professional advice of the kind the RD guidelines prohibit. There is no fault requiring administrator intervention here. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
We have already seen that at the RD talk page, the majority are for a lawless free for all, and even suggest that editors who obey the RD and WP policies on those desks should be discouraged from editing. The OP's question is as blatant a request for legal and finacial and other licensed professional advice as one can imagine:
"finding providers for various [services,] maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir[ing] contractors to build/modify the space, [and] complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)".
If Jayron, doesn't want to address this here, that's fine, but it is being addressed, and we need eyes not involved with the violations that go on at the ref desks continually to police the desk, if the regulars cannot do so themselves. This is for the long term benefit of the RD itself, since eventually such advice is going to end up causing trouble for people who actually ask questions within its guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Stop quoting what I wrote out of context and stop mis-characterizing my request NOW! Your repeated acts of distorting what I said are outrageous and totally unacceptable. I invite anyone interested in this discussion NOT to take what Medeis (a.k.a. μηδείς) wrote in the above at face value, and read the original question posted on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk to form their own opinion. I'm confident that any reasonable reader will find what Medeis wrote in the above to be a gross distortion of what I wrote. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. There was no hint of a request for advice on banking, legal, accounting, or any of those other matters. The question (here it is again [11]) was, in a certain context, who would and how would they know about these things. Quite a different question, and quite unobjectionable in terms of any disclaimers, liability, or practicing-something-without-a-license concerns. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree that Medeis's interpretation of the IP's question is completely off base. The IP editor raised points that would have to be considered but expanded on how a party tasked with this duty would be able to accomplish this. This is in no way seeking advice in any of the categories Medeis mentioned. This should be closed. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (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.
Serious violation of WP:NPOV on Italian Fascism article by User:Boeing720 who regularly edits there
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Second World War, it became "eaten" by the more targeted and much more rabid Nazism
through military rather than diplomatical channels.
- Note that when inserting that text, Boeing says in the comment section explaining the edit, the following: "Little ideology behind its pompous leader. Little or only partly thought through. Was "eaten" by the nazists during WW2."
in general, given the intensity of Boeing720's stance towards the topic if this attitude by the user to the topic continues. I have attempted to explain to the user in previous edits of why other edits of theirs were inaccurate however I do not believe that they even considered what I said.
This matter needs to be addressed by administrators in my opinion because I am not confident that the user will listen to me.--184.145.69.153 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that those are not especially good edits, but if no one has reverted them or raised the issue with the user, it does not rise to being a matter for ANI yet. You should try discussing the issue with the user. Only if he persistently edits disruptively will ANI need to be involved - ANI can't be your first resort before you've even talked to the guy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
References
^The Consice History of World History, Edited by John Bowles 1958, 1971, Chapter 20, Part VI, by John V Plamenatz
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 is changing the templates of blocked socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne to admin templates. Needs a block and possible CU. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. I'll leave this thread open for a CU. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
CUs won't tie named accounts to IPs unless the abuse is beyond the pale. This doesn't smack of beyond-the-pale abuse to me. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
True, but they can block them with {{checkuserblock-account}} without mentioning the connection to us. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Another IPv6 editor was attempting to edit on the same subjects as these blocked socks earlier, and got blocked for it. Still, nice to know AT&T now support IPv6. Every little helps. Can we rangeblock IPv6 ranges yet? -- The Anome (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it appears we can: I see that 2602:306:CFBE:D540:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked. However, many (most?) IPv6 ISPs are allocating more than a /64 per customer; a /48 is recommended, some are using /56s, and issuing only a /64 is generally deprecated. Can we block on wider boundaries if needed, eg 2602:306:CFBE:0:0:0:0:0/48? -- The Anome (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, edit filter 425, which attempts to match the editing patterns of this long-term sockmaster, is now active. -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted it with an explanatory edit comment about not editing others' posts.
He then edited another of my posts in an unrelated conversation, in a way that does not fit in with the posts around it, since other editors had used the term but he did not change their usage to match his version of mine.
I dropped a warning on his talk page but he brushed it off: both here.
He is a highly experienced editor with a ten-year userbox on his user page, but nevertheless in his discussions he is professing ignorance of so much etiquette that it beggars belief. His justification for warring was that he didn't even know what BRD was. But having had it pointed out, that has not stopped him. He has very profuse output and it is hard to floow his edits or it would be easier to let this pass, but we are bumping into each other a lot and things can't go on like this.
I was going to request a short topic ban to bring him back to reality. But then he accused me of lying so I'd like to Request a short editing block for his gross incivility. [Updated as below. 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I will try to be available for questions over my behavior. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I added 4 NEW image upon request by DoubleSharp [19], and explained on talk [20] and [21] and offered my opinion that 8 is to small.
Double sharp attempted a compromise, reduced 12 to 8 again, removing 2 old images, and leaving 2 new images from the set he requested. [22]
So when Steelpillow FALSELY claims "a third editor cut the gallery down drastically and Tom has since added images back in again without discussion." it is reasonable to call that accusation as lying by confusion. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom's reply is the one that is confused. After DoubleSharp cut the list to 8 but suggested two more, I suggested that one would be enough [23]. Tom saw fit to ignore the conversation at this point and add several more. We know that was without consensus because DoubleSharp reduced them again. There is neither confusion nor lie in the account I give above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
We're in agreement. 4>2 and 4>1, and my enthusiastic 4 images were delicately remerged with the selection of other 8, all without the aid of my inability to choose. So we can both be grateful for DoubleSharp's expert pruning skills. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This is simply a content dispute, and the OP's accusations -- such as "Modified a comment of mine" -- which was actually just sticking a helpful section tag in a wikilink, do not hold up to scrutiny.
WP:BRD is not a policy which which to beat other editors, and, as noted, Tomruen has not been blindly reverting but rather offering compromise number of images. On the other hand, "lying by confusion" isn't justified -- "inaccurate" is probably a better description. I encourage Tomruen and Steelpillow to dial it down a notch and note / appreciate DoubleSharp's good work in working towards a compromise, and any other editor who wishes to help reach consensus to participate in the talk page discussion. NE Ent
17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
An up-front accusation that I am lying, repeated here for luck, cannot be dismissed as a mere content dispute. It is a flagrant breach of
WP:CIVIL. Nor is my account as inaccurate as Tom would have you believe - see my reply above. "Modified a comment of mine" - I am glad that you agree with my own assessment that it was in itself "no big deal", but why hold that against me? Did you not read on? Meanwhile, I have thanked DoubleSharp once or twice already, how many more times are needed? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk
) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom Ruen may be a long-term editor who has contributed a lot of very nice images and a lot of content to the project, and has a lot of expertise to share, but it's also the case that a lot of his long-term editing (mostly on articles related to polyhedra) is problematic: throwing huge vaguely-related image galleries on them that dwarf the rest of the article (see
WP:BALANCE), using nonstandard nomenclature, adding content that appears to be original research, not giving any inline sources for the content he adds, and then tacking on "references" sections that are copied-and-pasted verbatim across hundreds of articles, and that list whole books without page numbers that, on closer examination, do not include any content on the specific subjects of the articles they are supposed to be references for. It has caused many of our polyhedron-related articles to be problematic. I don't know that this specific content dispute is worth the attention of ANI, and I don't want to push him away from the project, but I do wish he'd get more serious about only adding content that is fully on-topic and can be properly sourced. After having gotten into discussions with him on this issue before that ended up generating more heat than light I don't know what the best way to get some change is. —David Eppstein (talk
) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
After many years walking round the edges I recently decided to try standing up to him. He is not used to this and has had trouble dealing with it. So here we are at ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support a block because the allegation of lying, first, violates the principle of
no personal attacks. It is true that this is primarily a content dispute, but it is a content dispute compounded by the conduct issue of the accusation of lying. Robert McClenon (talk
) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Robert, please tell me what you need from me. I have no personal conflict against Steelpillow, only the false facts he was repeating. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(This got archived at this point bcause of inaction. The accusation of lying remains on the project discussion page, neither redacted nor apologised for. Will somebody please do something about this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
Even if
assuming good faith. If you, User:Tomruen, have never ever made a factual mistake, then perhaps you don't understand that very occasionally editors try to report facts correctly and make mistakes. If you indeed have no personal conflict with Steelpillow, then I suggest that you strike all of the accusations of lying. Robert McClenon (talk
) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly remove the accusation (if it helps). From now on I will simply say "This is false" to false accusations, and repeat it as necessary on every repeated false accusation. Here's my attempted correction, [24], keeping my original rude reply striked, so it's clear I was the one who is overreacting. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to accept Tom's withdrawal, and I am sure we are both capable of sorting out any remaining content dispute between us. For my part, I also withdraw my request for an editing block. As far as I am concerned, this can now be closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Expertscape
I have posted this in his talk page after he deleted ExpertScape page and stated" "speedy deletes are just like that".
==An Observation==
Reading your posted census on your home page, it appears that you have deleted Wikipedia pages 5,000 times more than you have ever created any Wikipedia article. You have blocked and re-blocked users 2,000 times more than unblocking the users. How about the label "wiki-nator" for you, nothing sarcastic, just a neutral suggestion. S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not any more you can't. I removed it. You can, of course, look at the edit history if you're burning (no pun intended) to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The post was about the recent deletions by [Bbb23]. I am told that some of Bbb23's today's deletions are being discussed here. I shared the mere fact that this editor has deleted articles 5,000 times more than he/she has created articles, and
editor". If mentioning these data are considered inappropriate, then I am truly sorry and have learned something new. On the other hand, I, a random, low-tier user, am posing a serious questions to our astute editors and their unrestricted right to "speedy delete" hours (to days to months) of people's work. I look forward to be educated and to a healthy discussion (without hopefully being deleted speedily). Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk
) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the OP is pissed off about the deletion of Expertscape for lack of a credible assertion of notability, but fails to point out that the article has been deleted three times before, only one of those times by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
To shed light on the incident and to request astute editors to kindly review,
Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process. I asked Bbb23 to allow a period of healthy discussion and review but Bbb23 deleted the page without any discussion and only minutes after tagging it under "speedy deletion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expertscape Upon requesting the opportunity to review, Bbb23 asserted: "No, speedy deletes are just that, speedy. They don't require a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" In my opinion, and I may be wrong, "speedy deletes are just speedy deletes" would not qualify the action and may misrepresent the true spirit of "collaborative" nature of Wikipedia. Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process and despite the request to allow a healthy period of review and discussion. Honestly I have no idea who or what runs the ExpertScape, and I am not even sure if this is a company or enterprise or autopilot web operation. I feel (and happy to discuss if I am not deleted or blocked) that "notability" is met here, since the nationally renowned medical centers and USA based medical schools refer to ExpertScape rankings. If so the Wikipedia is warranted to have a neutral reference about this. One would benefit from seeing an informative article that is not promotional but indeed critical and questions certain angles such as source of funding and other limits. The article was deleted only once before, it was then recreated after months of work and stayed on Wikipedia for several months until today where 2 editors deleted it within minutes of each other. I sincerely request a review and discussion not only on {{ExpertScape}} but also on the fundamental question of the status of "editor" if one has deleted 5,000 times more than created articles. S.Burntout123 (talk
) 05:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you actually requested a
deletion review of the speedy deletion? —C.Fred (talk
) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted article, and it looks like we haven't lost anything except some badly-supported promotional puffery. We're not here to host an ad for a website. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, C.Fred, and yes, I have filed "Requests for Undeletion" according to a great editor and await next step. I do not agree with TeonA... this is not promotional at all. If my original posting was promotional, then please go ahead and edit. It takes a lot of time and effort to edit and amend and improve, while it is more convenient to "just delete". As WP editors you have great responsibility which is beyond and above "delete". Look forward to a better and more tolerant world than discrediting and deleting the articles of low-tier users. Give us a chance to discuss and educate than calling something "badly-supported promotional puffery". Thank you all for your important contributions and editing efforts. S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Four admins in the last year have a different opinion of the article from yours: the three that deleted it, and TenOfAllTrades above. Since you have a vested interest in the article being in Wikipedia, and they only have a vested interest in following Wikipedia policies, I'm rather inclined to think that they are correct, and you are not.
By the way, what's your connection to the company? BMK (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The user is confusing
WP:REFUND. He's been to the latter. Indeed, he's posted at least part of the article there, so we're still hosting an ad for the website. I realize you're all focused on whether the article should or should not have been deleted, but I'd pay just a little more attention to the user's conduct as the issue of the deletion doesn't even belong on this noticeboard except the user's claims that I've abused my powers because I deleted an article without due process and discussion, which, of course, is patent nonsense in the context of a speedy delete. I'm going off-wiki and I'll let those of you who are more patient than I deal with this as you will.--Bbb23 (talk
) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
May I ask to please not attack users. It is disruptive to accuse a user: <<<"so we're still hosting an ad for the website">>>. If there is any ad anywhere, then please go ahead and remove anything that sounds promotional, so that this discussion can remain focused on the fundamental 2 questions: (1) Speedy deletion of the article. (2) The qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 time more than he/she contributed to "editing" WP articles (and these are the data that Bbb23 has posted on his/her page, please visit Bbb23 home page). I truly look forward to be educated here and have immense respect for hardworking WP editors who contribute immensely in this treasure.S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
So, it's OK for you to attack Bbb23 by calling him the "Wiki-nator", but when he points out your conduct problems, that's somehow not allowed? I think not.
So, you socked in 2011 as User:Burntout1234, what's your relationship to User:Europeisme, who created the deleted article Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, a copy of which has been in your user space since 2010, despite your failing to work on it -- the only reason that deleted articles should be in userspace -- since 2011, despite your stated intention to do so in 2013. What is the relationship between this article and Expertscape? And, again, what is your relation to Expertscape? BMK (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if it was the most appropriate time to attack me and my contributions and to delete my other works and projects. I truly feel harassed and ask for protection during this sensitive time asking that the focus on my fundamental questions about the legitimacy of certain editors are not diverted by going after my page. This reminds us of the IRS suddenly auditing 6 years of tax records when one has dares to question the government's actions in Vietnam. I have absolutely no relationship with ExpertScape and have no idea who these people you have listed are. I hope that we are not experiencing McCarthyism. Is this really the price a low-tier user has to pay for questioning the qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 more than contributing to articles? S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I had sent this editor to
AfC which I thought would be better for this kind of editor and article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!
) 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I truly feel harassed by several editors here and ask for support and protection and the right to ask the fundamental questions about editors who delete 5,000 times more than contributing to article. Hope the low-tier users are not supposed to stop questioning the editors as a contingency to survive. S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You come here bitching and calling names, then complain about being harassed -- and in the complaint repeat the attack you started with. Beauty.
In the meantime, I suggest that an univolved admin might like to consider blocking Burntout123 for a short period of time if he repeats his attack on Bbb23 again. BMK (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again I am asking for help and protection against intensified harassment and attacks by certain editors. BMK just deleted my userified project with this message on his talk page: "Bullshit, you can't save the article by adding some crap you dug up in 5 second of Googling. BMK (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)"S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you added this one sentence to the article: "Since then over 50 papers have mentioned the term according to
New England Journal of Medicine in 2013, and there have been over 500 citations of the publications on burnt-out diabetes." and called it a "new version". BMK (talk
) 07:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just deleted
isn't here for any reason other than to promote this website. —Cryptic
08:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly the harassment has continued by these certain editors, while supportive and balanced editors do not appear to feel comfortable to say anything. The original questions have been overshadowed, and instead the low-tier users and their home page have been attacked and vandalized. I ask the true WP editors to protect the low-tier users against further attacks and public accusations and harassment. If a user dares to question the legitimacy of the editors who delete much more than contributing to WP, it is not professional to suggest to "block him for a short period" to teach the user a lesson. The very foundation of WP comes into question which such approaches, similar to the time when a government justify torture. Hope we control our emotions and biases and remain focused on the original questions: Can an editor be legitimate if he/she deletes thousands of times more than contributing to articles? Is the fundamental act of asking this question the reason to be blocked and to be harassed? S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Admins mostly carry out the tasks requested by others...at least as much janitor compared to the judge+executioner you presume it to be. I recommend you focus on what you actually want done and use diffs and other details of specific actions rather than than raising vague raw data claims (Lies, damned lies, and statistics). By policy, blocks are preventive not punitive--if you appear to be disrupting wikipedia, you'll be blocked so that the rest of us can get back to writing an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of destroying AGF, there's this gem: User:Burntout123/Neovandalism. Looks like the axe has been on the grind for a long time. --Kinut/c 09:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Neovandalism article – yet another userfied deleted article in Burntout123's user space – see this AN/I thread. BMK (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Snow deleted at AfD. BMK (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you going after the user and auditing the last 6 years of his/her tax return because he/she dared to question the government actions in Vietnam? Am I suddenly running out of time? Given these circumstances, I hereby request 4 weeks of protection to update and complete my userified projects, while requesting that they not be touched or deleted during this period including ExpertScape, Diabetes and Neovandalism. I truly ask that I and my pages be protected during this period of time. I am happy to stop further posting during this time. S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't respond to the nonsensical part of your comment, but I will point out that you've been here over 3.5 years and your attitude in most of your non-article edits is pretty much the same as it was in your first edit. Perhaps you should take a step back and consider whether it's not us, but you... and then determine whether a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is the right one for you. --Kinut/c 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One week is the standard for XfD. That should be plenty of time to find even a bare handful of actual reliable sources to support notability and prove an article/topic is minimally viable. One week, on top of however many previous years... DMacks (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and will do. Can I ask that the deleted projects and pages be placed back for this period and nothing else be changed or deleted while we interrupt all postings and discussions by all parties for one week? I appreciate 7 days of protection and pieace and kindly ask others also to stop. Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, you can request that, but I doubt your request will be honored.
Why don't you just store your prospective article on your PC and upload it when you think it's ready. Then there's no time limit. You can take 20 years to finish if you want. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the google cache of the Expertscape article and agree that the article is spam. I haven't examined the user's other contributions enough to call for a block, but the signs I've seen point that way. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the User's talk page and things are moving in the right direction. Can someone please help the user understand how to copy/paste his local articles onto his PC and how to apply for a
To be frank, I'm not certain how this could be considered "the right direction". --Kinut/c 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussion on his talk page, not his venting on his userpage, which I didn't see. If you think the user needs a
WP:CIR block, propose it. Otherwise, I suggest that de-escalation (which the user has responded to favorably, in agreeing to most of my points) is better than a continued recriminations. If someone could invest a little time in helping to calm things down and help the user, that would be great. If every user responded to criticism on ANI by having a lightbulb go off above their head and then they reply clearly with "mea culpa" and a plan for improvement, we'd have a very different environment here than we know we have. JoeSperrazza (talk
) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Since he's still asking fpr special immunity from normal Wikipedia processes, I'm not sure that you're really getting through to him at all. Considering that his behavior has been typical since the very beginning of the account, it's possible that you're tilting at windmills. BMK (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I do believe if we can get him a userfied copy of
Burntout has requested I restore the Expertscape page to draft space, an offer I made on
WP:REFUND, [25], before noticing the ANI discussion and reverting myself, [26]. Would anyone object to this? (My search suggests the subject is possibly notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk
) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Putting in draft space seems ok to me. It's probably preferable to user space for various reasons. I still think it's a spammy article, but maybe it can be cleaned up and notability established. Separately, I did a little bit of web search and burnt-out diabetes seems to actually be a thing. I have no idea what condition the deleted article is in. Burntout123, note that the amount of Wikipedia bureaucracy surrounding articles on medical topics is even worse than for most other topics besides BLP's. See
WP:MEDRS for info on how you'll have to write and source your article. 50.0.205.75 (talk
) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly object to it. Numerous editors have commented that the subject does not seem notable, the editor involved appears to have a COI in regard to the subject (although he denies it), and the editor's past track record is that userfied articles (the previous version of draft articles) stay in his userspace for years without being substantially modified. One userfied article that he "worked on" in the past few days -- an article which had been deleted a number of times -- was recently rejected at AfC, and another was deleted at AfD. I have no confidence whatsoever that this editor (or really anybody else) will be able to bring Draft:Expertscape to the status of an acceptable mainspace article. Therefore, I urge ThaddeusB not to move the deleted article to Draftspace. BMK (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm dubious too, after the edit summary on User:Burntout123/sandbox. I'd only be willing to acquiesce to userfication or a move into draftspace if A) it gets one of the AFC templates so we can speedy delete it with a minimum of fuss after he abandons it for six months, and B) you're willing take responsibility for dealing with him if he prematurely moves it into mainspace himself. —Cryptic 11:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering the history of the article, I protected against recreation. But that is no reason why it cannot be restored by any admin and moved to draft space. It will then need admin action to move it back, not just an AfC approval, but that's a fairly usual way to proceed in these cases. I've moved a number of improved AfCs to mainspace over protection under this sort of circumstance DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made Burnt a conditional offer, User talk:Burntout123#Offer, in which I take responsibility for mentoring him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
David Adam Kess
NAC: Editor in question indeffed by User:Diannaa for copyvio and competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (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.
David Adam Kess(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) may appear to be a good faith editor but is lacking competence, especially in financial topics. David Adam Kess has decreased the quality of every finance article he edited by adding irrelevant, off-topic content, adding useless and redundant citations often copy-pasted from the on-topic articles, and messing up the edit histories with his irrelevant spam of code fragments and characters.
For example, there is a book about high-frequency trading that I am familiar with,
are described? Nevermind the typo and improper capitalization in both headings, a consequence of the user's copy-pasting, often cross-pasting the same irrelevant text into multiple articles.
Edits like these are typical for his contributions to finance articles. Notice the prose: "Desribing Dark pools is described in amazing detail in the book, writer Michael Lewis describes how when a Pension fund (...)" As usual, David Adam Kess also added the same text to this article and who knows how many others. Some of this text was actually copy-pasted from the high-frequency trading article. I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail. It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kristina451: do you think the problem is attributable to ESL, or something more than that? This noticeboard has a habit of failing to take action when it comes to issues like this, so if you can be more specific (and very brief) about the exact nature of the problem, using only one or two examples, you might get a better response. Then again, given the horrible track record of this board, they might not do anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems well-intentioned but most of what has been added is completely without citation or verification and much of it is in broken English with spelling and grammatical errors. I've reverted the addition of a couple of sections to articles. Unless there is a commitment to slow down, check edits, source edits and communicate to resolve issues, a block is needed to prevent further damage. Should certainly be unblocked if such a commitment is forthcoming but for now we need to tourniquet and cauterise (unfortunately). St★lwart111 23:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and I thought about Viriditas' question, so here is another (article) example. I first explained the issues in detail on his talk page. When David Adam Kess made another off-topic insertion, I removed it with a descriptive edit summary. He added it back, and more. I then tagged a few of the issues. David Adam Kess responded not by addressing any of them, but by adding more off-topic and irrelevant text to the same article. I appreciate the few reverts by Stalwart111. It turns out David Adam Kess edited half a dozen finance articles and to get them back in shape, it may be faster to take the revision before he edited them and restore the edits by others. Kristina451 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you now explain the reaction of the user when you brought these edits to his attention? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I brought previous edits to his attention, before he made the linked insertions. I remember our talk page conversation back then as pleasant and polite. It did not have the intended effect, the insertions of irrelevant content continued. Kristina451 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It would help to link to selected discussions here. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 23:48, 2 February 2015 Stalwart111 (talk | contribs) . . (62,747 bytes) (-375) . . (Reverted to revision 645241697 by Gragre123 (talk): Reverting addition of section with broken English. (TW)) (undo | thank)
Algorithmic_trading and High-farequency_trading
are very complex and the stock market is not like it was years ago, and this kind of info must be in plain english for anyone to understand
in response,
I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail.
It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
you make me laugh, you can revert my edits like Stalwart111.... a good laugh!
Oh my. I'm sure Mr. Kess means well, but that's not always enough. Or in Wiki-speak,
talk
) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
David Adam Kess appears to mean well, but it is clear that he lacks the necessary skills to contribute to the English Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I broadly concur with that. If someone can ascertain what DAK's native tongue is (I took a quick look at his global contribs but couldn't tell from that), perhaps someone who speaks that language can get through to him and explain things to him. If that's not possible, or if it doesn't work, then I'd say a CIR block might be necessary. BMK (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on his user page and contribs, I'm going to guess his native language is Catalan and Spanish. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think he speaks English well enough to be able to discern what to do and what not to do (and to follow instructions and abide by the agreements he has made). (If not, he should not be editing En Wiki.) I don't think explaining to him in Spanish is going to help matters at all. No, I think this is a clear case of
In his most recent edits, he added a lot of text to the National Polytechnic School article, unsourced, so I wondered where it came from. Turns out it came from the Spanish version of the article. Might be a (modified) auto-translation. Since the text at es.wiki is also unsourced, I checked who inserted it and it was David Adam Kess. The Spanish article text is a massive COPYVIO of "Departamento de Ciencias Nucleares" by Patricio Castillo, page 13 in this pdf. Kristina451 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Support indefinite block per the latest edits. Competency is required. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Indef blocked for copy vio and competency issues. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
David has been Indefinitely blocked by User:Diannaa, time to close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (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.
Liberal36 returns to edit-warring
Liberal36 blocked for a week. Number57 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After
talk
) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just commented on the talk page of the article. There is no consensus and I am not the only one who disagrees. Liberal36 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(a) There quite clearly is consensus. (b) You need to be able to articulate an argument as to why it is that you disagree. We've rejected their being part of S&D as OR.
talk
) 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually Liberal36, you are the only one, from what I can see, who disagrees. And, there is no consensus for your changes. --OrduinDiscuss 21:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Νο, Ι am not the only one because if you look at the article history you will see at least two other registered editors sharing my opinion that the party tends to the centre-left. They have just not written on the talk page. Liberal36 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, consensus is formed through discussion. Also, one of them reverted their edits. The other I pinged twice, but he chose not to participate.
talk
) 22:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just provided 6 recent articles on the talk page clearly referring to the River as centre-left. I can find many more if you like. Liberal36 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you're discussing this now, but you do actually need to stop edit warring.
talk
) 22:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm entering this since I'm also involved. This user has just (again) broke the 3RR despite an ongoing discussion on the issue in the article's talk page, refusing to wait until consensus forms and instead opting to push forward his own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is all my opinion on the issue. Impru20 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
He broke 3RR again. I'm not filing a third report in 3 days.
talk
) 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked them for a week as it's their second 3RR violation in four days. Number57 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting a
IBAN
I'm requesting a IBAN between myself and
wikihounding me at RfP, twice actually. Just because I nominated an article he contributed to for deletion doesn't mean he should go and undermine everything else I am doing. It was the first time he ever commented at an RfC so it was kinda obvious. When I mentioned it on his talk page he reccomended I do it so here I am. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!
) 03:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
ATalkPage
03:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Two comments on Requests for permissions do not comprise Wikihounding.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. I agree, SarekOfVulcan. @
ATinySliver:, though you must be smug because you didn't get threatened, you might appreciate the fact that he saw your edits as an act of aggression. Next time, try to explain your edits instead of getting into battleground mentality as you did with your "Just do it" reference. It wasn't a very civil thing to do. --Ankit Maity«T § C
» 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You are in
ATalkPage
19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
He tried to get that article zapped and was soundly defeated. No need to rub his nose in it after the fact. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@
ATinySliver: definitely not. But then, that response was definitely not appropriate. EoRdE6 was definitely not understanding and proceeded on to cover up with a lie maybe. Who knows, but then, as an accepted member of the community, it's your responsibility to fix problems. I spend my days in ANI mostly, where interesting threads come up from time to time. All I do is argue, ask for evidence and stuff, but then it's nice to present your two cents in front of people. The point is, new users are not welcomed by the community anymore. Our editor-retention value has fallen way too low. And there's only hope left. --Ankit Maity«T § C
» 11:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sliver, I'm not sure why you keep calling it a lie that the article was only created on January 31, when it did indeed spend most of the last 6 years as a redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"[C]ommunity consensus decided redirect" can only have been a deliberate falsehood (see the corresponding diff within my reply herein linked). I had, and have, reservations when an editor with such a demonstrable difficulty in accepting an opposing opinion asks for permissions that can only increase his interactions with others. That is all. —
ATalkPage
22:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@
ATinySliver: In the OP above I did not find your twice actually edit to be particularly civil as you were basically giving INDCRIT of a problem while not providing direct justification. The provoking of Wikidrama is something that should be avoided and clear and justified communication will help. I recommend that future remarks either not be made or be directly referenced or link cited and rationalised. reply was given by another editor/admin and your response was curt. I don't see how your edits were helpful in the situation and, unless justification can be given, I would support a block of relevant topic ban. IBANs solve nothing. GregKaye
14:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
My communication was intentionally terse; I did not wish to appear to be "piling on", an impression given anyway. In retrospect, I can see how further clarity might have been of assistance. —
ATalkPage
00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Also EoRdE6 when you give a related edit with an uncivil summary "You guys are quite dumb", perhaps you can expect a reaction. There is no condoning ATinySliver in this but I would not be against bans to both. This incivility was not confined to a single editing relationship. GregKaye 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Since January 22, 2015, when he first started editing,
WP:GUILD who can review his additions before he posts them. Yoninah (talk
) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban would certainly be in the interest of his fellow editors, and likely the project as a whole. I am one of those who actively reverted User:DaoXan's edits, and nominated two templates he created for deletion (see here). I am, however, very reluctant to directly recommend such steps, as a matter of principle, and will therefore say no more. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on the highly disruptive nature of the user's edits, and his refusal to collaborate or learn, I feel a topic ban at least is absolutely necessary here. If not that, then a
WP:CIR block. Although he is relatively new (by the way, a large portion of his edits are not visible, because they were for articles and templates he created that have been deleted as egregious), I believe he has been given enough warnings and requests to learn and cooperate, but suffers from delusions of grandeur and infallibility, in addition to his inadequate grasp of English and his repeated defiance of constructive feedback/criticism. Softlavender (talk
) 23:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, I have to agree with Yoninah, Debresser, and Softlavender. I think a topic ban is probably the only way to get through to User:DaoXan. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL
, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
Close. I don't care if anyone disputes this because I've known The Banner for a while--since no one else wishes to close it, I think you understand that this isn't going anywhere. The Banner, I strongly urge you to exercise caution and put on kid gloves, and to seek better ways of addressing problems ("continue to seek", whatever). The others: consensus is one thing, but a rule of the majority is another. All of you: seek proper dispute resolution. Get the experts in (oh! you ARE an expert! get MORE experts in). Move on. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to
WP:CONSENSUS
and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.
On the article
WP:LEAD
. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:
That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".
This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which
States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring
WP:CONSENSUS
.
I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to
talk
) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article
WP:MEDRS
, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).
The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.
In fact, in this case it is
Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Bannertalk
17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with
WP:MEDRS
, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:
It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Bannertalk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Bannertalk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Bannertalk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you.Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?
I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why
WP:MEDRS
is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.
It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Bannertalk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it [46]. The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:
Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."[47]
Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."[48]
"Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here." [49]
So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either.
talk
) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per
talk
) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. The Bannertalk 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least
WP:POV
, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.
The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.
The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I do think that this narrow topic ban would help. See his mass deletion of relevant content in nearly all topics you can think about. Also how fast he is given warnings and blames others of an edit war etc. I support Trackinfo s opinion.
Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: [50] and here [51]. The Bannertalk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Support indefinite topic ban. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive
Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing
WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk
) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Bannertalk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Bannertalk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time
3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"
very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to your bad faith statement You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. The Bannertalk 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. The Bannertalk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. The Bannertalk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OpposeSupport a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and Jytdog has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. St★lwart111 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've amended my position (reversed it, if you would). The ongoing discussions here have been enlightening and I'm quite glad they've remained open. What we've seen since my first contribution (2 weeks ago) is further and further refinement of the "issues". They still include The Banner's behaviour (in part) but watching those pushing for his topic ban interact without his active involvement in the area suggests there are other major problems here and many of them relate to content, not conduct. Those that do relate to conduct apply equally to some of those of both "sides". A plague on both your houses, if you like. There are many who seem to jump to personal attacks before
WP:BRD and The Banner has been one of them in only a handful of related instances. I no longer think that applying a topic ban to him alone would resolve any of the substantive issues here, and so doing to would be contrary to our policies. This needs broader and more broadly applied restrictions. St★lwart111
11:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be Organic farming,Organic food, and Organic milk. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. I would also include Organic farming as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior.Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to Organic farming, I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on Organic milk were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. The Bannertalk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone "could easily" be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. Organic milk looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be Organic food. St★lwart111 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy.
talk
) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And other articles/topics can always be added later if Jytdog's predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. St★lwart111 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere.
talk
) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from Organic food would be an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A neutral article is in the interest of Wikipedia, not silencing a critical voice. The Bannertalk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way: this edit, in which you removed a POV-tag, is rather symptomatic for what is happing on this article. I am definitively not the only one critical about the neutrality of the article. The Bannertalk 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose If reliable sources say that organic foods are healthier than we should include that in the article. And I'm sure that there are probably many. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is why ANI can be difficult. Mr. Guye reliable sources say that we cannot say that organic food is healthier. That is exactly the point here. Your "probably sure" is not how we do things in WP. Please actually read the article and the sources cited there, and please see the discussion on the talk page about sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Remember that this conversation is based on editor behavior. If it were just a content dispute, this conversation wouldn't be at ANI.
talk
) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL, only because you refuse to admit that it is in basic just a content dispute. Talk:Organic_food#Neutrality is again evidence how MEDRS is misused, in this case to brush away a POV-tag. The Bannertalk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is how you behave in content disputes as outlined above.
talk
) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, so permanently saying NO in a content dispute is allowed, as that is what happening here. See for example this one: You can't place a POV flag if the basis of the POV challenge is a challenge to WP:MEDRS. Its wikipedia policy. {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=642669126&oldid=642668116] In my opinion, that is misusing a guideline (as MEDRS is not a policy as claimed but "just" a guideline) The Bannertalk 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment. If The Banner has long-term civility and edit warring issues across the encyclopedia, then first of all a topic ban from natural foods is not going to address that. Second, I would question (but have not checked) how many of those editors favoring a topic ban are the ones who are having a content disagreement on this article, or who have had run-ins with The Banner in the past. That certainly entitles them to an opinion, but inasmuch as they are involved and there is clearly a heated content dispute afoot, that kind of !vote is not an appropriate way to apply behavioral sanctions. At a very minimum, anyone deciding the issue should discount the vote and look at their actual edits and comments. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My brief experience wading into this article suggests there is a serious problem with POV editors camping out to establish a scientific rather than encyclopedic approach. As such, I have re-added a POV tag. This is all a legitimate matter of content discussion, but not a good place to allow a science cabal to assert ownership of an article about a subject largely outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been further warned not to add a POV tag. My attempt to describe the science there as science, etc., have been reverted. It's clear that there's a weird ownership issue on this particular article of smarmy science types who believe that the supremacy of peer-reviewed journal articles extends to food and taste. It's bizarre. Whatever civility problems The Banner may have, they've hit a dysfunctional editing environment here at this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And going against that is what is called "disruptive behaviour" here... The Bannertalk 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon the proposed topic ban is focused on the problem I am aware of. I interact little with Banner and have no comment at all on Banner's behavior elsewhere. That is a distraction from the issues at hand. Further, long-term disruption by an editor cannot be boiled down to a "content dispute". That is a mischaracterization - this is about behavior, not content. My sense is that you have not spent time investigating the history of the article and the discussions on Talk and the way that Banner has behaved, nor looked at the diffs we have provided. I encourage you to do that before you make the kind of judgement you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be frustrated too if an article was hijacked in this way on my watch, and I am indeed somewhat irritated by my brief exposure to the dysfunctional editing environment there — I just have the good sense to recognize lost battles rather than
WP:BATTLE them. So, again, if TheBanner has a long term editing problem with how they react to reasonably perceived unencyclopedic editing practices, in this case a misplaced scientific focus of an article about food, then that ought to be addressed dispassionately by uninvolved editors, not used by the editors in question to enforce their point of view. Possibly this is no more than a dispute over the subject of the article, with neither side blinking but one side having a local consensus by numbers. The page is just fine as an article about the scientific evaluation of foods certified as organic, it would make a fine subsection or child article. It could be that the broader topic including the history, economics, production methods, politics, culinary evaluation, social perception, and so on, is a different article. - Wikidemon (talk
) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to actual content, you're butting heads with very similar issues that editors have when first entering topics such as climate change, evolution, etc. Working in scientific topics is tough, especially when it's a new area for an editor. Folks at the talk page have discussed how you can start into the topic if you want, but being an encyclopedia means we reflect the science as our focus, and that has been upheld time and again. [52] Those are all things that if you want to discuss, that's better left at policy pages or the actual talk page. Here though we are discussing the behavior of The Banner. Whether a content dispute is "valid" or not is irrelevant when we're discussing when an editor acts inappropriately. Inappropriate actions are so whether someone thinks they are justified or not. There are dispute resolution options when someone wants to approach things civilly, but the whole case being brought here is that the user does not approach things civilly and users are tired of that specific disruption. If it was a content issues, we wouldn't be at this noticeboard.
talk
) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Locavore movement (it appears that what differences in taste with regard to organic may be attributed to those overlaps)... stuff like that. There are ways your perspective could add value to the article. But that stuff is quite separate from what Banner has been doing, which has been disrupting the article because he has wanted content to be included that organic food is more healthy and that eating it makes people more healthy, and those claims have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and Banner has turned to disruptive behavior in protest. Jytdog (talk
) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And again you are making things up, Jytdog. It is not a protest, it is plain concern about how a few people can keep an article POV and overly negative by applying a guideline (not a policy as is often claimed) that should not be applied at all. And what you do is just trying to silence a critical voice. The Bannertalk 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
My point on the topic ban proposal is exactly as I say, that: (i) if The Banner's run-ins with other editors are broader than this one topic (which they may be if you do an archive search , then shooing them away on an article-by-article basis isn't useful; and (ii) complaints and !votes coming from one side of a POV dispute should be weighed carefully. The whole question of science and food comes in only inasmuch as this is a bona fide POV dispute, not one editor pushing fringe content. Being an encyclopedia means applying a scientific POV to claims about science, not to all of human knowledge. Whereas the "essence" of the organic food movement may be about meeting consumer desires for health, and environmental and social responsibility, the realization of those desires is an industry, a certification, distribution and retail channels, and a genre of food, which means that any intersection with science is only partial. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What I have been saying all along is we should look at this user's overall pattern of negativity. I have zero involvement with this topic. A small topic ban will not solve The Banner's general hostility to the opinions of other, well meaning editors (essentially forcing his POV); his constant incivility; and his mass deletion of relevant content. I fear this is about to fall off the ANI list into the archives with no resolution and he'll continue to get away with this pattern of activity . . . that is at least until he is back here again--as the above notation demonstrates he's apparently been in ANI 48 times already. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And what is the relevance of that? Are you so desperate to get me blocked that you start using every form of harassment to get what you want? While you have been warnedby an admin to stop harassing me multiple times? Want to keep gambling with that? The Bannertalk 12:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I do think that this narrow topic ban would help at the article in question at least. Problems in other topics just establish the editor has been made aware of the problem behavior many times for the purpose of this ANI. If someone wants to pursue issues in a wider range, probably better to take a similar approach to
talk
) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would agree
WP:ROPE would give everybody a chance to either see a correction in his behavior or to finally rid ourselves of him. What it takes is follow up. Like I said, he's been in ANI 48 times, this has been here you say for 11 days and yet nobody has taken the action to look at his record. Yes, its massive. He is on the cusp of being a top 1,000 editor and there are literally thousands of edits he's made that are protested by other editors; in hostile retorts to those protests; or defending his actions here and elsewhere. So let him hang himself, but it takes serious follow up, essentially a full time job. I tried to follow him for just a short period of time and it is too much labor to fight every hostile thing he does. And he bites. Of course, I'm not an admin. I did it the right way for an editor. For each erroneous deletion, I came back with multiple sources. That takes the defender much more work than his snap delete policy. So the investigation could be exhausting. He is great spouting off policy excuses, he will wikilawyer you on every point, repeatedly, but its all Bullshit. When do you say, enough is enough? He has already used up more than enough rope for me. Trackinfo (talk
) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Trackinfo, how many times are you warned to stop harassing me? I guess you did not get that message at all. The Bannertalk 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So folks, my appeal to get an Administrator to seriously look at this guy will get you this: " This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Bannertalk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to tell that admin Drmies has already told you twice to stop harassing me. Trackinfo! The Bannertalk 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note - Banner's disruptive behavior of making personal attacks has been continuing, even as we are discussing his behavior here:
dif not getting it, saying this ANI is about content. "I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. "
dif just today: continuing the personal attacks, "Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause". He doesn't even understand the problem.
Formerly 98 removed the image from their talk page that proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are a troll. I'm kidding. Drmies (talk
) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You have to admit, I'm a good-looking guy....:>)
talk
) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98, I was pleased to be able to copy something fun and immediately appropriate here. Thanks for making my argument for me! Seriously, I don't think you'll gain much traction here from Banner's user page, which is probably why no one who isn't involved with the organic bit seems to have commented here... Thanks, Drmies (talk
) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its just me Drmies, but I'd say there is a difference between posting a tongue-in-cheek self portrait on one's userpage, and declaring one's intent to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and edit war on the other.
talk
) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's been stressed multiple times above and elsewhere to The Banner that a content dispute is not an excuse for behavior like this, but they keep going back to saying this is just a content dispute. Attempts to direct them towards the issue of their behavior in a helpful and good faith are met with hostility as can be seen in the responses throughout this poist. In the example diffs I gave above, I also left The Banner a warning on their talk page after constantly refusing to come to the article talk page, followed by The Banner leaving a warning on my talk page about edit warring for trying to get them to start discussing [53]. I tried to stress that the reason their reverts were being reverted was because they were ignoring repeated requests to come to the talk page [54], but it seems by that exchange that this user is more interested in going after those who point out their problem behavior. As Jytdog mentioned, definite IDHT behavior than acknowledging a problem, so it doesn't seem any amount of discussion will alleviate the issue, hence why we're here.
talk
) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, what I see is three diffs from August of last year where you revert the addition of apparently verified content with a somewhat lame reference to STATUS QUO--one man's status quo is another man's impeding progress. If those reverts are the extent of Banner's disruption (a half a year ago), well...and have you noted that, if Banner is edit warring there, then you are too? Drmies (talk
) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:EW
is that we try to engage in discussion when there is a disagreement on content (as I was doing). I was trying to re-engage The Banner in discussion to bring them back to the conversation each time rather than trying to fight for content. Perspective matters here, so it's helpful to remember there was already discussion going on before the linked reverts.
Basically, another editor added the content unsourced, discussion ensued. They brought some sources they thought would work, but the sources didn't' support the content as there was some orignial research going on to make the statement. There was quite a bit of discussion about this under the Perceptions heading I linked you to. The Banner had been involved in that conversation too, so he knew about it. At that point there was no consensus for a source that worked for the content and we were in the process of finding sources that would work. That's why I removed the unsourced content (the status quo comment) citing the ongoing work at the talk page since we were actively trying to rework the content and find sources. That's pretty standard practice for challenged new content, especially if unsourced while its being discussed and reworked. Keep in mind this was all before the reverts by The Banner, so there was plenty of talk page discussion. Then he tried to reinsert the content with the source that had been challenged already. I reverted pointing him back to the ongoing talk page discussion that he had already been involved in, but the reverts continued.
talk
) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Also just to be clear, I never claimed this was the only incident of disruption at the article. I just gave it as a single example of the problematic behavior that I've experienced to keep things concise.
talk
) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Drmies thanks for commenting, and for injecting some fun into the discussion. {i love that self-portrait :) } As I wrote above, I've been ignoring Banner's constant focus on contributors not content on Talk and the nasty remarks he keeps making, and his edit warring to retain any piece of crap content that is added as long as it is "positive" about organic food, and have asked him to contribute constructively. But when he threw down the gauntlet I felt he crossed the line. He has thrown AGF completely out the window and has not used any DR processes and has just degenerated into disrupting the article. It's time for him to go. At any point in this discussion he could have said, "hey, ok, i've been acting like a dick because i'm frustrated. sorry, I will use DR processes and chill out on Talk." he has come nowhere even near that - instead he is now making martyr-ish remarks. really it's time for him to be topic banned. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I just don't see it. We've topic-banned plenty of people on this very board, but I don't see how Banner's behavior is a matter of reproach in the first place. I have skimmed the talk page and I may have missed a note or two, but what I expected to find there was some serious hardcore discussion of sources, and I don't see it. And the other thing I expected was maybe an RfC or two about the specific wording of this change or that, and I don't see that either. One could easily flip the tables and say that one editor is here being gang-tackled by a group of editors who also (note Kingofaces's linked edits) removed sourced content--and, one should add, this is supposed to be a two-way street: did you all seek dispute resolution? Finally, I don't see the personal attacks or the persistent focus on contributors, not content, that Banner is accused of. Can we not use our time more productively on the talk page? Have you considered 3O, or soliciting the opinion of some MEDRS experts? Later, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking questions here Drmies (I'd rather see that than just support/opposes). I won't have time to respond to much else than this until later, but if you're referring to my three diffs up at my support post, you might have misread the situation. The content was originally unsourced by another user, and some discussion was already ongoing with multiple editors at the time before The Banner even added it, but there wasn't consensus that it was appropriate for the content well before my links. We basically were discussing a lot, but The Banner seemed to decide to just go ahead and add/revert the sources and content in. It's a little ways back (and a bit of read), but the conversation was here [55]. I'll comment on the other things later tonight when I'm back if no one else addresses them by then.
talk
) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Drmies, we have been putting up with this for two years now:
in November 2012 Banner first edited the article, leaping into an edit war (see the history here, around November 2012 to include sources like http://www.factorfizzle.com to support content on the safety and nutrient value of organic vs conventional food.
Banner's first comment on the article Talk page was also back in November 2012, and he asked, "why MEDRS"
his first response to the first answer went right to "Blatant nonsense" [56]
Actually I was wrong about no DR. Zad68 opened a mediation that failed back in December 2012 over all the ruckus and edit warring Banner caused then.
there were efforts to frame an RfC (here and here that failed - and if you read those, you can see why.
I got involved in late December and suggested a compromise - namely to handle "chemical" differences (of which some can actually be identified) separately from "health differences" from eating organic (none have been identified) (see here). That compromise has endured since then.
but Banner has been railing against the use of MEDRS for health claims about organic food for two years now. Please walk in our shoes. And you are ignoring his dare when asked to strike yet another charge of whitewashing: "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". So what will the community do? How do we live with this guy who cannot hear that we need to use MEDRS for health claims? (a two year case of IDHT) Those are not rhetorical questions - I am really asking for your advice. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting approach. Why don't you tell that I initiated a possible RfC twice but that "you guys" (to give a short summery of the different people involved) could not accept my proposal? And why is there constant trouble at Organic food about stuff being removed? Quite often it were others adding stuff and seeing it removed on grounds of "failing MEDRS" or the polular "WP:OR". Is it not possible that something is wrong with the tight application of MEDRS when so many people have trouble with it? Only this year (just 19 days old) it happened to three other users to see their edits reverted by mr. Jytdog. We are talking about food, but sources from agricultural colleges and universities are often rejected as unreliable of failing MEDRS. And scientific research was, according to you, unreliable due to the "messiness of reality" but still you accept some scientific research, especially when it is vague or negative about organic food. You should apply the same rules for all scientific research, not cherrypicking the best ones for your goal. The Bannertalk 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS is policy. If you don't like it, the appropriate response is to work to change the policy, not to ignore it and and attack the characters of those who apply it. That's pretty much the way it works here and at any other organization for that matter. If you decide the rules don't apply to you because you don't agree with them, sanctions usually follow.
talk
) 13:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(MEDRS is a guideline, Formerly!) There is so much more to Banner's bad behavior. I guess I am going to have to catalog the whole ugly history. That will take some time. But here is another example - a totally
WP:POINT-y nomination for deletion back in November 2012. Sheesh. And it hasn't gotten much better. I will bring a whole slew of diffs on Talk and the article later. Jytdog (talk
) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you really that desperate to get me topic banned that you have to go back more then two years to find excuses? Sheesh. The Bannertalk 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's called "establishing a pattern". If it goes back two years, then the time period is not the deal-killer you're making it out to be; quite the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
You can also look at it from the other side: they claim that the article is neutral and the use of MEDRS is valid. But there is a pattern of other people who also claim that the article is not neutral and that the application of MEDRS is at least heavy handed. The Bannertalk 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Questions?. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any action yet after this long considering we've had pretty clear personal attacks/civility issues and edit warring The Banner resorts to, especially when consensus is against them due to reliable sources, due weight, etc. Considering that, are there any questions about something that isn't clear about the specific behavior issues for other folks reading here? What exactly are people looking for to make a decisions one way or another?
The Banner just can't accept that their behavior in attempting to deal with content they disagree with is problematic and tries to claim they are being attacked instead in some fashion instead of trying to avoid the behavior problems. [57] Past history (apparently 48 ANIs) shows this behavior is a persistent problem, so I'd like to see if we can get some kind of resolution so those of us at the article don't need to keep putting up with continued personal attacks and
talk
) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - A topic ban is drastic and excessive for this incident on organic foods. The inserted statement at that article, while true, is vague in meaning, so it says little. I've also seen problems around MEDRS, as I have a history with it, and have seen other editors have a history with it. There were times where I believed there was false consensus, and eventually seen those articles grow more neutral. I've seen editors come and go, and had this belief there was NPOV, when they inserted something reliable, but it was removed because it wasn't a review, or they didn't have access to the review. The whitewashing remark looked like the perceived actions, and not necessarily a personal attack. I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. - Sidelight12Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As has been mentioned before, this has been an ongoing issue, not an isolated incident just to make sure that is clear. From your response, it seems like you might have taken just a glance at a few things (completely understandable given the length of this). The reason The Banner is being discussed is because of their behavior, not a content dispute. Voicing a concern of whitewashing is one thing on a talk page (variable in appropriateness), but edit warring citing white washing by users rather than specific reliable source or weight concerns is a problem because it contributes to the history attacking editors. The snipes are very directed at editors and not content if you follow the diffs and the talk page discussions linked above, and below by Jytdog. What do you think is the best way to prevent the behavior issue regardless of dispute with that in mind?
talk
) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I'm just an outside observer here but I've been on the receiving end in the past of what felt like a tag-team effort by Jytdog, Formerly98 and KingofAces43. Spending a few days studying their edit histories is very informative. They, plus some other editors like Yobol(and a few others), seem to work as a team. That's my impression. And their edits tend to be beneficial to the big end of town, never the other way around. It could be coincidental, but thought it worth mentioning. Under these circumstances, Banner should receive the benefit of the doubt. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note for anyone trying to determine consensus, but it would seem like MLPainless has a separate ax to grind here as they aren't commenting on The Banner's behavior in their opposition. They've run into frustration in tackling
) when problems at those articles were discussed there, and those editors came to check things out.
As a science editor, I for one get very tired of people passionate about a topic casting aspersions like above (shills, white-washing, etc. from some other editors) whenever they don't agree. It's a distraction at best, which is why we're hoping for some kind of action in the case of The Banner to get them to stop the behavior. If they actually want to discuss content instead of lashing out, then that's what we're looking for.
talk
) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean: within 3 hours of my comment above, user "Formerly 98" went through my edit history and deleted/modified edits I made at Atrazine, edits that tended to raise some flags of concern about a hugely profitable pesticide. If you look at that article's history, you'll see him and Jytdog (and Kingfaces43) removing all possible comments that cast a negative light on Atrazine. Their editing is almost entirely exonerating of the chemical, despite numerous primary studies showing problems. Those studies, even when there are several, by different researchers, all pointing to a similar conclusion, are tagteam deleted on the grounds of "not a secondary or review study". And even when I included a review study, it was deleted on the grounds that the review study was "polemic".
Now I don't care that Wikipedia is being expunged of any trace of doubt about profitable chemicals, and that all evidence for organic food is being deleted under the guise of MEDRS, but I'm not going to resile from commenting that it is happening, and that it's a shame. I've also looked at Banner's history and I really cannot see what the fuss is about. He can be a bit gruff, but not to the point of topic banning. This seems like yet another content dispute in which the corporate view is being rammed through. MLPainless (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Sure The Banner has an obnoxious personal style, but that is not a crime on Wikipedia. I am more concerned about the allegations of corporate tage-team spamming. It takes two teams to edit war. IMHO it is the proposer who needs a good spanking for wasting our time here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Banner's history on the article and Talk
This is quite a wall of text. but it seems that folks aren't getting the history here. So here it is.
article Banner came in hard and edit-warring, pretty much vanished, and has come back since the fall getting more and more nasty.
(note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
(note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
There you go. You can see the whole thing there. Like I said - came in ugly. got frustrated, and now comes back mostly in
WP:DR tools to deal with his concerns instead of venting on the rest of us and edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk
) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a nice list of my edits. I guess each and everyone was reverted...
And it is interesting to see that Jytdog gets irritated when I used his own words "due to the messiness of reality" to question the content of the article. I am willing to believe the "due to the messiness of reality"-statement but than it has to be applied on all content, not just the inconvenient content. The Bannertalk 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I note an interesting gap between end of August 2014 and beginning of November (after almost daily attention in August) in his attention to the article that corresponds to my issues with him. Starting September 1, he nominated a slew of articles for deletion, documented by @
deliberately failed to find from the first pages of Google when attacking these articles. I won every case, which clearly shows he is the one out of line. Originally I tried to show how each individual bad faith nomination was not a singular event but part of a package. Apparently according to user:Drmies
, disclosing these facts, suggesting the offender should be stopped, are personal attacks. So I had to back off. I gave a few key notations in this summation for brevity, there's plenty more.
The general point is, he didn't calm down and stop being obnoxious, he only diverted his efforts toward me for a couple of months. When I backed off, he turned his attention back to the article in question. There is an obvious pattern of behavior here. He's a moving target causing trouble to multiple users wherever he goes and as I have said above, is in need of serious disciplinary action (or psychological help) beyond this one complaint. Somebody please go through his
show elsewhere. After he has assaulted another editor with his barrage of tactics, they might get to the point that they find their way back to ANI with him and we do this dance again. Trackinfo (talk
) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to find the AfDs I was referring to in my warning--what was problematic was the personal attacks you made in those AfDs. "Personal attack" is a matter of tone, and I think you have a problem finding the right tone every now and then. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact I was trying to ignore your silly quest to get me blocked. I tried to ignore your personal attacks and harassment. But yu won't give up. And accusing me of a bias against articles related to pageants is not true. There is clearly a problem but you seem to ignore it. And the problem there is, amongst others, this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And yes, I have send your attack page to MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner). How long do you want to go on and on and on? The Bannertalk 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to note above that I made a good faith effort to discuss this issue headon with Banner and with the new editor I mentioned above, Redddbaron (a farmer who is new to WP and its sourcing guidelines). That discussion is here: here] It sadly devolved into personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It would have been better when you offered this link: Talk:Organic food/Archive 5#concerns about bias...., an interesting story of not listening to the real content problem. You are willing to listen to everything, except anything that questions the application of MEDRS and flawed neutrality of the article due to the strict application of MEDRS. You talk about everything here, except the content problems. The Bannertalk 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, the focus of this ANI is your behavior. There are many ways to resolve content disputes which you have not attempted to use for over two years now - you have reduced yourself to making disruptive, heckling, SOAPBOX comments like this and disruptive reverts in the article like this. Your contributions have not been constructive for a long time now. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You are bluntly ignoring the fact that the talk page of Organic food is now filled with accusations of the article being POV. The behaviour that you dislike so much, is nothing more than me keeping pointing at how POV the article is. Instead of doing something about the POV, an opinion shared by many others, you just try to silence somebody you never managed to silence before. The fact that you even try to close the talk page of organic food for discussion is quite serious: see here. The Bannertalk 16:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
requesting close
This has gone on long enough and we have crept to the top of this page. Can an admin please review and close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I just requested a close at the "request close" board here. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (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.
Improper closure
I am stating my objection to the above closure as improper. The closing administrator has been
involved in this issue for months. This is also the same administrator who decided to delete content I collected that would be relevant to read about this case. Per the procedure I have been able to find; I have given notification to the administrator to deaf ears and am now seeking to find whatever the proper procedure is for having this reviewed. Trackinfo (talk
) 23:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Many of the diffs which where described as personal attacks, to me, seemed too mild to be called personal attacks. However, I can see the frustration by the Banner, and his description of acts. Is it to topic ban people because of little tolerance for a different pov? There are a lot of people with similar pov's but they come in one at a time, to an established wiki community who are more eager at wikipedia. If that diff is about an involved editor, it seems like drmies was a mediator, instead of taking a personal involvement. If someone else wants to close or review, then they should, the more eyes, the better. - Sidelight12Talk 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You should also keep in mind that Trackinfo is already engaged in a long personal campaign to get me blocked or banned as he highlights so friendly in his own comments above. The Bannertalk 07:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. I want a serious review of The Banner's history. There has been one administrator, and one administrator only who has stood up as a protector for this serial troublemaker, and by this act of closure he has again prevented a serious review of The Banner's activities. My own behavior "problem" is only trying to scream loud enough for some serious administrator to actually look at this guy. Look at his history. Look at how many other people he has offended, not just me. Alone, I'm at my limit of being able to protect content. Alone I cannot sound a louder warning. I'm trying to connect the dots for you. There is a pattern of behavior to look at. We have invested a month trying to deal with just one situation out of so many he causes. And so far, not one administrator has made any serious effort to deal with this disciplinary situation. We deserve a rational decision, not a closure to make this drop off the ANI list. Do you want to encourage him to continue to behave this way? If you don't do something about this, he will be back. He will be aggressively defensive, with reverse accusations and we will waste another month. [59]], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], explaining[70]Trackinfo (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with Trackinfo's request; I have the feeling it will simmer like the last one. It seems pretty obvious to me that there was only one way for this thread to end. Jytdog, what do you think? You can guess nothing good was going to come out of it. I have faith in your judgment, though you are of course involved as well. :) Look, you all have a longstanding conflict and you should find a better way to solve it than try for a topic ban--and I wish you all good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sidelight12 for the Nth time, the ANI action was not about Banner's POV to which he is entirely entitled; it was not about content - it was about his 2 year pattern of personal attacks and disruptive editing, and his failure to use WP's DR processes with regard to his unhappiness with the application of PAG in the article. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I explained that I found what was called personal attacks I believed were too mild, or about actions themselves. Just restating it, so you think I didn't ignore it. For the rest, I have no comment either way. - Sidelight12Talk 03:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking Drmies. I am OK with the warning you gave to Banner. If he refuses to heed it, that will be helpful if we have to come back here (and I very much hope we don't have to) The only thing I ask (as I already did on your Talk page) is that you strike the "enjoy ganging up on" piece of your close which attributes bad motivation to me. I like working out differences with editors who AGF and work within PAG; I do not enjoy this kind of conflict in WP - trying to work with editors who refuse to assume good faith and instead make personal attacks, and who do not base their discussion on PAG, are the things that drive me away from articles. To be frank I am approaching burnout from that stuff. In any case I would appreciate it if you would strike that. If on the other hand you really think I have a pattern of
WP:GANG or other bad behavior and you really see that justified in the discussion above, I would appreciate you telling me that directly and cleanly, but tossing that into your close seems... well, flippant. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk
) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I don't mind doing that all, though I will tell you that I certainly didn't mean you in the "some of you". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll just pipe in and say Jytdog hit the nail on the head here. POV isn't a major concern here, and we can work with that in terms of a content dispute. That's never been the issue for those suggesting dispute resolution. It's when someone starts sniping about other editors, etc. in the process of trying to reinsert their preferred version (or not even suggesting content at all) that we get into behavior problems that detract from the project no matter how you look at it. All that any of us actually working on the page are asking for is simply for the behavior to stop, and that doesn't require a topic ban if The Banner would simply stop. Each individual edit may not seem egregious, but we’ve been trying to describe
WP:TENDENTIOUS
behavior where one of the hallmarks of that is repeated seemingly minor misbehavior over a longer period of time (especially to an outside observer). That’s why the breadth of diffs presented is as important as assessing the how problematic a single diff was.
In terms of
talk
) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, any admin (and we're all volunteers, remember) who reads through all the content of a long dispute especially one that seems to continue for awhile gets accused of having been "involved" who are dissatisfied with the closure. I don't think I've had real interaction with the folks here, including the closing admin, the OP, the Banner, or whoever, but absent some egregious proof of bias, the close seems proper (remember
Just to clarify, my comments on being involved weren't about conversation here, but Drmies' prior interactions trying to wrangle with behavior issues between The Banner and Trackinfo that appear to be longstanding (I know firsthand from other sites this kind of work is hard). Basically, I had a slight concern opinions previously formed of The Banner carried over to interpreting this incident with the net positive comment. As I mentioned before though, I'm just asking about that in good faith as a potential unintentional bias to be mindful of, and it's not something I really intended to raise a fuss about at all. For the actual closing review, no one is saying what Drmies did was blatantly improper, and we've got at least a decent warning for The Banner. This topic has been at ANI way to long, so I'm going to consider this horse dead (and I sincerely hope it doesn't become a zombie horse).
Actually, we need the attention of someone who knows about range blocks. This was IP 72.68.240.215. Previous incarnations include 2600:1001:b117:577:fdc2:477d:3f51:2340, 216.37.96.157, and 72.68.242.74. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC) -- rangeblocks implemented by Kww, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only thing that happens is an admin just blocks him or her and that's that. Don't worry. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
User blocked. -- GBfan 13:49, 4 February 2015 (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.
Technical notes: IEE-488 is not a serial protocol. Commodore incorrectly described it as such as a marketing ploy (pretending the Commodore had an IEE-488 port when the truth was that you could buy an extra-cost serial to iEEE-488 converter). Also. Countertop is not a chemistry article and thus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) does not apply.
I suspect that this is a continuance of an existing fight under another username or IP address, but I don't feel comfortable naming names without better evidence than I have been able to find. --Guy Macon (talk)
in restoring Wtshymanski's vandal reversion so as to restore obvious vandalism, or else being so blinded by their hounding as to lose track of the overall WP benefit.
Throw them to the wolves. We've all got better things to be doing. Probably a sock with a grudge too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
As often happens, 31.48.73.38 went silent as soon as the ANI notice was posted. Blocks are for prevention, not punishment, so as long as he lays low there is nothing for an admin to do here. If anyone notices a new username or IP address suddenly starting to hound Wtshymanski, please drop me a note on my talk page. I made a note to remind me to check again in three days, and if there is still no activity, I will request that this be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. Possibly a compromised account. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just letting you know this user has been up to some very blatant page move vandalism and is making a person from our organisation look bad. Please indef this user to protect us here at Capita. Thanks! 80.189.136.20 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)and
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier today, an editor boldly moved
Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Milwaukee and left a redirect. This is direct violation of the so called comma convention. I am not asking for sanctions, just for an admin to put it back and possibly instruct the editor, who I will not name here, on the proper procedures and historical outcomes. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk
) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears there is a move war about this also, now that I look further down my watchlist, so possibly move protect also? John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Bit of a minefield, but Milwaukee is one of the cities listed as exceptions from the comma rule, according to
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.
(NAC) It's been deleted. Epic Genius (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been repeatedly tagged for speedy deletion, and then had the tag removed by 'new' accounts. It stands precisely zero chance of meeting notability guidelines, and there is no evidence that the subject even exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Looks like a run-of-the-mill non-notable article to me. Deleted...but I really don't think AN/I is the place to relieve CSD backlogs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two concerns about Vaselineeeeeeee (talk·contribs). First, this editor dislikes using edit summaries. He was cautioned here, then deleted the caution here. He was cautioned again here, and deleted the caution here. Second, there a pattern of reverting edits in an effort to win content disputes. This editor has been adding flags to infoboxes in Canada, which has prompted many talk page discussions which he has joined in. This, in turn, led to a draft proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal regarding flag icons in infoboxes Courtesy would suggest you refrain from adding more infobox flags until consensus is reached, or new policy created. The editor reverted my edit here, after I left an edit summary stating "you are part of a flag discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. It would be courteous to wait for consensus". As well, this editor was cautioned here to avoid edit waring. What's confusing, is that on US articles, such as this one, he has been deleting infobox flags! Thank you for your time. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly about the edit summaries, I do not dislike using them, just when I make a small edit for example adding in a wikilink, I usually do not leave a summary, however on a larger edit (adding in a paragraph for example) I most certainly do. In regards to the flags, I believe very little will come out of the discussion (which is usually what happens). There is no set in stone rule where you are not allowed to put flags in the infobox in "Human geographic sites" as stated in MOS:FLAGSINFOBOXES for cities. Also with deleting the flags on the US pages, I only did that because of the discrepancies in the Edmonton discussions and believed that if some articles do not have them, then they all shouldn't (or should) for consistency. They were all added back and I have not touched them since. I still believe that flags should be included. Thanks, with regards. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: under the "editing" tab in your preferences, click the box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" so you'll make an edit summary. As for the flag issue, it varies from wikiproject to wikiproject and even from article to article; please let it be. Epic Genius (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I am also a bit concerned here...but on a different matter..that is nicknames to city article despite a few ongoing talks on the matter like at WP:CA-citynames (many talking about it). The problem we have is the editors believes (as stated above) that talking things out will not solve anything,,,thus they just keep editing. I dont think there is any malice intent...as all I believe is done in good faith with the best intentions. We just have an inexperienced editor that needs to be more responsive to others concerns and how things are solved here.....sometimes its takes time....long talks. No need for any punitive or preventive action against Vaselineeeeeeee if they acknowledge the concerns raised and comeback to the talk pages, while not doing these types of edits till the debate(s) is over. Vaselineeeeeeee at WP:CA-citynames the side that likes flags could use your help in the debate.-- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
^ I have taken part in the discussion about nicknames. I don't know how flags would relate to the city nicknames though... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
They relate in thats its a behaviour pattern. The reason we are talking here now ...is not whether the edits are right or wrong but how they are being done and/or still being done when there is a concern. Adding content or flags to articles (in this case info-boxes) when there is a clear concern raised by others and especially when there are ongoing debates that your aware of is the problem. I have written a few words about this that may help explain this - see here - -- Moxy (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Eyes needed
List of new religious movement and cult researchers article could help. Legacypac (talk
) 09:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
At first glance, those removals appear to be in compliance with the guidelines he cites in the edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Theobald TigerLegacypac, the large orange banner at the top of the edit page says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Please do so in the future.
To address your statement: 1) There is already an Arbitration request that we are both involved in (as you mentioned), so there is not likely a need to bring this here. 2) Some of the entries on the list were determined by consensus to be not-notable (as explained and linked in each of my edit summaries). My removals were based in the understanding that
WP:LISTPEOPLE applied (as explained and linked in each of my edit summaries). DGG
explained that it does not apply to that list, and I stopped the removals. That was all clearly explained in the edit summaries. 3) The rest of your statement has nothing to respond to.
Yes, admin eyes (and additional editor eyes) would certainly be welcome. --
talk
) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) [edited 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)]
I was up till now not even aware of this discussion. I support Legacypac's statement. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow. My error, I completely apologize for that. --
talk
) 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the conversation with DGG? I have to say that I am wary of a list where the elements don't have to link to articles. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
please note that my comments are narrowly based ones about a particular content guideline, and do not address one way or another the actual issue here of possibly biased or coi editing. I have not even looked at that aspect. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Judging by a Google search that brings stuff like this up, it appears to be a holocaust reference. Lovely. I would think that it specifically refers to the particularly sick-minded wife of a concentration camp commandant who is known to have made a lampshade from the skin of a Jew whose tattoo she liked. The trillion bit is obviously meant to be a play on the 6 million count of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC
The username in question seems to be this. I agree this would be better at UAA, but since it was mentioned here I think it's better to clarify, particularly as I don't see hatting really offers much protection. BTW, it would have been easy to find the user in question had they been properly notified as is required at ANI, but isn't required at UAA. In any case, while anyone is free to block or report to UAA, I've asked the editor for an explaination of their username. If they don't have one that doesn't fit with the above finding, I'll report them to UAA. Since they've edited (but although to a contentious article, I didn't see major problems with their edits from a quick glance), I'll do this even if they don't become active again. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Unhatted as the name is indeed registered under a slight variation, so this is an "incident" potentially involving admin tools. Ideally should be at UAA but little point in moving it there now. Thanks Nil Einne for your message to them - agree their edits don't immediately look to be vandalism, so have blocked the name with this is the sole reason (at this stage). -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Thinkingamericanist
Insulting and denigrating comments left on my talk page by User:Thinkingamericanist. I would like them deleted as they are offensive. I would also appreciate having an uninvolved editor explain why http://www.qrz.com/db/AA4AN is not a reliable source for birth names for individuals. Even if a name appeared when logged it, I can't see it as reliable as linking to an actual individual since it's a user-edited database. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You are about as guilty of supporting the Nazis as I am of supporting slavery and the subjugation of native Americans - a point the redlink seems to have left out of his argument. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Violations of
WP:NLT, and outright racism against Germans in a manner wholly offensive to Germans and Jews (as many of us take offence to placing the sins of great grandparents on their descendants who haven't done anything bad). I'm no admin, but it seems pretty clear-cut. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!
16 Shevat 5775 16:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked the editor, so they are unable to respond here. I have also rev-deleted the personal attack at User talk:Walter Görlitz, although it still appears on the editor's own talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user by the name of
Not here to build and encyclopedia, and I fear this disruptive behavior might continue. Weegeerunner (talk
) 22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps replacing File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg (the original Commons file of this flag) with their recent upload File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori Flag.svg. They appear to believe that the original file is impropelry constructed, although their link does not make that clear as it lacks a construction sheet. I have reverted their change twice, both times requesting that they discuss this on the original file's talk page so that if it is deemed wrong we can correct it, and also made a 3rd request on their talk page. They appear to have refused. I am therefore asking that an admin revert the article and give further suggestion to the user that they discuss the matter properly instead of edit warring. Fry1989eh? 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted. Yes, this is edit warring and they need to do a better job convincing others. I am, however, interested in what more knowledgeable editors have to say--is there a WikiProject that you can notify? Remember, we're here to make the encyclopedia better, not to scold. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not here to scold them, I have asked them nicely three times to discuss on the talk page of the original file and even gave them a link to the proper place to do so, they refused and claim I have "blocked" the discussion whatever that means, and now are blabbering on about some jingoist "you're not one of us, how dare you question me!" nonsense. I will again invite them to where they should discuss this, but I can't drag them there and make them do it, it is up to them to participate. Fry1989eh? 00:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not accusing you, but let's face it, here we are at ANI. I left them another note, and I saw yours. Of course I know you can't make him discuss things--but really, they are discussing thing, just in the wrong place. Let's hope they find the proper way. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know you aren't mate, I'm just saying I've done what I can. Fry1989eh? 03:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the subject (once I've posted this I'll go and notify User:Grutness who is) but as far as I can tell, Fry's flag is a good one and Jonathan Teriini's one is a better one. Most of the times I've seen the flag in real life, its red was more the brownish red colour of Jonathan Teriini's flag than the brighter, less brown red of Fry's flag. On the other hand, Fry's flag is better drawn with smoother arcs. However, I also noticed while comparing the files that Fry's flag cites Flags of the World as a source. Flags of the World's copyright page (here [108]) does not appear to be compatible with Wikipedia's copyright requirements in that it does not permit alteration of the images, and limits use to non-commercial (and non-political) purposes. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been dragged into this because I'm a regular contributor to the
Flags of New Zealand. More important in many ways that which flag is right, though, is Teriini's unwillingness to discuss matters, which is a cause for some concern. Grutness...wha?
11:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok firstly, File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg is not "my flag", it is simply the original file on Commons for several years. Second, if it is wrongly constructed (either by colour or by shape), that should be discussed so that the file can be fixed. It was not right to replace it with a new file. So far however, Jonathan Teriini appears unwilling to begin a proper discussion so I suppose we have to do it without them. Regarding which one is right, I don't know because there is insufficient information. The link provided by Jonathan Teriini does not have a construction sheet (which would have been ideal), it simply appears to be a differently drawn image which is why I do not believe it is a valid source to suggest the current flag is "wrong". In fact, looking at some of the photos we have ([112]), I would suggest that the original file is the superiorly constructed image. As for the correct shade of red, I am not opposed to darkening it if someone can propose a specific shade. As for the FOTW copyright, it has already been determined on Commons that the flag is not copyrighted and therefore FOTW can not hold copyright (except to their own drawing). Furthermore, referencing FOTW as a source does not confer their copyrights to an independently constructed image. FOTW is widely used as a source on Commons for independently constructed images, it's not an issue of concern. Fry1989eh? 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A clarification - when I said "Fry's flag" and "Teriini's flag", I was simply referring to the image files - I wasn't implying any specific new design by either editor, nor any copyright involvemewnt by either. As I said, though, neither is truly "superior" in that there are no legally regulated dimensions or shade, and both designs are found in cloth form, though the one currently on Wikicommons is perhaps the more widely known and used variety. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
<a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>Pages in category "Quaker Oats Company"
No, they don't all mention Quaker, but they do have this clunky name tag hanging out there for all the word to see. I'm not even sure where you'd go to break this so I'm hoping somebody here does so it can be fixed right away. - Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"Personal attack"
I feel like this !vote on the Rollback RfC is unnecessarily insulting. I first reverted it altogether, Kelly reinstated it, I then redacted the nastiness but left Kelly's core point untouched, and now they have un-redacted the insults. I've no taste for fighting such petty battles but a second admin opinion is very welcome. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there are many people who would argue that Ryulong was a reasonable user of rollback. Kellyhi! 02:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Why single out Ryulong though rather than a more neutral term? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Because he was a particularly bad example. I provided a link to his
The problem in my opinion is that you provided an example rather than just saying "Some users abuse the tool" and then providing written examples on how in your own words rather than diffs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of that I can see this turning into a
WP:BOOMERANG case. HJ Mitchell unblocks Kelly after the editor agrees to stop reverting and now this is brought into the light when Kelly takes the issue to ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk
) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to see who defends Ryulong's rollback practices. Kellyhi! 02:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing Ryulong is a reasonable user of Rollback. In fact, he's a perfectly valid example of the abuse that can result from warring with the Rollback right. But there's a way to present an argument without resorting to insults -- if anything, you'll be taken more seriously. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong was such a spectacularly bad example of an editor and admin that I expect to use him as an example for decades to come. Kellyhi! 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
... Don't, unless it is both justified, and done in an acceptable manner and tone. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please, it's a shining example to his point. It would be like jamming someone up for a personal attack after dropping Essjay's name for why we don't accept "credentialed" Wikipedians as reliable sources. GraniteSand (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dropping someone's name and insulting them are two things. It's perfectly fine to present a specific case (Ryulong's or otherwise) as an example of possible abuse. But there are ways of doing that without coming off as holier-than-thou-art and condescending. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy but I take your point. Still, not a totally out of bounds, you have to admit. GraniteSand (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Advice taken. I guess it's good enough that he's history. Kellyhi! 02:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Off Wikipedia conversation to push a POV?
This [113] seems odd to me. Could anyone look at the IP address to see if it is a registered user? Is it okay to get together with other "good guys" to push against the "house POV"?Casprings (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Checkusers won't do that. But whatever you do, don't activate your e-mail. Have the IP tell you on-wiki who he really is, and if he won't do it, then ignore. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Was not my talk page. However, the editor, @Arzel: has apprently created a means to talk to the IP. [114]
known for their political activities. Moreover, it is an editor who has pushed a conservative POV in the past and has been found to.Casprings (talk
) 01:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Casprings:, this suddenly feels very nefarious. . .--Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I expect the Koch brothers have other things to do. In any case, Wichita IP's have frequently been smacked down for trolling, so this is probably just another one. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and redlinking
NAC close by OP: Although some of the discussion focused on general matters regarding redlinks rather than on RAN's specific unique situation, it's still clear to me that it's very unlikely that any consensus will emerge to alter RAN's sanctions to direct him not to create redlinks for articles waiting in his userspace for promotion to mainspace. Since this is the case, I'm being
WP:BOLD and closing the thread. Anyone who disagress with the close for any reason at all is free to reopen it without objection from me. BMK (talk
) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This would be fine, if a little sad, if RAN didn't want to redlink in connection to his userspace articles. Since his articles are unlikely to see the light of articlespace any time soon, any redlinks he adds are going to remain redlinks for quite a long time. This appears to contravene
WP:REDLINK, which says:
Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first
, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. RAN is indeed writing the article(s) in his userspace, but since he can't publish them in mainspace, he's not "writing" them in any real practical sense. These redlinks essentially serve no purpose at all. There's no benefit to the reader to have a redlink to a non-existant article, and there's no need to prompt an editor to write the article, since RAN is already doing that. The redlinks will therefore just sit there, a distraction to the reader.
If RAN's sanctions are lifted, it will take no more time and effort to link the articles then, after they're moved to mainspace, then it is taking to link them now, when it serves no practical purpose. (Of course, RAN may be anticipating a waterfall of article moves if and when his sanctions are lifted, and taking the time to make links then would slow down what he perhaps hopes is an impressive flow of new articles.)
I came across this problem on the article
WP:WEIGHT problem, since the article is about historic buildings and not very much about the operation of those institutions, so his list of deaths creates the false impression that what happened at the hospital is that people died). Most of the names he added had articles, but one did not, an obscure actor. He redlinked it, I removed it on the grounds that he should link it after he wrote the article (I had forgotten at the time about his restrictions), and he responded that he would write the article. Which he did. In his userspace
where it will wait until....
It worked the other way as well. RAN is working on an article on "Eccentric dance" (which could well have problems if it ever moved to mainspace, because it appears to be more of a description than a true genre), and went around redlinking "eccentric dance" in various articles. I came across this in the
talk page
and RAN initiated an RfC, but he also tried to institute a compromise whereby he removed "eccentric dance" from the article and removed the name "Eddie Foy, Sr." from the article he was writing. To me, that seemed like no compromise at all. (The term has since been restored with a source.)
So... what am I looking for here? The question of when a redlink is and isn't appropiate isn't one of the great Wikipedia debates, but it sometimes can be prickly. I generally think that if it's likely that an article will be written, or should be written, a redlink is OK. If the subject is obscure then no redlink is needed. For an editor creating a new article, I don't think pre-linking is a good idea - write the article first and then link it - it's no easier to prelink than it is to postlink.
In RAN's case we have an editor who is well able to write articles, but whose previous misbehavior leaves those articles -- at this moment, and for the foreseeable future -- moldering away in his userspace. He is sui generis in this regard, and because of that, I propose that RAN be told that until his sanction is lifted, and he is able to freely move articles into mainspace, he may not prelink those articles. It think this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothere? Norton's use of redlinks is no more annoying than a certain someone who uses hidden comments to add white space. I'm not seeing anything actionable in this report other than a possible case of harassment. If you want to discuss the philosophy of redlinks, don't you think the MOS talk page is a better venue? You got into a dispute over redlinks and dragged his ass here instead of an MOS page. Was that wise? Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Reading comprehension problem? Why would I go to a MOS talk page to fix a problem that's specific to one editor's unusual situation? That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.
And harassment, hmmm? Both the articles mentioned have been on my watchlist for a long time, so the problem came to me, not vice versa. And my use of one extra blank line (not "whitespace", which I remove whenever I can -- love your misuse of words for rhetorical purposes there!) makes articles look better for the reader, as opposed to annoying them with unnecessary redlinks. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who <redacted> in the attempt to win a dispute. BMK (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be very confused, which is leading you to respond with personal attacks and false accusations. It's certainly plausible that in your confusion you have confused me with another editor, but I am sorry to inform you that I have never "created a sockpuppet in [an] attempt to win a dispute" here or anywhere else. Would you like to retract that statement, or would you prefer to continue down the path of a BOOMERANG? You are clearly involved in a dispute with Norton and you attempted to gain the upper hand by filing this report. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh-huh, you deny <redacted>. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.
Look, you don't like me. I don't like you. Great, stop the presses, nothing's changed. So maybe you should stick a <redacted> in it and let some unbiased people comment. BMK (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, you appear to be very confused. I have not commented anywhere about liking or disliking you. What I have commented about, is your repeated false accusations. While you might find the "are you still beating your wife" line amusing, I believe your false accusations are grounds for a block. I have never used sock puppets, and your claim that you remember that I did because you were there amounts to a paranoid delusion on your part. Without any evidence or diffs from you in this regard, you should be blocked for repeated personal attacks, false accusations, and a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread, which is clearly your attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Right! I remember now, we're best buddies! We've always loved each other like brothers!! I was over at your place last week to watch the Super Bowl!!! (Although I was pretty annoyed that you were rooting for Seattle when I was rooting for the Patriots.) How could I have forgotten!!! And that <redacted>? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using <redacted> made out of <redacted> -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! BMK (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you can't retract your accusations then I think you should be blocked. There is zero evidence, in the form of diffs or anything else, supporting your allegations. You either have me confused with another editor or you are making false accusations. Either way, you really need to stop because you are making a fool of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, too, but with all these paranoid delusions running around my brain, sometimes it's hard to think straight. BMK (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, which is why I've cut you a bit of slack. It would be best if you would stop accusing people who disagree with you of being socks, especially when you lack any kind of supporting evidence. You're a legend in your own mind, that's for sure. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, what's your opinion of one editor claiming that another editor harbors "paranoid delusions"? Do you think that's a blockable personal attack? What -- no, it can't be, you wrote that, and you're as pure as the driven snow -- I mean, as pure as the white sand of
I really think you really need to take a long break from Wikipedia. I'm an uninvolved editor who came to this thread to offer my opinion about your "case" against Norton. You didn't like my opinion, so you went on a bit of a paranoid rampage, claiming that my opinion can't be trusted because I use sock puppets and that I carry a grudge against you in some way. Neither of those delusions are supported. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Bovine feces. BMK (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what your allegations are made of in this thread. I wonder if the same is true of your proposal? Is there any merit to it, or are you just using ANI to get the upper hand in a content dispute? I looked at the link you edit warred over and it looked fine to me. Are you misusing ANI in the same way that you falsely accused people who disagreed with you, and in the same way you tried to belittle my observation by placing a "sideshow" heading above it? If your proposal against Norton has these same aspects embedded in it--the false accusations, personal attacks, and intentional distortions--then perhaps we should dismiss your proposal without further consideration. If you can't be trusted to get the facts right about editors, why should we expect a factual ANI report? Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Gee, God forbid that you should, you know, confirm them for yourself, which I assume you hadn't done when you opined above.
WP:NOTHERE. I already addressed this in terms of MOS and a discussion about redlink usage. Viriditas (talk
) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Right! You said I should go to a MOS talk page to address a unique situation involving one specific editor, and that I had "dragged his ass here" (very neutral and unbiased language there), since, apparently, prior discussions on two article talk pages and one user talk page which didn't go anywhere were not sufficient. BMK (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
While I can see how it would be mildly annoying to see a bunch of redlinks popping up in watched articles, I can't say I see this as a serious issue of any kind. RAN is free to write articles in his userspace and he is free to otherwise edit mainspace; if it suits him to add links to articles he thinks are likely to be written and/or shifted out of his drafting space eventually, it causes the encyclopedia no harm for him to do so. If the linking is truly disruptive in some way, like redlinking the entire text of an article, then sure, we could look into further restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The only time I can think of at which normal amounts of redlinking, or even slight overlinking, might hurt an article is in passing FAC, and I don't think that's where this is all currently going. There's a pretty large gulf, for most of us, between "thigs that annoy me but don't noticeably affect the encyclopedia's quality" and "things that actually need to be hardline restricted to protect the encyclopedia", and this issue seems to fall pretty far on the former end of the spectrum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There's also the scope of it to consider. There are dozens of articles in RAN's userspace. If he's been redlinking all of them, in every article they appear in, that's potentially quite a large number of redlinks which will not go blue until his sanctions are lifted. BMK (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:REDYES says "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia", and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has not been prohibited from doing so and I see no valid argument for such a prohibition. I really don't see any grounds for complaint here. Squinge (talk
) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
How many articles has the user added redlinks to prior to live-article posting? No matter how many, I'd say it is inappropriate, as linking in or posting appropriate mentions in other articles is done after one has posted a live article, per the standard aftercare for new articles: [115], [116]. Of the two instances mentioned so far, I think that the patient's name should not even be in the list in the library/hospital article, much less redlinked, until an article is posted live about him. (Although frankly I question why a list of patients is included in any hospital article, since hospitals have untold numbers of patients, some only for a few days, and everyone has to die somewhere -- who cares who died at the hospital? Everyone has to die somewhere; it's usually a matter of accident where one ends up following being stricken with a heat-attack or other quick fatal occurence. This is not noteworthy information, and in addition is coatrack-y
the RfC on that article's talk page is particularly problematic, as it makes no sense and is not worded as an RfC. Softlavender (talk
) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Imagine that RAN didn't have these restrictions; would you object that he's creating these pages? In other words, do you believe it reasonable that we would have articles on people such as Charles Duryee Traphagen or entities such as the Railway Wage Commission? Redlinks are fine for notable topics that are fine as article topics. If you'd be fine with someone else creating articles on these topics, you shouldn't object. See
WP:REDYES, which someone else quoted above. He's demonstrating that some of these topics are article-worthy, so I see no problem with the practise per se. Nyttend (talk
) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that redlinking is useful when one comes across a subject that is so obviously deserving of an article that it seems odd that there's not one already. For the borderline cases, such as the two you mention above, one should err on the side of not having a redlink. As for pre-linking, I have no particular objection if someone pre-links because (for some reason) it's easier logistically, but then in a short period of time (i.e. less than a day) posts the article. If the gap between pre-linking and posting is significantly longer, I'd say that post-linking was the better option. In this instance, the time between RAN's pre-linking and the posting of an article is, for the time being, indefinite. I don't think that's reasonable. I agree with
WP:REDLINK when it encourages editors to "Write the article first", where "write" clearly means either "create directly in mainspace" or "write in userspace and move into mainspace". BMK (talk
) 15:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah write the article, but the editor in question can't. He seems to exist in some kind of limbo, is this correct? Neither banned nor permitted to write into article space -- he can (I gather) write in his own space, on any talk page, in Wikispace I guess so he could write essays and edit rules pages, but he can't write in article space... this seems odd, have not heard of this before.
I'm super strict about not letting banned editors post anything anywhere under any account, but since he's not banned would it not be kosher for any editor to just move the articles into mainspace (if they pass muster) and then everything's
all Sir Garnet
? Am I missing something here? The "eccentric dance" article seems (to my surprise) to be a legit article I guess (haven't vetted it thoroughly).
I'm not gonna move it though, cuz it sounds like the editor in question should be spending his energy cleaning up his old copyvios so that he can (I guess) get his privileges back, and moving his articles into mainspace removes his incentive to do that. But it'd be legal, right?
Weird situation. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Weird situation indeed, but I think anyone bold enough to move those drafts to mainspace for him is likely to be brought here to explain themselves for being his proxy. On the other hand I don't see the red links themselves as being particularly troublesome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If somebody else were to write policy-compliant articles on those topics - or if another editor improved on one of RAN's drafts, and took responsibility for doing so - that would be a Good Thing. So why are the redlinks considered harmful? Copyvio has certainly been a problem for RAN, and it's a serious problem, but it is unclear to me how removing these redlinks would remove any copyvio. We should try to make decisions on the margin. Writing an encyclopædia should take priority over ostracising an editor to the extent that we even remove links to topics they were interested in. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Creating redlinks for notable topics which should at some time have articles seems to be approved by
WP:REDYES. It's not followed uniformly (see List_of_Roman_consuls, where some redlinks co-exist with some non-links; presumably any Roman consul is notable - heck, nearly anyone written about a few thousand years after their deaths is). Creating redlinks for possibly notable topics I think follows because until consensus is reached that a topic is not notable, an article on it is usually kept at AFD where no consensus defaults to "keep". Are various government boards notable, somes-that-is-somes-that-aint, so again, what isn't prohibited seems to be permitted and because of this user's particular situation (which, acknowledged is of his own making) I cannot see how this is prohibited. Carlossuarez46 (talk
) 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that a few minutes ago RAN removed the section in bold above, with the edit summary "(move section to talk page that contradicts the gist and demote the essay to the see also section)". Now, I agree with him 100%, it does indeed very much contradict the gist . spirit, and general intent of the rest of the guideline, and also contradicts well established practice here. It's presumably a left-over from many years ago. (The guideline currently reads, as I think consensus says it ought to, "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. " and "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain that the red link is a valid title of a page, and that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." I think those statements above represent the true guideline that we have used here for many years, and iI very strongly endorse RAN's edit to the guideline. But perhaps it was not a great idea making that edit at just this time. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: The section in question was added to the article in 2008. BMK (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Are BMK's hands clean?
BMK closed the discussion, which he started, once it became clear he won't get his way. I'm undoing his improper closure with this edit as I believe his behavior in this case should be examined. His misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing guidelines, as evidenced by his quoting of an inapplicable passage from WP:REDLINK (one link in one article clearly isn't overlinking; if we assume good faith, we'll at best arrive at the conclusion we're dealing with
Talk:Eddie_Foy,_Sr.#Redlink, you'll notice he seems to insist that an essay overrides an editing guideline, which troubles me greatly. Then there's the issue of wasting editors' time at ANI with a petty editing dispute (that's what this thread is). And then there's an issue of his overly aggressive tone, his excessive use of bold text, etc., all's right here for everyone to see. I believe a gentle slap on the wrist is in order, as such battleground behavior seems to have become a norm for BMK, every time I see his name lately, it follows an aggressive or otherwise inappropriate comment. I suggest we issue a formal warning to tell BMK that if he continues to violate our rules of conduct, there may be further action taken in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. 70.189.56.157 (talk
) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Struck as the comments of a sockpuppet.
I am not going to respond to this, since this was the IP's first edit ever. The second was a non-helpful post on
WP:RFA, and the third was another comment here.
I'd ask an admin or uninvolved editor to re-close the discussion. BMK (talk
) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The IP was blocked for sockpuppetry. I'm closing this and striking the comment. BMK (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The IP's block is irrelevant to the concerns raised here and entirely unrelated. I've re-opened the thread. Do not close it again. Your ongoing attempts at gaming the system to evade having your improper behavior scrutinized are nothing but yet another reason to scrutinize said behavior.223.85.17.193 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Another sock, first edit,same result BMK (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2015 (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.
Constant addition of contentious material by obvious sock and/or meat accounts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture ended with only a slim majority (8-5 at closing time, 7-3 a little over a day earlier, 6-2 one week after opening) in favour of deleting the page, but no one arguing that the current article wasn't rotten. I removed most of the contentious/POV/unverified material, but was immediately reverted by Jagello and a little later by KoreanSentry, who made only tiny cosmetic changes but claimed they had "verified" the material.
Neither of these accounts had ever edited the article before, and neither had they edited any other article for years before suddenly turning up and reverting me. I can't figure out exactly who is whose sockpuppet, or even if there was some off-wiki collusion by Korean nationalists who know each other in real life, but both of these accpunts are super-suspicious. Could we get some admin input?
I constantly monitored the article. That's all. This is no reason that I should become a victim of your false accusation backed on your personal ridiculous conspiracy theory. Even though there has been definitely no consensus over the massive blanking of the page, Hijiri88 constantly insisted on blanking the well-sourced sections cited from renowned and mainstream Western Japanologists. Now he is claiming that the contents of this article should be verified. But the text is well sourced from the renowned and mainstream Japanologists like Edwin O. Reischauer, George Bailey Sansom, Donald Keene, Lane Richards, Ernest Fenollosa, Louis Frédéric, Peter Kornicki and much more. The administrator
Wikipedia:VERIFY policy the mass blanking caused by Hijiri88 should be reverted.--Jagello (talk
) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, no. I did not state that. To quote what I actually wrote way back then (this is from almost 5 years ago): "We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely
Join WP Japan
! 05:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But where you had gone? Hijiri88's suspicion is justified, you and KoreanSentry haven't been on for ages and you both have restored same amount of content. SamuelDay1 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Woah, woah, Arbcom was very clear - you can't just go crapping on accounts because they are obvious sleepers! Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to that decision? BMK (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Jagello's above assertions about the articles are false. All of the reputable sources mentioned in the article are actually being
WP:SYNTHesized with remote fringe material. User:Nihonjoe
made no such statement: they said that all the material should be properly sourced to sources that actually support the claims, or it should be removed. After four years, no attempt was made to improve the sources, so I went about removing it.
As to the user conduct issue at hand: why would Jagello be watching a page they had never edited? And why would they stay silent for a week-long AFD only to emerge from the shadows immediately afterward? And why would they not simply revert the post-AFD removals, but re-add material that had been out of the article for almost a year? If they were closely monitoring the article, why did they not revert these edits in February? Can we get a CU in this case, even though we can't be sure who the sockmaster is?
I agree with Hijiri here. I find it very odd and suspicious that Jagello 'monitored the article very closely' and hasn't made an edit on it until now. I don't think we have heard from KoreanSentry yet and what he/she has had to say about this. Eurodyne (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
KoreanSentry restored past stable version of this article, but omitted my past contribution to this page. So I added my past edits to his reverting to the past version. I had to only monitor this page, even though Hijiri88 made mass-blanking of the well-sourced contents which represent truthfully the cited source, since I have become a university student. Now I have vacation again since this February allowing me some time to edit, during my semester time, I have little time and reluctant to engage edit dispute with my limited English skill, Although I was aware of the last AFD, I mainly searched the original source to get the page numbers for a month on the purpose of a better verifiability, trying to check every single citation in the text on this article. This was last summer vacation (three months: August, September, October) so I had time for this source analysis. And it was obvious that the proposal for the deletion would be declined, due to the large number of users who were against the deletion of the article.--Jagello (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jagello: If you knew about and had a problem with my edits last February, why did you wait until October to revert them? If you didn't know about my edits in February, how do you explain your suddenly coming to the article and reverting them much later? Why were you closely watching a page you had never edited? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Hijiri88: Because of your argument without substance in vague manner motivated me check reversely your past contribution history. At that time I get to now that you blanked some sections on the article without any consensus already before the AFD.--Jagello (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
What argument without substance? That's quite a claim. It would be nice if you would cite some specific examples. Also, if you were watching the page so closely that you found my October edits immediately, then how did it take you eight months before you noticed my previous edits? Who are you? Tell us which other accounts you have edited under.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You blanked the sections without specifying, what theories or views are ‘fringe’ without substance in vague manner. This motivated me to check reversely your past activities regarding this matter. Because I wanted to know what theories you may think as fringe. Why are you repeating your question? Read again carefully. I have already answered to you. This is my only account. I don't have any other accounts.--Jagello (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I was going to insert this in my above comment but it got a bit long and it raises a new concern about Jagello's user conduct not addressed above. Keene and
how to properly interact with other Wikipedia editors?? Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri is correct that the page as restored, is a sourcing nightmare. Nothing there is credible unless the original source has been reliably checked, and those passages with sourcing I have checked nearly all turned out to be distortions, falsifications or second-date third hand opinions, dated or by non-specialists.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Following is the lower part of a section Hijiri88 deleted without any consensus. Reischauer wrote two books. Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (Ronald Press, New York: 1955) and Ennin's Travels in T'ang China. The first one is a mere translation of Ennin’s Diary by Reischauer. The second one is a discussion lead by Reischauer on Ennin's travels, includes materials from other sources. This is cited from ‘Ennin's travels in Tʻang China'. written by E. O. Reischauer. This is obviously a secondary source.
The article says:
… at the time when the men of Silla were the master of the seas achieving Korean maritime dominance in eastern Asia.
Original source:
… , but in Ennin’s time the men of Silla were still the masters of the seas in their part of the world.
The article says:
The monk Ennin’s crossing to China on Japanese vessels and the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Sillan ships quickly brought him back home to Japan.
Original source:
Ennin’s crossing to China and his subsequent voyage up the south coast of Shantung on Japanese ships as well as the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Korean vessels whisked him up and down the Shantung coast and finally back home to Japan.
The article says:
Another indication of the gap in navigation skill between the Sillans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.
Original source:
Another indication of the discrepancy in navigational skill between the Koreans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.
My conclusion is the editors who contributed this section actually footnoted multiple sources, but the sources from Reischauer alone support exactly each relevant sentences in this section. So that there was no place to make any misinterpretation or synthesis of the sources, which is against the Wikipedia's policy.
Hijiri88's assumption or speculation merely by checking the titles of sources is weak and invalid as an argument for saying the source is misquoted. The contents in the article must be verified by checking sources. The source text should be given and made comparison with the relevant footnoted content on this page. This can be one reason, why Hijiri88 failed to get any consensus for massive removing the contents on this article.--Jagello (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting WAY off-topic (please keep article content discussion off ANI as much as possible...) but just to address this: given the rampant abuse of sources I have read going on in that article, I am instinctively suspicious of any material cited to sources I have not read. While I haven't read either of Reischauer's works (again, why do we have to rely on such old sources?), I can tell from the way the article cites him that it is entirely probable that where he simply said Ennin used a Sillan ship and that his countrymen hired Korean rowers,
WP:BURDEN
is on you to specifically address our concerns point-by-point, so that (1) you win us over and the material is re-added by consensus, (2) you fail to convince us, but we convince you that you were wrong on the substance, and the material stays out, or (3) you fail to convince us and keep arguing, so that eventually RFC or some such will establish a better consensus (probably meaning the material stays out).
Additionally, you will note that I never even said anything about SYNTH in relation to the content in question. My problem with the Ennin/Korean sailors section is the fact that 9th century Japanese diplomats and monks hiring Korean seamen does not constitute a "Korean influence on Japanese culture". This is why reliable sources don't discuss it as such.
But this is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. ANI is for discussion of user conduct, not article content. Please explain your highly suspicious behaviour to the Wikipedia community.
KoreanSentry seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth, so at least for now I don't see any need for admin action. But Could someone please block Jagello? Everyone here seems to agree that he is engaged in some form of sockpuppetry or the like. On top of this, he's a POV-pushing
refusing to be coherent or recognize what others' problems with the article are. I'm getting pretty tired of having to explain these things to him over and over and over again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Even though, Hijiri88 tried to make unconstructive vandalistic mass blanking without any resonable and valid argument. I used very often talk pages, along with my restoration of the mass deleted article. I invited him for a constructive conversation in order to refrain from engaging edit warring. The result is he failed to make any reasonable counterarguments. Hijiri88, stop making false accusation against me!--Jagello (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Your continued referring to my edits as "vandalism" is an indication that throughout this entire process you have learned nothing about
WP:NOR. Your above endless rambling about article content has forced this discussion into TLDR territory, but rest assured, another discussion if this one gets archived with no result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
India Against Corruption again
IP blocked and article semi-protected for a year. Favonian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be yet more block evasion from India Against Corruption by the account who did this. Please can someone deal with it as appropriate before things spiral out of control again? Semi-protection of Aam Aadmi Party would seem to be a decent starting point. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2015 (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 to redirect to redirect to ...
Brighter (Patent Pending album). Another step on this editors problematic editing. duffbeerforme (talk
) 12:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirects deleted, I'll warn the user. GiantSnowman 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've also notified them about this discussion. GiantSnowman 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the final destination was also a redirect to a section on the band's main article. It still seems like the second-to-last would be a more useful redirect than the one that was spared, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I already did that, but I thought I was supposed to make a post here too (the message above states "please also email"...). Erpertblah, blah, blah... 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(
(talk)
03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, but I didn't want to waste any time with a threat of suicide. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 03:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed emergency as I'm sure others have. I'll hold off on commenting further on the ANI report above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for a refresh for all,
talk
) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
ANI is quite slow, firstly. He preferably should've gone to IRC and used the emergency !admin tag to attract attention to this issue. But he e-mailed WMF, so it's fine. Erpert's posting at ANI is no problem at all, take this in good spirit, please. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit request - removal of stub tags from hoax articles
There are currently a number of hoax articles that have been moved to Wikipedia namespace, but still have stub tags and are hence still categorized as stub articles. Normally we keep encyclopedia articles and Wikipedia administration (such as this) in separate categories. The stub tags should be removed (or placed in nowiki tags, or replaced by what looks like a stub tag but doesn't categorize the page). Note: I can't edit the talk pages to place an edit request there. The pages affected are:
User has on at least four occasions [122][123][124][125] added content knowing that it is unsourced, but attempting to justify the addition by adding citation needed templates. These edits have been opposed by two editors. The content added should be reliably sourced, and by now the IP is engaging in slow edit warring. User seems ambivalent and has been warned about this before via other IPs they've used. See also 98.196.41.58 and 50.171.11.116. They rarely participate in civil discussion, preferring instead to make changes per their own preference. When the user is contacted on their talk page, they typically remove all discussions and warnings from their talk pages and issue an antagonistic summary in response. Their behavior is inconsistent with community editing and they have previously been brought to ANI: [126][127] . Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Report edit warring
talk
) 02:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Issue isn't only about edit warring, @
ToonLucas22:. As indicated, this is a problematic user who has a number of issues related to community editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk
) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect I just can't take both Anguswoof and Cyphoid's bickering and being strict with their so called "rules" and on top of that I am not antagonistic I just don't like to be cyberbullied just like what happened in KHWIKI where the users were not being nice and fair. You want me to stop letting them mess with me then I'll stop already, besides I already found the sources were Yuri was in Skylanders thank you, I just feel I want to (Redacted) because of this conflicts and feel I'm a cotton headed ninny muggins. :(73.166.187.154 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Suicide is never the answer, do not kill yourself over wikipedia. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Removes this tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.
He failed to get consensus for the removal on Talk, claiming that it was an “attack site”. I decided it didn't need to go in the article anyway, as it was a tertiary source and other sources could be used in the main body, and added it back as an external link after he removed another external link, and I was reverted without discussion, with a threat of taking me to AN/I while repeating a BLP claim he has
refused to answer queries about. I re-reverted, he didn't file the AN/I, but simply reverted again[132]
.
Finally, he has made some spurious claims in an attempt to derail a topic ban appeal I have pending at AE.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I shall leave this to others to discuss, since I am busy. Administrators should read the talk pages of the associated articles and at
WP:BLPN and note that Ubikwit's SPI investigation request was closed with a suggestion that Ubikwit read the SPI description before filing another. Ubikwit received similar advice on at least one occasion here. isa
17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That must just be an action of poor judgement. Otherwise, can you give us the diffs. in a list, so that it's easier to review. I can understand your exasperation but if enough, admins will declare an IBAN. Till, then fix this thread, please. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The user "is not a" arrived at Wikipedia with longstanding experience and knowledge of old Wikipedia matters. I got very suspicious when this supposedly new person mentioned the incorrigible sockmaster Herschelkrustofsky here. This is not a new user; usually such persons are evading a block or ban rather than simply abandoning an old registered account in good standing. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather focus on content issues at appropriate talk pages, but here let me give an example of the biases I have been trying to clean up at the BLP Robert Kagan:
OMG! Binksternet!! What are you doing!!!! Don't you know that
WP:AGF requires you to throw away all your accumulated past experience and treat this editor like a long-lost friend, your best buddy from college or your cousin you haven't seen in years? Ask him in, serve him tea and crumpets, put him up for the night -- nevermind that your Spidey-sense is tingling away to beat the band, that he arrived at your door with a blackjack and brass knuckles, you must give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt. Not very cricket, sniffing him out like that. BMK (talk
) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, alas, has had major problems in the past with edit war behaviour, and has been cited for such by ArbCom. On Neoconservatism he has 4 reverts in just over two days, in Robert Kagan he has 4 reverts in just over two days, and so on. Some of his edits on Kagan were clearly problematic in the past, [135] was a revert to call Kagan "Jewish", etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree somewhat. Both editors have been problematic on this page. I am not made a slew of edits removing any neocon reference and spamming templates. But they've correctly removed some EL and other BLP issues. Same with Ubikwit; some good edits, some not (like the one Collect linked above).
re
}} 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Collect referred to an edit regarding a BLP issue I had encountered for the first time, with respect to which consensus was reached on this Talk thread there is other relevant background here[136] and here.Owen (talk·contribs) appears to have "recused" himself from the article due to the dispute over that issue.
Meanwhile, regarding this exchangestarting herebefore being hattedhere, the text on the page could only have been in English because there is not Japanese translation of the book, and no translation function. Is that
With these links, Ubikwit documents his discussion about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA of American Jews, his linking to an antisemitic site, and his other soapboxing about American Jews and others adopting a "democracy" argument for supporting military aid to Israel and opposing aid e.g. to Egypt, the topic of The Israel Lobby.
This is so distasteful, that I'm done here. Do what you want, here in public.
@Is not a: those are serious allegations. Please substantiate them or strike your comment. And by substantiate I do not mean refer to some unspecified link somewhere else in the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Is not a: So you linked to somewhere else where you made this accusation? And then I followed your link there and I was unimpressed. Let me try to make this simpler and take this one step at a time: Specify, here, by name, with your next edit, the anti-Semitic site allegedly linked to by Ubikwit, or strike your comments to that effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is quite enough of that. As one who tries to be a righteous gentile, I take accusations of antisemitism quite seriously. I also think it is not an accusation that should be thrown around the encyclopedia lightly.
WP:CIVIL to repeatedly hurl that accusation against this publication and this editor. Given this, the gamesmanship on display here, and the dubious edit history, I am imposing a 24-hour block and an indefinite one-way interaction ban on User:Is not a preventing them from further interaction with User:Ubikwit. I also think it would be appropriate to consider evidence on the matter of stronger sanctions. Gamaliel (talk
) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, I have to say that Wikipedia it's sometimes hard on to tell the players without a scorecard, but if the link that "Is not a" (stupid name) posted on his talk page is supposed to be antisemitic, I just don't see it; and I say this as an unabashed liberal who is generally (but not knee-jerkingly) pro-Israel, but who has found value in the writing of both Robert Kagan and his father Donald Kagan. Some of this kind of crap comes about because people insist on things being either black or white, even though the geopolitical world is much too complex for that to be true.
In any event, it appears that Gamaliel has blocked "Is not a" (still a stupid name) for his personal attack on Ubikwit, and I support that block. Which camp that puts me in I have not the slightest idea. BMK (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@
re
}} 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Note that "Is not a" has a personal attack against Ubikwit on his userpage at the bottom (and a similar one against Binksternet on his Talk page under the subheading "Clean hands"). Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:Now that I see what source he is referring to, I think that a simple reference to the WP article's "Reception section is revealing.
It should not be permissible to attempt to impinge editor's integrity by launching a blatantly POV attack aimed at undermining the competitions sources, so to speak, especially where such serious allegations are being made. That is an offense beyond violating NPOV at the article's content level, and represents a sort of preemptive personal attack because one editor has a POV that is opposed to the POV of a reliable source (note that the source itself was not even challenged in that thread) that another editor has proposed.
I note that the subject of this report has retired, but he caused a lot of trouble in a very short time, and I agree with Binksternet that the editor is not a new editor, though the SPI I filed failed and it is not easy to connect such people to past accounts. They will resurface and again skew the editing environment off balance, trying to take out the competition through a smear campaign.
All the more reason that en.wiki needs to drop the proscription against so-called "fishing expeditions" and allow CUs to be run when there's a reasonable probability that a "new" user is a returning one. Too many times these malefactors get away with their abuse of the system simpy because who they are is not immediately apparent. We should not be in the position of rewarding those who use the system to hide their connection to previous identities when we have the tools to identify who they are, and block or ban them if appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, and don't understand the privacy issues that are claimed to prevent doing so.
The way things stand, hypothetically speaking, any individual of organization with resources to pay someone to sock for them on Wikipedia can wreak havoc, exercising far too much influence on the editing environment, at the expense of individuals that contribute their time and effort as individuals. There must be a better way to implement preventative measures.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In regard to sourcing, it should be noted that I made it to the Kagan article via the Nuland article, to which the subject of this thread referred. I made it to the Nuland BLP via the Ukraine conflict in connection with a content dispute over the "F--- the EU" remark. A pro-US faction was negating all sources from Russia, including an official statement by Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, published in the state owned media. There were numerous RS/N threads, and I opened a thread at IRS that was inconclusive. The Lavrov statement (and by extension, the Russian pov) was barred, and I withdrew from editing about the Ukraine crisis. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:54, 10:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
break
As an individual that has been associated with the "Israel lobby", it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to blpcat. I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a
public figure.--User:Ubikwit (signing was on the original page) [139] shows Ubikwit does regard the "Israel Lobby" as being important to Kagan. Note also that [140] had been warned in the past about his positions and [141] topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk
) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to make insinuations impinging my character,
WP:NPA
. This is not a guessing games forum, so if you have something you might want to allege, then do so in a straightforward manner. Also, signing my signature in your post is incorrect practice.
Have you read the article I cited on the talk page that you quote above.associated with the "Israel lobby" If you have, and, like Is not a, don't like the source, either, and would rather condemn the entire site, then just say so. You're entitled to your POV.
HJ Mitchell stated that the diffs didn't show that I violated the topic ban.[142]
Open Frederick Kagan thread at BLP/N at 11:15 on 1/31[143]
After some discussion of first round of sources, Collect agrees that F. Kagan could be characterized as a neocon with proper attribution. [144]
At the Neonservatives talk page, he reverses himself, and attempts to impede further discussion, claiming that the BLP/N thread opened only hours early had “was a “Fail”. [145]
I state that his statement is a unilateral attempt to curtail discussion. [146]
He then accuses me of “quote mining” and claims consensus.[147]
I ask him for the second time to cease with the pointy disruptions, and not to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting sources.[148]
I cited your precise post. That you find this to "impinge"(sic) your character is sad. I corrected the "signing" lest anyone think you somehow just posted here. And as I did not say you violated your clear topic ban, I am unsure why you need to iterate that bit - what is clear, sadly, is that you appear to be highly interested in Jews and the "Israel Lobby." You recently edited History of the Jews in Afghanistan, Ten Lost Tribes, Menasseh Ben Israel, British Israelism, Jewish Buddhist, Judaism in Nepal, Lev Tahor etc. all dealing with Judaism. And accusing TFD of "impeding" anything is a non-issue here - the fact is that you appear on the basis of your edits to be exceeding highly interested in Jewish issues, and have been topic banned in the past from Arab-Israeli articles broadly construed. And my advice that you consider that when you are the only person making a claim and others demur that you consider the very slim chance that you might be in error is standard Wikipedia advice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (impinging no one)
[150] shows some AN/I discussions from six months ago. Collect (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Do either of you have any sanctions you want imposed or actions you think should be taken? If not, this discussion should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like a 1-way interaction ban imposed against Collect. He has been responding to my posts in a somewhat erratic manner, sometimes changing his position abruptly, which generates friction and consumes time to clear up misunderstandings. I find that disruptive, and it impedes the overall discussion on Talk pages when it sidetracks the main focus.
Above I asked whether one interaction that was hatted as just such a distraction was a form of
WP:GAMING
, and that is a case in point.
The above comment demonstrates that Collect read the currently open AE thread, but [[IDHT|didn't read the last comment by HJ MItchell that the allegation he now declares is that I violated my topic ban has already been addressed with respect to the above-diffed discussion. I don't see any reason why it should be necessary to have to answer every
tried to ignore him, but he repeatedly shows up and causes me to spend time on things like responding to the baseless accusations he makes above. Occasionally I edit in areas related to American politics, and would like to avoid such distractions in the future. As I don't think I've demonstrated the above-described behavior against Collect, I would like the IBAN to be a 1-way IBAN.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑
20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Collect: Do you have a response on the specific issue of an IBAN? Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest Ubikwit be told not to accuse other editors of being socks or of editing based on a POV without very strong reasoning based on diffs, that he not continue to specialize in "Jewish" issues, that he be told that the use of edit war on multiple articles at the same time is unwise, and that he be told not to attack or interact with "Is Not A." I suggest "Is Not A" should also be told to avoid direct interaction with Ubikwit.
I point out that I made no "allegation" that Ubikwit violated his topic ban, and I do not appreciate his iterated claim that I did so. Thus a two way interaction ban between Ubikwit and "Is Not A" along with the suggestion that Ubikwit avoid his "Jewish article specialization" seems to make sense.
I further note that I have not sought any interaction with Ubikwit, that I was going to oppose his ban from AN/I[151] were it not for his accusation that apparently almost everyone else is against him.
His use of AN/I is problematic vide [152] , and then attacks me at [153], [154], [155] all pretty much at the same time with a great many editors. I seek to ignore him, and have not sought here for any actions against him, and find this request that I be the one banned from mentioning him to be Kafkaesque. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Further evidence of his possible antagonistic attitude toward almost everyone is at
User:AGK by saying Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce? I fear his accusations against me are of the same ilk. Collect (talk
) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And to make it clear: Ubikwit: I specifically and abjectly apologize for any instance here where I said you violated your topic ban. I trust that apology is sincere and accepted as such. Collect (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (please try to avoid making edits within a continuing sequence by another editor - it amonts to refactoring his comments which he expected to be read as a sequence)
(
WP:PA
. So I queried you about it, and your response was indeterminate. It seems that maybe you actually didn't read HJ Mitchell's comment, and upon recognizing that deny that you too asserted that I violated that topic. Otherwise, you have no grounds to comment on my editing what you refer to as "Jewish topics" on Wikipedia. Your POV in that regard is exceedingly narrow. You do not own those topics, and Jews do not own those topics.
The other diffs I provided don't need further explanation.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting since you had written on the Kagan talk page[156][157]:
The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.
Which some might accidentally read as an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby. Of course, I am sure, of course, you would not make such claims. Collect (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Here again, if you still haven't read the article, "". And I would suggest also reading the "Reception" section I linked to for that publications, because the subject of
dual loyalties
appears to be something that they often address.
Moreover, such accusations in American politics are nothing new. It should be recalled that, before Kennedy was elected president, some Protestants and others used to say that a Catholic shouldn't be president because he would owe more loyalty to the pope than the Constitution, etc.
My position at Kagan's BLP was, of course, if it is common knowledge that Kagan is Jewish and associated with the Israel Lobby in reliable sources, why would Wikipedia not disclose the fact that he is Jewish. Once I learned about the current thinking on BLP policy regarding religious affiliation, that was the end of my participation. On the other hand, as I noted in the article, "divided loyalty" based on religious affiliation is not a foregone conclusion, as many people do not try to hide their religious affiliation regardless of their political stances on Israel.
The article, however, is unabashedly clear regarding the existence of various potential issues
"Middle East policymaking is now dominated by the Israel lobby and its affiliates. Advocacy of Israeli positions has replaced professional qualifications as the criteria for service.[158]
That brings this discussion back around to your apparent insinuation that there might be something "problematic" with my edit, which only appears to exist in [your] mind."There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic." I suggest that you cease and desist with what could easily be taken as making the exact same assertion here, albeit in a veiled manner, that Is not a made. Obviously, it doesn't matter if you
Moreover, at the time, it seemed to me at the time, given my lack of knowledge about the defacto (it is not dejure, apparently, according to @
public figure but has served as a public official, the norm in American public discourse is not to hide information such as religious affiliation. So here’s one more passage from the article
Kagan pushed the Iraq war to George Bush as a battle to help Israel. He and his neocon friends wrote, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors… Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory.”[159]
Furthermore, a talk page discussion related to including religious affiliation, with reference to a public figure who may have a conflict of interest, is not the same thing as stating in the article that such is the case. The point of the Talk discussion was about including him in a Wikipedia category according to religion and ethnicity, which you have described as “labelling”. So your statement above regarding an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby exceeds the scope of the limited discussion about Robert Kagan. It should be noted that the issue at Kagan's article has been going on for years, I see, without any BLP policy statement being established.
BLPs seem to have a special consideration that does not fall under
WP:NOTCENSORED
,
because there are sources that describe Kagan as Jewish.[160]. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The edit war continues on
re
}} 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@
WP:EW
? The material (one link) removed from the article has been there with consensus since 2007, and there was no consensus on the Talk page for its removal. You introduce a new rational for your deletion with the edit summary "These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES", so I will study that when I get the chance, but we we'll have to take that discussion to the Talk page.
@EvergreenFir: You should also take a look at this thread at RS/N. [161], and note that there has been absolutely no response to my post. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Your post was made in the last 24 hours. RSN isn't exactly the fastest moving place. Nevertheless, the issue I commented on is
re
}} 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole thread turns out to be really about its original poster, User:Ubikwit. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by that baseless assertion? Do you have a logical rational? If so, present it, so it can be addressed in terms of reason, not you jumps of faith accusations from out of the blue. Why have you not commented above? The subject of the thread has had two sanctions opposed against himself, so your assertion is so out of line I consider it to be a personal attack. You false accuse me of filing a report that has resulting in sanctions against the editor I filed it against. Do you see the logical fallacy in your assertion?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel and Binksternet
I requested that Gamaliel ask for a review of his administrative actions here, on my talk page ([162] 10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)), to which he has failed to respond.
Here, I request first that Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN be made a two-way ban or removed, not only for fairness but to avoid violations of WP:BLP and other policies, which have been addressed in my contributions to articles ([163], [164]) (Regardless, I request an immediate suspensions of Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN for only this ANI discussion. 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
Second, I am also confused that others have been discussing problems with the treatment of Judaism or Israel in related WP space without having been cautioned, where I was blocked in the middle of the night when I could not respond or alter any offending text. This does not seem to be consistent with blocking policy or fairness, particularly since I had indicated the lateness of the time ([165], responding to Gamaliel's ultimatum here, despite the time. 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) and there was no disruption being prevented by the Block, which seems to have been punitive.
Third, I would like a review of user:Binksternet's behavior particularly on my talk page. ([166] 09:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) isa 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 09:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In particular, Interaction Bans are supposed to be imposed by a community consensus. Gamaliel did not have the authority to impose a one-way interaction ban. isa 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thought you'd retired? BMK (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you
retract your unsubstantiated allegations above and try to be civil here? isa
09:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
personal attack, perhaps, as Gamaliel suggested above, a more serious sanction should be considered, like a topic ban from all "Neoconservatism, broadly construed".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑
11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Unilateral IBAN imposed by one administrator
Motion: Gamaliel's unilateral one-sided IBAN is void. Gamaliel or another editor is welcome to propose such a ban to be discussed by the community at ANI.
Support: Gamaliel's ban was improper because individual administrators lack the authority to impose bans. Gamaliel's ban did not represent the consensus of a discussion at ANI (although one can claim it represented agreement of BMK and himself, at least for an hour or so); also, it has not been entered in the community sanctions list, which is where ANI-sanction bans are supposed to be listed. Gamaliel's ban was not claimed to be a WP:BLP Arbcom-authorized ban, and it has not been entered into any Arbcom list of bans. isa 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose As the one at the receiving end of the personal attacks, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain how lifting this ban will benefit the encyclopedia? Gamaliel (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel lacked the authority to individually impose an IBAN. If Gamaliel wants to impose a ban, then Gamaliel need to have a discussion for example here, and then have it authorized as consensus. Such bans are logged as community actions.
Presumably, complying with the policies on administrators and bans does not harm the encyclopedia.
Gamaliel, please point to earlier discussions at ANI that advocated a one-sided IBAN, if you claim you had such authorization. isa 06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Whether or not an admin ticked the right box is not really the point. This discussion is taking place at ANI, and anyone wanting their interaction ban removed would need to show how its removal would benefit the encyclopedia. The discussion above shows that attacks on an editor were made, and when pressed for evidence, none was provided, so the IBAN is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
How am I supposed to answer Gamaliel's inappropriate question while I am allegedly topic banned? I prefer not to be indefinitely blocked. isa 06:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
23:53, 3 February 2015 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose and agree that RobertMcClenon needs some kind of BOOMERANG for these two suggestions. Maybe a nice {{trout}} on his user page. Shii(tock) 00:22, 4 February 2015; 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Extend Topic-Ban to All Jewish-Related Topics, broadly defined
Neutral at this time, but may change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment An utterly groundless proposal, outside the scope of the thread and based on accusations that I posted source to an anti-semitic site, which I did not, etc., etc., etc. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the basis for even suggesting this? As far as I can tell this is a dispute over a rather boring external link... Shii(tock) 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe there's been a topic ban on the Arab-Israeli sphere so this would be an extension of that. I disagree with it though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Propose full two-way interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect
Support - as proposer BMK (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Support only reasonable solution IMO. --Cavarrone 12:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose As I never initiated all of this - and Ubikwit has repeatedly used AN/I to attack many others - and even attacked an Arb in the past. Sanctions made without any sound rationale are foolish at best. In fact, Ubikwit has had many problematic interactions with a great many editors, and singling me out makes zero sense here - truly. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Ubikwit hasn't shown that Collect is harassing him or that Collect's reports of Ubikwit and complaints about Ubikwit go too far. Oppose, although less strongly than one-way ban, for same reason, that Ubikwit is trying to silence a critic who is within Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Propose Topic Ban and Interaction Bans all round
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
oh dear god yes please dump the excess ballast... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually let's extend this ban to all Wikipedia editors, and any future editors as well. Shii(tock) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Enough
This has apparently been going on for a few days now, with the same few people talking in circles. I'm going to take some bold actions in the interest of putting this thread out of its misery. First of all,
WP:GHBH. I've therefore blocked Is not a (talk·contribs) indefinitely; the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics.
I will recuse from any action regarding Ubikwit and Collect and leave the proper handling of their behavior to other admins, noting that neither has exactly covered himself in glory: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. MastCellTalk
06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kindly note I have in no place and at no time accused Ubikwit of "anti-Semitism", and I specifically apologized for any place I said he had violated his topic ban (so far, I can find no place where I made any such allegation), and I dislike being so maligned here by an admin who appears to be preternaturally involved with me regarding BLP interpretation.[167], [168], [169], [170], [171] , [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181] etc. etc. etc. going back a long time to the [182] Climate Change ArbCom case. [183] shows, In My Opinion, a bit of edit following. [184] shows an apparent disparity in out interpretations of
WP:BLP. I would be exceedingly worried if our personal disparity in BLP interpretation is causing us friction, indeed, and apologize to MastCell for any such friction. Cheers. Collect (talk
) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted. MastCellTalk 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@
give him the benefit of the doubt
, but I do consider his insinuations of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to the Monoweiss source related thread, to be a highly offensive and disruptive form of baiting, and requested the 1-way reaction ban partially on that basis.
The links are a content dispute, and an RfC has been opened. The user you blocked was continually removing sourced material without discussion or consensus, some of which was obviously unjustified. Both links have been in the article long term, with one since 2007 (and profiles from the site are used in other articles). I'm learning about the EL policy, but only restored here after EvergreenFir agreed that one of the sources, at least, was OK (3-1 consensus at that point), while the other hadn't been discussed after a BOLD deletion constituting part of a series of tendentious disruptive edits. After I restored, Collect reverted, and the RfC was launched by EvergreenFir.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP with the whole nine yards (COI, Copyvio, NOT, MEAT, etc)
See
I have also removed several instances of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and correctly cited information that was previously uncited, which new accounts are reinstating or removing.
So, there's a lot going on (BLP issues, COI, NOT, possible MEAT, instances of COPYVIO/too close paraphrasing, etc), and I'm not sure to which individual noticeboard this might go, including possibly MEAT along with COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And I now see (by scrolling to the bottom of the diffs), that the deletions made by the accounts is POV, since the source includes criticism of Tippett. [189][190] Perhaps that text-- not the well known divorce-- explains the appearance of these accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like that source myself -- it's listed as a commentary, and it does have some rather snarky comments in the footnotes. This definitely appears to be a case of sock or meat puppetry, though. And I don't know about the outing issue -- I'm (perhaps unreasonably) suspicious of "own work" that appears to be sourced from Flickr.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to clear up any confusion, my name is Mariah (a little targeted googling will find my full name), and I am Ghz89med and Bibliophile227. You are right I am a producer for this radio program. The concerns you expressed are very valid. I should not have created other accounts and I won't do that again. I understand that my language might and in some cases will be biased, however, this page was in dire need of an edit and a build out. I will keep contributing to that, and I invite your edits as well. I will not revert edits by other users, unless there is a clear and legitimate (non-POV) reason to do so. I'm doing this in line with the standard practice for radio shows, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio, and as such, I will be adding an episodic list. Please edit and contribute so this can be the most in line with Wikipedia's best practices. I do invite collaboration, I know that's what makes Wikipedia great. I will be using this account for all future edits, because I want to be transparent. I don't like anonymity, so feel free to message me for an email address. Mariahism (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Mariah
Thanks SarekOfVulcan-- agree with your removal. Ghz/Mariah/Biblio, how many of the other accounts are you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I got freaked out when you posted my IP address and my location (which I know, open source, fair game, but I got spooked). These are all the user accounts I have ever opened with Wikipedia. Going forward, I'll be using Mariahism for work edits and Bibliophile227 for personal. All other accounts that will going forward be unused: Ghz89med, Convsa2, Gibsonten, Artez28, Jacsman, and Stellapensac. Again, sorry about that. (unsigned edit by Bibliophile227 16:12, February 4, 2015)
And now you're posting from the Bibliophile227 account, so which account are you going to use? Can admins please advise if the others should be blocked? I remain concerned because there is plagiarism everywhere in the On Being article. I'm out of time for today, but it needs additional scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I accidentally posted from Bibliophile227 because I couldn't find this page without logging into that account. Again, thanks for your patience, I know you are quite a bit better at navigating this world. I am committed to resolving issues on the On Being and Krista Tippett pages. I'm sorry that I can't do it faster. I think SandyGeorgia is referring to the section "Digital Convener" moved to talk, this is not plagiarism but original research, just to be clear, which I understand now, is not permitted. It will stay off the page until there are secondary sources for it. Again, please feel free to reach out (yourself or other editors) with concerns, my email is on my user page. Mariahism (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I am referring not to that text (which was uncited original research that I moved to talk), but to extensive other text taken directly from sources without quotation marks or attribution. See my edit summaries at On Being for those I've identified as I've had time. I am concerned there is more, but have limited time today to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I note also the account
Sustained Dialogue Campus Network which you created. I assume that is also yours? How many more accounts have you forgotten? In my view, this editor should be restricted to one account only and make a full disclosure of their COI on that user page. The others should be blocked. There's no reason whatsoever why s/he should edit from "one account for work" and another as a "personal account", especially given the COI shenanigans and deliberate deception that have been going on since 2011 with every single one of these accounts. Voceditenore (talk
) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Block all accounts except one. User has so many accounts they may have temporarily forgotten some. Preferably do it through SPI so that a CU can be run for other accounts to block, e.g. sleepers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would allow an "at home" account, provided the two accounts are clearly linked. It might be preferable to rename User:Bibliophile227 to User:Mariahism (at home) or to make some similar arrangement. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I'm fine with just having the mariahism account. This account already has a COI notice on the page. All other accounts can be deleted. If there's more I need to do to make the other account deletion happen, let me know.Mariahism (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But now there is another thing that is becoming less and less clear as you post. You have uploaded images as "own work", and now it is not clear those images are your work, according to the different names you have used and the name you attributed those images to. Someone who deals with OTRS or I'm not sure what needs to verify who you are, because some of those images are still in articles. I'm not sure how this gets cleared up-- above my payscale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine by me. You know how to contact me. Mariahism (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And now everything needs to be checked for copyvio and plagiarism. Here's the latest example, an edit just made (in spite of me raising plagiarism for several days):[192] We've gone from uncited text everywhere, to now seeing that the wording is taken directly from the source, without quotation marks. ("The project resources have been used by ... Harvard Law School.") This is pervasive, I've found it on every source I've checked, and I don't have time to check it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the language SandyGeorgia identified as offensive above. Many of the copyvio flags are for articles not available via web, and the others, referred to by SandyGeorge as the "Mook article" have been thoroughly checked against the source for wording similarities. If others want to verify, please do. For articles not available via web I have offered to share PDFs and full text for others to check against, but these should be flagged on the page as requests of quotes, not as copyright violations.Mariahism (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming unpleasant. The instances of taking text directly from sources, without quotations, are quite different from the growing list of failed verification to offline sources, which are becoming apparent only as quotes are requested on talk. It is gradually getting cleaned up, but more eyes are needed, and I wonder if the necessary objectivity and competence are on board. I'd be most happy to unwatch if others indicate they are watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Where do things stand on blocking all of these socks? Should it be done via CU, or just done based on the admission above? I do have concern that there are more socks, since they were not all admitted, but am not sure a CU is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
They can be blocked by any passing admin, since M has said they are happy for that to happen. In the unlikely event that an account wasn't a sock they can be unblocked on request. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
Continued personal attacks, despite warning and requests to stop, and apologies made
work in progress, I feel as if my attempt to further help pages grow are being over-looked and not accepted; instead, I'm being called names and talked about, as if I'm some evil-spirited human being, which I am not, even following an apology if I had made Princessruby feel attacked, as that would never be my intention at all. livelikemusicmy talk page!
21:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay so it was wrong of me to call you stubborn and annoying and etc, and for that I' sorry. But what you have been doing lately isn't right either. You keep removing the citations and information added by me, its like it has become your hobby. It's like you're always after the articles that I create. This isn't the first time or second or third. User:Livelikemusic has already done that so many times that I lost count of it. Editors are suppose to help other editors and not make them feel down. I'd also like to point out that this user left me a warning message on my talk page on January 16th 2015 - "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Max A. George". I found this message quite rude, because I did not disrupt Wikipedia. This person deletes every citation and information I add, and when I retype the information back and add the citation, he gets back at me by leaving me a warning message. I don't comprehend what his problem is. It's like he can never be wrong, he's always right, but it doesn't work that way. Nobody is perfect, when you're wrong you're wrong, no matter what. I've never had problems with other editors why just him? It's because he's at fault or maybe we both are. I've been a Wikipedia editor for a really long time now, and it's really frustrating when someone keeps removing the citations and information added by a user with the right sources. --Princessruby (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As stated on the talk page of
good-faith. And again, I've stated my apologies if the user felt attacked, and that my editing is very blunt and bold (as pointed above), however, I feel they were all valid and justified. I'm following guidelines lined up by Wikipedia, and have even cited them in my reasons behind my edits, which have been automatically undone. livelikemusicmy talk page!
21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
But can't you see that you keep doing that all the time and that it's starting to bother me. So you keep removing the citations added by me unintentionally all the time? The source which I added to support the information was correct because I checked it. I know which sources to add and which ones to not. Yes, I felt attacked, frankly speaking I've been feeling this way for a while now, I even thought of quitting Wikipedia once because of the way you made me feel. But I didn't not to, because of my love for Wikipedia and being an editor. And btw everything was appropriately written, but yes about the elocution classes that he took it was right of you to add it in the career part, but the rest was just wrong. Like removing the "After The Wanted split up, George moved to LA to pursue an acting career. " This information is true all the way. I has also added the source that supports it but u removed it along with the information. Anyway....I've made my point clear. I will just wait for the Admins reply now. Whatever he or she decides will be for the best. Thanks. --Princessruby (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As I stated on Max's talk page, multiple times, information concerning his elocution classes or move to Hollywood does not belong in "early life" as it has zero to do with his early life. Everything was re-worded and moved to the appropriate place within the article (his acting career portion), nor does that excuse the personal attacks that were made, which are in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy, as pointed out both at the talk page and here. I've apologized (as I've stated) multiple times; I don't know how many more I'm expected to do such. I'm not going to bicker back and forth once, and to refrain from speaking in continued circles, I will await for an administration to request my comments further. livelikemusicmy talk page! 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment I've come here as a result of livelikemusic asking me to take a look at what's been happening at the Max A. George article as well as that article's talk page. After having read what's been going on there, I noted this report had been filed. From looking at everything at the article and the article talk page, I can see why livelikemusic was, and is, so concerned. In addition to the numerous and egregious personal attacks aimed at livelikemusic, it does appear that there is article ownership occurring on the part of Princessruby. The lack of edit summaries are also troubling -- over 2000 of Ruby's 3600+ edits have had no edit summary. I've always seen chronic lack of edit summaries as something that typically goes hand-in-hand with article ownership, but that's me. The article in question was originally created by Ruby, and on her own user page she states, "One thing I hate the most is when people mess my work up." Ruby is essentially saying livelikemusic is intruding on her "territory" and is an edit warrior. As far as the edit warring, it always takes two to perform that dance, but Ruby's EW behavior definitely has an intentionally disruptive (and not caring whether she's being disruptive) tone to it. Ruby has already established she dislikes anyone editing her work, hence, she's going to protect her "work" no matter what. There seems to be a severe lack of understanding on Ruby's part over what contributing here means, that it's a cooperative work, not something we do on our own with our "work" never being changed, altered, or improved upon. I do see good faith on the part of livelikemusic (he seems to be attempting to take the high road) and nothing in the way of good faith on the part of Princessruby. From my perspective, a come-to-jesus meeting regarding article ownership behavior and a subsequent attitude adjustment seems to be in order here. -- WV ● ✉✓ 23:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Potentially
Polemic
Userbox
Consensus is that the box needs to go. Yes, Bgwhite is thin-skinned, but how one transmits that opinion is highly relevant here. EEng, please let it go. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2015 (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.
Guy Macon "Removing harmful posts" as "personal attacks". And it was a userbox.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember, Under:
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#User pages Users do not own their pages and thus they are a part of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk
) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree here. EEng has been blocked in the past for personal attacks and harassment (by Bgwhite) and it seems like he strongly dislikes this editor, enough to make a disruptive userbox. I suggest trading lightly for a while and removing the userbox. Eurodyne (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, this is the first time I have taken someone to ANI before. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The userbox doesn't name any names, and if the admin were really thin-skinned, he would have done something about it already. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
When you click on the link in the user-box it goes right to the block made by Bgwhite. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have to go searching for something, it ain't much of a polemic. Best to let the admin take care of it, if he cares to. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
True if it is just directed at bg, but because it is hidden another way to look at it is that it is devious. I also suspect that the infobox in question changes each time the user is blocked and would have a link leading to another block if and when the user is blocked again so while bg might take it as a joke the next admin who knows. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't take it as a joke. EEng insults anybody disagreeing with him, so I just see it as yet another one. The box was added November 14 directed towards me and it still is direct towards me. The box directs to a section header that was written by me, but changed by EEng. I've changed it back, EEng levels an insult, and again adds the "thin-skinned" header. Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well then if you aren't laughing then I see no reason why the infobox needs to stay and ask that an uninvolved admin make the call here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, I'm not actually all that sure it's as clear cut as that. When I first saw the user box a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a more a general criticism of the subjective, and often personal, nature of a lot of admin blocks. That it linked out to a particular incident was acerbic play on "X number of days since a workplace accident" with the last accident report on the board. I didn't take it as a "fuck this guy" type of userbox. I thought it was pretty funny. Maybe this is less of a big deal when people just decline to make it one. Besides, don't we get enough hurt feelings reports without adding vicarious hurt feelings reports? Did anyone ask Bgwhite what he thought? GraniteSand (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Since this userbox seems to be directed at Bgwhite, if he is okay with it, I don't see an issue of having it up since it only is directed at one person. Eurodyne (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
talk
) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I also notice that EEng has only edited topics related to Harvard University in the last few months. Can't speak for all their edits, because I didn't look that far. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng works at Harvard. Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Brandon: 'Course, he was a Harvard undergraduate. That might make it justifiable homicide.
No, I don't. Honestly, so free you are to hold forth and proclaim on things about which you know nothing. But such a misapprehension on your part might explain a lot. EEng (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng made it after Bgwhite blocked him, but the second instance was after the issue over personal attacks.[193]User_talk:EEng#ANI_Notice is relevant. EEng decided to reset it and mock persons. I dislike EEng's attitude and his most recent edit to his user page was to add a section on "Museum of additional reasons that ((Dick Cheney|warmongers)) are going to hell" brackets swapped to quotes. [194] in what is a petty and rude gesture in of itself. He tempts the patience of others with such edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed that section due to it being disruptive, along with the box at the beginning, also for being disruptve. --
talk
) 01:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can
WP:TPO it falls under, such as to necessitate deleting parts of another user's user page? Andy Dingley (talk
) 01:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley I'll revert it. I believed I caused it, and I didn't link to a category, so I had just removed this then irrelevant category from the talk page. I didn't think someone else was to blame. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove userbox Its not being taken as a joke and as I explained above is only going to cause more disruption than good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove userbox - Userbox is disruptive (per
talk
) 02:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ignore it ... raising this ANI thread counter productively will probably give it more views than it would have ever have gotten, anyway. NE Ent 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Let it ride Unless the current or future "honoree" feels the need to file a hurt feelings report. Let's not be that place. GraniteSand (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a reason why we have the
WP:POLEMIC guideline, can you think of a reason how this wouldn't violate it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk
) 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove userbox Bgwhite's opinions on the userbox are not relevant—it is up to the community to decide whether it is helpful for a sanctioned user to poke the admin—of course it is not helpful. Regardless of whether the block was justified, collaboration is required, and
WP:POLEMIC needs to be supported to avoid people recording their thoughts on all the bad editors they have encountered. Johnuniq (talk
) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (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.
Drmies, if I could put some prosciutto on your pizza, I would. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In my opinion, the above was prematurely closed without dealing with the two separate issues I discuss below, and I request that it be re-opened for further discussion.
There are two issues here.
First, there is the question of whether this violates
WP:POLEMIC
and should be removed. Given the fact that it doesn't actually name a specific person and the fact that traditionally, admins have to be somewhat thick-skinned and tolerate some level of criticism about blocks they make, I would say no, but I can certainly see how a reasonable person might disagree with me and say yes.
Second, there is the issue of a non-admin editor removing something from the user page of another editor.
Bugs, someone noticed it was wrong and took it here if we were to just say to everything "Its no big deal" where would the line be drawn? If you want to amend the policies and guidelines that say "In general, users should not be nannying other users'" feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Calling someone "thin-skinned" is not only about as lame an insult as they come, but many editors (including on this page) have been advised to not be so thin-skinned about one thing or another. I don't see how it comes close to the bar in WP:TPOC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm as thick-skinned as Big Al, but I'm just doing what the people want, and the people seem to think the box to be disruptive. Guy, you are correct, the other editor probably shouldn't have been messing with EEng's talk page, and I am sure they won't make that mistake again. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad close, backed by poor logic, and premature consensus, then enforced in, what I have to say, is a rather obnoxious manner. Altogether, pretty lame. At least no user will be exposed to this transgressive horror of a userbox in the future. Well done team, feelings healed. GraniteSand (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I want you to name one positive thing the userbox brought that had anything to do with Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you name a positive thing that removing it has achieved? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
And we're done, again. Go improve an article, y'all. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, closed in three hours? How were enough people supposed to have time to see and opine on it, and enough of a consensus arrived at in three hours? Some folks aren't even awake at this hour. I agree with GraniteSand [195], "It brought levity to my day, brought down the faux seriousness of this place by a notch, and acted as a signal of wiki-philosophy. Not unlike the multitude of religion and politic UBs floating around." If there's an actual consensus that it be removed after enough people have had time to weigh in, that's fine, but a close in three hours is precipitous, in my opinion. I have enormous respect for Drmies, however this is the second time he has removed material from that user's talk page without his express permission. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. Some people weren't awake, others were in school, others didn't have internet. Not the point: ANI is for incidents, not for audience participation, and if a user has objectionable material on their user pages, it is within policy to remove it--that they won't like it is a given. What do you want this board to be, a place for Administrators (note the initial A) to take action, or an endless discussion? Don't answer that here: this is closed. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, I am asking you to please voluntarily remove the above premature close or at least to indicate that another admin may do so without you objecting. You have not established as a fact that what Mr. Guye removed[196] actually was objectionable material, and you have not even presented an argument in support of
WP:TPOC allowing Mr. Guye to remove the allegedly objectionable material himself rather than bringing it to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. And if you really think that ANI is "not for audience participation", or that giving folks like me more that three hours to reply is "endless discussion", I suggest that you attempt to get a policy change/clarification saying that community input is not welcome here. --Guy Macon (talk
) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Thanks, Guy, but I'm happy with things the way they are. For those who missed earlier installments of this saga, I was blocked in August by BGwhite after I referred to a group of editors (including BGwhite) as "self-satisfied roving enforcers" [197]. That this infamous userbox, memorializing BGwhite's brave intervention to stifle criticism of himself, has now itself been removed by this same group is one of the most delicious pieces of unconscious self-parody I have seen in many years. I've even added a userbox to my talkpage celebrating it [198] -- or must even this feeble light shone on what goes on here be extinguished? EEng (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Drmies, for recognizing how thin-skinned some people are. I hope you don't get blocked for it.
Most people
WP:POINT. If you want change then I encourage you to do so with discussion on the policies Wikipedia presently has in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk
) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am over it, but that doesn't mean I can't leave a record of it for others to see. The userbox sat there for months until this recent nanny inspection. EEng (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) EEng, I only have one question for you: Do you intend on starting a section requesting some kind of intervention to prevent these editors from doing damage to the encyclopedia in any of the forums where such discussions are appropriate? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just so people understand, the problem is that certain editors mistake their personal vision of what articles should look like for WP policy and guidelines, and go around conforming articles to these preferences, often with automated scripts. They do this in direct violation of the injunction, at the top of each MOS page, that "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." As long as they don't bother me in articles I'm working on (as they haven't for six months) I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually, as I'm confident it will. Reminding people of what happened is, for now, the limit of my contribution to that. EEng (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You didn't directly answer my question, so I'll have to assume that I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually means that you do not intend to pursue a new discussion about the behavior of these editors (which I consider a very good call and answer) and as such this section should be closed as I can't see anything else to discuss here. That particular userbox was childish if not inappropriate and your replacement is even more so which makes me hope you consider removing it for now. I'm not at a computer atm and won't be anytime soon, I'm hoping Drmies or someone can move the close bottom below this comment. EEng, I have a RL situation to deal with, but I would like to talk to you via IRC or email when I return about something. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Naturally I'm intrigued. Drop a note on my talkpage if you email me, because my limited experience is that WP email goes into trash. EEng (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I watch EEng's talk page, and I never liked that box. I agree with Drmies that this board should be about resolving incidents and not about endless discussion, and I think that the editors who speculate incorrectly about EEng's supposed employer should find better things to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like it either, and my advice to EEng is "please voluntarily remove or edit it". I am agnostic about an uninvolved admin removing it, and my advice to any such admin is "I personally would have allowed it, but use your best judgement and I will support your decision". That being said, Mr. Guye was wrong to remove it himelf, no admin appears to be interested in even talking about whether Mr. Guye violated
This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." --Guy Macon (talk
) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The recent version of that box supposedly targeted Bgwhite, when it was actually Seicer who issued the most recent block. What's up with that? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Having it removed citing "consensus" after my attempt to seek consensus was shut down is especially grating. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng has put a disruptive userbox again [199]. It appears that he/she gets butthurt everytime he/she gets blocked or a "It has been x days since..." userbox is removed from his/her talk page and decides to put a userbox related to what he/she put, and he/she also calls "thin-skinned" admins just because he/she gets blocked. I suspect (again) a case of
talk
) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I have not reviewed EEng's actions. He may be a real jerk; he may well not be here to build an encyclopedia. But, that latest userbox is 100% true. It is (IMO) not disruptive -- unless you want it to be.
To me this is just another iteration of a very old issue. It is a power struggle, pure and simple. When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
I'm probably hyperbolizing here, but I think this is how the issue appears to the EEng's of the world. And some, at least, of the EEng's of the world are here to help build the encyclopedia. We say "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just so. Let me just repeat something I said here recently [200]:
And finally, to each admin who says, "Well, I wouldn't have blocked, but I don't feel like overturning it": what you're condoning is a situation in which every editor is at the mercy of the least restrained, most trigger-happy admin who happens to stumble into any given situation. Don't you see how corrosive that is? It's like all these recent US police shootings: no matter how blatantly revolting an officer's actions were, the monolithic reply is "It was by the book. Case closed." This character [i.e. admin Seicer] was way out of line from the beginning in deleting multiple editors' posts (as someone suggested, hatting would have made complete sense, and troubled me not at all) and when called on it above, he gives a middle-finger-raised LOL. No wonder so many see haughty arrogance in much of the admin corps around here. EEng (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3% -- whoa, boy, watch out! EEng (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Now, I'm no fan of userboxes. And there may or may not be thin-skinned administrators on Wikipedia who exercise dictatorial control over mere editors and who can't tolerate criticism of their actions. But I can hardly think of a better way of proving that there are such administrators (and that their actions are condoned) than by banning userboxes suggesting such. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole user-box thing is childish, removing the userbox in question prevents anyone else from having to click on it out of being curious. If you want your chuckles and giggles at another editor's expense then this isn't the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Prior to this ANI complaint, no one would have known about it unless they frequented the user's page - in which case they would already know what's going on. Bringing it here only serves to advertise it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't know that as fact though, over time new editors who work with other editors visit their talk-pages or else we wouldn't have new editors commenting there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The main issue with the userbox originally complained about, is that it targeted a particular admin, as if that admin was the most recent admin to block the user - which was not the case. That's better grounds for having it zapped than complaining about such a lame "polemic". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Under
WP:POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed" I have already said that new users can and do access talk-pages, having info-boxes like these causes the issue to sit there and fester while over time have the potential for more editors to see the admin involved as a bad person without getting the whole story. The only so called positive thing I have heard so far is that it is satire and a laugh which in my opinion isn't helping things either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk
) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should talk and talk and talk and talk some more. Guy, we definitely need more user input, and I propose you make us get that for each and every single administrative decision that's taken here. I mean, why close anything just because a decision has been reached? Y'all have fun--I got better things to do. (I know--cauliflower pizza isn't much better, but it whines less.) Drmies (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (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.
Speedy deletion of new articles
Nothing to see here. Amortias (T)(C) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (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.
New articles should not be tagged with a {{
speedy}} 43 seconds after their creation, and spamming talk pages with a speedy is utter dubious: If I'm a vandal or still working on the page, I'll simply remove the speedy and end with a disfigured user talk page. –Be..anyone (talk
) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The user in question has been advised about this (in a much friendlier manner I might add) by anotehr user only a few minutes before your warning and has advised they will be more careful in future. Amortias (T)(C) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (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.
Meters
OP blocked as a trolling sock. Someone (not me I'm lazy) probably ought to make a note at SPI to help keep track. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2015 (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.
Meters has kept removing my messages on His talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meters and is in a edit war its got soo annoying I also warned him but would not listen its gone way to far. Please get him blocked I wanted to have peace with him but he would not and say I am trolling my talk page even though i am not. I was just saying sorry about my mistake to him but made it an ego issue.
Thank you Admin
Ranabhai (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not being obnoxious do not treat me that is rude.
Ranabhai (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
He has the right to remove messages on his talk page. Removal of them implies he has read them. Edit warring would be another matter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ranabhai:, if you post to his talk page again, I will block you from editing. You're being obnoxious. -- Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He has been in an edit war and has no right to do that I was trying to cooperate and team up and was accusing me that I am trolling him for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
On his talk page g
He had an edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He has the right to delete messages on his talk page, and you do not have the right to delete messages he has posted there, especially when they aren't directed at you. It is YOU who is edit-warring on his talk page. And as the admin notes, you will stop it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No thanks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One more instance of being a WP:JERK to my friend and you'll be in prison! Sniping Goonz (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You you fucking idiot. Sniping Goonz (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Brand new account, whose third edit is obvious vandalism (already repaired by ClueBot). Off to a great start, there, SG. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He lasted all of 8 minutes from creation to block, which isn't long, but I'm confident it's well short of the record. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Managing to piss someone off enough to want you in prison in less than an hour and a half is good going by anyones standards... Amortias (T)(C) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Cambridgebayweather please block Meters he is in an edit war with me becuase he kept deletin my messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs)
Like I said, people can remove messages from their user talk pages when they want to. See
talk
) 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Admin, meters never lisened to me but kept deleting my messages even though I said sorry for my mistake and don't block him but tell him that please stop removing my messages and listen to me for once all he does is bad things to me and a note to all comments from other editors who said I am wrong HE Needs to stop this arrogance and learn to forgive people instead of ignoring and Plus YOU people worry about yourself and don't interfere when I am talking to an administrator do your own thing And one last Thing Let meters know that he has made this an ego issue and must stop it or else you may get blocked in The future. That is my side of the story whether you agree with me or not and to the editor who is calling me obnoxious is that you should mind your language cause what you think is wrong. If you agree with me or not I will not talk with this Meters or even mention him ever again I am done with this Issue.
Ranabhai (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you? See
talk
) 01:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If the complainant were pulling those shenanigans on my talk page, he'd have been blocked already. When an admin says a user is being "obnoxious", it is well to pay attention. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop arguing and get over with it you brat and how many times did I tell you to to mind your own business stop talking about it and shutup
Ranabhai (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's see how many how many ways this is wrong. Ranabhai
took me to ANI without letting me know.
took me to ANI rather than 3RR to complain about edit warring.
took me to ANI for edit warring 10 minutes after leaving a warning, when I had made no edits.
is complaining about me removing his comments from my talk page.
was told in my last response to him [202] I explicitly stated that I would delete rather than respond to any further edits from him on my talk page. I also left this message on his talk page [203].
This is all after he was warned by another editor for edit warring on my page for deleting my comments (comments that were not directed to him). There seems to be a behavioral similarity between this user and the various socks of User:Theshitman that I have recently reported (a new account with an interest in Indian topics shows up on my talk page very quickly after creation even without any interaction with me). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theshitman
Could I ask for boomerang block for trolling and harassment please (unless someone sees enough for a sock block)? Thanks, Meters (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be shocked if it weren't. Could be worth adding to the SPI, even though already blocked (and having named another sock in the process, Ian Doyle Capita). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:42, 7 February 2015 (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.
One editor says this data is fodder because the "altercation" is only "possible". The other says it is an active police investigation and therefore is germane. Need eyes, please. —
ATalkPage
02:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring reports go
talk
) 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Procedural: If you're going to close something as moved, do you not have to actually move it first? —
ATalkPage
02:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Happy? You won't get the needed response here warrior, head to edit war board, or better use twinkle for a nice neat report. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
ATalkPage
03:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@
WP:NOTNEWS. Admins, we need page protection. Viriditas (talk
) 03:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with NOTNEWS, and I stand by my assessment that the data is germane. —
ATalkPage
03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case I recommend a topic ban based on the BLP sanctions already in place. You have been edit warring over a TMZ source, contrary to the stipulations of the sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary; I am fucking done with this article. If this is the response to
ATalkPage
05:04, 7 February 2015 (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.
Block evasion by Claudia McHenry?
Hello,
I'm Claudia and i'm a user on Wikipedia, and was blocked out of nowhere by ponyo on some block evasion grounds.
Several days ago, i forgot to log in to my account when i made an edit adding the birthday to the Christina Hoff-sommers page, and found that the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked. It strikes me as strange that this block was put on the IP out of nowhere, so instead i have to edit from my appartment to ask the an/i to review the block on the IP address. I don't care about my account and there's no point blocking this IP as i'm moving march second to Vancouver.
Please review the block on the address, or explain where the block evasion accusation originates. Was there a user formerly known as Claudia McHenry that was an unruly user years ago?
Thanks.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Its going to be difficult to review an IP block wihtout knowing the IP address. Could you provide further info. Also its a bad idea to come to
WP:ANI and admit to being a blocked account socking via an IP. Unless the block also involved the talk page of the IP address you would have been able to appeal the block there. Amortias (T)(C
) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
To me this idea that someone who accidentally doesn't log in can then be blocked, and then later accused of being a sockpuppet evading a block, smacks of the same sort of backwards logic and everyone-is-a-criminal mentality that lets police arrest people for resisting arrest (when no other crime is evident). The details of the block are not difficult to find in User:Ponyo's log [205] (date January 23). In any case, the chronology appears to be: (1) 199.101.61.190 (talk·contribs) edits Christina Hoff Sommers to add the day and month of birth, but without sources, and is immediately reverted (with an edit summary indicating that the reverter treated the edit as a good faith one, but unhelpful); (2) Ponyo blocks the IP for no obvious reason with the edit summary "block evasion"; (3) Claudia McHenry (talk·contribs) logs in, and politely asks Ponyo what the block was for; (4) Ponyo makes the block on the IP permanent, blocks Claudia, and prevents Claudia from appealing the block by using the setting that prevents her from editing her talk page. Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction on Ponyo's part. Maybe Ponyo can come here and explain? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, i'm sorry if i broke a rule by not logging in before editing that page. Serg, the guy who edits from the IP accoutn usually says his edits were undone or something like that.
Also if i'm breaking a rule by posting here, i appolojize deeply.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you are missing something DE and you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" (I have not seen P overreact to anything in all the years of their adminship) until you have "all" the facts. Ponyo has been working with SPI reports and checkusers for months now and this could well be related to that work. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DE. Color me skeptical. See below. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" ... until you have "all" the facts. Sheesh. DE said "Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction", thus hedging and softening his statement not one but two different ways. Seems like MarnetteD's objection to the use of gross overreaction was an overreaction, if perhaps not a gross one. MHO. ―Mandruss☎ 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock per the above. I have the same problem, as many of the IPs used by my mobile device are connected with known, long-time abuse accounts who use proxy IPs offered by my provider. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Really. This is an almost laughable case of jumping the gun. This thread needs to have "all the facts" and a reply from Ponyo before any decision is made on the block. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I travvle a wholel ot so if i seem to jump accross the map, it's because i attend different sociological events including talks, as well as i'm currently in the process of moving to Vancouver so i can get better care for my mesothelioma. So if people see me on bad Ip's, then you know why. I'll do my best to remember to log in from now on if that's the issue.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Please use spellcheck before saving your comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll do that from now on, apologies
I’m sure that ponyo’s a good person and I have nothing at all against them, nor do I wish to attack them in any way. I only want to know why they are charging me for a murder I did not commit.
I've attempted to contact Ponyo several times to ask him/her the reason for this block, and my post on his/her page gets promptly deleted and i get promptly blocked. I then sent an e-mail to their account using the e-mail this user function, no response, and it's been one week, which is plenty of time to get back to me. If something was truely wrong then i think Ponyo would have explained it or would be willing to explain it to me.
Instead, i question, the question is deleted, i get blocked and have to go accross town to have any chance of defending myself, it's madness is what it is.
I really hope Ponyo replies to this or is at least willing to leave a message on my account's talk page with an explanation, else i be unblocked or at least the 199 IP be unblocked.
I'd highly recommend that if people suspect any bad activity that they first notify the user of this activity and how they came to that conclusion before they even think about blocking and speedy-deleting it.
Even with 34 years of studying psychology and sociology behind me i still don't understand how this could be considered benefitial to Wikipedia in any way. Again, i don't think Ponyo's a bad person, i just want to know why he/she screams bloody murder when i did nothing wrong to my knowledge. I admitted my mistake to Ponyo and that should be enough. End with a "don't do i again please" then move on, not "block her," then move on and hope that this goes away.
I came here with the intent to help Wikipedia, and help it i shall, I'd like to follow the rules while doing it and if problems arise, i want a chance to address them before any punishment of any kind is dished out. That's all i ask Ponyo, you're a good person, but you made a mistake.
Sorry if i seem angry in this post, it isn't intended to be any form of attack, i'm just stating things from my point of view that's all.
Good night, i have a long day tomorrow and won't be able to reply for a while after, i'm going to be away untill the 8th, so won't be able to reply back untill then. Thank you guies for your help.
PS, don't edit when you're using a smaller touch screen and you have big hands, it's a nightmare to correct.
Claudia
209.202.5.171 (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
In case User:Ponyo didn't see the notification from the name-dropping earlier in this thread, I've left a note on their talk page asking for their input here. @MarnetteD: I agree with you that we should not unblock before making more of an effort to get all of the facts. And probably my "gross overreaction" was not a sufficient assumption of good faith: what I should have said was that we are no doubt missing some important piece of information, because if we look only at the evidence we already have then this has the appearance of a gross overreaction, but that seems unlikely given Ponyo's history of working the sockpuppet beat. However, until we see the evidence we should assume Claudia's good faith as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick since Thursday and only logged on briefly to put up a wikibreak template as I won't be able to get back to regular editing for at least another 2 - 3 days. In an abundance of caution I have emailed Callanecc a detailed explanation of the evidence behind the block in order to avoid any possible privacy breaches. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt that "Claudia" is indeed a sock of a LTA account and that you are all being trolled. The messages from the 209.202.5.171 IP are textbook to many posted previously by the same sockmaster. It's striking that a mother with "34 years of studying psychology and sociology" displays the same blatant grammar and spelling errors as their blocked "son" as well as the many other personas they've used in the past couple of years to try to get around the block. The master account has been referred to BASC many times in the past - they know the path to a potential unblock if they want to pursue it. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be so. But I am far more concerned with the lack of responsiveness, the appeal to secret evidence, the lack of non-admin oversight, and the transparency of blocking rationale, than I am with the effort made by one individual to resume editing. I have seen far too many false accusations made against users with trumped up, or in some cases, zero or invented evidence, to make a case, rather than actual evidence that the community can look at. This need to invoke secrecy, to claim that one is guilty before being proven innocent, sets a terrible precedent.
There is a reason checkuser evidence is not publicy available. If we arent able or willing to trust the judgements that the users who can review this information make with regards to it then there are n awful lot of people who claim they arent socks who we are going to have unblock. CU evidence is one of those things that is given access to people who have shown suitable judgement and consensus for the tools by the community and on that basis I thik some level of trust has to be offered to those who can use it and the decisions they make from it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the newbie, wet behind the ears response, but I know how CU works. However, I will once again reiterate, the slow response to this user's request, the appeal to secret evidence, and the notion that the average editor cannot be trusted to comprehend a simple argument for keeping a user blocked, is and remains a serious problem. This authoritarian approach runs counter to the operation of a free society, to just application of laws, and to democratic oversight and transparency. As such, I do not agree with them or their application, no matter what the given rationale continues to be; time and time again, I have seen this kind of power corrupt "trusted" people, and evidence can be used to block the innocent, both intentionally and unintentionally. You may embrace this kind of unjust system, but I do not. There was no harm in unblocking this user, and a case could have been made that did not reveal "secret" information to restore the block. There is more harm in your chosen approach than there is benefit. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This rhetoric is all good and well and I wish the world online and off was more in line with these sentiments. But I would have thought that someone who is not a newbie would certainly have encountered
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. As the person in question is, no doubt, enjoying all this fuss I would suggest that the thread be closed. MarnetteD|Talk
00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD, it would help greatly if you would read what you link, as NOTDEMOCRACY has nothing to do with this discussion. I apologize if the phrase "democratic oversight" confused you, but you seem to have evaded my points (and those of two other editors) and launched into a litany of red herrings. I already made my points, and your response is extremely unhelpful. Why should Claudia remain blocked? If your answer is, "it's a secret and we can't tell you", then I will say again, that's unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo doesn't want to tell you who the sockmaster is, because then you will know the geographic location of the sockkmaster. Named accounts are not linked to IPs to protect the privacy of the account holder. This protection of privacy is extended to everyone, even to long-term sockmasters and LTAs. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Like MarnetteD, I accept Ponyo's explanation (and the fact that there are reasons not to put certain kinds of sockpuppet investigation information in public places). As an unblock looks unlikely and there is no other administrative action to be taken, I think this thread is ready to be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the evidence from Ponyo and I'm comfortable that the Claudia McHenry account and the 209 IP address are being used by an LTA sock master. As Diannaa says there's not a lot of information that I can give due to the privacy implications, especially because I'm not completely aware of how much information the sock master has released themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never been interested in any private information, so that's a misunderstanding on the part of editors up above. What I'm railing against is the misuse of CU, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the "trust us, we're experts" line that non-CU's and non-admins are routinely spoon fed. I've seen editors falsely accused of being sockpuppets, and in my own case, I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by an admin on Wikinews who blocked me during a content dispute where he was involved, and then attempted to fabricate sockpuppetry evidence to keep the block in place. So I hope you understand that I am skeptical of so-called "trusted" members of the community, and I think that we need more safeguards in place to protect the accused. The burden is on those accusing Claudia, and if that burden can only be met in private, without community review, then I'm afraid this process is flawed and subject to abuse. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I haven’t been able to post, lately, I had a few meetings and I have to fly out again today.
I don’t want to start a bunch of Drama; I want any drama over this to end. I’m only asking for a chance to be able to defend myself from these accusations here which quite frankly came out of nowhere and are unfounded.
Even if you at least grant me talk-page access then I’ll at least be able to contest the claims made against me when I’m finished with my meetings.
I don’t expect a full unblock in the near future if some crazy person is going around creating accounts and causing problems here and my account is linked to it, but I do expect to be able to defend myself. It certainly wouldn’t look good for Wikipedia if people can just be blocked because of secret/invisible and probably non-existent evidence that nobody has the right to know of for reasons and not be able to defend themselves from these accusations.
Now if you guise don’t mind I have a 6:00 AM flight to Toronto to catch so I won’t be able to respond for a bit. Have a good day.
I would say that the admins unblock 209.202.4.xxx-206.202.5.xxx. Let's give some rope, I mean seriously. Ponyo, Callanecc and Dianaa are very respectable and sensible admins. I'm sure they would always give a correct judgement. Here, I believe a bit of rope is necessary. Even if we get trolled, how far would she get? We have ClueBot NG and 100s of editors patrolling edit filters and RC. She might hang herself with all that rope but atleast the community will not (can not) be blamed. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 13:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And good work, Viriditas. Your arguments were really interesting to read. MarnetteD, do not rush this up, please, this thread is quite a serious issue. Ponyo, your explanation might be correct but then there's reasonable doubt. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, we will not be unblocking a confirmed sock account of a LTA sockmaster in order to give them "rope". They can appeal to BASC, the information has already been provided to them. Only another Checkuser, or an admin in consultation with a checkuser, can undo a checkuser blocked account or IP address. Another Checkuser, Callanecc, has already reviewed the evidence and endorsed the block. There is nothing left to do here except close this section and
There's no way for the majority of the community to know if any misuse has occurred, that's the point. What if an error was made? Let me give you a brief example using myself: within the last year or so, I've edited Wikipedia from two sets of IP addresses, one, my static home address, and two, a dynamic set of IPs used by my mobile device(s). If I try to edit using my mobile device without logging in, many times I'll get a message saying that my IP address has been blocked for being used by a LTA account. Now, obviously, I'm not that person, and that particular set of IPs is probably used by tens of thousands of people. But would the average CU distinguish between these things, if let's say, I was a new user? Little things like that make me very skeptical of the current process. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's very likely that CheckUsers would notice, even if the
won't go into. If it's not definite that they are the same, they're usually left unblocked (ROPE) and kept an eye on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs
) 08:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, what does the phrase, "checkuser is not magic pixie dust" mean to you? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There are of course times when the data isn't clear, which is when that particular phrase is used, and hence when blocks aren't handed out. There are also times (usually the case) when CheckUser data is helpful and indicates links between accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia. We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too. Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do? Is it that hard? Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that). In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that. Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ankit Maity, your post above is indecipherable. "Put her on an admin's t-do". What does that even mean? There is no "Claudia". There is one de-facto banned sockmaster who is pretending to be "Claudia" in order to be unblocked. This is just one of many names/personas they have used to be unblocked over the years. It is the sockmaster who needs to have their block reviewed by BASC if they wish to legitimately edit here again, though the possibility won't be entertained until they stop evading their block. You are only giving them the attention they crave by continuing to discuss this particular case here. You can either take my word for it as a volunteer who has been thoroughly vetted and tasked to identify and block socks in order to protect the encyclopedia against abusive editors such as this, or you can continue to rail against the injustices levied against this "new" editor using only a fraction of the evidence publicly available.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if she is very clearly related to the LTA master - and I'm inclined to believe two experienced checkusers on that front - then giving her a an IP block exemption would, to be blunt, be exceptionally stupid. It is very rare, after all, to see two checkusers be this certain about CU data, in my experience. IP block exemption is also only intended for highly trusted users who happen to edit from a LTA range, or something like that; a new account will not fall into that category. And you're absolutely not supposed to edit through a VPN, or any such cloaking device... although I've done so myself by accident a couple of times in the past, because some CyberGhost VPN addresses are not blocked. Look at the history of this IP; it's been CU blocked for block evasion on and off since 2013 - and if you don't believe that, the IP edited the same page in 2013 and 2014 and this year. It's clearly still the same person behind the IP itself. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Your argument (and diffs) supports Claudia's case. She claimed that "the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked". That's entirely consistent with the diffs, which show someone editing an article about the PBS Kids series Cyberchase. Can anyone explain why Claudia would even touch these articles? Sorry, I'm having a difficult time believing the CU case against her. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And I'm having a difficult time believing that someone with
You are thinking of late stage mesothelioma. Early stage has little to no symptoms and can remain without symptoms for decades. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And by the time someone develops symptoms, it's too late to do anything except make a will. I remain extremely sceptical that we are dealing with a "mother with '34 years of studying psychology and sociology'" (as Ponyo put it) who happens also to be an asbestos-exposure cancer victim and who happens to be one of the rare cases where death is not predicted within the year. Hey-ho.
People with early stage mesothelioma can live for three or more years. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: all above references to the "IP" above are to do with 199.101.61.190. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ???? If "Claudia" wants to be unblocked, they needs to make an appeal under their original account, whatever that is. (Alternatively they will need to convince a CU they aren't a sockpuppet.) From what I can tell in both cases, there would probably be no need for an IP block exemption, since the problem isn't that "Claudia" is editing from blocked IPs, but they are a LTA sockmaster. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo:, first to decipher my argument.
"I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia." means that this isn't a thread for giving someone attention.
"We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too." means that we've blocked most anonymizers of the internet. "Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do?" means that we give the IPBlockExempt explicitly to her and put her in some active admin's checklist, to verify that the edits are fine.
"Is it that hard?" means exactly what it means.
"Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that)." means that even if BASC is the only way, it's also the last straw. Who would wait for 6 weeks to get unblocked?
"In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that." is the display of human nature, that's it. By hook or by crook.
"Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention." means that this community expects its editors to stay after pasting 100s of boilerplates on their user talk pages and everyday is nothing but a new scene of a continuous drama. I have nothing more to say. I am placing my faith in Ponyo (talk·contribs) for now. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Evidence-based decision making demands that we dispense with "faith" and place our confidence in the evidence itself, not the person. However, when the evidence is secret, this is impossible. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on. You've been around here long enough to know how CheckUsers work/that they are not allowed to reveal the private information they have access to. If two experienced CheckUsers are certain that this account IS a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser, not just that they use the same IP, then I'm inclined to agree with them over the sock account, particularly when the evidence that the IP has been consistently used by the same person for two years is clear, and it's well established that "my brother did it"-type excuses don't hold any water (which this is essentially a variation of). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to close this thread. I'm not asking anyone to reveal any information and I'm not saying I believe that "Claudia" is who she says she is. I'm just making it clear that arguments based on secrecy aren't subject to greater scrutiny, and can be misused and abused without necessary community oversight. The wiki model lends itself well to decentralized administration, and there are other methods for dealing with socks that could be used that don't depend on any secrecy. One of these is
I don't exactly remember where I said it and nor do I remember what - must be some RfX or at ANI 3 years ago. As far as I remember, I said - Wikipedia's like a house of frosted glass. Opacity is the way but transparency remains a mystery. I would believe that Ponyo is more experienced than a on-and-off ANI reasoner like me, and I place my faith in him at the moment for that. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 06:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again
You guys have already had this incident brought up by another member of the Sims wiki community. I'm bringing this up again for the following reasons.
The issue originates at The Sims Wiki on Wikia, where IP 50.82.40.187 vandalized the wiki. I happen to be a roll-backer over there as well as an experienced editor, though not as experienced as this user.
But anyway, that user has since then tracked me down to Wikipedia, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages falsely accusing me of being homosexual and wanting me to have sex with them, even though we're not in the same country. They said that they were sorry for creating all these sock-puppets on wikia, yet they are showing no signs of improvement, or any evidence that they have improved their behaviour.
In addition to harrasing me here on the wikipedia, they continually send me private messages on ModtheSims on how they think I should seek revenge against those who haven't supported my Sims wiki request for administrator-ship. Surely they realise that if I ever want to become an administrator on the Sims wiki, there is no way that I'm going to threaten to become a troll instead, or purposely land myself in the bad books of my fellow Sims wiki editors, not after being a dedicated and featured editor of that wiki.
Their behaviour at this stage can easily be ignored, but nonetheless it would be nice if an administrator could resolve this situation and stop this user from harassing me.
Forgive me if my message isn't in good standing, but I don't recall ever reporting another user here on the wikipedia before. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears that it all started when
talk
) 01:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The username was taken from the username of a heavily disruptive sock-puppeteer from 2012. Apparently CoryMach (or as he is known on the Sims wiki Ilovethesims199) claims to be CoryMach7 (MachkovichMonster777)'s successor.
P.S. Do I have to report it to both the WP:RVAN and the WP:SPI? This behaviour seems to fall under both types of unacceptable behaviour. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick note:
WP:RVAN, but "AIV" is much better known; I've never seen "RVAN" before. Response to your question: AIV/RVAN is for stuff that's rather blatantly obvious, e.g. what Housecrasher157 was doing. You should generally go there in an open-and-shut situation for a quick resolution. When you have a more complex situation, like this one, you're better off coming here or going to WP:SPI, since they're set up to allow investigations, but even if you come here for a blatant vandal, it's not wrong: you just might not get as fast of a response. Nyttend (talk
) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPI to request checkuser (looking for sleepers, related accounts that haven't done anything yet), but then I noticed that all of these accounts are already blocked. I'm just not clear about which accounts, or which IPs aside from 50.82.40.187, have been causing problems. Nyttend (talk
Article deleted. Nothing to justify blocking here, but the user has been appropriately warned. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am reporting a user named Mariaavamidouathens. I am reporting him for creating-vandalising an article called "Nikko Sunset". I tagged the article with a deletion tag due to copy-paste material and a wrongly formatted article, with no sources whatsoever. I am requesting the article be deleted and this user be blocked, due to him taking the tag down, when clearly that article should be deleted. I would like somebody to look into it ASAP! CookieMonster755(talk) 04:59, 7 February 2015 (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.
11:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Endorse Spartaz. RSN is certainly a place more apt. All collapsed discussions are now archived. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:33, 7 February 2015 (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 now been threatened twice with blocks by this sysop; once for something that never happened and once suggesting I would "persist" in an "edit war" that consists of one partial reversion and one full reversion, the latter made more than two hours ago.
In addition, this sysop has engaged in circular, unsupportedreasoning in response to my cited arguments with respect to whether TMZ is a reliable news source.
Finally, "we are done here" is dismissive if not outright disparaging.
This cannot possibly be conduct becoming a sysop. Can it? —
ATalkPage
05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who persistsinadding unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked. Yes, it's reasonable to say "we're done here" when you're editwarring to force an article to include information from an unreliable source. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good grief. My initial involvement was this post at EW where I commented on
, with a citation deriving from TMZ. TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now.
A Tiny Silver brought up the discussion again at Talk:Bobbi_Kristina_Brown#Reverts (I surmise not being satisfied with the responses he received at EW), where another individual commented on TMZ's lack of credibility. I linked to the EW discussion and added my two cents.
The content, as-was, was not blockable unless the user was edit warring and continued to do so past the self report. The BLP issue wasn't serious enough that a user had to be blocked or the content deleted from record. I gave a general warning that future offenses could be responded to with blocks/deletions (especially if there is any personal information included, such as who attacked Bobbi).
So you've shopped this around to two noticeboards and a talk page. And you haven't gotten a satisfactory response to your problem and you are blaming it on me. Swell. seicer | talk | contribs 05:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing comments above such as "TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who persists in adding unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked." and "TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now."
While I would tend to agree in the case of BLPs (which have a higher standard ), in general, multiple discussions at RSN show that the reliability of TMZ it is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. See
Note that I am not commenting on any behavior by Seicer or ATinySliver. I have not examined the edits in question. I am simply pointing out that the reliability of TMZ outside of BLPs is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I took this away from one of the posts (you cited above): "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." If the source is in doubt, it's best to not use it - it's always better to be accurate than to be quick. The article can always wait for a more reliable source, or a source to validate the original origin. seicer | talk | contribs 06:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not start an edit war; I ended it. I reported myself as part of the "war" in an effort to be equitable while requesting clarity from editors and/or sysops who might actually be willing to provide an answer. Instead, I am confronted by someone who, in essence, is saying "the opinion of this single editor supersedes the opinion of that single editor" (despite circular arguments presented by this editor and actual evidence presented by that editor). I am perfectly willing, able and happy to abide by a consensus, were one actually reached; I am
ATalkPage
06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Come on, newspapers and magazines deal on the most basic of human emotions - fear, remorse and excitement. The use of the second one is gradually lessening, so... Anyway, I endorse siecer in this matter for his correct judgment. TMZ is not under any condition, a reliable source. NYTimes might but the Wikipedian community shall not approve the use of any such "gossip" websites as a source. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 06:25, 7 February 2015 (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-administrator comment) The community consensus is that TMZ be not used for BLP purposes. Unarchived but collapsed discussion is now archived. Guy Macon and ATinySliver can go to RSN to address their concerns. That is certainly a place more apt that ANI in this case. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:31, 7 February 2015 (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.
(edit conflict) There is no consensus that TMZ.com is not a reliable source. (Again, BLPs have a higher standard; I am talking about non-BLP uses.) The reliable sources noticeboard links I gave above contain the following quotes (which should be read in context -- the same threads contain plenty of comments expressing the opposite view):
"Based on reporting by the New York Times and the Washington Post], I'd have to say, yes. TMZ.com does have a reputation for reliability." --Dlabtot 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"I would place it as borderline... it is a "gossip" site... but they are better than most when it comes to checking their facts on that gossip. I think it needs to be evaluated on a 'case by case' basis... carefully examining how the statement we are using it for is worded, and what exactly the TMZ article being cited says. In other words... we can not say it is reliable 'by its nature' but neither can we call it unreliable 'by its nature'." --Blueboar 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. The word 'tabloid' has no meaning in the context of a website. The site deals in news about celebs. So what, big deal. This does not mean ipso facto all its material is junk. TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP, e.g. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and many more." --RATEL 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"Not sure why you think this stuff in some way disqualifies TMZ as a reliable source. Nothing you've posted indicates that their reporting is anything but accurate." --Dlabtot 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"I think it's fair comment to note that TMZ is being 'used' as reliable source in many Biographies on Wikipedia. From this article New York Times it is stated that 'The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media' . I think it clear it's celebrity gossip site, therefore there are concerns regarding WP:NPV including WP:Weight, so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to WP:BLP (and I think all BL should be revisited in this respect) but I don’t think it can be argued that it is an unreliable source per se." --Amicaveritas 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.... TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories. --Glrx 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid site, and yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer)." Tenebrae 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Simply asserting again and again that TMZ is not a reliable source is not a very compelling argument given the rather obvious lack of consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, is this the new standard here on ANI, where someone makes a claim that is unsupported by the evidence, someone like me tries to discuss the fact that there is no evidence for the claim, then the thread is slammed shut? Why the hurry to shut down discussions and suppress good-faith disagreements? Someone was warned that he would be blocked if he used TMZ because it is unreliable (proof by assertion). Does no one see that the appropriateness of such a threat hinges on whether TMZ actually is unreliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I can think of various occasions when TMZ was on top of a story, such as a celebrity death, and posting it on Wikipedia was delayed because of its alleged "unreliability" - despite the fact that their news story was borne out. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:37, 7 February 2015 (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 user is on a spree of unsourced additions
Now blocked for disruptive editing by PhilKnight. I'm sure no one minds if I close this--thank you, participants, and thank you, Phil. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP user 24.44.232.114 keeps adding unsourced content to music articles. Almost every edit is about the same list called Now That's What I Call Music! 50. I think he is trying to promote the list rankings. Diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Furthermore he has made a joke edit as well,Diff: 6--Chamith(talk) 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Best place to report this
is that away. Generally quicker response time. Amortias (T)(C
) 14:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I decided to report it here because at first I wasn't sure whether it is obvious vandalism. I thought it would be better if we discuss this first as this might be a newbie who doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules and warning system.--Chamith(talk) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, might be worth leaving a message on their talkpage explaing what they need to do rather than the templates? Are you able to throw something together? Amortias (T)(C) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the abdomen thing, is there anything that's an outright problem? I mean, if we found a good source, there wouldn't be a problem with including the bit about the list; the problem with adding unsourced stuff like this is that it forces us to work to find the source, not that there's an inherent problem with the information. Definitely not obvious vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. But the problem is half of his edits are about the same list rankings. I was getting suspicious whether he is trying to promote this list. And I've advised him couple of times not to to add unsourced content. But he keeps neglecting my notifications.--Chamith(talk) 14:23, 7 February 2015 (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 intentionally editing while logged out
I know issues like that should be reported at
WP:SPI
, but I don't know who is the sockmaster, so I'll do the thing here.
The thing is that: An user was editing while logged out and has put an uncivil comment at
talk
) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The learned administrators here can, as can anybody else, see what I told you and what you told me by looking at the discussion itself. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The Ip address might be useful. Not sure what can be done without some more information but we might be able to do some detective work to figure something out (no promises mind you). Amortias (T) (C) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I hardblocked the IP, let's see what happens. — east718 | talk | 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
With this post here, ToonLucas22 has provided a public exhibition of his appalling writing skills. From writing "Then" repeatedly and without succeeding it with a comma, to the usage of incorrect English constructs like "an user" not one, but two times. His post should removed as soon as possible from here because if a normal reader chances upon this page, he would be left wondering whether this is the quality standard of those of who write for Wikipedia.
ToonLucas22 is unfit for editing Wikipedia because (i) he cannot spell simple English words, (ii) he easily misinterprets others' comments, and (iii) he forgets to sign his posts. All this happened in a single discussion (
User talk:ToonLucas22#Reply to comment on User talk:223.227.98.130). Besides, he is prone to needlessly replying to the snide comments of fun-seeking editors, showing his mental and emotional incapability to continue on Wikipedia. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk
) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you even know English is not my main language? And it looks like you changed your IP in an attempt to evade a block and/or avoid scrutiny. Lets begin answering: (i) As I said, English is not my main language, but I have a lot of knowledge, though not full knowledge. (ii) I know humorous content is acceptable, but your uncivil comments are just not humorous. (iii) It is common to forget to sign a post for when someone is rushed dealing with other editors. Now stop attempting to avoid blocks. --
Rollback is undo without an edit summary. Please focus on resolving the content dispute without escalating it needlessly. If you see a pattern of abuse of rollback, you can complain about it, but as you admit, you don't want to spend the time to investigate it, so this thread isn't useful. Let's stop it early and refocus energy on deciding whether 1980 or 1979 is the appropriate date. The method used to revert a contested change isn't worth an argument. JehochmanTalk 19:19, 7 February 2015 (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 bring to the attention of admins User:David Gerard who treated me like a common vandal at Love Will Tear Us Apart with this contribution. My reason for disappointment here is that I have read all the rules of rollback and have twice been turned down this feature [207][208] yet I would have never used it where AFG is indisputable such as in my case. My reason for the change from 1980 to 1979 is that, apart from it not supported by a source, the article states in second paragraph that the song's debut was in 1979. Obviosuly there is the question of the version that is known to people and whether this was some kind of re-recording of a demo but these are all talking points, they are not reasons for flagrant abuses of rollback.
Furthermore, please see the following:
LibreOffice, evidently AGF since the reverted version contained summary.
LessWrong, another case of non-vandalism, just an unsourced change.
Not vandalism on Agent - attention being drawn to minor artist[209], not notable but nor a call for rollback either.
Windows Media Audio, again, removal of external link rightly or wrongly but not a case of spam or vandalism and clearly a case of good faith.
These are just a few I found by looking quickly at the past three/four weeks. I'm not about to investigate how long this editor has had rollback and what other abuses he has committed but it looks like he is using it any old time he doesn't like the look of something. There is no problem reverting but summary should be used every time in these cases. --
talk
) 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on the value of the report I want to point out that David Gerard has rollback by virtue of being an admin. I mention this because when it is a non-admin with rollback it can be taken away without much red tape.
Chillum
19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You changed it to something it couldn't be, without adding a reference. Did you have a reference? (That it debuted in 1979 does not mean it was recorded then.) Also, this is ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I will also point out BSGT that it is often better to talk with the person before reporting them.
Chillum
19:14, 7 February 2015 (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.
Outing
. And despite having four editors, myself included, telling him to lay off this harassment, he is obsessively combing through 10 years worth of edits to make accusations.
Other editors have told him he's off-base, and I have told him to stop obsessing about me and stop harassing me on Jimbo Wales' talk page, at this thread. When I finally, after one polite request, asked him to heed four editors and stop this remarkably personal harassment, he would not. When I said I would need to escalate this to ANI if he keep harassing me, he told me to go ahead.
Have you ever seen anything like this, where someone registers with the apparent agenda to go after somebody? No matter what I or anyone else says, he simply continues on this obsessive path — "building a case" from some 45 edits out of nearly 95,000 in 10 years. This is obsessive, and I sincerely request help to end this harassment. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that kind of thing many times, and typically it's a block-evading sock. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it sounds like a blocked editor with a grudge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (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.
Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)
Unfortunately, there is not enough consensus of any kind for the drastic measures that are proposed. Indeed, a one-way interaction ban isn't even an instrument, just a recipe for disaster. An interaction ban has barely any support, and a a topic ban, which appears to have most support, needs more than what is presented here.
There does seem to be some evidence of harassment by Robert Walker, at least of inappropriate behavior. My suggestion to Robert Walker is to cut that out; my suggestion to other editors is to attempt and treat this, if it requires treatment, with the usual warnings, templated or not, and an appeal to an administrator for a block--if indeed this is required. I'm sorry: given the amount of words you all have invested I am sure you want more, but this is all I see a warrant for. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you came here because someone asked you to, then please be unbiased towards the rest. The overwhelming amount of unjustified votes need to be disproved. This applies in general and is very much in effect. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 16:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.
After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.
4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage diff. I asked him to stop Wikihounding me diff, which he didn't diff. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff.
26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be
"Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
From
WP:CANVASS
:
"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."
Enough is enough: I propose a topic-ban for Robert for Buddhism, Hinduism and India related articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
NB: RW also seems to be discussing this at Facebook diff. Or am I overreacting now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Support - Robert is now stalking Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral as presented and at this time.Comment It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor,
dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk
) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - In view of the following thread about the
Support in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions are already in force for everything India-related. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Buddhism isn't subject to discretionary sanctions except in the country of its origin, which is not primarily a Buddhist country. The issue about the origin of Indo-European languages does have to do with whether they came from India or went to India. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to
WP:AE. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. jps (talk
) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the Karma in Buddhism article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, without wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: 1, 2, 3. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, recognising, that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to resolve his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.
Regarding reopening the debate: at third thought, I think it might be a good idea to re-open it, to settle this once and for all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I can only follow the diffs that you provided. Provide more diff to substantiate the "harassment", those three diff are not harassment. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Support - I have only encountered Robert Walker at
Indo-Aryan migration theory is a "fringe theory," and started quoting readers' reviews from Amazon while ignoring professional reviews. If he is doing this kind of thing everywhere to User:Joshua Jonathan, whose contributions are simply outstanding, e.g., [210], then he is being simply disruptive. Kautilya3 (talk
) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Instead of guessing, check edit history and come up with diffs. Speculating with assume-bad-faith is not done. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the samples provided by User:Joshua Jonathan and have no reason to distrust his statement about the general pattern. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Neither do I. Those diff are not attack that anyone can see. It should be simple to provide diffs, since it is being requested. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If you think that's too much, here's the diff for the Dzogchen talkpage. Here's my intitoal response, in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read Jim's response. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff. Also have a look at the history of the Zogchen talkpage to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.
Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - This is Jonathan's second attempt to intimidate Robert and prevent him from submitting a DNR related to Jonathan's edits. - Dorje108 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For the purpose of assessing consensus, let it be known that Dorje108 is Robert Walker's partner-in-crime, so to speak.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Support although I'd rather see a one-way interaction ban. To me the problem is that Robert Walker is following Joshua Johnson to pages that the latter has edited, and this disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed. While a topic ban would prevent RW from following JJ to pages related to this topic, it doesn't prevent RW from following JJ to other topics should JJ choose to edit them. However, a topic ban will prevent some such disruption and it's better than no remedy at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Support General: If I filed a report, making false claims that Joshua Jonathan has stolen my self-grown carrots, I would be running the risk of facing
WP:HUSH
is about harassment that takes place at user Talk Pages. Well, the substance is exactly the same but RW has just chosen a venue more public, the article Talk Pages.
I see so many aspects to this. WP:BOOMERANG would require a filed case, but since RW hasn't filed any even though he has kept saying for months that "soon he will", he dodges the boomerang. Does this make it okay to roam around article Talk Pages and voice out such claims? Certainly not. It seems we are somewhere in the middle of boomerang and personal attacks, and some administrative judgement is needed (even
WP:WIAPA comments on "What is considered to be a personal attack?" that "These examples are not exhaustive."). IMHO, a topic-ban could make the case. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk
) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Interaction ban
I found Robert Walker's entry into the
WP:FTN is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk
Support - Along with the topic ban proposed by Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Support - as well as the topic ban that I supported above. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Support as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. One-way interaction bans are fundamentally unfair. We should ban both of them if they've both been behaving badly, or if Robert's been the only one causing problems, we should block him. If JJ wants to antagonise RW, he can annoy him with impunity (like Foghorn Leghorn with the dog), and while if JJ acts in complete good faith, someone else could come in and cry "ban violation!" on a page where RW was still trying to obey the ban. See JJ's comment, too, "what if he starts to engage..." He's right. Too much room for wikilawyering and too much room for bad-faith participants to game the system. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as per Nyttend. To reiterate, one-way interaction bans are unfair. Either make the ban run both ways, or come up with a different solution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: why should I receive an interaction-ban, when Robert is following me around? I am already avoiding him. It might mean that the first one to edit on an article or talkpage "owns" the page. With due lack of humility from my side, it would be a loss for Buddhism and Hinduism-related pages if there is a possibility to stop me from editing on those pages in that way, because one editor objects to my edits. That would be basically unfair. So, if that option is to be ruled out, something else must be thought of. At least it should be clear to him that "dispute resolution" does not mean throwing around accusations at the pages where I am editing, and that he should actually post his DRN, instead of repeating he's going to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that you ought to be banned: I meant that he shouldn't be I-banned from you unless you deserved to be I-banned from him, and that he ought to be blocked outright if he's been causing problems and you're innocent. Not having investigated the situation carefully, I don't want to support any sanctions on him or to oppose the idea of sanctions in the first place; that's why I offered no opinion about your proposed topic ban. I just want to ensure that any sanctions be reasonable and workable, and a one-way interaction ban isn't either of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Since some respected administrators think that a one-way interaction ban is inherently unfair or unworkable, and since there is evidence that Robert Walker has been stalking the edits of User:Joshua Jonathan, I have to offer a second-choice greater remedy, and that is a site ban.
Support as third choice to iban and topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
!vote - Can someone do me a favor (since you voted) and summarize what happened? I believe stalking someone's edit history is perfectly fine. But an one-sided IBAN is not. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Stalking is fine when someone's edits are structurally problematic, not when you just don't like someone's edits. Here's my summary:
Summary
I cleaned up the
WP:QUOTEFARM
The editor in question, Dorje108, has been critisised for three years (tags: diffdiffdiffdiffdiff)(talkpages: diffdiffdiffdiff), without a change of habit, but defending them with
I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages. Nevertheless, Dorje has hardly, if not, responded there, just like he hasn't participated in the thread and the RfC which he has opened himself (Rewrite & Secondary sources);
Four concrete concerns have been raised by Robert:
He objected to my clean-up, which I did in response to concerns which have been raised for three years now:
He likes the details and the quotes, and wants them to be re-inserted; other editors don't, following Wiki-policy; those details have been condensed, and the quotes have been removed or put in notes;
He disagreed with the statement "Intentions lead to further consequences" (or something like that); that sentence has been changed;
He also objects to some of the new information that I added:
He objects to Anderson; I've explained that she's been published by solid publishers, builds on the work of Norman, Schmithausen, Gombrich and Bronkhorst, who are the best scholars available of Buddhism;
He objects to the statement that "karma" was a minor concept in early Buddhism; this statement is voiced by multiple scholars, including Schmithausen.
Of those four objections, only no.1 still stands. The detailed info is still available, but appropriately condensed; if he wants some more quotes included (preferably in the notes), he can point out which quotes, so we can discuss them;
I've offered to Robert to go through those edits again several times diffdiffdiffdiff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages diffdiff, and he doesn't want to edit those articles diffdiffdiffdiff; he only wants a rollback, so other editors can discuss my edits one-by-one before I make them.
NB: Robert McClennon has been following Robert W. for a longer time yet, and adviced him to pursue a DRN; VictoriaGrayson is an active editor at Buddhism pages; AmritasyaPutra and Kautilya3 are active at India-related pages. Dorje108, on the other hand, was informed by Robert W. diff. Dorje voted diff, and two minutes later responded to Robert W. at his talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the detailed summary. Well, next time, just do me a favour and call editors by their usernames, it gets more difficult otherwise. I would oppose a site ban and go with an IBAN. But then, we'll have to wait till an admin comes. --Ankit Maity«T § C» 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Support as second choice. My first choice'd be topic ban as I explained here[211]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply to topic ban
I want to keep this short as I have warned in the past about length of my post. Do I get a chance to reply? If you are interested in my POV on this proposal, please see reply to the topic ban. (Here I am using the third of my Work arounds for lengthy talk page posts which I developed in response to the previous ANI action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was posting this response but the topic was archived when I saved my edit; since this has been re-opened, I figure I'll post it now.
DRN is for content issues, not conduct issues, and it isn't necessary to look through an editor's contributions to file for dispute resolution.
Whether you went to a page because you found it by looking through his contributions or someone pointed you there, you went there because he was there and that's
WP:WIKIHOUNDING
, which isn't allowed.
To me it looks like
harassment and not allowed, and it's why I support the one-way interaction ban. If the iban isn't going to pass then I support a topic ban. Ca2james (talk
) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well - whether it is a user conduct issue is one thing that needs to be determined. Robert McClennon advised us to post it to the DRN first. This is explained in the DRN notice: See DRN Notice Draft. He did do BRDR instead of BRD and it seems to us that he breaches POV and many core wikipedia guidelines with his edits - on all five of those articles. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of wikipedia policies and did all this in good faith. And I don't understand what makes what I just did such a big deal. Of course if it is prohibited then I have to go by wikipedia policy! But if it is, I didn't know that at the time. Note, that I am no longer interacting with JJ or posting to talk pages on India, Buddhism, or Hindusim until the notice. Robert Walker (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Do please read my reply to the topic ban where I say that both things that were represented by JJ as edit stalking were in good faith. For the Anatta article, then I saw ScientificQuest's post to JJs talk page User JJ: Anatta and so went to the article where I saw that JJ had reverted 47 of SQs edits with just a cryptic comment[212]. And SQ is a newbie editor doing his first attempt at a major edit[213], on a topic he could consider himself to be expert on as he is doing a masters on it. And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand [214]. It was not in support of the DRN indeed makes things harder to rollback - it was just out of sympathy to support an editor I felt was being treated badly. For more, see Anatta talk page posts
And in the other debate - first note that when I posted the suggestion for a closure review, the response was overwhelmingly overturn and it was finally closed with Consensus - overturn. Also, I didn't join it in an article talk page, but in a forum where there was a reasonable expectation that a contribution from an editor not involved in the debate would be welcome. Of course since the objections to me taking part I have since left that discussion. For more on all this, see Migration hypothesis debate. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems wisest not to reply to JJ since he has proposed an interaction ban with me, and this is not the place to discuss the dispute itself. Robert Walker (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(Note, this discussion was auto archived by a bot. That was because of 36 hours of inactivity when nobody responded to my reply. It has just been restored from the archive)Robert Walker (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
SQ and I worked out that dispute pretty fine, and pretty fast diffdiffdiff, and I'm looking forward to his contributions. ScientificQuest thanked me for my "very constructive feedback" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Robert Walker, it is definitely a conduct thing. I actually agree with you on the Aryan Migration content and am opposed to Joshua Jonathan regarding the content.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was more than a month ago that I suggested to
WP:DRN. Since then he had repeatedly said that he is planning to go to DRN, but for whatever reasons, he doesn't do it; he only talks about doing it. Because one request was filed at about that time that was much too long, like his own talk page posts, he may have thought that requests for dispute resolution at DRN are supposed to be tediously long. That particular thread, by the way, was closed as failed. By this time, his statement that he is planning to go to DRN has become stale and implausible. I know that he doesn't like User:Joshua Jonathan or his edits. He asked me whether making extensive rewrites to a "mature" article was a conduct issue for which he could report Joshua Jonathan. I said that it wasn't, and that it was only a content dispute. Robert Walker: Either file a DRN request, or don't file one. Stop using it as an excuse to stalk Joshua Jonathan's edits. Robert McClenon (talk
) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Robert, first of all, JJ warned me long ago that any attempt to deal with this through actions was likely to boomerang on me. See Get over it and move on. As a result we have been extremely cautious and careful, to have the most accurate presentation we can. I have nothing at all perseonal against JJ, it is because of the content. As for whether it is a user conduct issue - we hope it is not, and our sincere hope is to be able to return to collaborative consensus based editing, as was the norm on these articles before about July 2014. But in the circumstances it did seem necessary to research it as a possible user conduct issue, and that's why I felt it necessary to search his edit history.
Then, these ANI actions have delayed the DRN draft by about a month. It was nearly ready at the beginning of January. But JJ first took me to ANI for my overlong talk page posts, most of which I posted in December and earlier. After that I was quite shaken, and even though it was resolved as "no conclusion" and I was given a second chance, I felt necessary to log out of wikipedia completely and forget about it for nearly a week. During that time I decided I want to go ahead with the action, to preserve core wikipedia values as I see it, even if I get topic banned or site banned as a result. So we started drafting it again - and he takes us back to ANI again in response to what seems like us to be minor issues, as I had no intention at all of edit stalking him and didn't look at his edit history (that was research I did long ago now). But I understand how the synchronicity - that I was given the link to the fringe noticebaord discussion off-wiki soon after the discussion on the Anatta talk page can seem like edit stalking, and if I'd thought of that it would probably have been wise not to interact.
Then this ANI action was auto archived and we were getting ready to submit it again - when it is restored from the archive and the proposal for a site ban added. We have just continued with drafting the notice through all this, but I have posted here a few times. If I am site banned or get a topic or interaction ban, of course the DRN notice can't go ahead. But in case that doesn't happen we will have it ready, as good and accurate as we can make it.
Note also that User:Dorje108 is an editor with less time for wikipedia than most of us. He has most time for wikipedia at weekends. As a result collaborative work between him and me on the DRN notice tends to happen at weekends - and during the week - slower pace of interaction. And as I want the DRN notice to be a collaboration - essentially I'm doing it for him because he hasn't got time to do it himself and because we both feel that there is an issue with these edits which needs to be addressed. But he is the editor of the articles most directly impacted of the two of us. I have never edited any article on Buddhism except for fixing one broken link, because in my view the articles were already excellent (before these edits) - and my concern there is as a reader. My own main interaction in the past, before this dispute, was just to suggest areas of wikipedia that might need attention of the editors of these articles. Robert Walker (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You say Dorje108 is "the editor of the articles directly impacted." Right, you 2 have extreme ownership issues.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, Robert. It brings us back to where we started: Dorje108, who's been ignoring the issues with
WP:SYNTHESIS
for three years. This comment pretty nice summarizes it:
I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the
WP:Quote
).
As a first step, I propose to remove the "Contemporary glosses" section ("Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section") and the quotes in note 2, 3, 11, 12, 24, 27 and 30 (but keep the refererences).
We're all grown-ups here, who can take responsibility for our own actions and edits, so let Dorje108 take care of his own affairs. The talkpages are still waiting for his replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions
Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur. There is nothing new to be said here. Please close the discussion so that Robert Walker can submit his DRN (which I am supporting) and we can deal with some of the underlying content issues. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
With "we", you mean you and Robert? About time. The rest has established concencus months ago already, and moved on with editing other articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed an Admin should assess these discussions, so the appropriate ban is instated.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Background information
For the sake of the admin who will need to evaluate this case, I would like to clarify the sequence of events leading up to these latest accusations:
I have been a wiki editor for several years, focusing on articles on key concepts in Buddhism, such as Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Nirvana (Buddhism), etc. Until these latest circumstances developed a few months ago, I had managed to avoid disputes with other editors.
This past fall, RobertInventor initiated a dialog on the Karma in Buddhism talk page, suggesting improvements to the main Karma page (concerning the presentation of karma in Buddhism on that page). I agreed with RobertInventors points and made some edits to the Karma page as a result of RobertInventors suggestions.
Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did a massive rewrite of a different but related article: Four Noble Truths. As is the custom with Joshua Jonathan, he did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
I strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I had developed the article over a couple of years based on extensive research and I felt his edits were unjustified.
Joshua Jonathan paid cursory attention to my objections but he essentially ignored my concerns and his edits remain intact.
Having little time to focus on the issue, and not wanting to get into an edit war with Joshua, I stepped back and disengaged.
Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did another massive rewrite to another article that I had carefully researched and developed: this time the article was Karma in Buddhism. Again, Joshua did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
This time, RobertInventor strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I also objected. (Another editor would later concur with our objections.)
Joshua Jonathan objected to our objections and Joshua's rewrites remain largely intact. (VictoriaGrayson supported Joshua's edits.)
At this time, I informed RobertInventor of Joshua Jonathan’s massive rewrite to the article on Four Noble Truths. RobertInventor also strongly objected to Joshua Jonathan's edits on that talk page.
RobertInventor sought advice from Robert McClennon on how to respond to Joshua Jonathan’s aggressive rewrites. Robert McClennon advised it was not a conduct issue, but a content issue. Robert McClennon advised a DRN notice.
After discussions with RobertWalker on my talk page, in which RobertWalker shared the advice from Robert McClennon and other research he had undertaken regarding Wikipedia guidelines, I initiated two threads on the Wikiproject Buddhism page:
RobertInventor, Joshua Jonathan, VictoriaGrayson, myself and other editors participated in long discussions on the WikiProject Buddhism page; side discussions continued on several of the affected talk pages (primarily between Joshua Jonatha, RobertInventor and VictoriaGrayson).
Around this time, Joshua Jonathan made large rewrites to another article that I had carefully researched and developed over a period of months: this time the article was Nirvana (Buddhism). Myself and RobertInventor objected to Jonathan’s edits on this page as well.
RobertInventor then began developing a DRN regarding Joshua’s edits as advised by Robert McClennon
RobertInventor took a break and then resumed work on the DRN; as part of this process RobertInventor investigated Joshua Jonathan's edits on related articles (such as Annatta) and posted brief comments on the talk pages of these articles. (Note that anatta is also a key concept in Buddhism and directly related to the other articles that have been under discussion.)
Jonathan submitted a second ANI accusing Robert of Wikihounding and Stalking
IMO Joshua Jonathan’s accusations are without merit. IMO Jonathan and (to a lesser extent) Victoria are basically trying to assert ownership over all of the Buddhist-related articles and assert their own POV. What RobertInventor and I are seeking through the DRN is to have experienced neutral editors review Joshua Jonathan’s edits to the articles mentioned above to determine if Joshua Jonathan’s edits are justified per Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (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.
Closure is easily attained: there is nothing here for an admin to do. I have looked at a number of diffs and find that none of them cross any kind of civility boundary. The discussion may well be interminable, and while there may be a few avenues to resolve that (RfC, dispute resolution, etc.), ANI is not one of them. If anything, this appears to be a content issue which needs to be handled by content editors, and a pointed RfC, or a series of them, may well be the only way forward--RfCs are typically set up for a limited time frame, and if discussions get out of hand an admin could step in and hat excessive content, judge insults, etc. Good luck to you all. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.
I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples: 8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question". 13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI). 5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.) 11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"
Finally, I asked for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his response. He has already been asked publicly and personally
to refer to
I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.
You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 0x0077BE(talk · contrib) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@0x0077BE: I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were asked, "If 0x0077BE and Burninthruthesky think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."
I don't think I made any such assertion (see my link to "evidence" above). Did you? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Time to make a decision and close this now
Another editor is attempting to restart the endless discussion, see diff. please can somebody at least give us some closure here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For reference, the conduct of that IP user was previously reported here. Still today, he continues to make groundless allegations that I'm both biased and wanting to impose my understanding of the topic on society.
WP:DENY
may be applicable in that case.
For this issue, shall we assume consensus for the suggested voluntary ban unless we hear otherwise? Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC); edited 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be discourteous if not invidious. Doug McLean has not been back since I posted this incident, effectively operating the voluntary ban himself for now. I think he deserves closure on our allegations as much as we do. The IP editor is a different problem and (as you may have noticed) I am still trying a less formal approach with them. It is not helpful to have both issues hanging over the same discussion at the same time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for misreading the intent of the diff being linked above. I was trying to highlight the fact there are unrelated conduct issues there. I have struck my paragraph which is, of course, irrelevant here.
I agree it would be better for all concerned to have closure on this. Burninthruthesky (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC); edited 08:24, 7 February 2015 (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.
Shown the door by the original.Amortias (T)(C) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (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.
Noted, could you add a Here/Not here line on your userpage so i know if your about or not for future reference :). Amortias (T)(C) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (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.
Unnecessarily aggressive and uncivil behaviour by
User:Degen Earthfast
Moved to WP:AN3, so it looks like nothing else will happen here. However, if this kind of editing continues further, please re-report, either here or at WP:AN3. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2015 (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 this from a seemingly seasoned editor and one who was only this morning granted pending changes reviewer privileges. I propose that Degen Earthiest is blocked on the grounds of disruptive editing/3RR violation in light of his revisions to the article in question against two different editors and in light of pushing unsourced claims into the article. I also think his last message to my talk page[222] makes his competence to hold pending charges reviewer permissions highly questionable. Bellerophontalk to me 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This might be better sent
here as the place for reporting edit warring. I'll take a look and move it if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C
) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
True, but the issues I raise go beyond just edit warring. Hence why I brought it to AN/I. Bellerophontalk to me 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it it does look more like a
WP:3RR. I wont close this without your agreement though. Amortias (T)(C
) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (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.
Lowercase sigmabot III
RESOLVED.
(Non-administrator comment) The malfunctioning or supposed malfunctioning has been explained. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:36, 8 February 2015 (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 notice that Lowercase sigmabot III archives some of the open discussions here when they have gone quiet for a few days, but not other open discussions which have gone equally quiet. Is this a malfunction to be reported, or some subtlety I have missed? Either way, it's darned annoying. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's how it functions. The date of the last reply in a thread is taken into consideration. Add to that the no. of days defined in the template and that's when it will be archived. One more consideration is the no. of bytes and no. of threads remaining. For example, archiving will occur only when pages exceeds a certain no. of bytes and a talk page will not archive if the no. of threads falls equal to the one defined in the template parameter. If you could point me to the page, I could make more deductions. If you are sure, you can contact Σ (talk·contribs) and if you're sure that it's malfunctioning, you can go to the shutoff page and change the text to "false" with a reason in the edit summary and talk page message to Σ. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Re "archiving will occur only when pages exceeds a certain no. of bytes" is mistaken, I think - the only byte size parameter I can see is maxarchivesize, which only determines the size an archive page must reach before it is closed and a new archive started. Whether a section in a talk page is archived depends only on the algo (age of section), minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive parameters, as far as I can see. Squinge (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
At 00:41, 4 February 2015, Lowercase sigmabot III archived the topic edited more recently at 22:47 but not the topic that had lain unedited since 10:42: [226]
If you look at the code for the Conduct of J Doug McLean at the time of the archiving there is a {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1423566256}} which prevents the thread from being archived until 10 Feb 2015 11:04:16 GMT which was removed when Drmies closed the thread. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I am happy for this to be closed or archived, whichever happens first ;-) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm closing this, it'll be archived sooner or later depending on when Sigma's bot runs. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
conduct-related digression
Endorse the person who collapsed. Please consider filing another thread at ANI if you are concerned. With thanks, QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
I followed the link above regarding Tom Ruen, because I couldn't find the correct page where the discussion is taking place anywhere else, and I assumed that since there were no closing remarks or actions finalizing anything that the discussion was still taking place [227], and there I added a comment/note describing my view, which is what I believe you do when trying to come to some consensus. So next I hear about this I'm getting a warning about being disruptive of the consensus process, which in the light of my goal seemed like ironic duplicity and bullying [228]; Not accusing here, just saying that's how it looks to me. I don't mean to complicate anything and I'm not trying to be disruptive, I like what Tom Ruen does for Wikipedia and I think these two are bullying him for territorial reasons. I have already given my thoughts on that, and now it appears to be happening to me, so I thought I should mention it, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place given it's the only active mention of Tom Ruen and the slanderous petty accusations against him that I can find. Thanks. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (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.
Jack E. Jett has been very uncivil towards me regarding my reversion of his addition of unsourced content. He also was accusing me of having some "prejudice" towards him. I tried to resolve the issue on my talk page but he raged. Sorry if this is a little late, as I have been quite busy with my work.
Is it possible to take action regarding his incivility towards me? All I did was revert unsourced opinion content and he starts being uncivil. TheCoffeeAddicttalk|contribs 07:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Edits like the above and this one make me wonder wether it's a case of
WP:NOTHERE. At the very least, there seems to be a massive misunderstanding about the purpose of Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk
) 10:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering that User:Jack E. Jett's first edit was to Jack E. Jett back in May 2013 to change a quote to the exact opposite of what the cited source actually says (and which has remained like that since then until I just reverted it), is there not a user name problem too? Without confirmation that this is actually Jack E. Jett, should this be considered impersonation? Squinge (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2015 (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.
Repeated censorship of politician Michael Portillo's page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ex MP and cabinet member Michael Portillo appeared on a BBC television programme and said that he has dual Spanish and British nationality and that his Spanish name is Miguel Portillo Blyth. I add this fact. User:Smerus keeps removing the information claiming variously that the reference isn't valid - it is per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, or inferring that Portillo was joking - for which he provides no evidence. Smerus mentions on his biography page that he was involved in politics in the same political party and town as Portillo. Consequently I believe that Portillo's article is being censored. It's all been discussed on the talk page - Talk:Michael_Portillo#Spanish_name.3F. Thanks, -- John (Daytona2·Talk·Contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Correction is not censorship; the discussion on the talkpage does indeed speak for itself, and the opinions of other editors there will I am sure be taken account of by administrators. They may also note that I made a polite suggestion to
AGF with editors whose opinions differ from his. I haven't a clue what he is seeking to imply by posting bits of my biography here. It is the case that nearly 20 years ago, Portillo was my MP; and it is also true that we were then (but are no longer) members of the same political party. I do not see why this should prevent me interesting myself in his article on Wikipedia, any more than my interest in classical music has been held against me in writing on Richard Wagner
and others.
As Daytona2 has been going on about this since last September, I hope that the opinion of administrators can bring closure to his aggrievement.--Smerus (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (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.
Strange RfC, should be archived.
RESOLVED
The RfC has been closed. Let's move on. MastCellTalk 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An RfC at
WT:BLP was started [233] by an editor who has now voted to "oppose" his own proposal: [234]. Surely this means the proposer has rescinded his own proposal -- and so I tried to archive the RfC [235], something the proposer then reverted [236]. Can someone please have a look -- I really think the RfC should be archived now, to save editors' time and avoid confusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk
) 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I have closed the RFC. Nobody agreed with the proposed changes to the policy, or even with the necessity of changes to the policy. If someone thinks policy should be changed, they (and not someone else) should propose the changes they think necessary. Huon (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Um -- the RfC was started due to an editor proposing that indirect self-identification of a living person as Jewish was sufficient. I noted that the only way to do required a change - and I was willing to back whichever side had the strongest arguments. It was not a sham RfC by any means, as one notes by the prior discussions about ethnicity on that same talk page. I am uncertain why this aroused such strong animus from Nomoskedasticity, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The RfC looked like
pointiness. We can accomplish a lot more for the project by collaborating, cooperating, and each doing some of the content footwork ourselves. There's no need to make everything about blind adherence to rules.- MrX
16:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
As you were one of the ones specifically proposing that indirect identification was sufficient, I find your point here amusing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing indirect about his self-identification across multiple RS, so Collect is putting words in the mouths of the three of us that were in consensus on blpcat. Collect launched the RfC to assert that he was attempting to defend against "indirect identification", but that was not the issue, because we were not asserting "indirect identification", at least I wasn't. Collect seemed to be demanding something akin to what in the analytic philosophy of language is called a "
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.
Hi,
Can we reblock User:Sirtaki36 for potential legal threat/chilling effect as per [237]. Amortias (T)(C) 11:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that he meant it the way you're implying it to be. He said that if objectionable material is there on BLPs, legal action could be taken against Wikipedia. However, he hasn't written anywhere that he'll be the one to file a lawsuit. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough not sure if the personal attacks are actionable in that case but ive left them a warning about them. Amortias (T)(C) 11:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's best to advise him to do an RfC. Let's give him the benefit of doubt and think that he accidentally edited from his IP. If his purpose was to malign Wikipedia however, bad move. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:37, 8 February 2015 (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.
Earlier tonight, I was blocked by HJ Mitchell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). He also added me to the ArbCom sanctions log. Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to Emma Sulkowicz - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to The Daily Beast to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.[238]
I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by
WP:CRYBLP
- the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.
I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. Kellyhi! 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If the name of "the accused" is widely reported, there can't be a BLP issue. And quoting him and his family should be considered, in order to give some balance to the story. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the
BLP discretionary sanctions, so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? Kellyhi! 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
talk
) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is here (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A BLP violation on The Federalist (website)? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? Kellyhi! 01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Good block. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on multiple articles under arbcom sanctions, including Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson.[239][240] He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Evidence please. Kellyhi! 01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Good block The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.
As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? Kellyhi! 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. GoldenRing (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad block Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"
HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? 70.189.56.157 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The above is the IPs third edit ever. BMK (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of us have been editing from IPs for the better part of a decade. Personally, I keep ANI bookmarked for the delicious drama. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:
1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?
2. What part of
WP:BLP policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- MrX
Google "Searches related to Emma Sulkowicz"... slate... NE Ent 02:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Good block. Personally, I'd have warned Kelly first, but Kelly's subsequent behaviour has demonstrated a warning would have likely been ineffective. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kelly appears to have violated the conditions of her unblock by re-adding name[241] shortly after agreeing to not do so as a condition of her unblock request. [242]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The information was reported by the
New York Times.[243] Is there a better source? Kellyhi!
02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.
Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Wikipedia increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. Sarah (SV)(talk) 03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father)[244]Kellyhi! 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. Kellyhi! 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - MrX 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name, that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned; note that this can be done under
discretionary sanctions. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Check the edits. There was no view "pushed". It merely replaced "the accused" with "Paul Nungesser". That's it. Kellyhi! 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This case (like many involving similar allegations) is an absolute minefield. Anyone curious to know more should read the abovementioned NYT article. Maybe one person is guilty, maybe another person is innocent, maybe it's a complicated mixture. Columbia University and/or the judicial system will be hard-pressed to determine Truth here; Wikipedia (let alone AN/I) certainly won't, and must do its best to follow RS and BLP policy in deciding what and how to report. Whether or not to mention the guy's name, whether that helps or hurts his case, whether it is what he would or wouldn't want -- none of these questions is trivial, they're all difficult, and not at all to be decided in a moment by one user. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You say "We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name," but we must discuss this enough to say if the BLP is "legitimate" or not right? Or in other words was the BLP objection in "good-faith"? If it was, then there is a problem with restoring it, if not then it wasn't. In this case however
WP:BLPCRIME seems to put enough of a reason to consider not including his name (even if he came out publicly). The only reason to include his name as he has not yet been convicted would be if he wanted his name out there. I don't quite see that being the case here (and needless to say that was not demonstrated prior to the revert which it should have been if that was the reason). So the block seems good to me. So the only question then is what is the remedy? A block is not to be used to punish and I think using a block at this point would be inappropriate. So what is the remedy that you are seeking? A topic ban? From what exactly? --Obsidi (talk
) 19:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the "legitimate" BLP concern was bogus, maybe the one who claimed there was a concern is the one who should be blocked. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? GoldenRing (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources covering her story over a pretty decent amount of time or, in other words, "per GNG". You can play coy all you like, Bugs, but it doesn't help anyone, least of all Kelly. And restoring information when legitimate (meaning "not crazy") BLP objections are brought up is always going to lead to a predictable outcome. Next, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Stale discussion, nothing new for 9 days. Editor seeking new avenues of resolution. --OrduinDiscuss 19:49, 8 February 2015 (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.
Qara xan [245] keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;
Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.
And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Amortias. That user HistoryofIran is a liar. Just take a look on Talk:Malik-Shah I. --Qara khan 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:
if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning) — User:HistoryofIran
Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly). — User:HistoryofIran
Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English. — User:HistoryofIran
I don't know the Wikipedia rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh. — User:HistoryofIran
didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Wikipedia, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say. — User:HistoryofIran
I've bolded all the statements I consider offensive, and this is only from one of your discussions.... --OrduinDiscuss 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Wikipedia rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example [246]). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but will this issue be taking up? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone? i thought this was where you could fix such issues? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
NStale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute.--OrduinDiscuss 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it, what should I do then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2015 (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.
"which is responsible for millions of non-Palestinian refugees worldwide, has an active program for local integration ... evolved into an agency that perpetuates the refugee problem as a source of conflict rather than contributing to its resolution. Adding that the
I've blocked the IP for a week, as they persisted in adding the copyright material after having been warned. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, it's me, i think that is really not OK to block my ID without letting me to respond!...
Did you read all of my post?
I have didn't plagiarize other content of other articles. I have wanted to add this contact to the article "Human rights in Israel" (In my own words - it does not appear in any where also - and all of the content is on my ID computer number), but it have been undid because it does not directly related to the value.
So I wanted to move the contents to other article instead; that is more consistent with the contents Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations.
Could you pls undo the blocking?...
See the "Human rights in Israel: Revision history" page:
20:35, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175
19:25, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175
18:57, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoniA20 (talk • contribs)
Done, by another admin while I was at the gym. I have not protected the articles involved, under the assumption that he doesn't have access to further IPs. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk)
Editor masking their vandalism, fixed
RESOLVED
Just a misbehaving browser extension. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2015 (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.
K_scheik (talk·contribs) has been sneaking vandalism into articles through deceptive edit summarties. Check these edits: [247] and here [248]. Eik Corell (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is also this warning's comment.... And, there is this, and this, warnings delivered through wikilove? Though, I must admit that only some of the edits are disruptive, but I only sampled the surface.Suggest review of this user's edits--OrduinDiscuss 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize wholly, and sincerely. A friend of mine had installed the Word Replacer Chrome extension on my laptop and had changed the word "Video" or "video" to "Jaguar" or "jaguar", respectively. This led to a fair amount of confusion, and me attempting to erase some vandalism that wasn't actually vandalism. when you "edit source" on a Wikipedia article, it seems to disregard the WR extension, leading to even more confusion for me. Moreover, upon looking at this closer, it appears to somehow edit all forms of the word video and change it to Jaguar in the entire article. I used Wiki love as a means of warning users who had made an innocent mistake and didn't need reprimand, they just needed someone to tell them not to do it again. I personally love Wikipedia and can spend hours poring over a well-written article. I try to keep edits summaries light and humorous while still to the point. Usually, I will put a summary on every edit that is not adjacent to an edit I just made. I hope that these mistakes are forgivable. Thank you Eik for bringing this to my attention. I was about to sit down and pump out 20 or so edits -- who knows what a disaster that would have been. k_scheik (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, glad that got figured out! That is a great idea with wikilove, just looks unorthodox. I've seen other accidental problems caused by work replacer before.... --OrduinDiscuss 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm so glad that you understand, I thought this was going to be a drawn-out debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K scheik (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The
Bruce Jenner article has since been fixed. —BarrelProof (talk
) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (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.
Repeated personal attacks despite numerous warnings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dr. Feldinger has taken to repeatedly attacking other users and to make irrelevant assumptions about their backgrounds. Despite having been warned by different admins no less than three times just in the last 48 hours [249], [250], [251] for his repeated personal attacks, the user seems to almost make a point of continuing [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257].Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz (or MShabaz) is an Arab. His name is in Arabic and he has edited many Arab-related pages. It's a very obvious assumption along with his desire for anti-Israeli edits. Same goes for you Jeppiz, you do know we can see your contributions to Palestinian pages? Your POV complain is just sad. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
An edit summary of "Helping my fellow Israeli countryman to add some new pictures in this article. Arabs and Anti-Israeli article editors tend to revert his work for obvious reasons." is unacceptable. --NeilNtalk to me 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz's username is derived from one of the names used by Malcolm X. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if it made him cry. I didn't realize it's so offensive to be named an Arab. Maybe he is a racist? That's the unaccepted matter about this. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You do not add words to my or anyone else's posts, as you just added "A Muslim according to Wikipedia" to mine (now removed). My point is that it's not his real name. I'm sorry you weren't sharp enought to get that point (I hope that remark doesn't make you cry). Paul B (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Dr. Feldinger's comments here make the case even better than the diffs I provided. (Not that it matters one bit, but I doubt even 2% of my Wikipedia edits are related to Israel or Palestine, despite Dr. Feldinger's assumptions about me). The user is clearly
Do you want me to ask for IP confimiation about the 3 users of you which you use against Wikipedia's rules? Jeppiz, Malik Shabazz, and MShabazz? Let's check those IP's and have some confirmation regarding your 3 shared work for the same articles. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Confirmation of editor interaction as requested [258]. Amortias (T)(C) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Which to be frank doesnt look like theres a huge amount of interaction between the three of them. Amortias (T)(C) 21:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind being called an Arab by a racist like you, Dr. Feldinger, but calling me a scumbag was too much.[259] It's clear that you're incapable of collaborating with people with whom you disagree, and that's unfortunate because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This does seem like it might be one of the quicker requests to be dealt with here. I'm not sure the current edits are worth the hassel but might be worth going off to check if anything needs rev-del. Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment As if all the personal attacks and the bad faith weren't enough, the user is now changing other users' comments here at ANI [260].Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
They also appear to be unwilling to stop spreaidng their POV as they are continuing even now this thread is open as per [261]. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment It's not important, but if Dr. Feldinger had bothered to look at Malik's user page, he would see that the user is in fact Jewish. Now whilst being Arab is never a bad thing, the way that Feldinger is using it as an insult is wholly offensive to Arabs and Jews (speaking for myself, don't want to speak for others). I could understand if we had a heated discussion over the pic of Bar Rafaeli and said that x, y, and z thing that wasn't an NPA, but on the Talk:Israel page, we're seeing no assumption of good faith, lots of personal attacks and outright racism. That page has enough issues without this kind of thing going on. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Block Feldinger - He's now been warned about discretionary sacntions, but it doesn't take a DS violation to block for making
It seems that his actions can only get worse. By the way, he is making false accusations against me and other things on the Israeli Jew talk page, see here: [262]. AcidSnow (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Block Feldinger: we've seen enough of his antics. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems that he came back quite fast with an IP. See here: [263]. AcidSnow (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (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 user did a cut and past move some time ago of
Carlo, Cokxxx, Nutten 2. Now they have moved it, again as a cut n paste move, to Carlo Cokxxx Nutten 2. If someone with a flair for history merges could please take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk
) 05:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this. Please no-one move any of the pages until I've finished. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 08:21, 9 February 2015 (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.
In ictu oculi's disruptive editing (again)
Like he has beein doing it for 2 or 3 years now, In ictu oculi (talk·contribs) (IIO) is, once again, disruptive editing. This time the report is because of 2 reasons listeb below:
1) Moving pages and leaving redirects to the moved page and not redirect them to another place.
Le Garçon
.
All these pages were moved from 1 February to 9 February. The reason why they were moved is due to they are ambiguous titles. The problem is all these titles currently redirect to the former article titles, like
Fake Friends (PTAF EP)
. Articles like
WP:COMMONAME
).
2) Persistent lack of usage of
WP:MOS
in disambiguation pages (and articles in general).
Books, films, album, plays, videogame, or tv series (for example) have their titles written in italics, meanwhile songs and tv episodes have their names between quotation marks. The problem is that IIO rarely includes includes italics, or quotation marks, but also he excludes punctuation in general. For example:
Australian Idol (season 4)
"; I don't know why it says "(own composition)" and "Australian Idol (season 4)" is included.
Dirty Business (Sara Jorge song)
redirects to R3MIX" (I don't understand why any reader must be informed that a title is redirected somewhere else); "Dirty Business" (Dalton) Live at Myrtle Beach" (laks of context [Who is Dalton], what is "Live at Myrtle Beach", etc.).
Amanecer. Created in January: "Awaking from a Dream (redirect from Amanecer de un sueño) 2008 Spanish drama film" or "Amanecer, song by es:Pic-Nic 1968", and in general, almost not a single comma is used throughout.
This is an analysis of three disambiguation pages, but the same repeats over and over again throughout his dab creations (by years now), the dab entries lack of a context that any person other than him can't simply understand (see New Love's song list). For other dab pages see:
IIO will argue that this thread is solely to disrupt, but for real, anyone can verify that most of his moves ([273]) go to articles and not dab pages; or that pages he creates ([274]) have the minimal usage of
Comment - this editor has been following me for some time making threats of something, presumably this. In that period there have been various personal attacks which I have not kept a record of, but the more extreme ones have asked for it not to happen on this user's Talk page so they will be there if anyone wants to work through them. As for the above, yes that's a small selection of the work of "2 or 3 years now" on disambiguation pages. As for edits in the last week, it's good to let edits sit for a few days in case there are talk page objections and allow for
WP:BRD, this has been explained to this editor before. In ictu oculi (talk
) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You say "a few days". This lasted two months, and if I start to search in your log archive I will find pages moved a year ago that still redirecting to the previous title. This is not a "BRD" situation, it's something that simply can't be explained by other person than yourself.
On your second point, non-adherence to WP:MOS is irrelevant: the MOS frequently needs to be ignored, and following it is frequently a bad idea. The problem is that non-use or misuse of italics and quotation marks is simply poor use of English, like poor spelling. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
On your first point, where's the evidence?
The New Girl in Town was moved without explanation. Aside from Go Crazy, IIO, you really need to provide understandable move rationales, but I don't see evidence for the initial assertion. Moreover, why is administrative intervention needed in this situation? It doesn't seem like an incident that needs an administrator. Nyttend (talk
) 13:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
For several years of similar disruptive behaivor, IIO needs to be blocked from editing (or at least his
Comment: I have had one run-in with IIO, in March 2014. He had moved, without discussion, the
MOS:DAB, and fixed it. He told me he was in the middle of things, but he also explained that one of the dab entries really ought to go against the rules, his argument made sense, so I went ahead and self-reverted that change. All-in-all, our exchanges were entirely satisfactory and civil and made in the spirit of what's right for WP, so I'm dubious about the above long-term behavioral accusations. I have not looked at any of the listed complaints, but it's entirely plausible to me that the OP is not trying hard enough. Choor monster (talk
Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (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.
Previously blocked for some combination of
WP:V failure, in addition to the other behavioral problems. I would discuss it with him, but (as part of his pattern of rejecting others' comments out-of-hand) he has prohibited me from writing on his talkpage (likewise, I will leave it to others to notify him of this ANI). DMacks (talk
) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks: If I can't google it, why bother with the citation? Do you think most of our readers are Chemists? Seriously you must be joking. Sad thing is I know you're not, you used some gibberish parlance to screw with me rather than fulfill YOUR burden of proof in a sensible manner. Your post and it's content are joke #1,324 at least since I've been counting. But yeah WP is SERIOUS BUSINESSSSSSS. Lazord00d (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is met by a standard academic citation. But googling that "doi" string actually did just lead me to the journal article too (so it's not some special inaccessible thing I wrote), so maybe you should spend some time practicing google and with a chemistry textbook before you complain that a ref-cite based on chemistry is not correct or that it's wrong because it uses words you don't know (again, they are words that are the same details that others have complained about in your images). DMacks (talk
) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Why treat a public encyclopedia as if it's a chemistry textbook? (deja vu) The two are not equal, and neither are their audiences. It is counterproductive to use citation that laypeople will not understand. Lazord00d (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Due to the recurring pattern of behavior (repeated edit warring against consensus) that was not affected by his prior block for doing so, I suggest that there be some type of editing restriction placed on lazord00d (Wikipedia:Editing restrictions), such as being only permitted to introduce chemical structure images into Wikipedia pages if there is explicit consensus to do so on the article's talk page. ChemNerd (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh? Another Lazord00d hater committee? You do realize that here in the 21st century you can measure your success in life by the number of haters you have right? So this is awesome actually!!! When your data is proven right and everyone's wittle feelings are hurt this all starts to remind me of my kids daycare lol. I had hoped for more from alleged "chemistry experts" but alas that's what I get for hoping for anything. No hopes, no exquisitely entertaining disappointments hahahahah...
Nobody hates you. It's silly to pretend that's what this is about. ChemNerd (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm no not silly. This is totes personal because I called you ALL out when you began removing my content without citation to back your changes OR the content you provided.. You feel that you (and WP) are above the need to prove yourselves. This started personal over some butthurt 'cause I changed an image, and remains personal right here and right now. There are more of you than me so ultimately you'll get your way regardless of fact.. but don't think for one nanosecond that I won't make you work for every point you try to make each and every moment until then. Or you can ban me now like a pansy without leg to stand on.
Your choice. Lazord00d (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Lengthy banning discussion
Editing Restriction
Some sort of editing restriction is needed, but I disagree with ChemNerd. Providing a consensus exception would allow him to claim consensus when there was none. If there really is consensus, someone else can add the image. I propose: “
WP:NOTHERE, shows patience on the part of the community for an editor who should still be encouraged to contribute to articles on chemistry. (If another editor thinks that he should be indeffed, he has made his own case for that.) Robert McClenon (talk
Comment what about attacks on other editors? —George8211 / T 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Comment - Attacks on other editors are already violations of
the policy against personal attacks. He can already be blocked for them. I see no need for any special rule about them. Robert McClenon (talk
) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment what about uncited changes and the mass deletion of ALL of my contributed content regardless of it's relevance to Chemistry at all? What about uncited and unfounded attacks on me and my content from other editors? Lazord00d (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not support This is all because of a negative attitude I have maintained due to constant unfounded reverts and deletions of donated content solely because I made some folks mad and "they run this show".. lol Lazord00d (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunatley the evidence presented was that the block didnt have he desired effect (as in none at all). Alhough I'd normally be happy for someone to edit with restriction rather than not at all (with the exception of vandals) this loos like a clear cut case of nothere exepcially with his statement about making us work for every point appears to be nothing more than an I'm going to be disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And I've just commented out what I consider another NPA in his comment below.Amortias (T)(C) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
^Your assumption is incorrect unsurprisingly (<=apparently my lack of surprise is insulting.. aww kleenex anyone?) By "make you work" I mean I will call for citations and backing for your positions. Nothing more. If demanding that you prove both your data AND ESPECIALLY your case against me makes me NOTHERE (or whatever) then that is ALL good with me. Couldn't be better actually. Lazord00d (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support as a bare minimum, but just seeing his comments on this board (where one would expect someone to be on his best behavior) I doubt that it is anywhere near enough. Working with such an attitude in article space is more than volunteers should have to deal with. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Third choice as a bare minimum. My second choice (after a site ban) would be suggesting that he shouldn't edit articles period, but can suggest sources on article talk pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Site Ban
Since at least one editor has opposed the editing restriction as ineffective, do they want a site-ban for general disruption and a hostile attitude?
Support as a better option. Who needs the drama? ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support
NPA's, generally disruptive and no apperance that they are going to be constructive in their editing. Amortias (T)(C
) 20:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support - underlying issue is behavioral and has nothing to do with chemistry. In my opinion, a topic ban would just be kicking the can down the road. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support This user isn't here to help build an encyclopaedia and these personal attacks are getting out of hand. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support If I say "put up or shut up" do any of you know what I'm trying to say? :-) I hesitate to use anything but the most basic and clear speech given my experience with the lollipop guild here.. Lazord00d (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support as this user is clearly not interested in collaborating with others, and has no regard for
WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia does not need kind of toxicity in it's community. Weegeerunner (talk
) 20:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support User page (and voting for his site ban) indicates
talk
) 20:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support A better term would be WP:USEDTOBEHEREUNTILIDIOTSPREVAILED. Damn idiots.. they're why we can't have anything nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Prime example of the uncivilty and personal attacks this user has been up to recently. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed! It's like I said to someone awhile back: Ridicule is appropriate for ridiculous situations like this. And so it shall be ridiculed for all time if I have anything to say about it.Lazord00d (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, if their prior record was somehow better (no where to go but up, I guess), then we have to wonder if their account was compromised. Otherwise, I'm wondering why there wasn't a troll block long before now. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Given that he believes we don't need citations for
a troll who should have been indeffed with talk page access revoked a long time ago. Ian.thomson (talk
) 20:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support No it's you all who have not responded to my REPEATED requests for citation to back YOUR changes. I've included citation on every single one of my contributions. That would be quite the opposite of what you just said. Now pay attention Ian.. don't fall asleep during lecture period. Lazord00d (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting discussion: user blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2015 (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.
Possibly offensive comments at talk pages
There is some edit-warring at Talk:Israel over a comment that some editors consider offensive while some other consider correct and appropriate. Previously there was similar warring over another comment.
Is there a criteria for determining whether an editor's comment is offensive enough to justify the reversion or when editors that do not like the comment (and even consider it uncivil or a personal attack) have nonetheless to restrain from touching it ? “WarKosign” 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In this case it's a moot question. The comment is by a highly disruptive and racist user (see discussion just above this one) who is blocked. The block is for the person, not the account, and so every edit any of the socks make will be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
(
clearly demonstrates such views is beyond the pale and should be rev-deleted. That said, I'm one of the people involved, so I might be biased. I'm also a regular user and not too familiar with what qualifies as rev-deletable material. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!
20 Shevat 5775 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My question is not specifically about these two edits, it's about the principle. I was under the impression that the offensive post has to be quite extreme to warrant suppression. There are other messages still on the talk page that I find nearly as offensive. Would I be within my rights to remove them ?“WarKosign” 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
But the answer really cannot be given without taking into account the status of the person who made the remarks. The best answer is, really, sure, you can remove what you think needs to be removed (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), but get ready for people to revert you. Also, we're not talking about "suppression" here (as in Wikipedia:Oversight), but simple deletion, where the comments are still in the history. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This not-so constructive user
Blocked via timetravel 12 hours ago. Amortias (T)(C) 22:44, 9 February 2015 (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.
Who is using the IP 88.106.241.208, and just reverted my counter-vandal edit to the Terraria page, sort of making it counter-counter-vandalizing.
Now I know that I did stuff like this in the past, but I wouldn't undo edits which undid my pranks, which he did. (Also, what he did comes from a long-lasting war between hardcore Minecraft players and hardcore Terraria players, who both pretty much compare a game that you can't.)
I could also just spark an edit war but I guess it would be a better idea to just end it before it starts here. So, hereby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latias1290 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Oh, never mind, I see he's blicked already, lol. Latias1290 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (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.
Username hard block
RESOLVED
(Non-administrator comment)IP blocked for trolling --NE2 01:06, 10 February 2015 (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.
Currently, that username is a blatant violation of our username policy. First, it begins with the prefix "Te-", which is good, but the suffix "-dickey", is not. I suggest that this account be blocked indefinitely.
Is it just me, or is it curious that this user has edited with no complaints about his username for over eight years, and this complaint is the IP's first edit? I think there's more than meets the eye here. Recommend no action against Tedickey. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion reopened. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend reopening. Dicks are fine, but we don't need any teabaggers here. --NE2 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Could as well be someone trying to pick on him. This user is perfectly fine and no one has raised a voice for 8 years. In India, there are names which end with "shit" and here is just someone who chose to have an username ending with "dickey". I recommend keeping this closed. I don't know how on earth could an admin like
BOLD right to take in community input. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C
13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing at all wrong with the username, and I'm usually more sensistive to username problems than the admins who parol UAA.BMK (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest a quick review of his contributions, and if there is nothing immediately visible, leave it be. --OrduinDiscuss 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason for concern based on looking at a few of the user's contributions, and the name is not inherently problematic because "Dickey" is indeed used as a surname. --Metropolitan90(talk) 19:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Re-Close Nothing of concern here. --OrduinDiscuss 19:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Squeezing this in here to note that the OP has been blocked for trolling. BMK (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2015 (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.
Resolved
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Stale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute. -- Orduin Discuss 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
![[112]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tino_rangatiratanga_flag_on_Harbour_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}