→Fullmetal2887 violating WP:NPOV: indeffed |
|||
Line 1,059: | Line 1,059: | ||
In view of Fullmetal2887's established pattern of violating WP:NPOV, I request that he be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. [[User:NedFausa|NedFausa]] ([[User talk:NedFausa|talk]]) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
In view of Fullmetal2887's established pattern of violating WP:NPOV, I request that he be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. [[User:NedFausa|NedFausa]] ([[User talk:NedFausa|talk]]) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE pertaining to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate&diff=next&oldid=938522058 this edit]. If they wish to ameliorate that block with a milder restriction (such as a topic ban), they are welcome to draft an unblock request. But, indeed, having that edit for an hour on the mainspace is too damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. I, for one, am unwilling to take the risk of it happening again without some ''especially'' strong assurances. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:36, 1 February 2020
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templates
- 95.145.158.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 95.144.128.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See especially [1][2][3][4]. Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary [5] and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. [6] They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, [7] misusing talk pages, [8] adding poorly written synthesis to an article, [9] and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour at 2020 Irish general election
This case pertains to users Bastun and Wikimucker.
To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Wikipedia (diff1 diff2). This was twice reverted by Bastun (diff3 diff4), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (diff5). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (diff6). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue (diff7 diff8) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to "Seek consensus before removing this". Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page (diff10 diff11). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).
However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus (diff12 diff13) while threatening anyone who opposes them (diff14 diff15). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus, in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (diff19), allegedly on the basis that "we're supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR"; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR (revert1 revert2 revert3 revert4) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them (diff21 diff22).
Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT (diff23 diff24). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met (in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable) and no discussion is required (considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article). Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days (diff25 diff26), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as they were asked to open an AfD if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.
Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: firstly, with unfair accusations of text-walling (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking (diff29 diff30 diff31), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (diff32). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop (diff33 diff34 diff35 diff36).
I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just adding my opinion; what should have been a simple and short discussion about whether the opinion poll table should be moved to a separate article (as is done for virtually all elections) has turned rather nasty, largely due to the unreasonable attitude of the two editors Impru20 highlights. At the point the discussion reached a reasonably clear consensus (5 in favour, 2 against), Bastun made the claim that proceeding with the change would be WP:TE. I'm not sure if any action is required beyond a reminder about conduct, but it would certainly help to have some more eyes on the article to prevent further reverts. Number 57 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bastun has reverted it again and is suggesting the content to be split into a page under a different title than the one already existing (something which could be accomplished through a mere move; they are obviously not moving it because they don't care about the title, all they want is to delay the enforcement of consensus until their preferred date). We can officially add WP:POINT and WP:GAME to the list of ongoing policy breaches. Impru20talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).
- This is possibly related to Impru's last time spent on the page, some 3 years ago, where they had to be warned to stay off Wikimucker's talk page (and refused to do so) and I was subject to battleground behaviour and walls of text, akin to what is happening now (where they have added some 19k to the talk page in less than 24 hours, but no substantive content in approximately 3 years). The bottom line is the page was split, without preserving or noting the page history, just over 2 weeks out from the election to which the polls refer. The current placement interferes not at all with the page - the section is at the bottom of the article so if someone doesn't want to see the poll information, they can just stop reading. I asked that if the page was going to be split that a proper discussion take place and process be followed. Apparently less than 24 hours discussion and only 7 people participating, with no notice on any related articles or projects, is enough to satisfy Impru's railroading. Frankly, I'm at work, and don't have time to respond to the above wall, so this will have to do. FWIW, I've added the appropriate split template to the article now and will notify involved users and appropriate pages/projects in a few hours. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.
- Nonetheless, I remind you of WP:UNCIVIL:
to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated
. Even if we were to take your version of facts of three years ago as true (it isn't, but I sincerely don't have the time to re-live what you and Wikimucker did to me nor is it in any way related to this), you have no right to keep repeteadly bringing it up in an entirely unrelated discussion years later just because you can't bother to read others' comments and reply with constructive arguments. - P.S. Just because of being a prolific editor in an article does not make you exempt of 3RR. You chose to warn only the user who disagreed with you, and not the other (and more obvious) violation. Ask yourself why. Impru20talk 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Funny that. This complaint starts with a wall of text.
- A perusal of the archives around the Admin parts here shows that Impru is a regular user of Administrator appeals.
- If I were myself a perennial in this part of the wiki it would be because I was clearly unable to reach a civil accommodation with my fellow editors and to respect their work and our occasional differences, which differences are clear on the self same talk page that is the subject of the complaint(albeit further down). It is incumbent upon us, as editors, to manage these differences without battering each other with a soup of policies and obtuse e walls of text. WP:WeAllHaveBetterThingsToDo comes to mind. I would find that embarrassing to be honest.
- But I am not such a perennial, am I??? Craven apologies in advance to any poor Admin who has read this far down. Wikimucker (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly: abusing of WP:TL;DR to try to dismiss legitimate evidence and valid rationales is disruptive by itself.
- No, it's not true that I am a "regular user of Administrator appeals". The only recent time I have come to ANI has been a couple days ago because I was directly insulted and intimidated at my talk page (it obviously led to a quick block). Within the whole of 2019 I have only come to ANI twice: one in February 2019 and another one in July 2019. Both were obvious and extreme cases of disruption which were summarily blocked. The only other time I got mentioned in ANI throughout 2019 (thus, one of the results you'll get from the archives) was in June, to put me as a positive example:
A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [80]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook.
- Nonetheless, Wikimucker, it happens that my name shows up at the ANI archives 22 times. Bastun's name, ironically, shows up 69 times ([10]). It would be nice as well to determine how many of these are because of Bastun/myself coming here on our own volition and how many of these are because of us being reported, but it's nonetheless ironic that you dub me a "perennial user" of ANI just because of the sheer historic number of results in the ANI archive, yet you ignore Bastun's own count, which triples mine. Not that I really care, but your own distorted argument would actually damage your cause, not help it. Impru20talk 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You really don't want to make all this any easier for the admins to follow Impru20, do you??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do make it easier by providing evidence. Another one would be this one: Wikimucker removing the 3RR warning on their talk page dubbing it as "Impru20 shite". So, it's cool for Aréat to be warned of 3RR in order for them to be intimidated from conducting any further edit on the article, yet when it is you the violator such a warning becomes "shit"? Interesting. Impru20talk 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You were told 3 years ago to stay off my talk page permanently, that order is a unique one on my talk page and will likely always be. Don't expect any thanks for breaching that order. Wikimucker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I won't be wasting my time on grudges any of you have because of a discussion that took place three-years-ago; your "wish" for me not to comment in your talk page is not a justification to ignore a WP:3RR warning on a clear breach of such rule and dub it as "shit". You have also removed the ANI notice from your talk when I am required to post it under Wikipedia rules no matter your own preferences, but somehow you think you are above all of it. Nonetheless, and as I told you, I warned you out of pure courtesy despite your straight violation of 3RR. Probably next time you should get a full report at WP:AN3 and get a straight block so that you stop short on your impertinence. Impru20talk 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- If it has your name on it you know it you know it will go Impru20. Nothing changed in 3 years. Wikimucker (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The main issue at hand is what you are doing at Talk:2020 Irish general election, not whatever grudge you may have from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. If you are not going to read or address the commented out evidence, I'd politely ask you to stop posting placeholder comments, so as to give admins a breath. Thank you. Impru20talk 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please. That is quite enough Impru20, thank you in advance for stopping now. 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)
- The main issue at hand is what you are doing at Talk:2020 Irish general election, not whatever grudge you may have from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. If you are not going to read or address the commented out evidence, I'd politely ask you to stop posting placeholder comments, so as to give admins a breath. Thank you. Impru20talk 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- If it has your name on it you know it you know it will go Impru20. Nothing changed in 3 years. Wikimucker (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I won't be wasting my time on grudges any of you have because of a discussion that took place three-years-ago; your "wish" for me not to comment in your talk page is not a justification to ignore a WP:3RR warning on a clear breach of such rule and dub it as "shit". You have also removed the ANI notice from your talk when I am required to post it under Wikipedia rules no matter your own preferences, but somehow you think you are above all of it. Nonetheless, and as I told you, I warned you out of pure courtesy despite your straight violation of 3RR. Probably next time you should get a full report at WP:AN3 and get a straight block so that you stop short on your impertinence. Impru20talk 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You were told 3 years ago to stay off my talk page permanently, that order is a unique one on my talk page and will likely always be. Don't expect any thanks for breaching that order. Wikimucker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do make it easier by providing evidence. Another one would be this one: Wikimucker removing the 3RR warning on their talk page dubbing it as "Impru20 shite". So, it's cool for Aréat to be warned of 3RR in order for them to be intimidated from conducting any further edit on the article, yet when it is you the violator such a warning becomes "shit"? Interesting. Impru20talk 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You really don't want to make all this any easier for the admins to follow Impru20, do you??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- It wasn't Wikimucker who posted a 3RR warning on Aréat's page, it was me, so WM's opinion of my doing that is irrelevant. You accuse WM of breaching 3RR, but according to the 4 diffs you posted, they haven't. Three is not four, but one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls. Ironically, WP:SPLITTING has this to say: "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Between this page and Talk:2020 Irish general election, you have added just shy of 40k, within 36 hours, on this one topic. While maintaining that you are not adding walls of text and that others saying you are is a personal attack. I'm done... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
JAYSUS Bastun please stop, please. There is quite enough here already with no further input required from you or from Impru20 . Let this be an absolute end to it the pair of you. Wikimucker (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Bastun, I concur with Wikimucker here and I won't be taking your bait, as most of what you say has either been already replied or is just a repetition of the same mantra on attempting to minimize myself and my contributions. Everything I had to say has been said. However, a small consideration on this new statement of you:
one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls
So, does it look like you are issuing 3RR warnings without even knowing what WP:3RR is?
“ | An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. | ” |
- Four edits of any kind that reverts content added by other user or users, whether they are the same or different users, and which involve the same or different content, are a violation of 3RR. They do not even need to be tagged as actual reverts, just being edits that undo any other editors' actions. Now this is enough; thank you for your input, but if you can't provide anything else I'd just call for any uninvolved admin to review this. Impru20talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaaand Stop There. :( Wikimucker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the tangential issues for now, I support Impru20's observation that we have a sufficient consensus to make the article split, but two editors are blocking that. This is not helpful editing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article has been split. Number 57 did it, asserting that process had been followed (it hadn't, as far as I can see - they removed the split discussion template from the article page and moved the content, which has now lost the history and according to WP:PROSPLIT doesn't meet WP's licensing terms.) That aside, Iveagh Gardens has said they've no problem having the split page deleted and created with the edit summary required by WP's licence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have any clue on how WP:PROSPLIT even works. The page's history is not moved into the new article in the split process, and just because an edit summary is not filled properly does not mean the whole splitting must start anew. Much to the contrary, you can easily solve it by using Template:Copied at both the parent and the child articles as per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, as I just did here and here, to keep attribution on the parent's page history.
- You two have been wikilaywering and blocking further action based on random excuses in order to unilaterally delay the split, despite overwhelming consensus for conducting it right away (something that even Iveagh Gardens asks for in the diff you provide!). But worst of it is that, as a way of accomplishing that, both you and WM have launched a full smear campaign on myself personally just because I contested your actions, by casting aspersions on me both at Talk:2020 Irish general election and here at ANI without even caring to provide any evidence while trying to discredit my valid rationale by dismissing it as "text-walls" despite the essay on it expressly stating that doing so is disruptive. The split is now done with, but the intractable behavioural problems still remain. As Number 57 hints, probably some action should be taken against the perpretators of this embarrassing episode to discourage such a drama from being repeated in the future. Impru20talk 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article has been split. Number 57 did it, asserting that process had been followed (it hadn't, as far as I can see - they removed the split discussion template from the article page and moved the content, which has now lost the history and according to WP:PROSPLIT doesn't meet WP's licensing terms.) That aside, Iveagh Gardens has said they've no problem having the split page deleted and created with the edit summary required by WP's licence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the tangential issues for now, I support Impru20's observation that we have a sufficient consensus to make the article split, but two editors are blocking that. This is not helpful editing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaaand Stop There. :( Wikimucker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Impru20 Please withdraw that gratuitous ad hominen directed at me, I will accept your simply editing it out, less being more here. Wikimucker (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a "gratuitous ad hominem". We are at ANI; evidence is everything here, unsupported accusations are of little use. Now please, do not talk to me ever again. Cheers. Impru20talk 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
God, and that talk section on that page only started off as an attempt to seek a quick consensus, what! Wikimucker (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- An "overwhelming" consensus? ;-) Impru has now addressed the licensing issue and hasn't been in any way condescending about it - good lad. As the main issue raised seems to be the size of the table and the first world problem of having to scroll lots to get to the footnotes, I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function, but hey, I guess not everyone can know everything about every aspect of Wikipedia, and that's no sin. Every day is a schoolday, as they say. That being the case, the inclusion of just this years's polls won't be an issue, as we're likely to see only one or two more after this weekend, plus RTÉ's exit poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
[...] I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function
. Just for any passing-by reader to know: Aréat actually attempted to improve on this, twice (diff1 diff2). But they got reverted twice as well (diff1 diff2). If he had been lent some help instead of being reverted and sent a 3RR warning, seeing how the 'hide/collapse' function seems so suddenly useful now, the situation would have maybe became just a little less agonic I guess. Impru20talk 19:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Any passing-by readers may be interested to know that the 'hide' function was present from the time the opinion polls section was first created, but I sincerely doubt it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- That may be because ANI is about behavioural issues, not content issues. No one here would be interested on the 'hide' function at all, indeed. But they may care that the user attempting to improve on such function got crudely reverted as part of the domination-style behaviour that got us here, then dismissed as "nobody just used the table's 'hide' function". Yes, there were attempts to use it and work on it, but even these were repressed. Impru20talk 21:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Any passing-by readers may be interested to know that the 'hide' function was present from the time the opinion polls section was first created, but I sincerely doubt it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Having read the above (why did I do that), and the two articles, I am struggling to see the ANI aspect to this. There is normal discussion and various proposals are/have been made on the Talk Page of the 2020 Irish general election article that seem fine? If there are WP:3RR violations, we have a board for that (and justice is swift, imho). If a stable consensus is hard to achieve, we have RfCs (which I don't see being used on the Talk Page). The article is being actively edited by several disparate parties (none of whom have come to this ANI outside of the parties named in this ANI). It is not obvious to me that there is an ANI aspect to be considered here? I would move to close this. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Britishfinance; other parties (namely Number 57 and Bondegezou) have actually come up to ANI (diff1 diff2) and have indeed called for some kind of action to be taken (diff3). Plus, considering that the issue is only worsening because of an apparent ongoing attempt to circumvent the reached consensus on the part of one of the same guys who was brought here (diff4 diff5), this does seem like an ANI issue. Cheers. Impru20talk 11:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Impru20, my bad missing that (they were brief cmts in a long ANI post). I see you have started an RfC on the Talk Page (which is good). I also note your comment in the RfC header:
I am not particularly opposed to this, as long as consensus favours it and care is taken for information to be added and kept up to date in both pages
. This comment underlines the low materiality of this formatting point, (and contrasts with the length of this ANI), and my belief (still) that there is no ANI action here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)- @Britishfinance: This is because this ANI report is not about what you reference. Indeed, the key point of what I said minutes ago and which you reference is
as long as consensus favours it
. Currently it doesn't, it was pretty clear and still there was a clear attempt to game the outcome of the reached consensus (already acknowledged by others as well), in what is only a continuation of the ongoing behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election. Content disputes can be dealt with and, as you yourself correctly hint, I personally have no issues in taking either part of the discussion when it comes to content, because I have no wish to oppose something for the sake of opposing. What is not acceptable is for any user to hijack any article and forcefully push with their own preferred version of it even against consensus, as is being the case here and, as a behavioural and not a content issue, constitutes the focus of this report. - I am sorry that this ANI got so unfortunately long, as at some point it turned into me having to defend myself from some unjustified claims. In any case, all evidence on this issue is within the starting post of this report, with diffs and links being provided whenever required, with the original discussion being available at Talk:2020 Irish general election and with the page's history being accessible to everyone. Cheers. Impru20talk 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: This report is not about the dispute over 2020 Irish general election. It is over possible WP:TE by Bastun and Wikimucker. I've certainly found Bastun's editing here to be unhelpful to the project. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Bondegezou. I wouldn't really call their editing
unhelpful to the project
? They are the editors who have built the important 2020 Irish general election head article (per [11]), which I am sure will be a great help to Irish (and even other) readers? The polling format dispute that caused this ANI (here), seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale, and having read through it, is not that unfair/unreasonable a request (and why I !voted to support it at the new RfC). Somewhere along the line, this all went askew, however, I don't think this ANI thread (or extending it further), serves much purpose now, and it is a better use of our time to focus on articles. Britishfinance (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)The polling format dispute that caused this ANI seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale
. You can actually see this the other way around: how such a seemingly minor content dispute developed into such an oversized drama because of a persistent refusal to accept consensus from a tag team. Being prolific editors in any given article does not make them exempt from Wikipedia policies on civility and consensus-building (actually, it would seem it could have contributed to them having entrenched themselves in the aforementioned ownership behaviour). Considering that an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today, this seems by no means over, and we could end up seeing further conflict if left unaddressed. Impru20talk 20:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today
. LOLS at idea that filibustering started yesterday. In my 15 years+ editing the Wikipedia I have never ever come across serial and deliberate WP:MWOT / WP:TE on the scale it regularly appears in the talk pages in the article that is the subject of the complaint. Some of the choicest examples are now excised from that talk page, dating from 2017. Wikimucker (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)- Filibustering in Wikipedia's terms means
repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.
I think it is pretty clear to everyone. Btw, I agree that the filibustering did not start yesterday (nor did I suggest that). It started when a clear consensus had emerged and our favoured tag team of two attempted to prevent its resolution because they did not agree with it. Impru20talk 10:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)- Pretty accurately describes what we have to put up with on talk pages. Not in 15 years+ have I seen such behaviour. Wikimucker (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agree with you. Impru20talk 10:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: Impru20 listed at the start of this section evidence of WP:TE. This ANI report is not about polling format: it's about those examples of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering given. I am unclear why you are not engaging with the examples given. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou:, per my comments on the Talk page RfC, the substance of this format dispute is very (very) minor, and the good faith assurances now given, make the dispute moot. The only "oxygen" prolonging debate (and this huge ANI), is from the "unhappy interactions" that resulted from this format dispute. Perspective is being lost here, and concerns of WP:TE can be directed at many parties (although, again, I can't see an admin bothering with TE on such a moot issue). I advise (again) that this ANI be brought to a close as the most rational outcome. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Concerns on OWN and other behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election have not been cast off. Rather, you seem to be actually furthening it by somehow suggesting that we have to somehow accept the proposal to have 2020 polls in the main article because these two editors are the "creators" of the content. No, we are not required to agree with it. Both Bondegezou and myself have laid out our reasons for opposing. That's ok and there is no issue with it. And no, neither of these users has any superior right or claim over the article's content just because of them being amongst the most prolific editors of that page.
- Content issues aside, these were not just "unhappy interactions"; these were attempts to systematically overturn the reached consensus, filibustering, tag teaming, ownership and battleground-like behaviour and aspersion-calling (the latter of which has continued even on this ANI report, which constitutes an evidence by itself). The issue is not "moot". Impru20talk 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou:, per my comments on the Talk page RfC, the substance of this format dispute is very (very) minor, and the good faith assurances now given, make the dispute moot. The only "oxygen" prolonging debate (and this huge ANI), is from the "unhappy interactions" that resulted from this format dispute. Perspective is being lost here, and concerns of WP:TE can be directed at many parties (although, again, I can't see an admin bothering with TE on such a moot issue). I advise (again) that this ANI be brought to a close as the most rational outcome. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: Impru20 listed at the start of this section evidence of WP:TE. This ANI report is not about polling format: it's about those examples of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering given. I am unclear why you are not engaging with the examples given. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agree with you. Impru20talk 10:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty accurately describes what we have to put up with on talk pages. Not in 15 years+ have I seen such behaviour. Wikimucker (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Filibustering in Wikipedia's terms means
- Thanks Bondegezou. I wouldn't really call their editing
- @Britishfinance: This report is not about the dispute over 2020 Irish general election. It is over possible WP:TE by Bastun and Wikimucker. I've certainly found Bastun's editing here to be unhelpful to the project. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: This is because this ANI report is not about what you reference. Indeed, the key point of what I said minutes ago and which you reference is
- Hi Impru20, my bad missing that (they were brief cmts in a long ANI post). I see you have started an RfC on the Talk Page (which is good). I also note your comment in the RfC header:
- Hi Britishfinance; other parties (namely Number 57 and Bondegezou) have actually come up to ANI (diff1 diff2) and have indeed called for some kind of action to be taken (diff3). Plus, considering that the issue is only worsening because of an apparent ongoing attempt to circumvent the reached consensus on the part of one of the same guys who was brought here (diff4 diff5), this does seem like an ANI issue. Cheers. Impru20talk 11:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sadly I don't think any administrator has been treated to such an collection of Wiki policies, untrammeled as the collection is by the slightest understanding of the actual value of any of them. Wikimucker (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- You think incorrectly, I guess.
- P.S. I do not think it is particularly helpful to anyone for you to just keep posting placeholder comments here, without replying to anyone's arguments nor countering any of the provided evidence. Impru20talk 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
So, in summary, yes, there may be WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour going on at that article - there's certainly a lot of bludgeoning in evidence, both there and here!
I'd repeat that test for this page, but xtools wisely falls over every time I try. Pretty much every single comment by anyone who does not agree with Impru20 will be met by a response by him.
There is currently a weak consensus (4-3 - seven people!) for the compromise proposal of including the polls conducted since 1 January in the main article, until after the election on 8 February. (As opposed to the "overwhelming consensus" of 5-2 - seven people!) for removing all polls. Realistically, nobody in their right mind is going to join that discussion (sorry, Britishfinance, no offence meant!) and really, who could blame them? Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- No offence taken Bastun, and I do appeal to Impru20 to drop this one; we are far beyond the bounds of marginal benefit from any further discussion on this issue which is now of very (very) low materiality (if not trivial). There really is little benefit to prolonging the RfC, which revolves around maintaining a few lines of text in the Head Article, as well as the sub-article for all polling; and assurances have been given by the two editors who maintain (and wrote) these two articles, that said lines of text will be updated in both articles (the original concern). Any UNINVOLVED editor (of which I no longer one), would really wonder what is the point of further discussion and dispute; the path to getting here may have left "bruises" between you, but that happens in WP, and as long as no harm can come to the project (which I can't see happening in this case), there are an infinite amount of better things to spend time on? Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Bastun, typically I'd need to spent more time and effort in replying because you and Wikimucker are acting as a WP:TAGTEAM, so it's not one-to-one discussion but a two-to-one engagement. Typically, one would reply when the other doesn't and vice versa. Joining Wikimucker's own stats here, this would give 88 edits between the two of you worth 32.6k. Noting that none you tend to use evidence or external links as I do (which obviously make the markup size of my edits to go up; it's a pity that the fact that I try to use evidence is used against me, coming from someone who has only casted aspersions for the whole time of their involvement in this ANI thread and in most of the discussion at the referenced article). As of lately, there is also these engagements where one of these two users would just resort to systematically reply to every comment of mine without providing any meaningful content (despite repeated calls of me for such a behaviour to stop) just seeking to provoke me and make my editing experience in the article uncomfortable (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6).
- Further, that you pretend to impersonate this on me is absurd. The latest discussion at Talk:2020 Irish general election#2020 polls in main article is only taking place because I did initiate it in order to redirect a situation where you shamefully attempted to game the outcome of the previous discussion (diff1 diff2). Number 57 and Bondegezou have also showed clear conmendation of your behaviour, both here and in the talk page, and even Iveagh Gardens, despite granting you support on your latest content proposal, has been forced to call for you to please not make any change in the page before a consensus is reached. Stop trying to make this personal on myself as you have been doing since your first reply to me in this whole affair (diff).
- If the discussion got large is because of your failure in accepting that a consensus contrary to your own preferences was reached. Had you accepted consensus when it was reached, none of this would have been needed, but it's your ownership behaviour, your constant personal attacks, your accusations of WP:TE to others and other related behaviour what has brought us here.
- Sorry Britishfinance, but this should really be addressed. This whole affair is indeed a waste of time considering that initial consensus had been quick and very clear, but we should remind why and how did we get here. The fact that such an enormous conflict was brought by these two users on such a minor issue, as well as the fact that, as they have shown, they will just keep repeating the same behaviour on anyone not agreeing to their terms on "their" Irish election articles, means that this is prone to be repeated in the future. Further, we would have saved us a lot of time already had I not been forced to respond to unfounded personal accusations and a lot of targetting on myself. As said, this is not a content issue but a behavioural problem, and needs resolution.
Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub.
This is an unneeded insult, Bastun, which is just reflective of your behaviour during the whole affair. Impru20talk 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)- (ec) I have gone as far I as can go and will leave it to another UNINVOLVED editor/admin to help, and may God have mercy on their souls. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: I am sure you are speaking in good will, but I cannot comprehend why you are sticking to content and seemingly ignore the (still ongoing) disruptive behaviour shown by these users. You were asked by other users to engage with the given evidence, but you stick with the content issue being "very" minor and with "assurances" on such content being given. This is respectable, but this is not the issue at discussion here: had this been a content issue, it would have been brought to WP:DRN or any other such venue. No assurance has been given that the reported behaviour will stop (unsurprisingly, as such behaviour is being mimicked by the reported users in this ANI thread or even at the ongoing discussion at the talk page), and there are concerns that further edit warring in the article has only stopped because of the issue being currently under the ANI's watch. I do not see the usefulness in repeating the same remarks over and over again: all evidence has been already posted and, seemingly, no more will be given, so this is up for any uninvolved admin to come and address. Let us not increase the drama any further. Impru20talk 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance:
may God have mercy on their souls.
Never, in any discussion initiated by the OP who started this one, was a wiser word spoken by any contributor. Please Lord, save us all from another [WP:MWOT] . Wikimucker (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance:
- @Britishfinance: I am sure you are speaking in good will, but I cannot comprehend why you are sticking to content and seemingly ignore the (still ongoing) disruptive behaviour shown by these users. You were asked by other users to engage with the given evidence, but you stick with the content issue being "very" minor and with "assurances" on such content being given. This is respectable, but this is not the issue at discussion here: had this been a content issue, it would have been brought to WP:DRN or any other such venue. No assurance has been given that the reported behaviour will stop (unsurprisingly, as such behaviour is being mimicked by the reported users in this ANI thread or even at the ongoing discussion at the talk page), and there are concerns that further edit warring in the article has only stopped because of the issue being currently under the ANI's watch. I do not see the usefulness in repeating the same remarks over and over again: all evidence has been already posted and, seemingly, no more will be given, so this is up for any uninvolved admin to come and address. Let us not increase the drama any further. Impru20talk 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) I have gone as far I as can go and will leave it to another UNINVOLVED editor/admin to help, and may God have mercy on their souls. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Ok, so after about 80% of the discussion above served no other purpose than to needlessly lengthen this ANI thread beyond reasonable limits, let the POV railroading stop and have someone else get this issue resolved, shall we? Thank you all for your participation. Impru20talk 11:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been 5 prior ANI threads related to this disruption, with this one being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece [12], [13], [14], [15]. This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on this page, hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should always assume good faith, which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- My suggestions have been in good faith and I have made no changes to Gurbaksh Chahal. I have alerted the BLP Noticeboard of your behavior and the other two editors Chisme (talk · contribs) and Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) that continuously vandalize this page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to how much it was just vandalized today. It's clear you have personal bias to this page and have some ulterior agenda for it be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- After the sheer amount of vandalism made today on Gurbaksh Chahal. I rest my case. It's abundantly clear you are working in conjunction with Winged Blades of Godric and urge you to disclose if you are getting paid to vandalize this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The account is near-confirmedly an UPE account, whose sole editorial activity has been limited to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, rumored to be in a relation with G. Chahal. Somebody block this account, please. ∯WBGconverse 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unsupported allegations of paid editing, vandalism and meatpuppetry, combined with general tendentiousness = WP:NOTHERE. Or almost. Be mindful, I beg you. ——SN54129 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, this is a clear UPE account with the task of main-spacing Rubina Bajwa. Three separate NPP reviewers (me, GSS and Satdeep, who accepted it once on wrong premises) had draftified it, asking for an AFC acceptance but he has reverted all of us. Note this comment by a fourth editor; further, the Joydeep ghosh, PC07 refers to in the BLPN has been since blocked for spamming. ∯WBGconverse 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: You are not helping yourself.-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: - What on Earth did I do? I did not entertain him any; there's a reason as to why the page is ECP protected. ∯WBGconverse 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PunjabCinema07: These are long term, established, trusted editors, who have shown they are here for Wikipedia. You might want to reconsider your words.-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I offended here. But, I request you to take a look at the vandalism that is taking place on Gurbaksh Chahal today and try to stop it from further damage. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note I returned this to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and move protected. It should be reviewed via WP:AfC.-- Deepfriedokra 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. Please discuss competing versions on talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. If unable to attain consensus, please seek WP:dispute resolution. For violations of WP:BLP, please discuss at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The content dispute can be discussed elsewhere, but PC07 is a NOTHERE editor and ANI is the appropriate place for discussing behavioral issues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PunjabCinema07: I have received your email and am not inclined to intervene in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
-
- Ad Orientem, this seem to be some kind of mass-canvassing-attempt given the comments by DBigXray, Anachronist and 331dot over this thread. Given he was already warned by Anachronist to not admin-shop (hours back), can you kindly check whether the email sent to you post-dates the warning? ∯WBGconverse 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: It predates Anachronist's warning and was probably a mass mailing thing. But it does not violate the warning given the time stamp. Beyond which there are enough cooks in this kitchen. No need for me to join the crowd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Query has user been template:PAID warned?-- Deepfriedokra 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Done-- Deepfriedokra 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- And they deny it. Can't say I believe them, given that 1) they are an SPA on an article with a history of SPAs and 2) they believe everyone who disagrees with them is being paid. I think we're giving this user way too much leeway. After all, they still won't stop with the false accusations of vandalism [16]. They don't get it and they aren't going to get it. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have again suggested PunjabCinema07 stop accusing other editors of vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
PunjabCinema07 wrote, “I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism.” An objective look at my contributions to the Gurbaksh Chahal article will show that my contributions are well-sourced and fair-minded. The problem here is that friends and paid friends of the subject want to bury his past as a domestic abuser. Chisme (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Chisme I suggest you assume good faith on my suggestions and not enter personal attack territory by labeling me as a "paid friend." I've seen from the talk pages how you have bullied other editors on this page and I won't tolerate the same abuse. One objective read on my thread would suggest that I am ONLY helping to neutralize this page to BLP standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurbaksh_Chahal PunjabCinema07 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Chisme, this tells a different story. Mysteries Abound? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Mysteries_Abound:_Dating_in_Encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I reviewed Draft:Rubina Bajwa at AFC in response to a request by User:Deepfriedokra. A previous article on the subject was deleted in 2017 after AFD. This draft does not show any new notability after 2017. If the draft is resubmitted again without new evidence of notability, I am prepared to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- For the record - this is the first time I have seen this discussion. I was completely unaware of it when I nominated Gurbaksh Chahal for AfD, and did so based strictly on content and the TP discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 02:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since this thread is still open, I want to clearly memorialize this disturbing, threatening, intimidating post.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite Block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PC07 has been give more than enough WP:ROPE. We've seen repeated accusations of vandalism (which required numerous warnings to stop); mass-canvassing of admins via email; pointing to a blocked spammer (joydeep ghosh) as the editor they want to imitate (which should be a NOTHERE version of the duck test); repeated accusations that other editors are paid and/or editing in concert; telling other editors to AGF while blatantly assuming bad faith of those same editors; the list goes on. This behavior is IDHT and NOTHERE, in addition to being reflective of an individual who is entirely out of touch with how Wikipedia works. They've learned some basic Wikiterms, but they can't/won't use those terms correctly. This is exactly the pattern of behavior that I have previously observed from other meatpuppets on the Chahal page, which leads me to strongly believe that this editor has some undisclosed connections to the article subject. Enough is enough and it's time to show them the door. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Supportafter this post with continued aspersions and personal attacks directed towards WBG. I do admire the courage to remind others to WP:AGF about their edits while they WP:ABF about others. They have no idea on how to handle an editing dispute and aren't interested in learning how - they've had warning after warning JUST TODAY and continue. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- They've been blocked for 72 hours for their disruptive actions, had ECP removed after gaming the system and been warned by a variety of admins, plus have more watching their talk page. Some WP:ROPE here may be worthwhile to see if any of this is absorbed. They were still tossing around asperions and showing zero faith while demanding it be shown towards them, which is not helpful. Reverting to their preferred version while demanding others use the talk page is also signs of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor and while they've denied a COI, given the whitewashing on Gurbaksh Chahal and their (re)creation of Draft:Rubina Bajwa who just happens to be dating Chahal, I'll hold my suspicions. Striking support for indef, for now. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support again after the bombastic rhetoric and threats continue. Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
-
- Winged Blades of Godric, noticed that too (poor IaBot is getting overworked tonight!), wonder if this is Bothiman's latest sock with Vijay (actor) under ECP. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support very likely an undisclosed paid editor per this comment by Satdeep Gill who was contacted by Gurbaksh Chahal to whitewash his page and to upload images. I guess we need a CU here to check if Gchahal2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has any connection with PC07. Gchahal2019 made no edits on en-wiki but uploaded a couple of images to commons-wiki. GSS 💬 04:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support a block for personal attacks. Neutral as to whether it should be for 72 hours or indefinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not a paid editor so these personal attacks need to stop. When does personal attack territory apply to all of you? Or is this there when anyone tries to disagree with you, you bully them by trying to ban them? Apparently, assume good faith doesn't apply here, and you can harass new editors like me at anytime? Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Paid or not, you won't be any kind of editor for much longer if you continue down this path. If you wish to continue editing, you would be wise to disclose whatever connections, financial or otherwise, that you have to Gurbaksh Chahal. You are not going to convince anyone that you just randomly happened across Chahal's article. Clearly, you got there from somewhere. Lepricavark (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not a paid editor so these personal attacks need to stop. When does personal attack territory apply to all of you? Or is this there when anyone tries to disagree with you, you bully them by trying to ban them? Apparently, assume good faith doesn't apply here, and you can harass new editors like me at anytime? Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not that we need further evidence to support an indef, but now that PC07 has gamed their way into having ECP, they are causing disruption in mainspace despite the fact that any reasonable person would realize that such edits haven't got a chance of standing. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to bed. PunjabCinema07, enjoy your temporary 'victory', but I'll be astonished if you're still around when I return. Tell Gurbaksh I said 'Hello'. Lepricavark (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lepricavark, when will the personal attack territory stop from you? I believe the editors here have made it very clearly that this behavior needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I gave them a 72 hour block for disruption Please feel free to unblock if you disagree. @Bishonen: could you check my work if you are about?-- Deepfriedokra 12:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this. Somone else should opine.-- Deepfriedokra 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, Deepfriedokra, but I've put a lot of hours in here, and it looks completely fair. I would have closed this, but there it s a question on the table about a NOTHERE indef. (IMO, you'd have been good on that, too). John from Idegon (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the details here, but if the disruption was limited to that one article, why not partial block or pull the EC user right? Both would have worked. I see that you've done the latter, but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cause I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this-- I'd I feel I was acting out of emotion. Someone with a fresh look should decide a course of action.-- Deepfriedokra 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- The editor was engaging in personal attacks, calling other editors vandals. The personal attacks were both on talk pages and in edit summaries, which are more problematic because they are difficult to redact. A partial block would not have been sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, good to know. But their block will expire in three days — what do we do then? And again, is this all about this one article? El_C 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm an uninvolved admin (other than having been canvassed in email, as noted above). I've been following the developments here, and I agree with the 72 hour block. The user has not attempted any of the WP:DR methods available. I will remove the EC right to encourage PC07 to do that once the block expires. If I see a good-faith effort at dispute resolution and understanding of the policies and guidelines here, I'll restore the EC right. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Or we could partial block them just from that article (not including the talk page), leaving them with the EC right for other articles. Although the manner in which they gained that user right does seem to be somewhat suspect, so maybe that point is moot. El_C 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- ECP has been removed from them by Anachronist.Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Or we could partial block them just from that article (not including the talk page), leaving them with the EC right for other articles. Although the manner in which they gained that user right does seem to be somewhat suspect, so maybe that point is moot. El_C 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm an uninvolved admin (other than having been canvassed in email, as noted above). I've been following the developments here, and I agree with the 72 hour block. The user has not attempted any of the WP:DR methods available. I will remove the EC right to encourage PC07 to do that once the block expires. If I see a good-faith effort at dispute resolution and understanding of the policies and guidelines here, I'll restore the EC right. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, good to know. But their block will expire in three days — what do we do then? And again, is this all about this one article? El_C 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- The editor was engaging in personal attacks, calling other editors vandals. The personal attacks were both on talk pages and in edit summaries, which are more problematic because they are difficult to redact. A partial block would not have been sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cause I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this-- I'd I feel I was acting out of emotion. Someone with a fresh look should decide a course of action.-- Deepfriedokra 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the details here, but if the disruption was limited to that one article, why not partial block or pull the EC user right? Both would have worked. I see that you've done the latter, but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I know it's too late as PunjabCinema07 has been blocked for 72 hours, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to say he should be permanently blocked. His insults to others, his mysterious background knowledge of this article in spite of being a newcomer, and his bot-gaming of Wikipedia demonstrate rancorous bad faith. A prediction: When his 72-hour sentence expires he'll be back for more. He can't help himself. There will be another round of what to do about PunjabCinema07s on the notice boards, after which he will be blocked permanently. Why not get the job done right and early? Why not block him now? Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, Deep, I was AFK when you asked. I'm actually in favour of an indefinite block of PunjabCinema07 as an obvious undisclosed paid editor, and generally disruptive with it. AGF is not a suicide pact. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
- @Chisme: FWIW, it's never too late to extend a block. I have not looked at his reply to my block notice, if someone could look at that. I will not be likely to be around till Tuesday. And I think it's important that this be clearly a community decision and not a rogue admin going of the rails.20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra
- Support. This is clearly not a good-faith member of the community. Guy (help!) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Has anyone started SPI yet? We have a sock or meatpuppet I guess see M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GSS 💬 12:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and we need an SPI. They are either paid or the person themselves. Happy to send some evidence to whomever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- And now the meatpupupet ring is back to trying to completely remove all references to Chahal being a woman beater [17]. The attempted addition of puffery was bad enough, but the whitewashing is completely intolerable. There's no reason to waste time negotiating with such blatant meatpuppets. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Has anyone reported at WP:SPI? I agfsock wared the new one. Going back to bed. -- Deepfriedokra 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:M.A.K. Writers indefinitely fro editing in article space. They may discuss on talk pages. They have disclosed COI and PAID, but the disclosure is only partial and is incomplete.-- Deepfriedokra 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree the whole COI thing is definitely something that deserves a blocking, but I feel that Lepricavark could have handled this better, and is not behaving much better than Punjab is. You also have to take into consideration that Punjab is fairly new here - only been here for 2 months, and may not have a full grasp on how the policies work. If they do get an indefinite block, I definitely think a standard offer should be allowed after six months. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The account is new, but given the abundance of similarities in the rhetoric employed by PC07 and the prior POV-pushers that have attempted to make the article more favorable to the subject, I don't believe the person behind the account is new. Lepricavark (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I just received the following threat from PunjabCinema07 on my Talk page:
How much money are you being paid to write negative content on Gurbaksh Chahal page? And, who in San Francisco hired you? Walls are closing in on your operation.
What am I to make of this Deepfriedokra, Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire, GSS, Bishonen, Doc James, Atsme? What is "walls are closing in" supposed to mean? Chisme (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- It means PC07 isn't about to be invited to join Mensa. It's an empty threat. I've been subjected to similar threats from these people in the past. Remember, we know who Chahal is, but he has no idea who we are. Lepricavark (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Lepticavark, it's an attempt to intimidate not based on fact or reality. If you look through some of the old ANI threads Lepticavark link in their original post (this link) it's obvious PC07 is a sock of prior accounts who made the same bombastic threats. Just laugh and move on. It's more likely you'll wake up with blue and orange striped skin! It more than reinforces that this person comes with an agenda and unclean hands. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 'Hey, y'all. the ante has been raised.-- Deepfriedokra 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Lepticavark, it's an attempt to intimidate not based on fact or reality. If you look through some of the old ANI threads Lepticavark link in their original post (this link) it's obvious PC07 is a sock of prior accounts who made the same bombastic threats. Just laugh and move on. It's more likely you'll wake up with blue and orange striped skin! It more than reinforces that this person comes with an agenda and unclean hands. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for indefinite CBAN for M.A.K. Writers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This is a subsequent/subsidiary issue of the Punjabcinema07 WP:AID and WP:COI editing thread. After Punjabcinema07 was blocked, came M.A.K. Writers with this post to Gurbaksh Chahal. As I found the COI/PAID disclosure ambiguous, I partial blocked for articles, while allowing talk page discussion. In response to my notification that I had partial blocked, M.A.K. Writers responded thusly, I will get paid what ever you do because I was just a extra that came due to issues, so I don't care. Thank you for informing, have a good day
. Now while I appreciate their honesty, it seems evident they are here to trouble-shoot Gurbaksh Chahal on behalf of outsiders, rather than to help us build the encyclopedia. Their first edit summary on their talk page is Created page with '" I am expected to get paid (but it is not a deal) for this by a friend of Gurbaksh_Chahal
.-- Deepfriedokra 09:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support clearly NOTHERE. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. User's reasons for being here appear orthogonal to the project's goals. Guy (help!) 08:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – The user posted a kind of paid disclosure on their user page, but subsequently blanked it – since they have stated ([18] and [19]) that they are hired and will get paid and so on, it looks like they are actually trying to hide their status as a paid editor by removing the disclosure (which they have been told more than once is required). In any case, not here to help the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Anyone this person hires should be blocked aswell. One does not get to make legal threats get blocked. And than simple hire someone to continue on from there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Question - what is M.A.K., and does this username imply shared use? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply A fair question, and one that has been much on my mind. Haven't gug into it The on again/off again paid disclosure in the context of coming to edit while Punjabcinema07 was temporarily blocked seemed sufficient for me to partial block. The rest os up to the community.-- Deepfriedokra 16:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Deepfriedokra and others. MrRight2020, a CU verified puppet of Punjabcinema07 has just been bloked. M.A.K. Writers is clearly part of that effort, and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom Levivich 05:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another question - the user is already indefinitely partblocked from editing articles, which seems to have very effectively halted their disruption. Does the community desire a site ban anyway? If so, for what reason? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Persistent addition of promotional content - Globe Elections UN
- globeelectionshistory.science.blog: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
IP user 211.221.114.249 has been adding user-generated content into 2020 Emilia-Romagna regional election (diff1 diff2), in what seems an attempt to use the article as a vehicle to promote self-made content. This is just the last in a string of similar cases of different IP accounts attempting to add this "Globe Elections UN" blogspot as a source into a large number of election articles: for a more complete account on these cases, check Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_5#GEUN_Spam, and it seems just the same person operating various different accounts (worth nothing is that all of them are geo-located in South Korea). The number of affected IP accounts could be even larger though, but they are relatively stable as in several cases they have been used in more than once case with a time difference of several weeks. They would also frequently revert the attempted removals of this content, thus engaging in problematic edit warring. Impru20talk 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Impru20:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Note - I'll leave handling the IP range and/or the involved minor YouTube channel (see diff 1) to other admins if further measures are deemed necessary. @Impru20, just a quick tip: if you want to report primarily spam-related issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would usually be better venues. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Again
They have done it again under these IP accounts, which should be blocked as well (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5). Note that they are now adding their website as referenced plain text as a result of the site having been blacklisted. Note that this IP address was the same used to spam other pages in the past. Impru20talk 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note that this specific IP already received a 31 hour-block in December because of this disruptive behaviour. Considering that the previous IP within this report has already gotten such a 31 hour-block and that these IP accounts do seem static (their contributions' history show that they are used for no other purpose than this), maybe longer blocks would be due to all of them. Pointing other such IP accounts used for this spamming purpose below:
- Impru20talk 15:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Both 218.155.136.167 and 210.90.248.9 are blocked now and an edit filter requested at here, though care should be taken in the future as they may attempt to evade the blacklist, the filter and the blocks once again. I believe this thread can be now closed, since further cases of spam can now be reported at WP:AIV. Impru20talk 18:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
IP making same edit at least 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem
We have an IP making the same edit 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem, each time from a different IP-address: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. What would be the best course of action? Could somebody here implement it, please? :) Debresser (talk)
- Debresser, let's see if a little rangeblock offers some relief. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Jerusalem page itself is extended confirmed protected. I am not a big adherent of it, especially on talkpages, but maybe that is also an option, should the rangeblock prove ineffective. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies Is the rangeblock still in effect? Because today another IP repeated the edit. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Jerusalem page itself is extended confirmed protected. I am not a big adherent of it, especially on talkpages, but maybe that is also an option, should the rangeblock prove ineffective. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's try something different. The user is now blocked from editing Talk:Jerusalem for three months; revert and report any block evasion to WP:AIV with a link to Special:Contributions/37.124.201.54 for reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that didn't do much.[30][31][32][33] Somebody is skipping IPs to add these pictures. Probably time for the extended confirmed protection. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I semi-protected Talk:Jerusalem for two weeks and any admin is free to remove it sooner without consultation. I think a significant amount of time is needed for protection in a case like this in order to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:SashiRolls's behavior at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The talk page and edit history for this article really speak for themselves. SashiRolls has, for months, been tendentiously editing the article, edit warring, making personal attacks, and generally being uncivil, rude, and casting aspersions at me and other editors who do not share their views about the subject of the article (not to mention this odd debate. As a result of several editors becoming, frankly, tired of working with Sashi, the article is not in great shape now; I nominated it for deletion earlier today, and then this is what put me over the edge to drag the situation here. Despite repeated warnings on their talk page (from which I am now banned) and on the article talk page, Sashi continues making personal attacks. All of this said, I'm sure there are ways I could have addressed the situation better, and I am open to constructive criticism, but I really do feel like I'm in the right here. Thanks for your help. --WMSR (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Snooganssnoogans, who has also been on the receiving end of Sashi's attacks. --WMSR (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have posted a note on the AfD to try and help keep the discussion focused and maybe prevent things from going too far off track. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- It does not seem to be working. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think some of Sashirolls comments are problematic since they stray from FOC to focusing on the motivations of other editors. In my view it's fair to say, as an example, the edits of others "make the article look like it's pushing a POV". That is an assessment of how one might interpret the article. We should not say "you/them/some editors are pushing a POV" since that is now assuming a motivation of the editors themselves. That said, Snooganssoogans is not an easy editor to work with and I believe they have a history of pushing a POV rather than creating neutral articles. They were recently the subject of an ANI that resulted in a 1RR restriction. I noted Gandydancer's comment about working with Snooganssoogans after SS complained about SR [[34]]. This was one of the links from the original complaint. I have no feel for the "truth" related to the Bernie article in question but it seems like we have 2-3 like mined editors and one who disagrees. It's easy to see how that can turn ugly and how the like minded editors may be ignoring valid concerns because, well they automatically have a 3:1 consensus. Sashirolls would be well advised to clearly state they understand the concept of FOC and not commenting on editors on the talk page. Perhaps a warning that editors must strictly follow CIVIL and FOC on the talk page is needed here with the understanding failure to do so will result in an article specific tban would fix the issue? Springee (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today, but this is kind of déjà vu. They were topic/interaction-banned for this kind of stuff in GMO topics[35] along with other issues outside that topic area in their block log that I don't know as much about except that there's history. I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to say it's doubtful a warning would have any effect given more serious sanctions haven't stopped the behavior from just jumping to other topics when they get topic-banned. Considering that, it's likely better for an uninvolved admin to handle this through the politics DS. Awilley, it looks like you've been trying to mediate some of the behavior issues on this. Do you have any thoughts on DS enforcement or other insights here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is what makes coming to ANI frustrating. Editors unrelated to the current dispute and maybe still nursing an old grudge bring up old and irrelevant things that they admit they don't know much about. The bigger issue is that editors at the Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders page disagree that such a page and material should exist. It should be settled through consensus at the AFD, and editors ought to accept that consensus and move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kingofaces43,
I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today ... I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to
remind everyone Sashi was tbanned from GMO (even though GMOs have nothing to do with this dispute), once again call for sanctions, and ping the admin who had previously sanctioned Sashi to ask forthoughts
andinsights
. You realize you're fooling no one with the feigned reluctance, right? Everyone remembers you're the editor who has filed multiple AEs against Sashi and who was falsely claiming that Sashi was tbanned from GMOs since before Sashi was tbanned from GMOs. Why not just be honest and say, "I have long believed Sashi should be indef'd and this episode is another example of the reason why." You do yourself a disservice by pretending otherwise. Levivich 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today, but this is kind of déjà vu. They were topic/interaction-banned for this kind of stuff in GMO topics[35] along with other issues outside that topic area in their block log that I don't know as much about except that there's history. I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to say it's doubtful a warning would have any effect given more serious sanctions haven't stopped the behavior from just jumping to other topics when they get topic-banned. Considering that, it's likely better for an uninvolved admin to handle this through the politics DS. Awilley, it looks like you've been trying to mediate some of the behavior issues on this. Do you have any thoughts on DS enforcement or other insights here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs of the policy violations on the page: #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. I don't have time to defend myself here at the moment, but I will note that the original author of the page WMSR doesn't like was apparently driven off with harassment, and obviously that is what is happening here too. I won't speculate as to why this page was generating so much bad blood well before I came in and began repairing the damage after MrX & Snoog deleted the vast majority of the content they didn't like from the article on 23-24 December. As always, it's easy to make accusations. As it was said in the AFD, the AFD was a petty move made a few hours before the "offending" diff that "pushed" WMSR "over the edge" / made WMSR think it would be fun to not only delete the page but drive off its principal author. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're citing one diff that nobody can access since it has been oversighted (if you were outed or attacked in that post, I am truly sorry), one in which an editor raises legitimate complaints about how your conduct has made it impossible to "focus on the content" of the article, and two that show you edit warring on that editor's talk page post. This is not a matter of me "not liking" a page. MrX and Snoogans rightfully removed content that did not belong in the article. You have since edit-warred that content back in, added significant WP:SYNTH, violated copyright law, and harassed editors you disagree with. I did not play any role in "driving off" the original author of the page, nor I am not trying to drive you off; I have not made any personal attacks against you, and by accusing me of doing so without providing any evidence, you are continuing to cast aspersions at me. I take no pleasure in being here and do not consider it "fun". I would much rather be editing an article constructively with you. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs of the policy violations on the page: #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. I don't have time to defend myself here at the moment, but I will note that the original author of the page WMSR doesn't like was apparently driven off with harassment, and obviously that is what is happening here too. I won't speculate as to why this page was generating so much bad blood well before I came in and began repairing the damage after MrX & Snoog deleted the vast majority of the content they didn't like from the article on 23-24 December. As always, it's easy to make accusations. As it was said in the AFD, the AFD was a petty move made a few hours before the "offending" diff that "pushed" WMSR "over the edge" / made WMSR think it would be fun to not only delete the page but drive off its principal author. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to post on a closed thread, but the aspersions have not stopped. I understand that the AfD is contentious, but that is not an excuse for incivility. I'm really getting sick of having my motives constantly questioned and having accusations flung at me, and I honestly don't understand how these actions are not sanctionable; WP:IUC is pretty clear on the matter. --WMSR (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here is another from today. How many different editors need to be subjected to Sashi's attacks before it becomes a sanctionable issue? --WMSR (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this is continuing in real time. Ad Orientem, thanks for posting the notice on the AfD, but it is clearly not as effective as you intended, and I honestly cannot believe that admins consider every diff that I posted to be civil and appropriate conduct. --WMSR (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with the statement made in that diff. Levivich 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then read the other ones. WP:FOC is policy (as Sashi is eager to point out). --WMSR (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- WMSR, I highly suggest that you stop and think for a while. I had to open up the ANI thread titled Multiple Issues. What you are doing is almost starting to look like WP:NOTHERE. Even if you were here longer than I was, there are many others on ANI that were on Wikipedia longer than you were, and thus better understand the rules and policies. Instead of doing the AfD, you could have gone to the Reliable Source noticeboard. The folks there probably know a lot more about if a source is reliable or not, as the majority who give input there, have been doing so for a while. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I care deeply about building an encyclopedia based on reliably-sourced and verifiable facts, regardless of whether those facts support your (or my) preferred narrative. You are making a very serious allegation against me without any evidence, and without having made any effort to reach out to me on the article talk page or on my talk page. It is probably in your best interest to strike the above comment. --WMSR (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- WMSR, I highly suggest that you stop and think for a while. I had to open up the ANI thread titled Multiple Issues. What you are doing is almost starting to look like WP:NOTHERE. Even if you were here longer than I was, there are many others on ANI that were on Wikipedia longer than you were, and thus better understand the rules and policies. Instead of doing the AfD, you could have gone to the Reliable Source noticeboard. The folks there probably know a lot more about if a source is reliable or not, as the majority who give input there, have been doing so for a while. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then read the other ones. WP:FOC is policy (as Sashi is eager to point out). --WMSR (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with the statement made in that diff. Levivich 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Will be a relief, when the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is determined. Though I doubt even then, if the corporate vs progressive tensions will subside. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Fake news at AfD?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalvithanthai Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen is a hard to read AfD with some new editors arguing to keep the article. Now, another new editor, User:Riyasafrim, argued to keep the article based on a new article in The Hindu, which they added to the article[36]. However, they added a Google docs image of a collage of the header of the Hindu, and a page from... well, somewhere[37]. I can't find this article on the website of the Hindu, and can find pretty little information about this person in general[38]. Despite today being his 100th birthday, there are no news reports at all in Google News[39] (which of course isn't the be all and end all, but e.g. the Hindu is normally fully covered by it).
Can some of you please judge whether the new source is indeed fake news or not, and act accordingly? Fram (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in the deletion discussion, it's fortuitous that the Hindu has written about him today. Should make getting hold of a copy of The Hindu really easy. I suggest Wikiproject India should be first port of call. - X201 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fram:I cant scan whole newspaper in scanner for that i just cropped them and attached in my google drive if you want it i will send you full paper by a photo. @Fram:Here it is [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyasafrim (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can't find it on the official website though, so I wonder: is this some local version of the Hindu, or is this an advert instead of an article? Considering that the "article" uses a different font, different layout, and has no by-line (and is rather jarring contentwise compared to the other articles), I have trouble accepting this as a genuine article. But I may just be too sceptical. Fram (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- IMO, it's either an advert or it's photoshopped. Different font, no byline, starts with multi-line capital letter, etc. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- And a boarder, looks like an advert to me, paid for content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is a paid advertisement. Winged Blades of Godric can confirm as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- And a boarder, looks like an advert to me, paid for content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- IMO, it's either an advert or it's photoshopped. Different font, no byline, starts with multi-line capital letter, etc. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This needs some warnings issued, and maybe an SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't The Hindu normally considered a reliable source? Should mention be made at RS/P that it (surprisingly) allows placement of an apparently not-well-marked giant paid ad on its front page?
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As I understand it, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. We have to apply good common sense in terms of what is a reliable source, particularly in less developed countries. What is the source's editorial control, how biased is it, and what is the depth of the source(s) provided? To meet WP:GNG, which is arguably our most important content guideline, the sources not have to be independent of the subject, but the coverage has to be "significant." What does that mean? For corporations, it's easier to determine as we have the WP:CORPDEPTH supplementary guideline. For individuals, it has to be an in-depth and wide-ranging about the article's subject. Does that help? Doug Mehus T·C 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lot of reliable sources have a lot of ads (even in print). Doesn't make them unreliable. A lot of newspapers now offer full front-page ads (a faux front page, to say) if you pay up enough due to the dwindling circulation of print newspapers. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- But paid adds are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Second time this month reporting disruptive account from the Department of Defense
- 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)
And I'm not wasting my time leaving a message at their talk page. There's no interest in engaging here, merely in trolling and edit warring. Oshwah, I think you took part in the previous discussion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The user's last edit was 2-3 days ago. I looked into the last few edits, and the only thing I can see in the past week or more is a slow-moving edit war at Jonathan Turley, which I have added protection to stop. Can you indicate what new edits since the last discussion indicate additional problems? --Jayron32 12:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for filing a report here, Bob, and for pinging me and letting me know. This IP is on a final warning basis that any further disruption will result in blocking. I also made it clear that we treat all users the same, regardless of the origin of their IP or the number of edits that an account has. Jayron32 made a good call by not taking action due to the activity being stale at the time it was looked into. Had I seen this report at the time it was filed, I would've considered administrative action. I obviously can't now. I know that we have to tread well when blocking these sort of IP ranges, but I've done so before and for reasons that were legitimate, and I am not afraid to do so again. If disruption continues from this IP, please file another report here and it will be investigated and handled. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Their m.o. is to go quiet, wait for things to die down, and return to slow edit war or troll another editor. Much appreciated, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by IPs 64.60.211.2 and 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
64.60.211.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two IPs are making identical edits and I assume are the same person. They are attempting to add text to various articles such as Solo performance, Waiting for Godot, Lincoln Heights Jail, etc., which all relate to performances by one Darryl Maximilian Robinson. The problem is not so much the edits to text - though are they are presumably promotional and trivial - but to the editor's refusal to pay any regard to the notices on their user pages relating to proper citation procedures. They are edit-warring to maintain incorrectly formatted citations. Repeated warnings from several editors have had zero effect. Not vandalism per se, but requires some action to be taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Both blocked. The former for a year as it has a long history of disruptive editing and previous blocks. The latter x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Undiscussed bulk move of decade pages
BHB95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BHB95 is moving pages such as 10s to new titles which have not been discussed. These articles form part of a complex web of carefully named articles. I have attempted to start discussion at User talk and a relevant project. Please can an admin consider intervening? Certes (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please remember to notify all involved parties on their talk pages of ANI discussions. I have made the required notification for BHB95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certes did, just not using the standard notification or in its own section.[41] DMacks (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certes did, just not using the standard notification or in its own section.[41] DMacks (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I gave a short block. Don't have any more time right now to unwind it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Legal threat against me
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I undid Cyrusep's edits on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates article two different times. The first time was here: [42] and the second time was here: [43]. I received this email from them not long after my second edit.
(Redacted)
I posted about this on the Help desk here: [44] and was advised to post here by Arch dude. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Did the other user really post a link to ransomware in the page history or did he just make that up? If he really posted ransomware or malware links in article space then we may need a revision deletion. Michepman (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've indeffed the user as a promotion / advertising-only account, since that's all they appear to have been doing on Wikipedia. Can't do anything about the legal threat since that was done offwiki and cannot be verified, though, personally, I believe David O. Johnson. The matter is moot, anyway. As for there being ransomware, I think there's been some confusion between the edit summary that stated it was removing a random link and the word ransom, maybe...? Otherwise, I don't see where David O. Johnson made that claim. El_C 05:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of disabling the user's email function — so no more emails from them. El_C 05:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: It seems backwards to hide the email if it it was a threat and relevant to the incident report that there was a threat. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's moot, so why even entertain disclosing a private email, even one containing threat of legal action? I've indeffed the user as a spam-only account, disabled their email so that they cannot harass anyone else, and that ought to be that. El_C 05:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of JzG / Guy for Admin vacation or similar
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please consider whether JzG should take an Admin vacation, or some other remedy. I've tried to ignore a number of, let's call it, "difficult" interactions, but speedy deletion of an article I worked on for a few hours,[46] and subsequent lack of discussion[47] are last straws for me. So, I'm listing several things that caught my attention, when trying to understand what's happened over about the last 2 weeks since I dared involve myself in some "climate change" associated articles. I will note I've also experienced some "difficult" interactions with a few other editors and admins, but this admin stands out from the pack, and has, in my opinion, now abused their power.
I'm still unsure exactly what is appropriate for User pages, but to me this (TL;DR in detail) and associated editing seems to indicate far too much concern and time spent on writing a treatise on politics on Wikipedia.[48]
This is to point out another very detailed discussion of concern over sourcing at Wikipedia.[49]. I don't say anything is particularly wrong with having concerns or expressing them, but it seems to be connected with problematic (IMO) edits and now admin action.
Is Wikipedia a bulletin board or forum? [50]
Are broad general comments like "well, he's kind of right, in that the more you look into it the more you realise that the entire climate change denial machine is fraudulent." considered appropriate? [51]
Is this a helpful comment? "I note that there are quite a few instances of "$DENIER wrote $DENIALISTCLAPTRAP for the Global Warming Policy Forum(source: link to $DENIALISTCLASPTRAP at thegwpf.org)". That's probably not a good idea."[52] As I said there, I feel "Writing about people as though they can be lumped into a disrespected category and treated like a variable looks like Dehumanization, a battlefield tactic, and seems improper at Wikipedia."[53]
Is this an appropriate edit summary, to remove a PDF link for a report no one disputes the BLP Article subject wrote; a report which is mentioned by title in the article text? "absolutely inappropriate external link to climate change denialism propaganda" [54]
The following histories suggest to me JzG is following me around Wikipedia and implementing scorched earth policy for anything they personally disagree with (not just my edits), regardless of sourcing, and using misleading edit summaries. [55][56]. Particular edits:(A) "pruning unsourced / self-sourced" [57] (Note deleted source from thegwpf.org is neither un- nor self-sourced for the article). (B) "primary and unreliable (WSJ not reliable for editorials ion climate change, per WP:RSN"[58] Note: I've seen the same WSJ letter (IIRC) mentioned on other articles on people who signed it. AFAIK primary sources may be used in BLP articles to some extent.
Thanks in advance for considering my concerns. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing by Soval Valtos
I am having an issue with Soval Valtos, now I'm going to admit up front, it's on the Ieuan Reese article I created so by default I'm not going to be a neutral party, as no one ever is on an article they wrote. I also am aware that when I or anyone puts an article on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. However, I don't think he's checking for references and is , instead , marking CN even when there is a citation there. For example:
Now I did point this out to him User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan_Reese on his talk page. He stated that although there was a source he didn't consider it a reliable one. Now, the CN tag can be used that way, put per the actual template itself, it needs to be marked that way, which SV didn't do. Per our discussion, I re-added the material back in with a second source, which by the way already appears on the page [59]
- He then removed this sourced bit of info . The source is right next to it, titled "credentials" .
- I went back to his page once again User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan_Reese to remind him that he was once again removing sourced information and I once again told him where the source was actually at.
- He never responded to my message, but responded by once again removing the same information stating that it's unsourced when it actually is.
Add to that I'm on the only person who's asked him to be careful about removing sourced information:
- User_talk:SovalValtos#A.A Gill , User_talk:SovalValtos#Air Arabia Cairo to Bergamo, User_talk:SovalValtos#Seriously?, here he was told by two different editors SchroCat and Cassianto to not just blindly revert.
I believe he needs a mentor or a quick word from an admin about his editing, it's pretty well crappy . Thanks Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 14:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The relatively (152 edits in mainspace) inexperienced user Wekeepwhatwekill seems to be very impatient with and uncivil to an experienced editor SovalValtos who is pointing out flaws and confusion in the article Ieuan Rees. I have made some adjustments. The problem is that the references are poorly formatted and not necessarily following the info they source. When these are fixed, the article may be more acceptable. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm hardly impatient, if you check User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan Reese you'll see that I calmly discussed his first "CN" tag and in fact, compromised by including a second cite which is already in the article. The second time, I actually told him where the cite was for the "uncited" item he removed. Now, I shouldn't even have to do that, but I did do it to assume good faith. When he removed the same thing again as uncited, of course I got a little hot under the collar. I totally admit it. Also, please note I'm not the only person who's had issues with him, I notice you only addressed my issue with him, Tony Holkham.
- By the way, Tony_Holkham, I noticed that you removed the same information Soval Valtos did and called it unsourced , the source is actually in the same sentence, then you found the source that was in the article where I left it and put it next to the item you called "unsourced". Please be aware that your edit summary makes it looks like there was no source for the item you tagged it , when there really was! Be aware also that I'm not the only one telling him to be careful, there are other users as well.Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
(s)he seems to take pleasure in reverting edits without bothering to investigate their validity or (often) even apparently reading them, all in all at best a non-value adding editor. 81.108.136.100 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus and A7
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone,
Over the past month, Piotrus (talk · contribs) has been nominating a lot of articles, including several that have existed for over ten years, for WP:A7 speedy deletion. Many of these have been declined by various editors, including myself, SoWhy (talk · contribs), ONUnicorn (talk · contribs) and Maile66 (talk · contribs). A list of declined speedies over the past month follows:
List of declined speedies | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The principal problem is that speedy deletion should only take place if every revision of the article qualifies for the criteria. While it's perfectly possible for an article to be created in 2005 and completely slip through the cracks, with every single revision meeting A7, experience shows me this is highly unlikely and it is much better to use PROD or AfD instead.
I've had a chat with Piotrus about this on my talk page here on 9-10 January, and we had a constructive discussion, where I got the impression he would dial back the A7 tagging and use a different deletion procedure. Unfortunately, since then, the tagging has continued anyway. So I'm asking the community three questions:
- Are our declining of these tags the correct application of policy?
- Should we agree on a consensus that Piotrus is misusing A7?
- Will Piotrus now agree to defer to using PROD or AfD in circumstances like these?
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just looking over the first few on your list, and I'm seeing mixed results. At the state it was in when he tagged it, Korea Rail Network made no credible (or indeed any) assertions of importance. Now, someone did later, after it was tagged, add some clear statements of importance, but when tagged the article merely said it was a company that existed, and little else. That seems like a proper use of A7. However, the second one on your list was in this state when he tagged it, and it clearly states, with a reference "SaeHan Information Systems is credited with the development of the world's first MP3 player". That is a clear, unambiguous, and credible claim of importance. It was easily not eligible for A7. SBS Newstech was not handled with deletion, but with redirection, which seems logical. Milton Trejano was borderline, and I have no problem with the tag of A7, and neither do I have a problem with the decline later. It could have gone either way. Saehan was also better handled by a redirect. Yousser Company for Finance and Investment was underdeveloped, but contained unambiguous assertions of importance; it has since been expanded. So, in the last 6 A7 tags we have 2 absolutely terrible ones, 1 that was good at the time (though some WP:BEFORE work made it good), and 3 borderline cases. That is NOT an acceptable hit rate, in my book, and I would like to see Piotrus to voluntarily step back from speedy tagging altogether, and instead use AFD preferentially in these cases, as it would allow more eyes on their work. --Jayron32 17:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Piotrus should be topic-banned from all forms of deletion because it is quite clear that they are not making any effort to do the due diligence of WP:BEFORE such as considering alternatives or searching for sources. For example, consider the first of these cases – Korea Rail Network Authority. This is the rail infrastructure provider for an entire country. One would expect this to be notable and a quick search soon finds detailed sources such as this or that. Such nominations seem so blatantly wrong that they seem to be a case of WP:POINT or a breaching-experiment. And Piotrus often seems to keep escalating, contrary to WP:IDHT. If one deletion process is refused, he will try another. If that doesn't work, he will try proposing merger. And it's accompanied by vexatious tag-bombing too. The effect of this high-volume spam is to drive away editors. I might contest these cases if they came at a slower pace but the logistics of trying to keep up with numbers generated by use of Twinkle in a bot-like fashion make it unfeasible. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) (pinged) I also had a conversation with Piotrus on my talk page at User talk:SoWhy#re: ASint Technology and was left with the impression that he understood that overly aggressively tagging A7 on very old articles, especially about potentially (or clearly) notable subjects, is not in the project's best interest but I have since then declined more taggings I felt were outside scope. I think it should be clear to any experienced editor that A7 was not designed for subjects like a national railway construction company (and government agency) or the first company to develop an MP3 player (the MPMan). That Piotrus thought otherwise is imho troubling. PS: I'm aware that A7 (unfortunately) technically does not require a WP:BEFORE search, but if an article has existed for 15(!) years, I think it's not too much to ask to spend 10 seconds on a quick Google search, is it? Regards SoWhy 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing requires a before search, but that being said, when a user shows poor intuition and judgement, it is not unreasonable to expect that user to follow such guidance themselves even if others are not strictly required to, as a means of helping them do their work better. --Jayron32 17:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, declining the CSD is correct if the admin feels it was nominated without justification. We can't just blindly delete something because somebody else said we should. Without a list by declining admins, it's hard to say which of the above I declined. I prefer to exercise AGF on behalf of the editor who created the article. Generally speaking, unless the the nomination is recently created, and/or really obvious why it qualifies, I either don't bother with it, or I outright decline it. There have been very few I recall as my outright declining, but it's easy for a nominator to exercise WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT with a convenient check box to choose from. There can also be lack of understanding what they are looking at, or just someone over zealous on nominating for deletions. CSD has always made me uneasy in the fact that if "anybody can edit" then anybody can nominate CSD, whether they know what they are looking at or not. And I do realize that there are some editors who do seem to focus on CSD. There has recently been a rash of editors nominating large numbers geography stubs for deletion. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Possibly with the implementation of WP:ACPERM, the influx of new A7-worthy articles in NPP has dwindled, "forcing" those editors to focus on old stubs from the time when "sum of human knowledge" was interpreted more broadly and sources and claims of significance were not usually required for an article to exist (or continue existing). Just a theory though but it could explain the increase in taggings for (very) old articles. Regards SoWhy 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I wrote the following after reading the initial posts, and not any replies.
- First, can we obtain the numbers on the articles that have been successfully deleted after the CSD I proposed? My rough guesstimate is that between 50% to 80% of my CSDs are unchallenged and end up in delete, through it would be nice to verify this. I'd also like to note here that we should be talking about percentages, not a total amount. If 10 of my speedies are declined every week out of 15, then it's a problem, if it's 10 out of 100, said problem isn't really an issue, is it?
- Second. I consider the cases when the speedy is resolved as a redirect (ex. [60]) to be the correct outcome of a successful CSD request (I don't think that WP:SOFTDELETE is not compatible with CSD). A quick count of the list above shows that redirects form about a third of the list of the 'declined' speedies. Again, for me, a redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an 'accepted' speedy. So here we can disagree about the very definition of what is a 'declined' speedy... In either case, the above list a therefore a bit misleading because what Ritchie considers to be a problem ("this was declined") is not necessarily so (as redirect/soft deletion can very well mean an accepted speedy).
- Third: what percentage of declined speedies would suggest that someone should avoid using this tool? Keep in mind that too high if a percentage makes such a tool useless ("don't use this tool unless you are a perfect human being").
- Fourth. I started using speedies few weeks ago after finally installing Twinkle, and they seem to me like a useful first step before escalation to PROD/AfD. Of course, not all articles are eligible for speedies, based on my judgement I sent some to prod or AfD without prior speedy/prod. But when I see an article, usually about a company, that seems to fit WP:A7, I tag it for a review. And I should note that I consider all stages of deletion process to be a review, and if the consensus is against my view, up to and including a keep verdict at AfD, that is to me only an indication that the process is working as intended. I am not prefect, and I am not the final jury on what should be kept, this is for community to decide in a multi-step process, which I used to start with prods, and recently decided to add one more step (CSD) where the given article can get even more attention from the community.
- Fifth. With all due respect, I hope the issue is not 'you are producing more work for the overworked admins, stop using the tool which should not be used, since if used, it creates work'. I do appreciate the work that reviewing admins do for CSD articles, and my interactions with the reviewers have been positive and polite. I hope this will continue as, to repeat, I don't see declines of speedy as a challenge, just a normal part of the process. Unless, again, my ratio of declines is too high and that poses a problem? (But that takes us to my question #1).
- Sixth. Ritchie writes "Many of these have been declined by various editors"; on the other hand, I'd also say that "Many of these have been accepted by various editors". I don't have hard data here but I think that some speedy-reviewing admins tend to decline more, and some tend to be more deletionist. There are some cases where what is a 'credible claim of significance' is debatable based on one's view of related concepts, as anyone who is involved in deletion discussions knows some borderline cases produce no consensus. Some speedies where declined based on good arguments (as I said, I am not perfect, and I can make mistakes too), others in all honestly I consider bogus (ex. arguments that a company should not be speedied as it was founded by a notable person or produced a notable product - WP:NOTINHERITED, yes, yes, showing notability is not necessary for speedy decline, but I simply don't consider such tangential relationships a credible claim of significance'. For example, I don't consider a claim that a company did a first of something to be particularly encyclopedic, per WP:TRIVIA. But if you do, fair enough, CSD has a low barrier for decline, and as I said I am fine with prod/AfD escalation in such cases (as long as you realize that in some cases like this all that ends up happening is that we will make several more people go through the motions of voting delete for likely spam, where their time could be used better elsewhere in this project...).
- Seventh. Let's also not forget what's the real problem we are dealing with here: spam. See recent Signpost article on this, or my own from a while back. CSD can be a helpful tool in stemming the flood of spam assaulting Wikipedia, and I don't think a chilling effect along the lines of 'don't use it if in doubt or admins will get upset' is helpful to anyone, unless the goal is to make people not use the tool to reduce the workload on admins ("this project would run much more smoothly if not for all of those pesky editors who keep creating problems"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- To answer the question of how many of Piotrus' speedies were accepted; in the same time period as the 49 declined speedies listed above, I count 52 that were honoured. So I would say his success rate is about 50:50. To put that into context, User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria says a suitable RfA candidate should be getting about 95% of speedies accepted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since 15 of the 'declines' are redirects, which I'd consider accepted speedies, that would be 34:67, so a 2:1 success ratio, a not an insignificant difference. In either case, I don't consider a half/half ration particularly bad for the first stage of the deletion process (and from my first few weeks with this tool; I'd hope my ratio now is better than in the first week or so of using the tool); I hope it will improve further as I get a better handle on intricacies of CSD (or maybe, on likes or dislikes of the currently active reviewers...). As a frequent editor at AfD, I wouldn't consider someone whose nomination ration would result in such a ratio to be a problem. 50% of spam correctly identified, 50% deferred to further discussion, it's win-win really. The glass such a ratio is half full, not half empty :) What's the problem, again? PS. 95% is nice, and I'd love to improve my ratio here, but IMHO next to impossible unless one deals just with 'super safe' topics. Which is why we cannot get more admins, looking for perfection is a tough challenge. Real world is not an easy one to be a perfectionist unless one is gaming the system (going for the low hanging fruit, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- If there is any doubt about the article having a right to exist, then the community should decide it. Speedy deletions should only be used for non-controversial cases. This principle is true for both submitter and deciding admin. If you are submitting articles for speedy deletion because you hope some sympathetic admin might come along and gets rid of it, then you are abusing this deletion path. Submitting an article for speedy deletion first before starting an AfD in hopes to save time and effort is not the correct procedure. --Hecato (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that with such an argument, you can find a fault with any speedy. Give me any deleted speedy and I'll tell you why it shouldn't have been accepted. What you consider non-controversial someone else surely will differ on. In other words, anyone who uses this tool abuses it in somebody's eyes (to start with, with the article creator...). Also, you say "Submitting an article for speedy deletion first before starting an AfD in hopes to save time and effort is not the correct procedure.". But WP:SPEEDY says clearly "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion". So clearly, saving "time and effort" is what this was intended on. Really, what's the problem? If there is a disagreement on what is said practical chance, all is good, peedy is declined, the procedure works. In other words, declined speedies are not a problem. Outside, of course, of creating work (someone has to review them...), or, if their ratio is too high (but since I am not a random vandal tagging random articles for CSD, what, again, is the problem here?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Did you believe all of your speedy nominations had no chance of surviving an AFD? --Hecato (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Belief is unscientific :) I tought they had good odds of being deleted, but since I am not perfect, every now and then I am proved wrong. Either case, it's a win-win for the project - spam is deleted, or an article is shown to be valuable and kept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Being wrong is certainly not a crime. But it doesn't exactly sound like you are trying to be as correct as possible either. I don't think hard numbers and scientific data really matter here at all that much. As far as I am aware the guideline does not define how many speedies you can nominate and how correct you have to be. It's left open for community forums like this one. That's not the problem. This is a community project. We have to work together here, for better or worse. If the people working with you believe you are not acting in good faith, then that's a problem. Makes working together rather hard. Don't you think so as well? --Hecato (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Hecato: I think so as well, with the caveat that science and such distinguish and informed consensus from the mob rule and lynches. In either case, I am a happy to constructively try to work with the community to improve my understanding of CSD, particularly as I am a newbie when it comes to CSD and clearly, I have ruffled some feathers. So, can you offer some constructive advise? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well it's rather simple: only nominate articles for speedy deletion if you think they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD. And if you keep being wrong about it, then participate in related AfDs until you get a solid grasp of what makes an article topic viable in the eyes of the community. Err on the side of caution and keep being responsive to criticism. That's all anyone could reasonably expect of you. --Hecato (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Hecato: I think so as well, with the caveat that science and such distinguish and informed consensus from the mob rule and lynches. In either case, I am a happy to constructively try to work with the community to improve my understanding of CSD, particularly as I am a newbie when it comes to CSD and clearly, I have ruffled some feathers. So, can you offer some constructive advise? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Being wrong is certainly not a crime. But it doesn't exactly sound like you are trying to be as correct as possible either. I don't think hard numbers and scientific data really matter here at all that much. As far as I am aware the guideline does not define how many speedies you can nominate and how correct you have to be. It's left open for community forums like this one. That's not the problem. This is a community project. We have to work together here, for better or worse. If the people working with you believe you are not acting in good faith, then that's a problem. Makes working together rather hard. Don't you think so as well? --Hecato (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Belief is unscientific :) I tought they had good odds of being deleted, but since I am not perfect, every now and then I am proved wrong. Either case, it's a win-win for the project - spam is deleted, or an article is shown to be valuable and kept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Did you believe all of your speedy nominations had no chance of surviving an AFD? --Hecato (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that with such an argument, you can find a fault with any speedy. Give me any deleted speedy and I'll tell you why it shouldn't have been accepted. What you consider non-controversial someone else surely will differ on. In other words, anyone who uses this tool abuses it in somebody's eyes (to start with, with the article creator...). Also, you say "Submitting an article for speedy deletion first before starting an AfD in hopes to save time and effort is not the correct procedure.". But WP:SPEEDY says clearly "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion". So clearly, saving "time and effort" is what this was intended on. Really, what's the problem? If there is a disagreement on what is said practical chance, all is good, peedy is declined, the procedure works. In other words, declined speedies are not a problem. Outside, of course, of creating work (someone has to review them...), or, if their ratio is too high (but since I am not a random vandal tagging random articles for CSD, what, again, is the problem here?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Point of worry is also his trend to escalate removal discussions. Bruna (company) got in a roughly 20 hour period an A7, PROD and AfD slapped on it. This escalation looked like an attempt to enforce improvements. Bilderberg (hotel chain) also got a A7 and a prod from him, as did SSH Communications Security and Vion NV. I guess there are more examples, but I did not check for them. The Banner talk 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- You do realize that such escalation is a regular part of the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Processes? Sometimes it takes me weeks or months to get back to an article, sometimes mere minutes. So what? PS. On the other hand, I recommend you consider WP:BOOMERANG, as your undoing of my prod at [61] with an edit summary about me (..."someone who seem to have an issue with Dutch companies") is discussing an editor, in other words, a WP:NPA. Please WP:AGF. I have nothing against Dutch companies, but I do have an issue with spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am most disturbed by Piotrus's attitude in every single one of their responses above. The attitude is not "I recognize that I am having an unacceptable number of mistakes, I will try to take this advice to improve". The attitude instead is combative, attacking every single suggestion and blaming everyone except themselves. "Every now and then I am proved wrong", no, as shown above you have a about a 50% chance of being wrong. This is beyond unacceptable. Piotrus: When faced with this issue, you are essentially saying that you have no intention of improving, and your comfortable with the level of problems your frequent mistakes are causing. That is not acceptable. I would have been happy with giving you some friendly tips and letting you self-correct. Now, based on your attitude, I am much more in support of formally topic banning you from all deletion processes, since your responses make it clear you do not recognize that you have any problems, and have no intention of making your performance better. --Jayron32 18:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously, Jayron, I don't understand why we are having such a miscommunication here. I am happy to improve my CSD ratio, but I am politely waiting for someone to say what, exactly, have I done wrong. Yes, I've been applying CSD too broady, and I am trying to get a better grip on it, and friendly tips and advise are always welcome (where have I been impolite? Who is being combative? See Andrew's post above, who is being combative here, again? I said several times I respect the work of admins reviewing CSD and I am fine with their declines, and that I intend to learn from them, what else would you like me to say? What part of 'I am not perfect and I can and do make mistakes" do you interpret as "attitude of someone who think he is never wrong"?). Since this discussion started, I CSDed a single article, Selmash Plant, that was accepted by User:Bbb23, I have prodded another one that I thought, in light of my ongoing' learning experience at CSD, might display a claim of significance yet as far as I can tell fails NCOMPANY otherwise (Mosvodokanal), and I am busy writinga detailed AfD rationale for an article that was deprodded with an edit summary that I think borders on WP:NPA ([62]) but since I don't like 'combat', I am not raising an issue about this (since we all know incivility at that level is not an actionable issue here, and frankly, we have all been guilty of such mild incivility anyway). Now, I am happy to try to work things out in a constructive way, for example by being increasingly frugal with my CSD applications, but I have to say, I am not appreciating how his being handled. Signpost posts a call for arms with spam flood, but in practice, the few of who try to help are not thanked but attacked procedural grounds. Ritchie could have raised this further with me on my talk page, where we could have discussed, constructively, where I erred. Instead we have the usual dramu fest here. Not the most supportive attitude, I have to say. Including your offhand suggestion that I should be banned from not even CSD but all deletion, with no shred of evidence that my actions anywhere else are challenged by anyone except a hardcore inclusionist or two. But, again, can we focus on positives? Like your review earlier in this thread, which I found rather helpful. As I said, I do not consider the claim of 'being the first company to release product x' to be a claim of significance, since it smacks to much of PR marketing trivia, but I am open to consideration that claims of 'first', or 'largest', are sufficient to warrant not applying CSD for such cases in the future. I'd very much appreciate it if you could hep me to refine my understanding of when to apply CSD and when not to do so, rather than engage in more pointless dramu. How about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying you want to improve. Let's reduce this to simplest terms. Here's how you can improve: 1) A7 is ONLY for articles that contain no credible claim to importance. The evidence presented above says that your own personal meter for "credible claim to importance" has been highly faulty up to this point. Moving forward, you need to lower your standards for what you consider a claim of importance. As noted in guidance at WP:CSD and elsewhere, this is not about Wikipedia's standards of notability and the threshold is deliberately low. 2) Don't use any part of the deletion system if you can fix the problems in other ways. WP:BEFORE is optional, except that for you I would recommend that it isn't optional. Your radar for what is, and is not, a good candidate for deletion is not great, and instead of merely reading the article, you should consider both researching the subject a bit (try googling it) and also trying to consider alternative options, such as upmerging the text to a different article and redirecting it, etc. etc. Deletion should be considered only after other things have been tried, and the "kill'em all and let God sort it out" (or rather "Tag'em all and let the admins sort it out) attitude is not useful, and generates a lot of make-work for other people that can be avoided if you just tried to be a little more useful yourself. 3) I really recommend using the AFD process instead of CSD, and by tracking the results of these AFD discussions, you will hopefully get a better sense of what is, and is not, appropriate fodder for deletion. That's my advice. Take it or leave it. But don't respond to legitimate concerns with the dismissive attitude you show above. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Thank you for the feedback. Would you be willing to review some borderline cases where I am not sure CSD is correct? Or would you recommend I simply don't CSD them and go to PROD/AFD? Do note that I already try to do this, but as you say, my CSD radar is not very finely tuned yet.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would absolutely be willing to look over any questions you have. I'm usually active most weekdays between about 11:00-22:00 UTC roughly speaking, much less so at other times, but I will get back to you when I am on. If you just leave a list of articles you have questions about on my user talk page, and say "Hey, are these valid A7 targets" I would gladly look them over and give suggestions and recommendations. --Jayron32 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Thank you for the feedback. Would you be willing to review some borderline cases where I am not sure CSD is correct? Or would you recommend I simply don't CSD them and go to PROD/AFD? Do note that I already try to do this, but as you say, my CSD radar is not very finely tuned yet.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying you want to improve. Let's reduce this to simplest terms. Here's how you can improve: 1) A7 is ONLY for articles that contain no credible claim to importance. The evidence presented above says that your own personal meter for "credible claim to importance" has been highly faulty up to this point. Moving forward, you need to lower your standards for what you consider a claim of importance. As noted in guidance at WP:CSD and elsewhere, this is not about Wikipedia's standards of notability and the threshold is deliberately low. 2) Don't use any part of the deletion system if you can fix the problems in other ways. WP:BEFORE is optional, except that for you I would recommend that it isn't optional. Your radar for what is, and is not, a good candidate for deletion is not great, and instead of merely reading the article, you should consider both researching the subject a bit (try googling it) and also trying to consider alternative options, such as upmerging the text to a different article and redirecting it, etc. etc. Deletion should be considered only after other things have been tried, and the "kill'em all and let God sort it out" (or rather "Tag'em all and let the admins sort it out) attitude is not useful, and generates a lot of make-work for other people that can be avoided if you just tried to be a little more useful yourself. 3) I really recommend using the AFD process instead of CSD, and by tracking the results of these AFD discussions, you will hopefully get a better sense of what is, and is not, appropriate fodder for deletion. That's my advice. Take it or leave it. But don't respond to legitimate concerns with the dismissive attitude you show above. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Jayron32's sentiments above regarding Piotrus' attitude in his responses to this discussion. I find that far more disturbing than the occasional "incorrect" speedy tag. I also find it distrubing that Piotrus fails to see that there is a vast difference between a page being deleted and being redirected; not the least part of which is that, if re-direction is the preferred outcome, Piotrus can do that himself, without involving an admin. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's about 100 other reasons why redirection is not in any way equivalent to deletion, including (besides what you mentioned) is that it can be undone by any editor, it preserved page history, it easily allows for the former text to be recovered to allow merge or recreation and expansion of the original article, etc. etc. The "It's all the same" shows a dangerous lack of understanding of Wikipedia for someone who has been a highly active editor since 2004! 16 years of nearly daily editing, you'd think they would have learned something about proper deletion processes and the differences between deletion and redirection. --Jayron32 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jayron32:, I don't think I ever said deletion is the same as redirection. Redirection is preferable to deletion (WP:PRESERVE), my only point is that from the perspective of end-user and reducing the number of spam-like entries, they have the same effect (problematic entry is gone); that said I don't think I made such an argument here or anywhere else? If a comment of mine somewhere was unclear I am happy to review and clarify it, but please quote me directly, paraphrasing can lead to further confusion. And yes, of course if we can preserve edit history etc. this could be more helpful if someone wants to restore the article, improve it and they don't want to work from scratch. Once again, I do believe redirecting > deletion for most cases. I don't see where we disagree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- You literally said, above "Since 15 of the 'declines' are redirects, which I'd consider accepted speedies." Seriously, in the space of less than an hour, you made a statement then denied saying it. Let me rephrase MY statement, because it was confusing to you: redirects are NOT considered accepted speedies. Period. --Jayron32 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. How would you go about achieving the desired result yourself (said result being elimination of spam, and removing the article in question through redirecting)? Would you just redirect them yourself, or would you suggest a PROD or AfD for those cases, assuming one wants a second opinion? Which is what I have been, apparently incorrectly, trying to do with some CSDs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- You literally said, above "Since 15 of the 'declines' are redirects, which I'd consider accepted speedies." Seriously, in the space of less than an hour, you made a statement then denied saying it. Let me rephrase MY statement, because it was confusing to you: redirects are NOT considered accepted speedies. Period. --Jayron32 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jayron32:, I don't think I ever said deletion is the same as redirection. Redirection is preferable to deletion (WP:PRESERVE), my only point is that from the perspective of end-user and reducing the number of spam-like entries, they have the same effect (problematic entry is gone); that said I don't think I made such an argument here or anywhere else? If a comment of mine somewhere was unclear I am happy to review and clarify it, but please quote me directly, paraphrasing can lead to further confusion. And yes, of course if we can preserve edit history etc. this could be more helpful if someone wants to restore the article, improve it and they don't want to work from scratch. Once again, I do believe redirecting > deletion for most cases. I don't see where we disagree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ONUnicorn: Actually, I think you make a very good point. I will try to use redirects more and CSD less (I've always been very fond of WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:PRESERVE, and I often try to mention a possible redirect target in my prods; in fact they are often a form of asking for a second opinion when I can't decide if something is better of deleted or just redirected - and if you know of a good forum such a question could be asked , let me know; and FYI if there was a 'proposed redirecting' template I would love to use it instead of 'proposed deletion'; ditto for speedies). Is this less of a disturbing attitude? :) Seriously, we are all here build an encyclopedia. I only recently started my learning experience with CSD and I'd appreciate more constructive criticism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's about 100 other reasons why redirection is not in any way equivalent to deletion, including (besides what you mentioned) is that it can be undone by any editor, it preserved page history, it easily allows for the former text to be recovered to allow merge or recreation and expansion of the original article, etc. etc. The "It's all the same" shows a dangerous lack of understanding of Wikipedia for someone who has been a highly active editor since 2004! 16 years of nearly daily editing, you'd think they would have learned something about proper deletion processes and the differences between deletion and redirection. --Jayron32 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, I like the idea of the topic ban to keep him from nominating articles for deletion in any form. The Banner talk 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew, I have not participated in the prior AN(I) requests for topic banning you from deletion process, through I am aware relevant discussions where held at least twice (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD). Keep wP:BOOMERANG in mind, particularly considering recent issues with your deprods. I did not believe back then your behavior is sufficiently disruptive to warrant big guns, but if you like them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously, Jayron, I don't understand why we are having such a miscommunication here. I am happy to improve my CSD ratio, but I am politely waiting for someone to say what, exactly, have I done wrong. Yes, I've been applying CSD too broady, and I am trying to get a better grip on it, and friendly tips and advise are always welcome (where have I been impolite? Who is being combative? See Andrew's post above, who is being combative here, again? I said several times I respect the work of admins reviewing CSD and I am fine with their declines, and that I intend to learn from them, what else would you like me to say? What part of 'I am not perfect and I can and do make mistakes" do you interpret as "attitude of someone who think he is never wrong"?). Since this discussion started, I CSDed a single article, Selmash Plant, that was accepted by User:Bbb23, I have prodded another one that I thought, in light of my ongoing' learning experience at CSD, might display a claim of significance yet as far as I can tell fails NCOMPANY otherwise (Mosvodokanal), and I am busy writinga detailed AfD rationale for an article that was deprodded with an edit summary that I think borders on WP:NPA ([62]) but since I don't like 'combat', I am not raising an issue about this (since we all know incivility at that level is not an actionable issue here, and frankly, we have all been guilty of such mild incivility anyway). Now, I am happy to try to work things out in a constructive way, for example by being increasingly frugal with my CSD applications, but I have to say, I am not appreciating how his being handled. Signpost posts a call for arms with spam flood, but in practice, the few of who try to help are not thanked but attacked procedural grounds. Ritchie could have raised this further with me on my talk page, where we could have discussed, constructively, where I erred. Instead we have the usual dramu fest here. Not the most supportive attitude, I have to say. Including your offhand suggestion that I should be banned from not even CSD but all deletion, with no shred of evidence that my actions anywhere else are challenged by anyone except a hardcore inclusionist or two. But, again, can we focus on positives? Like your review earlier in this thread, which I found rather helpful. As I said, I do not consider the claim of 'being the first company to release product x' to be a claim of significance, since it smacks to much of PR marketing trivia, but I am open to consideration that claims of 'first', or 'largest', are sufficient to warrant not applying CSD for such cases in the future. I'd very much appreciate it if you could hep me to refine my understanding of when to apply CSD and when not to do so, rather than engage in more pointless dramu. How about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia. That takes precedence over combating spam, because without a search for sources it's hard to be sure "spam" isn't a kneejerk response to an under-developed article that happens to be about a business or a product; businesses and products are legitimate article subjects on Wikipedia. At a minimum, it's a good idea to click on the interlanguage links for articles on companies in countries with which one is unfamiliar. Speedy deletion is intended for uncontroversial cases, because only a very few editors have the ability to fix the error once something is wrongly deleted; and none of us knows every field or every region. I've seen articles rescued at AfD that I'd argued myself should be deleted. I'm also a bit nervous about making articles into redirects; if you do this, I hope you will at least boldface it in the text, inform the relevant Wikiproject, and put a note on the talk page of the target article? I'd also suggest notifying the article creator of what you've done, and I hope you always do so when you nominate an article for speedy deletion? An article I started was nominated for speedy deletion through a misunderstanding, and was deleted without my having any idea what had happened; if I'd been informed of the nomination, a lot of effort by others at deletion review could have been saved. Plus, assuming an article is spam and going ahead and attempting to get rid of it is likely to be pretty off-putting to the article creator, something I don't see mentioned above. A notification is at least a minimal courtesy to someone whose reason for writing the article you are implying is bad? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Yngvadotti: Notifications are nice, but sadly, not required for many steps. Yours is a good reminder that they should be generally given, and I'll try to keep it in mind. On the other hand, keep in mind that too much spam can destroy this project. Have you read the recent Signpost OP-ED? As an autor of several thousands articles, I am certainly all for writing more content, but such an effort can be pointless if it drawns in a sea of spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia. That takes precedence over combating spam, because without a search for sources it's hard to be sure "spam" isn't a kneejerk response to an under-developed article that happens to be about a business or a product; businesses and products are legitimate article subjects on Wikipedia. At a minimum, it's a good idea to click on the interlanguage links for articles on companies in countries with which one is unfamiliar. Speedy deletion is intended for uncontroversial cases, because only a very few editors have the ability to fix the error once something is wrongly deleted; and none of us knows every field or every region. I've seen articles rescued at AfD that I'd argued myself should be deleted. I'm also a bit nervous about making articles into redirects; if you do this, I hope you will at least boldface it in the text, inform the relevant Wikiproject, and put a note on the talk page of the target article? I'd also suggest notifying the article creator of what you've done, and I hope you always do so when you nominate an article for speedy deletion? An article I started was nominated for speedy deletion through a misunderstanding, and was deleted without my having any idea what had happened; if I'd been informed of the nomination, a lot of effort by others at deletion review could have been saved. Plus, assuming an article is spam and going ahead and attempting to get rid of it is likely to be pretty off-putting to the article creator, something I don't see mentioned above. A notification is at least a minimal courtesy to someone whose reason for writing the article you are implying is bad? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Regardless, can anyone tell me why there is no User:Piotrus/CSD log? I thought Twinkle would log this just as it does the prods (User:Piotrus/PROD log). (I was intending on analyzing my success/fail ratio indepedently anyway). TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, look for the setting "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Creffpublic Thank you, I didn't realize it was unchecked by default. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, look for the setting "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment. As others who follow this thread may know, an admin is likely soon to be desysopped for, among other things, deleting WP:A7s without due diligence. On the other side of the coin, editors should take care to add WP:CSD tags only in uncontroversial cases. If a careless editor meets a careless admin, we've lost good content; and quite possibly the editor who wrote the speedily-deleted article. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I just checked Mosvodokanal which Piotrus just prodded. This is the largest water company in Russia and the page clearly indicates with a big banner tag that there's more info in the Russian language Wikipedia. That article is linked twice and it's huge, with 48 sources. It's not just that Piotrus isn't following WP:BEFORE; he obviously isn't even reading or understanding the pages that he's nominating. I've seen a lot of this from him lately... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I did look at the ru wiki article, but despite nice formatting and references and such, the article is rather poor. A lot of the said refs are to the company website, or to press releases or such. It is not uncommon to find a sight like this on English Wikipedia - a lengthy article, well formatted, with lots of refs, that nonetheless fails NCOMPANY. Or maybe ru wiki is more inclusive. You cannot judge articles in a quick glance, a more in-depth analysis is needed. Something that people have told you time and again at AfD. But let me teach you a quick trick to dealing with such 'nice' spam. Note that not a single ref in that article is used more than twice. This strongly suggests that no reference is in-depth. And once you read it more closely, you'll notice that the article consists of history and operations sections, referenced primarily to its own website, and to the random collection of facts from more recent news (corruption, controversy, new business ventures, etc.) which run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and the requirement for in-depth coverage. I don't particularly fault you for deprodding it, as I did not mention the problems with the Russian article in my prod, but it is a fair case to take to AfD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PROD "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion." (emphasis in the original). I fail to see how any article with 48 sources in an equivalent article meets that test. "The article is very poor" isn't a deletion argument even at WP:AFD; see WP:RUBBISH. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- In a quick count, I come to all six instances of "www.mosvodokanal.ru" in the article. The Banner talk 20:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- 48 bad sources are, technically, irrelevant, but as I said, if someone doesn't analyze them, which is quite common, I'd expect this to be deprodded. If our, English Wikipedia article, had 48 soruces, I'd have went straight to AfD, since the odds of someone being aved by '48 sources' would be pretty good. In either case, the argument that an article at another Wikipedia is longer/has more sources is not the best. Plenty of articles get deleted from English Wikipedia but not from others, where criteria are different. We have [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)[[, while a related interwikid proposal failed at ru:Википедия:Критерии значимости организаций which may suggest that ru wikipedia is much more inclusive then we are when it comes to such topics. If this ends up at our en wiki AfD we can discuss it further there. As I said, my review of the ru wiki sources which I've done does not suggest they'd be sufficient for our en wiki. 48 bad sources are not much better than no sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have voted in WP:AFD against articles which I thought were WP:REFBOMBed. It's a lot of work to go through 30+ citations, especially if they are not in English, more especially if they are in non-Roman scripts; but checking every one is absolutely essential before voting to delete. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- 48 bad sources are, technically, irrelevant, but as I said, if someone doesn't analyze them, which is quite common, I'd expect this to be deprodded. If our, English Wikipedia article, had 48 soruces, I'd have went straight to AfD, since the odds of someone being aved by '48 sources' would be pretty good. In either case, the argument that an article at another Wikipedia is longer/has more sources is not the best. Plenty of articles get deleted from English Wikipedia but not from others, where criteria are different. We have [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)[[, while a related interwikid proposal failed at ru:Википедия:Критерии значимости организаций which may suggest that ru wikipedia is much more inclusive then we are when it comes to such topics. If this ends up at our en wiki AfD we can discuss it further there. As I said, my review of the ru wiki sources which I've done does not suggest they'd be sufficient for our en wiki. 48 bad sources are not much better than no sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I did look at the ru wiki article, but despite nice formatting and references and such, the article is rather poor. A lot of the said refs are to the company website, or to press releases or such. It is not uncommon to find a sight like this on English Wikipedia - a lengthy article, well formatted, with lots of refs, that nonetheless fails NCOMPANY. Or maybe ru wiki is more inclusive. You cannot judge articles in a quick glance, a more in-depth analysis is needed. Something that people have told you time and again at AfD. But let me teach you a quick trick to dealing with such 'nice' spam. Note that not a single ref in that article is used more than twice. This strongly suggests that no reference is in-depth. And once you read it more closely, you'll notice that the article consists of history and operations sections, referenced primarily to its own website, and to the random collection of facts from more recent news (corruption, controversy, new business ventures, etc.) which run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and the requirement for in-depth coverage. I don't particularly fault you for deprodding it, as I did not mention the problems with the Russian article in my prod, but it is a fair case to take to AfD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I have seen Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus nominate many AfDs I know it can be frustrating to let the community decide however that is how this system works. Less speedy for many of the reasons stated above. It seems that maybe Piotrus has lost patience and is resorting to A7 WP:NORUSH. The right thing normally happens to an article, it just does not always happen on your timeline. I would support a short topic ban based on the evidence provided above, and the comments of Andrew Davidson. Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Wm335td: As I said, I have no problem with community decisions, after all, we are all about consensus. In fact I started to use CSD to add an extra step to this and to involve another party. Through I can now see I have been flailing around with CSDs a bit too much. I will try to improve my usage of this tool, any practical tips and suggestions are welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I think blocks and bans are extreme, and should be reserved for those who don't get it. I can see now that you are going to make some changes. Wm335td (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly enough, User:Piotrus has now slapped - what to me looks like a revenge - AfD on
Bilderberg HotelBilderberg (hotel chain) after his failed A7 and PROD. AfD is not to enforce improvement. The Banner talk 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Try not to take everything so personally. Accusing others of seeking revenge (I don't even know what for, to be honest) is a WP:NPA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's not at AfD, it just had a notability maintenance tag put on it. And quite correctly too, IMO. This article should probably be merged into Bilderberg (hotel chain) because there's no good reason to have separate articles for every hotel in a chain. Reyk YO! 22:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I made a mistake. The AfD is at Bilderberg (hotel chain). Not at Bilderbeg Hotel. The Banner talk 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Speaking as someone who has contested one of Piotrus's speedy deletion nominations in the last day or two (and I'm sure I've done so several times before) I can't find any reason to fault this AfD nomination. That is, after all, the place where deletions are discussed, rather than performed summarily. In the case of Bilderberg (hotel chain), not as you incorrectly say, Bilderberg Hotel, the article cites no independent sources and, having spent the last 20 minutes or so with Google Books and Google Scholar, I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the chain of hotels rather than the Bilderberg Group and/or the hotel in Oosterbeek. Maybe you can do better and give your results in the article and/or the AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies is for being so grumpy earlier. But for instance this and this are proper sources, albeit in Dutch. The Banner talk 05:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly enough, User:Piotrus has now slapped - what to me looks like a revenge - AfD on
Request for mentor
Resolved
Having read and considered the comments above, I would like to ask if any admin or otherwise CSD-experienced editor would like to mentor me for a few weeks when it comes to CSD? I would create a user subpage where I'd list articles I'd like CSDed and you could tell me which are still not on the mark. Hopefully this way I can improve my hit/miss ratio with no risk of accidental deletion of good content. Any volunteers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus Sure. I can work with you on a project like that if you like. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- ONUnicorn I appreciate that. How about this then: I will stop using CSDs for now and I will instead list articles I'd like CSD in let's say User:Piotrus/PROD proposals. I will ping you (and any other admin who wishes to be involved) every few days when there is a batch ready for review, and you can tell me whether any of my proposed CSDs are a miss. After few weeks if you think the miss ratio is reasonably low, we can retire the page. How's that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, sounds good to me. Ritchie333, would that alleviate your concerns? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since the main concern was getting Piotrus to dial back on A7s when PROD, redirecting or AfD would be a better alternative .... I think so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Piotrus, sounds good to me. Ritchie333, would that alleviate your concerns? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- ONUnicorn I appreciate that. How about this then: I will stop using CSDs for now and I will instead list articles I'd like CSD in let's say User:Piotrus/PROD proposals. I will ping you (and any other admin who wishes to be involved) every few days when there is a batch ready for review, and you can tell me whether any of my proposed CSDs are a miss. After few weeks if you think the miss ratio is reasonably low, we can retire the page. How's that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I as well as always willing to give feedback. As I mentioned above, if you want me to give my input on borderline cases, please just ask on my talk page and I will give my honest opinion as an experienced admin and editor. --Jayron32 04:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am also happy to give feedback assuming that Piotrus meant User:Piotrus/CSD proposals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Yes, that's what I meant, goes to show commenting around 2:30am is a bit error prone... I'll also ping Jayron32 who said he can offer advice above. Would you like to be pinged when I submit the aforementioned batches for review as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Dibol civility and accusations of vandalism
Dibol (talk · contribs) has a long history of incivility and accusing editors of vandalism for making good-faith edits. A look at the user's Talk page shows a handful of warnings and blocks for editing warring, but not much beyond that. (I saw the same when I placed a BLP DS alert in November 2018 and warning for BLP violations in March 2019. So we have a history.) What I didn't notice was that Divol removed (rather than archived) the worst of it:
- removed warnings for verifiability, original research, and personal attacks, along with a block tag
- removed warnings for civility and original research
- removed block tag for disruptive editing, along with an uncivil reply
- removed blog tag for disruptive editing
- removed civility warning
- removed a final warning for "false reports of vandalism" and was urged to discuss edits
Of course, editors may remove most messages from their Talk page, so that's not the issue. I mention them because selective removal gives the impression of a relatively clean editing history, when the user's block log shows 8 blocks across more than 10 years. This is clearly a long-term issue.
Now just today, Dibol restored unsourced content with the edit summary "Quit vandalizing, asshole." That content appears to have been removed in good faith with the summary "no need of this". This is especially ironic because Dibol recently removed 20x the number of characters on a different article with the edit summary "Not needed. We're already bloating the cast as is." So it's vandalism when someone else does it, but not Dibol? Note that the IP editor tried to discuss this Dibol in July 2019 on Dibol's Talk page and the article Talk page, then again today on Dibol's Talk page, without any reply from Dibol. I feel that this editor needs to commit to civil discussion with other editors (including not calling good-faith edits vandalism) as well as adherence to our core content policies and BLP, or they should be blocked. Woodroar (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear Dibol's response to this, but the name-calling, personal attacks, mischaracterization of editing as "vandalism", and refusal to engage on their talk page are all major issues, and need to be fixed immediately and not return going forward. The block log shows a history of these problems, and if it isn't soon self-corrected, we may have to correct it for them. --Jayron32 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dibol here. Full context of the situation is I put in information that was considered accurate within the context of the game. SWATJester had a personal vendetta about it, and I called him out on it. What is the point of being civil if I am going to be met with hostility? I have seen this constantly in the past 15 years of my edit history and as far as I'm concerned, the only one that ATTEMPTED to be friendly about disagreeing was WoodRoar. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Same as the first entry, again involving SWATJester. Last time I checked, I got blocked for a good faith edit on the Mortal Kombat II page that year. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, SWATJester being hostile here. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do not remember the context of the edit. If someone were to remind me of the offending edit, I could explain that one. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mr T. Based removed plot summaries for the Syphon Filter video games without rhyme or reason, and my edits for that game were to summarize the contents of the game, since I personally owned copies of the games in question. I do not edit on Wikipedia for the purpose of filling out false information. This seems to be a recurring pattern for the rest of the contested edits I had with the films Black Hawk Down and Clear and Present Danger, Blade Runner: 2049, and Aliens.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)*
- TheOldJacobite was outright hostile with my edits on Clear and Present Danger. If you bothered reading my previous edits and the respective history on that article's page, Jacobite was in the wrong on this. By the way, everyone else that reverted said edits were not even knowledgable about the film AT ALL despite me directly citing dialogue FROM THE FILM ITSELF. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Woodroar, the editor in question is one user from Bulgaria who has been bent on removing information for the sake of removing it, even if the entry has the full disclosure of "archive footage" for the Men in Black entry in Sylvester Stallone's filmography page. This user has been known to revert this at least several times in 2019, so no, I am not going to apologize for having a short fuse with that particular user. In the case of the Halo characters, the character I removed only appeared in one novel and was never even implemented into any of the proper game entries whose only purpose was to be cannon-fodder. I thought the idea of that particular list of characters is if they appeared in "multiple mediums" or primarily came from the games.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jayron, I gave my response on the above offenses here. My problem with most of the administrators and veteran editors that I have interacted with is the environment either started off with either antagonizing me, or if I try to carry out dialogue with said editors, I outright get ignored. If I am at the point of using profanity or name-calling, chances are the other editor is in the wrong for either purposely entering false information, or arbitrarily removing accurate information without any rhyme or reason. How do you expect me to be civil with anyone if goalposts keep getting shifted in the name of "Keeping in line with Wikipedia policy?" My issues with those particular editors is in the pursuit of "Staying in line with Wikipedia policies," any semblance of common sense logic is completely absent. Last time I checked, I replied to Woodroar about a certain topic in question months after the fact despite being told, "contact me anytime," and I'm outright ignored. Does any of this sound right to any of you? If it does, shame on everyone involved here. The fact I have to waste an hour of my limited time here tells me you're only interested in politicking for the sake of it.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I put in information that was considered accurate within the context of the game
- Really. By whom was it "considered accurate"?
- If I am at the point of using profanity or name-calling, chances are the other editor is in the wrong...
- Really really really not how it works. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- "They made me do it" is unlikely to win you any sympathy. What will is if you can provide diffs for your accusations. --Jayron32 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Support short Block Per WP:BLOCK a block is used to stop disruption. At this point I see three issues:a disruption to the project, refusal to engage in consensus building discussion, and personal attacks i.e. calling an editor as*&^le. In my opinion the editor is disrupting the project and needs a block to both: get their attention and to protect the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- No. "Short blocks" are only useful for IP Addresses that are likely to change frequently. For an established user with an account, usually any block less than indefinite is a punitive block, which only purpose is to leave a Scarlet Letter on the block log, which IMHO is a pointless exercise and contrary to blocking policy, which says that blocks are not punitive, but preventative. In the case of any established user, I'm usually of the opinion that any block should be indefinitely contingent upon the blocked user expressing understanding of what they did wrong, and what they intend to change about their behavior. Any other unblock conditions including just waiting for it to expire, is pointless. --Jayron32 04:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: for the record, I'm not from Bulgaria and I've never edited Sylvester Stallone filmography before. I'm not sure if this is a CIR issue or simply Dibol seeing enemies wherever they go, which points to their battleground mentality. Note that Dibol is still calling good-faith edits "vandalizing" and they're up to 3RR on that page (4RR in under 26 hours) without ever joining the Talk page discussion. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Woodroar, I did NOT accuse you of editing the Sylvester Stallone page, for the record. I was addressing YOUR QUESTION about the IP user in question. I did the geo-locator on the the anonymous IP in question, and it has been the same user reverting the data without rhyme or reason, despite the fact that archive footage of the actor was used in Men in Black. Less confused now? Good. As for me not bothering with the conversation. The IP user in question has a very poor level of reading comprehension, and it's obvious that particular IP user in question is not a native English user.Dibol (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've struck part of my comments above, but not those about your edit warring. You've been told repeatedly that edit warring is not acceptable, and you've been blocked for it several times. Working towards a consensus through discussion and (if that proves ineffective) resolving content disputes is not optional on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Woodroar, I did NOT accuse you of editing the Sylvester Stallone page, for the record. I was addressing YOUR QUESTION about the IP user in question. I did the geo-locator on the the anonymous IP in question, and it has been the same user reverting the data without rhyme or reason, despite the fact that archive footage of the actor was used in Men in Black. Less confused now? Good. As for me not bothering with the conversation. The IP user in question has a very poor level of reading comprehension, and it's obvious that particular IP user in question is not a native English user.Dibol (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying to work with ClareTheSharer (talk · contribs) on Danese Cooper, an article on a former WMF employee that has recurring unsourced WP:BLP and WP:COI issues, to ensure that the article doesn't contain an un-sourced or poorly sourced WP:DOB. Discussions with Clare at Talk: Danese Cooper and User talk: ClareTheSharer have gone poorly.
I normally wouldn't bring an encounter like this to ANI but I think the statement on User:ClareTheSharer, '"I have not memorised all the various WP:BLAH and regard appeals to policy without explanation as an attempt at dominance, and push back." (emphasis mine) is a prima facie evidence of how this editor approaches editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and points to a broader problem.
Diffs pointing to WP:TE:
- Expecting others to find sources for your own statements: [63], [64], [65]
- Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit: [66] (restoring a previously identified and removed WP:PRIMARY source)
Diffs pointing to WP:BATTLE:
- After trying to explain a few policies to this editor,[67], [68], I've been accused of bullying [69], making epic personal attacks, trying to conceal my editing. [70] and being a destructive editor [71]
Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Toddst1. He has been patient and has been fighting a long outbreak of tendentious editing on Danese Cooper for a long time. I really think blocks are in order Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 19:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Insertcleverphrasehere
Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs)
Hi. I'm seeking some clarification here. As you may know, I create a lot of articles, all of which meet the notability requirements. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years or so. However, this user has started to tag all the ones I've created in the last hour or so, via WP:NPP. I've had a discussion with them, but we clearly disagree about this. I find this not to be helpful to see red dots pop up every few minutes with page patrol tags, etc, on these articles, and quite frankly, a time-sink in dealing with this, Any help here would be grateful. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts has been creating single source stubs (they meet the SNG but we require multiple sources for verifiability). I noted that as an autopatrolled user their articles should not have major issues like this, as they can't expect NPP to be checking over their articles.
- I asked them to please add at least two independent references that either demonstrate the GNG or else demonstrate meeting the SNG (each currently has only a single source that shows meeting an SNG criteria). I added the {{more references}} tag to several articles that I saw come through the feed as a group (7 or 8 of them were visible amongst the most recent 20 or so).
- Lugnuts reverted the tag without explanation and without adding additional references. I re-added the tag in places where I could not easily find a second source (I actually added sources to most of them). As for the others, Lugnust has reverted the tag repeatedly without fixing the issue. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, looking at the logs, it is clearly not true that all your articles meet notability criteria. Guy (help!) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is - these all meet WP:NOLY. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, well, that depends how you interpret ‘presumed notable’ (many consider this wording to indicate that the SNG does not create notability, but merely indicates a rule of thumb of what is likely to pass GNG). I actually can’t find sources for a lot of these people to meet the GNG, but anyway I haven’t even asked for that! (I’m aware that a lot of these competitors competed decades ago and there are almost certainly offline sources to meet the GNG). But a bare minimum of at least two independent sources that verify meeting the SNG is required for verifiability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORTS:
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them
. Based on that, if someone has done a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE search and has not found that sort of coverage, then the articles are fair game for AfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- Creffett, Given the time period of these subjects (competed decades ago), I would expect a thorough WP:BEFORE search to include scouring newspaper archives and/or magazines. Since I don't have access to those and have not done that, I personally don't think AfD was appropriate in these cases, and it really wasn't part of the issue here. If the people in question had competed in the 2010s for example, and I was unable to find sources online, then I might consider AfD in spite of meeting the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, oh, sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the articles should be sent to AfD, just adding a third-party interpretation of the relevant rule. Tagging the articles as needing sources seems like a reasonable middle ground to me. creffett (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Creffett, Given the time period of these subjects (competed decades ago), I would expect a thorough WP:BEFORE search to include scouring newspaper archives and/or magazines. Since I don't have access to those and have not done that, I personally don't think AfD was appropriate in these cases, and it really wasn't part of the issue here. If the people in question had competed in the 2010s for example, and I was unable to find sources online, then I might consider AfD in spite of meeting the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORTS:
- Lugnuts, well, that depends how you interpret ‘presumed notable’ (many consider this wording to indicate that the SNG does not create notability, but merely indicates a rule of thumb of what is likely to pass GNG). I actually can’t find sources for a lot of these people to meet the GNG, but anyway I haven’t even asked for that! (I’m aware that a lot of these competitors competed decades ago and there are almost certainly offline sources to meet the GNG). But a bare minimum of at least two independent sources that verify meeting the SNG is required for verifiability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is - these all meet WP:NOLY. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no minimum requirement of sources. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Generally expected does not equate to MUST, as in must have two (or x) sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, Autopatrolled editors should NOT be trying to quibble about how badly they are allowed to source their articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once, so I'll ask you again - please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (The ping is added automatically as part of reply link, apologies). If an editor is routinely violating 'generally expected' core principles of the notability guidelines they probably shouldnt be autopatrolled. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once, so I'll ask you again - please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, See WP:GNG. No, not all your articles are notable subjects, because some have been deleted.
- Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive. In this case, many of them are based on a single results listing. NOLY is a subject-specific guideline and does not replace the project-wide consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory so subjects must have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.
- This is what Sander v Ginkel was doing that precipitated his ban. Don't do it. Guy (help!) 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some deletions? What, one or two from years ago? We're talking about creations in the last hour or two - let's not create any red-herrings here. "Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive" is it? Please can you show me the policy and or diffs of where this was agreed on WP? Sander was adding tons of into BLPs that had no sourcing. I'm not doing that. Again, anothe red-herring. Please stay on topic about NPP, not someone else's contributions. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Guy has made this very WP:POINTY AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's pointy. I would expect that you know coming here means conduct of all involved is looked at. You've asked for scrutiny of your article creation. From the bit I looked at I found nothing wrong. Guy found something else and decided to use a community process to see what others think. That feels like everything working as it should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Guy has made this very WP:POINTY AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some deletions? What, one or two from years ago? We're talking about creations in the last hour or two - let's not create any red-herrings here. "Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive" is it? Please can you show me the policy and or diffs of where this was agreed on WP? Sander was adding tons of into BLPs that had no sourcing. I'm not doing that. Again, anothe red-herring. Please stay on topic about NPP, not someone else's contributions. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, Autopatrolled editors should NOT be trying to quibble about how badly they are allowed to source their articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no minimum requirement of sources. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Generally expected does not equate to MUST, as in must have two (or x) sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding notability, doesn't, e.g., Lino Elias have BLP issues? Specifically (without having performed research, but taking Insertclever at their word that they are "unable to find decent sources", it only indicates that they are notable for participating in one Olympic game (implicating WP:BLP1E) and do not appear well-known (implicating WP:NPF). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Well, yes and no. I wouldn't take something like this to AfD as due to the time period
(1960s)(edit: sorry; 1990s, but still pre-internet) there are likely offline sources not available through google (perhaps newspaper directories could yield more?). Id personally be happy with two independent sources demonstrating meeting an SNG criteria, at least when it comes to older historical topics/subjects (though other patrollers might be more strict, and I've seen articles deleted at AfD on these grounds). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Well, yes and no. I wouldn't take something like this to AfD as due to the time period
- Comment I'm not really seeing anything sanctionable here, as this is fundamentally just a disagreement about whether an autopatrolled editor is expected to comply with GNG on every article or whether they can lean on SNGs alone, which is a gray area policy-wise. That is possibly a discussion worth having, but I don't think that AN/I is the right forum for it. As an added note, I would advise ICPH to wait more than a few hours before tagging articles. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, With regards to these articles, hours would have added nothing, as Lugnuts has been clear from the start that there was no intention of adding additional sourcing. I'm personally of the mind that tagging after 10 min or so can be valuable if you send a message to the user as well, explaining why you added the tag (they are more likely to be online and ready to fix issues than they are a couple hours later). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Rosguill. I'm not asking for sactions, just clarification. If CleverPhrase wants to drive-by tagging, then fine, it'll just leave dozens of articles with a big tag on the page that will remain on the article for ever. Which is what happens with most tagging I see. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I sent you messages regarding what needed to be fixed. Please don't misrepresent me with "drive-by tagging". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)While I agree that Lugnut's stubs should be better sourced, I'm not sure I see the need to tag them all. A single sentence stub clearly is in need of more citations. Thus adding a tag is...stating the obvious, and contributing to an enormous tag backlog. WP:DRIVEBY tagging isn't very useful. By that same token, a single sentence stub isn't very useful either. The moral here: quality is more important than quantity. But I don't see anything actionable. Lugnuts should be careful to make sure their stubs meet policy, but I can't imagine us removing the autopatrolled tag. And ICPH wasn't misusing NPP either, though their tagging should remain...sensible. But I fault the users less than policy: this issue seems to have emerged out a gap in notability policy, one that should be adjudicated with a formal village pump policy decision, not at ANI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate to tag an article with Template:Refimprove that has one reference clearly demonstrating that it meets an SNG and supporting the facts contained in the article? What a great content discussion. I really would like to have it too as I have strong opinions about it (spoiler: I think one reference can be OK, but there are a lot of howevers attached to that). If this discussion happens (and I hope it does) I hope someone will let me know. But let's look at conduct. What this forum actually can address. Is ICPH doing anything wrong with tagging these articles with ref improve? I would emphatically say no. They are not stalking Lugnuts contributions - they are looking at this kind of article as a set and Lugnuts keeps creating new ones that qualify. Perhaps this could be avoided if ICPH used Twinkle or manual edits to place the tag rather than page curation so Lugnuts doesn't get repeated notifications. 10 minutes is a reasonable time to wait, especially for an editor who is creating 2-4 articles within 10 minute timeframes. As for Lugnuts, I am not thrilled with an editor saying "I am knowingingly creating articles no one will ever improve". I have been creating stubs of my own for Caldecott books. But I'm also working on taking Caldecott books to GA so while they might be stubs now, I would hope to improve them someday to at least GA level. For Lugnuts creation seems to be the end of their desired involvement with the articles. If hundreds of Olympians merely have 2 sentence stubs written about them forever well so be it. That doesn't thrill me at all - especially because unlike my books these are BLPs to which we owe a much higher standard of care and consideration. However, in the end, I don't think there's anything sanctionable there really either. If I thought their SNG creation inappropriate it might make sense to take away autopatrol. But I would be opposed in this instance to revoking Lugnuts autopatrol. So as someone who considers himself both a new page patroller and content creator here I see nothing really wrong with either editor's actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{Refimprove}} and related templates are for unsourced statements. If there are no unsourced statements, those templates should not be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, Perhaps {{BLP sources}} or {{One source}} would be more appropriate in some circumstances, but 'more references' is the most appropriate tag in many cases. Especially where one source is used but that source is inadequate (due to not being a high quality source or just being a stat listing). The wording on the tag does apply to the articles that I added it to in this case, even if the template documentation doesn't consider microstubs when giving advice where to use it and where not to. We don't have a "Microstub with one flimsy source" tag, but I will make do with what we do have. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{Refimprove}} and related templates are for unsourced statements. If there are no unsourced statements, those templates should not be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's not beat around the bush here: these articles are awful. They are database scrapes created not to impart information to the reader but because they nominally meet some low, low, low "notability" guideline. I have never been a fan of creating tons of tiny one-sentence microstubs that send the reader flipping madly from one page to another in search of tiny dregs of information. Don't get hung up with the idea that "meets my crappy SNG"="Automatically entitled to a shrine". These aren't biographies; they are event listings or match scorecards that contain no biographical information beyond a name and a DOB, and even those are sometimes incomplete. A better way to present this information is to merge it into lists like "Foobleckistan at the 1957 Olympics", or "List of San Blortinese Tiddlywinks players". Reyk YO! 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reyk here. An encyclopedia should not be made up of one sentence entries. Reyk suggests some merges, I would also suggest lists. As Barkeep has stated I am not sure there is any sanctionable activity here but I would hope Lugnuts would endeavor to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Just because something is technically not prohibited by guideline or policy it does not mean it is best practice. Regarding Insertcleverphrasehere I think they have done nothing wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think folks have a good point here: there is no doubt that Lugnuts is a prolific content creator. 70,000 pages is truly something. But of those...Lugnuts has a mere 9 FA/GA. Quantity yes, quality...not so sure. Lugnuts, if you're reading: I would challenge you to change how you're thinking about content creation, and try to create some truly "epic" pages. More GA's, more FA's, more pages that show that you really are one of our best content creators. Even if every article you made started as a C class, that would be an enormous improvement over stubs. You certainly don't have to, but its a challenge I hope you'll take on :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reyk here. An encyclopedia should not be made up of one sentence entries. Reyk suggests some merges, I would also suggest lists. As Barkeep has stated I am not sure there is any sanctionable activity here but I would hope Lugnuts would endeavor to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Just because something is technically not prohibited by guideline or policy it does not mean it is best practice. Regarding Insertcleverphrasehere I think they have done nothing wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mass creating stubs is spam. I know not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, but I think it is (and has always been) one of the biggest drains on resources and one of the biggest impediments to the project actually growing. It's just noise, it gets in the way of everything. It kills the article-to-editor ratio. It encourages other spammers. It makes the encyclopedia overly large and unwieldy. It spreads our resources thin. I would prohibit single-source stubs if I were King of Wikipedia. Levivich 05:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the conflict, but I don't think there's any wrongdoing here by anyone, from the creation to the AfD. I also don't think one sentence stubs are a problem as long as the topic is notable. What we need to have is a discussion as to whether WP:NOLY should still grant presumed notability to all individual Olympians. I, for one, would strongly prefer changing it to any individual medalist or sportsperson who passed WP:GNG as a result of their participation, though this could wreck some of our potentially notable historic/non-English speaking articles. I think we can assume any medalist will receive some coverage. Any person medaling in a team sport should look to that sport's SNG or to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will strive to be a bit more diplomatic than Reyk and Levivich here, but I agree with their underlying point. Microstubs were great in Wikipedia's earliest years but after 19 years and six million articles, we need a greater emphasis on quality rather than quantity. In my opinion, it is a really bad practice for editors with the autopatrolled flag to crank out large numbers of microstubs with a single reference. New articles created by trusted users ought to summarize multiple references to reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. That results in an encyclopedia that we can all be proud of. Who can be proud of junk? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think I agree with that. Well, I mean, I agree that we should be doing our best to find sources and avoid microstubs. However, in many cases even microstubs are better than nothing. This is one of the latest articles I created: Bello Monte station. It has two templates, two lines of text on my screen, and one reference. (I could have added more references, and I will do that if someone tags the article, but they will likely be in Spanish anyway). I am sure some users would say it is a microstub. However, two weeks ago there was no information whatsoever on the English Wikipedia on this metro station in a city with several million population - and now there is, location, date of opening, basic history (no photo, but if someone takes one it is trivial to add). Is this really a disgrace to Wikipedia to have this information? If someone has access to specialized sources (which do exist), they are by all means welcome to improve the article, and I will help whatever I can. One can discuss whether having a separate article is the best way to present this information - may be all such articles should go to the list, and only made separate when there is more to say about individual stations. This could be an interesting discussion, and I am sure there will be two sides arguing opposite points. But I can not agree with the notion that I in any way damaged Wikipedia by spending my time to find this information and by creating the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think the key difference is that Bello Monte station is clearly notable - a very quick search and a check of the Spanish-language Wikipedia article shows that it would pass any AfD (there are photos there you could probably incorporate as well.) The problem with these stubs is there's really no way for us to improve them any further, and their notability is based on an unclear SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what a microstub is vs just a stub. The first sentence of WP:STUB is
"A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."
The nutshell saysAn article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub
. I'm not sure when creating stubs became dirty but Cullen is right that attitudes have shifted from the beginning of the project until now. I am not concerned by stubs. I don't think our policies or guidelines supports the idea of stubs being a bad thing - though if push came to shove consensus might support changing that. I am, however, concerned by permanent stubs. If an article is a stub (microstub?) now and there is little reasonable expectation that someone will come along and fix that, well yes I am concerned about that. And I'm very concerned when those permastubs are BLPs. A likely PERMASTUB BLP is true in this case and I hope Lugnuts takes concerns about that on board. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what a microstub is vs just a stub. The first sentence of WP:STUB is
- I've started a discussion about WP:NOLY here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to echo Reyk, Cullen, et al., and perhaps also encourage anyone mass-creating these kinds of microstubs to take a page from my book and make lists from which can theoretically be spun out articles if enough information for a second sentence can be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree lists are far preferable to permastubs. Listifying stubs conserves resources all around, while preserving the content, which can always be spun out later to start-class articles by anyone who chooses to do so. For example, Bello Monte station could be merged with List of Caracas Metro stations (or Caracas Metro Line 5). Levivich 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, Elizium23 has taken it upon themselves to be offended over the word "dodo"[72], I agree it's childish but no where near a personal attack and certainly not worth this much drama,
They've also taken it upon themselves to repeatedly remove Cassianto's comment from my talkpage[73] despite repeatedly told not too,
Could someone either warn or short-block them for a bit as they don't seem to want to stop, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I need to apologize for removing personal attacks against myself (Cassianto) or others (Trillfendi) and I get a little tired of explaining how this is. I also didn't appreciate Davey2010's WP:EGG link in his edit summary encouraging me to click it and be logged out. When it got to that point, I filed for RevDel. Please RevDel personal attacks; I have stopped reverting due to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: Note WP:TPO:
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
Your interpretation of a personal attack is unlikely to be upheld. Also, note that per policy,Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence
also constitute personal attacks in and of themselves. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.}} Be mindful.Also I suggest that you read WP:DTTR: if you don't want to receive templated warnings, it is best not to use them yourself. FYI.:Also you should note WP:NOBAN: While allowing you to "ban" people from your talk page,a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to.
(My emphasis). ——SN54129 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- I would suggest that per WP:NOTFORUM it was not exactly driving the conversation forward to be name-calling others in a minor dispute that had no previous history. We regularly remove NOTFORUM conversations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23 being called a dodo isn't a personal attack tho ..... You genuinely cannot be telling me you are genuinely offended over being called a bird/animal ....., If you really are offended then in the nicest possible way this website isn't for you. –Davey2010Talk 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: Note WP:TPO:
- @Davey2010: This is not the first time in recent history that people have taken issue with your tone. Regardless of who's "in the right" here, it's becoming a pattern: I think you need to change your approach to discussions, because it doesn't seem to be making you any friends. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Alfie - My behaviour isn't the issue here but thanks for your comments!. –Davey2010Talk 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not taking sides here, Davey2010, but you certainly know better than that. You bring a report to ANI, your behavior is on the table. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I would not enjoy being called a Dodo. Look up the meaning, it means more than a flightless bird. I may stop short of calling it a PA but I would say it does not encourage the civility called for in the 5 pillars WP:5P4. Wm335td (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- According to Wiktionary, to call someone a dodo is to say he is "very old or has very old-fashioned views or is not willing to change and adapt." It's not a strong personal attack, but some of the invective that followed definitely was. Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I ask this ever so diffidently... why above does Elizium23 refer to
personal attacks against myself (Cassianto)
? EEng 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)- I believe that Elizium23 was charging Cassianto (perhaps a bit inelegantly) with making the personal attacks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Me and my wiki friends are edit warring again. Come take a look if you want. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Multiple Issues
There are multiple issues regarding user conduct as well as the state of an article. All of this stemming from the article Media coverage of Bernie Sanders.
Repeated reversions of edits
The user User:WMSR reverted edits many times as well as being the 3rd nominator for AfD of the article. This is after they were told on ANI about a similar mistake they made. The user latter stated that they now understood the mistake that they made. The ANI issue can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=935813593#Personal_attacks_by_User:Rafe87
The edits the reverted can be seen on the page history of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders The user was also mentioned in another ANI issue above, where it can be seen that the issue WMSR brung forward was not that big of a deal. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
My opinion, is to place a temporary topic ban on WMSR, the topic ban should inculde US Politics related articles, Notice boards, and AFD.
- Ummm, time to close this thread as now we are just getting into silly territory. The example above shows Rafe87 was given a 48 hour timeout and WMSRs understanding of 1R was corrected. This seems more like trying to silence someone for being vocal than a real complaint Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand WMSR has the right to become vocal, however what he is doing after the close of the ANI thread above is the bigger issue. The fact that people at ANI have stated the issue he described is not a big deal or non-existance, and after that he still is trying to point out the same thing. This is like WP:NOTHERE. They are somewhere along the lines of "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". More on the first one, where it seems that they have the agenda of either removing the items they don't like or deleting the article. This is exactly what WMSR is doing. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)- Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, this could not be further from the truth. Threads on this page are re-opened frequently, especially in the case of an editor continuing a behavior after closure (which was the case above). It is not a violation of any policy to re-open a thread. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, which is a serious allegation. Any editor who goes through my contribs will easily see that it is entirely baseless. As I told you above, I care deeply about building an encyclopedia based on reliably-sourced and verifiable facts. I am glad to collaborate and have a strong history of doing so, but on that particular page, the behavior of several editors has made that extremely difficult. When I have removed sources that fail WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:V, I provide adequate justification per policy. But it isn't easy to collaborate with someone who is all too eager to harass me, which is why I went here. Asking for me to be topic banned is an extreme step, and I strongly recommend that you strike your accusations and proposal before it comes back around. --WMSR (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- WMSROk sorry, I think I went a bit overboard. see ur talk page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, this could not be further from the truth. Threads on this page are re-opened frequently, especially in the case of an editor continuing a behavior after closure (which was the case above). It is not a violation of any policy to re-open a thread. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, which is a serious allegation. Any editor who goes through my contribs will easily see that it is entirely baseless. As I told you above, I care deeply about building an encyclopedia based on reliably-sourced and verifiable facts. I am glad to collaborate and have a strong history of doing so, but on that particular page, the behavior of several editors has made that extremely difficult. When I have removed sources that fail WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:V, I provide adequate justification per policy. But it isn't easy to collaborate with someone who is all too eager to harass me, which is why I went here. Asking for me to be topic banned is an extreme step, and I strongly recommend that you strike your accusations and proposal before it comes back around. --WMSR (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is one of the more bizarre things I've read on this noticeboard. Isn't there a rule against bringing patently absurd and spurious complaints like this against editors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Repeated AfD nominations
The page keeps getting nominated for deletion repeatedly.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders_(2nd_nomination)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders
In the first one, there was an issue where there was a possibility of WP:COI, WP:Sock, and multiple WP:CAN. The result was no consensus. The third one which is still open and ongoing, has a major issue and I feel that there will be a no consensus again. The following are the issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
====Nomination reason for the 3rd AfD====
The nomination reason for the 3rd AfD is absurd, and the nominator latter clarified to me in a response where from reading the response it can be implied that the nominator nominated it in AfD because they were tired of repeatedly trying to fix the article with no avail. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=938349151&oldid=938344989 Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Users who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines getting involved
There are multiple instances where it is easily seen that there are users involved the majority of the three AfD's, where the user shows little understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Many users are saying that there are sources listed in the reference section, the article is considered will cited and thus should not be deleted. However, there are users bringing up the issue that there are many sources that are unreliable, and the editors of the article did WP:SYNTH and Template:Cleanup-PR. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Issues regarding the reliability of sources in the article
A major issue in the AfD is that there is a disparity in the agreement between if a source should be considered reliable or not. One of the many examples regarding this issue is the following : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMedia_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&type=revision&diff=938127119&oldid=938104913 Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Crucs at Islamic eschatology
- Crucs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.78.1.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Islamic eschatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This editor has been adding and restoring controversial material persistently without secondary scholarly sources at the article, despite being reminded several times about the importance of consensus and reliable secondary sources. Previous controversial edits were also at Reconquista. There seems to also have been some unlogged editing. Since it's not a simple 3RR case I thought I'd report it here. Each diff below is a range of consecutive edits:
- 19 January [74], [75]
- 19-20 January [76]
- 20-21 January [77]
- 21 January [78], [79]
- 24 January [80]
- 30 January (logged out): [81]
- 31 January [82]
- Reconquista: [83]
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I second the concern about this editor. They've had warnings from User:Asqueladd and User:WikiDan61 concerning deletions at Reconquista and I told them that they needed to stop edit-warring at Islamic eschatology on the 25th. They seem unwilling to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not unwilling to talk, I don't know my way around this editing forum. In other words, I am new at this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Crucs since opened a thread at WP:RSN#Islamic Eschatology which I think is a step in the right direction, —PaleoNeonate – 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Persistent WP:BLP violations, with latest edit making a criminal accusation. That needs to be rev/deleted, and I leave it to administrative discretion how far back to go. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Trolling at User talk:BrownHairedGirl
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP User:92.8.219.138 is trolling at User talk:BrownHairedGirl, see one example. Can someone please help us out there? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just to add, after BHG's controversial desysop, it might help for a few admins to add her talk page to their watchlists for a period. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly block evasion from WP:LTA/VXFC.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Why hasn't the foundation gotten that individual banned from the entire site? This is clearly a case of long-term internet harassment. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Arbcom themselves have asked the WMF to do something, but alas, the nonsense continues. This feeds into my theory that VXFC is Jimbo Whales. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 16:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Current IP is blocked, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- And now it's User:173.71.212.219, eg this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I realise that this is closed but it brings to mind something I was thinking during the case. I didn't raise it as it was not specific to BHG (though it was posts from TTH that prompted my thought) but I would like to take the opportunity to ask and get some feedback on a general idea. After some (many?) ArbCom cases, there are sanctioned editors who are targeted with unfair / unreasonable criticism, or comments made about them to which they may be unable to respond due to a ban, and other unseemly behaviour like grabedancing. Would it be helpful in dealing with this to have, in addition to the usual editor and admin tools (reversion, protection, etc), the DS toolkit available to uninvolved admins? In other words, if they persist after reversion or move to a different page, would uninvolved admins find the ability to TBan or IBan an editor for a fixed period from referring to the sanctioned editor in an adverse way (outside of DR) useful? ArbCom could add a fixed term authorisation of, say, 3 months, for uninvolved admins to be able to impose DS for up to 3 months post-closure as AE actions in relation to commenting on any editor sanctioned by a decision to their standard provisions. I'm happy to raise the idea for ArbCom to consider, but I'd like to see if others feel it would be helpful or approporiate, and I figure many admins who deal with such circumstances read or post here. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please. If established editors are doing the trolling, however minor, a page ban might be a good remedy. However, something stronger might be warranted per WT:WikiProject Portals/Design#Indefinite hiatus on portal program development?. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the steps dealing with that trolling on my talk, Bbb23 & Boing. Much appreciated.
It's be good to also see some restraint on the trolling[84] which Johnuniq mentioned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Many IPs, which I am suspecting are the same person, are changing sourced information at Xiao Zhan and refusing to discuss the disputed content despite numerous attempts to explain to the person. See: [85] for more details. 203.115.95.201 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the article, I'd say it needs WP:SEMI protection. Jerm (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @203.115.95.201: You should create an account. It would help distinguish you from other IPs. Jerm (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There are too may disruptions related to this controversial Indian Baba and his foundation Isha Foundation in recent days. I even got offer for paid editing on my social media but I declined; I disclosed about it on WT:India. @Jp7311: is continuously pinging me (even after I warned them not to ping) and harassing me. They are not even understanding difference between vandalism and good faith edits; and calling me vandal at BLPN repeatedly. I tried to let them understand my edits but they’re intractable. It seems they are closely connected with subject. Note that there is editor User:KumareshPassoupathi accepted COI with organisation and then suddenly there is rise in new editors and stale accounts which are reverting and forumshipping.
- Here they called vandal.
- Here again they sought explanation for my edit summary but it was based on content.
- Here they are not understanding consensus and still seeking answer by pinging me. The incident was simple, I removed promotional unecnyclopedic content which was reverted by User:Bbb23 then I took it to t/p where I and User:DBigXray did consensus but this user is not understanding it and calling me as malicious intent.
- Here they’re alleging I blocked someone on Wikipedia but you know, I’m not admin.
- I have opened SPI about this new user and another new user due to duck properties and similar editing behaviour but was declined. I also gave COI warning about Jaggi but later I found my already warning to user, so, I removed it.
This is becoming quite disappointing and user is not understading my edits. I can't AGF more, please act something on these pages and these users which are doing WP:TE. -- Harshil want to talk? 04:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Admins,
Request you to please visit the BLP Noticeboard - Jaggi Vasudev for complete details of the discussion with Harshil169 and others regarding the Jaggi Vasudev page.
To be sure, I have not pinged them even once after they asked not to be. It really was just a courtesy so they could be notified of developments - and defend their actions if they chose to.
As for the SPI, grateful to certain Admins for not allowing any devious tactics to derail this much needed discussion.
Thanks, Jp7311 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I recommended that Harshill69 bring this thread here on my Talk page. Their presentation of evidence against Jp7311 is not the best, but at the BLPN thread, which I suggest you read in its entirety only if you are a glutton for punishment, Jp7311 has gone nuclear screaming (all caps, bold, highlighted yellow) accusations of vandalism. I will copy the first one here to give everyone a taste, but there are several more afterwards in the same style:
- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- RAMPANT (ONGOING) VANDALISM by Harshil169:
- 'Pls see above 'malicious removal of encyclopedic content' from Jaggi Vasudev page by Harshil169 one of many instances of vandalism (some others listed below) & request appropriate action including to disallow their editing of the page.'
- User has violated Wikipedia policy on VANDALISM: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
- Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- In normal circumstances I would block JP7311 for this kind of conduct, or at least give them a final warning, but (a) I have not examined the thread or the "merits" of Jp7311's allegations, and (b) I have edited the article in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I realize that is mostly the conventional way WP:INVOLVED is read — even though the policy refers to disputes rather than to someone having edited the article in the past, per se. At least that's how I interpret the policy. @Jp7311: please take the following as a final warning against accusing established editors of vandalism —see what vandalism is not— which, if you do again, you will be sanctioned for. I am unfamiliar with the dispute otherwise, too. El_C 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks and accusations of COI at Talk:WiTricity, by User:Receptiondesk11
While doing some cleanup work I stumbled on the article WiTricity, and it appeared to me that it was overflowing with original research and synthesis aimed at calumniating this company. The negative commentary seems to have been written on top of some pre-existing spam. I started trimming most of the worst of the guff but all my changes got reverted by User:Receptiondesk11. I took my concerns to the talk page, trying to explain the difference between proper sourcing and inappropriate synthesis. All I got in response was lengthy ranting, insults, accusations of being in cahoots with WiTricity, and what looks to me to be a veiled legal threat.
Could someone have a word with this guy, maybe have another go at explaining WP:SYNTH to him? It's clear that I'm not getting through. Meanwhile, the article is still an incoherent harangue but I don't feel like getting into an edit war over it. Thanks, Reyk YO! 05:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I am replying here: I too stumbled on the Wikipedia page of Witricity. It was clearly there for ages, and obviously written by Witricity employees... they never once made a factual mention of a SINGLE stumble... such as their complete failure in pushing Rezence today, which was to have been the modern dominant standard by 2018... see IHS Markit projections. Recently, IHS Markit interviewed me and it became obvious talking to them that they too had been totally misled by the PR from Witricity, especially here on Wikipedia, which people tend to believe as a neutral source... and that neutrality needs to be upheld too Sorry Reyk! So I painfully set myself upon the path of adding neutral links documenting the stunning history of failure after failure of Witricity, maybe a success here and there too. For example, pointing out that they regrouped, after fully giving up and failing on Rezence in late 2017 (announcing layoffs), not because they suddenly saw a big new market opportunity as stated on Wikipedia, which claimed that their new CEO Mr Gruzen had a vision to focus on. So, I added links from 2014, 2015 showing Mt Gruzen had promised the world that "Rezence based appliances", including phones, laptops, drones etc were about to be released. Here is Mr Gruzen promising "we are already shipping": https://www.barrons.com/articles/witricity-energous-were-shipping-deal-with-it-say-wireless-power-pioneers-1505418421 The Dell Latitude 7285 I pointed out using Dell's own public statements, was not a laptop, but a 2-in-1.. for good reason. Yet Witricity had/has innumerable press releases, INCLUDING USING WIKIPEDIA to say so, to claim that they released the "world's first laptop" based on Rezence...I gave all the links including Dell's press release stating that mainstream laptop charging was still years away... .. to date there is not a single laptop out there with wireless charging.. but you would not believe that if you read Witricty on Wikipedia! Unfortunately, the average reader does not understand technicalities, and buys into the presumption that "Made in MIT" must be good....It is just a presumption, so I pointed out to exact pages within the "celebrated" MIT thesis showing that even the term "efficiency" was used in a completely different sense by MIT academicians (physicists) to what 99% of engineer's today use.. which should be simply output divided by input power. MIT team was on closer examination ONLY talking about "COIL efficiency" (energy lost between coils) not overall system efficiency... which was typically 3 times lower than standard efficiency definition...as also made clear deep inside the very MIT thesis. I mentioned the exact page number with the link! Unfortunately a lot of companies bought into the glorified story of Witricity and LOST MILLIONS.. maybe by reading Wikipedia! I ointed out the fact that Intel invested $25 million into Witricity, alongwith Foxconn etc... AND LOST all of it... so it should be a warning to the world .. I just presented links... 90% of them were objective and independent and there was no "synthesis" etc... Witricity guys jumped in to quickly revert to the early (their) 2019 version.. basically to kill my presentation of facts... they keep doing it.. I would be happy if Reyk edited it, removed specific links which may be missing or not considered 100% objective.. FINE, but to revert again and again to an obvious PR piece in mid 2019... that is hopefully not what Wikipedia stands for! Reyk goes from a hated version he says... to a PR piece? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Receptiondesk11: Wikipedia is not here to set the record straight or right great wrongs. It only documents what reliable sources have already reported. You obviously have an axe to grind here. If you can't maintain a neutral point of view while editing and be civil during discussions, you should find something else to edit. There are millions of articles here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A question for Receptiondesk11: you appear to take a very dim view of the WiTricity wireless charging project, and in that article, cite the negative opinion of one Sanjaya Maniktala concerning patents owned by that company. I note you have however created Draft:ChargEdge, which frankly reads like an advertisement for a company apparently promoting similar technology. I further note that ChargEdge was founded by the same Sanjaya Maniktala. Can you clarify whether you have any connection with Sanjaya Maniktala and/or ChargEdge? 165.120.15.119 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Receptiondesk11, your response here makes the common newbie mistake of arguing that your edits leading to the dispute were good changes, but that's not why we're here. This thread is about your excessively combative behavior. That doesn't get excused no matter how much of an improvement your edits were. Editors discussing article improvements on talk pages are expected to discuss the accuracy of content and the reliability of sourcing without unnecessary snark or accusations (Wikipedia:Focus on content). If for some reason you are unable to discuss the subject of WiTricity without making things personal, you should abandon that topic. If the behavior you've shown recently continues, your editing privileges will be revoked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I note that Receptiondesk11 has declared a conflict of interest (see the decalaration on User:Receptiondesk11) regarding the subject of Draft:ChargEdge, an article rejected as lacking independent sources, though personally I'd say that the real issue is that it is clearly promotional, and even if properly sourced wouldn't merit approval. I also note that ChargEdge would appear to be in competition with WiTricity, and would therefore suggest that Receptiondesk11 shouldn't be editing the WiTricity article at all, given that such editing would appear to constitute a conflict of interest. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Good luck!! No comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Outing of editors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just become aware of an off-wiki group which is publishing online the identities and other personal details of Wikipedia editors whose they perceive political differences with. I do want to link to the website here as it includes the personal details. Please could you let me know what I should do about this? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Are the published details correct? I ask because I have been outed twice by people who didn't like my attitude to their political POV pushing, and in both cases the personal details published were completely wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: I take it you mean
I do
notwant to link to the website
:) Look, if it's Wikipediocracy or that other one with even more nutters on it, then forget about it, there's bugger all, I think it's fair to say, that anyone can do about it. ——SN54129 11:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)- Thank you, yes I certainly mean “not”. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect this is something that we and others behind the scenes are already aware of. In any case, in such cases you can email the functionaries mailing list, or Arbcom, or if you like, any individual therein including me personally. What you shouldn't do is post about it here. As SN54129 says, there's a limit to what we can do about nutters on the Internet, however ensuring someone is aware can often be a good thing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: thank you. I have emailed you the link. This is a new organization, whose founder and board of circa 20 advisors are all named and details provided. They all seem to be professional people and should be open to communication warning them against such behaviour. The question is who from Wikipedia should communicate with them. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the Arbitration Committee can link off-wiki harassment to on-wiki accounts, sanctions can and will be taken against those individuals. (eg: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Off-wiki harassment against Lightbreather). If you are genuinely being harassed off-wiki and it is serious, you can contact the police. I was aware that an off-wiki site (not Wikipediocracy) had apparently "doxxed" me and "my girlfriend" last August, which is curious as I was single at the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- A) Yes, but it's as rare as rocking-horse shit for someone to be stupid enough to make the link sufficiently obvious, and B) I'm not sure what good the good folk of the Sweeney are going to be to anyone except, err, the .00000000001% of editors actually in the Greater London area :D ——SN54129 12:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Although if you contact the police, that may put you foul of WP:NLT (especially if you contact them about an admin) and may cause even more trouble on-wiki. If you're being attacked by an admin, nothing will ever be done on-wiki about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: I take it you mean
User:Jacobayoub
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jacobayoub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Jacobayoub is currently making insane amounts of minor edits to their own and User:DanielTheKing05's user page, seemingly in an effort to become extended confirmed (they participated at Template talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World after it got ECP'd). Sometimes I see people do this to become autoconfirmed, and I usually ignore that, but this is so worrying I'm reporting at ANI (since the target number is around 500 edits). I tried to discuss with the user; they stopped for a minute (probably to read) and resumed. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. >90% edits to userspace. Basically WP:NOTHERE. After all, if someone's willing to go to that amount of trouble purely in order to edit a controversial page, then they're unlikely ever to edit productively. Not, at least, without a pretty drastic shot across the bows. In any case, they'll be busted back down soon, so their efforts will have been in vain. ——SN54129 11:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Wildarms007
Wildarms007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So, this appears to be a newer, enthusiastic editor; he's making contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport articles. However, user is adding non-free images to articles without adding additional fair-use rationale ([86]). Upon going to user's talkpage to inform them of the WP:Non-free content guideline, I have noticed some ENGAGEment issues. User has not edited their talkpage since March 2019, during which time they have created the article 2021 IndyCar Series after having it already gone through a deletion proposal, among many other unanswered/undeleted warnings. There also appear to be some MOS: issues, particularly on edits to International Race of Champions season articles ([87] is one example among many), which, as I'm not confident in getting them to heed on their talkpage, will bring here as well.
tl;dr, I believe this editor has a lot of potential, just is in need of some guidance that i don't think I'm able to provide GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- GDX420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unfortunately this individual User:GDX420 seems to have a record of discourteous behaviour. Ignoring the name and his user page, he has clearly engaged with User:ThatMontrealIP and User:Chris troutman. He has now at least twice improperly reported good faith editors to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (myself included) claiming that editors are in the employ of major companies or businesses. He responds to courteous pleas for decency by making statements such as "Sorry mate, I didn't mean to offend you, it was just banter. I guess you don't have that in America" and accuses editors on this noticeboard of "acting like detectives" but missing 95% of paid edits.
My reason for raising this notice is his vandalism and disruption: he has specifically targetted myself, making improper speedy deletion requests at Diverse Vinyl and Welsh Wildlife Centre without following Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. He also continues to revert edits I have made and has repeatedly distributed defamatory claims that he has "off-wiki evidence which clearly demonstates that (I) am a paid editor".
I am all for courtesy on Wikipedia but this user is now causing significant problems on a number of articles and talk pages, and is making disruptive edits. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is, but he clearly needs to learn about WP:AGF, the policy on reverting edits, and the process on how to submit articles for deletion. Llemiles (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't play innocent, you were contacted by the PR department of Starling Bank to make some edits and you pretty much wrote exactly what they asked you to write. I know because they sent me a Google Doc with the exact same edits! Even the language was the same! You are essentially a meatpuppet of User:HenryThomasJenkins.GDX420 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:GDX420 please cease your abuse of the delete function as I am afraid a moderator is going to be left with no option but to suspend your account. You have now failed to follow deletion/reversion procedures at the following articles and this clearly amounts to abuse, and indeed perhaps vandalism.
- Llemiles (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't play innocent, you were contacted by the PR department of Starling Bank to make some edits and you pretty much wrote exactly what they asked you to write. I know because they sent me a Google Doc with the exact same edits! Even the language was the same! You are essentially a meatpuppet of User:HenryThomasJenkins.GDX420 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
They're going to suspend my account, ooh scary!!! They're going to block you too when I show them the off-wiki evidence.GDX420 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Fullmetal2887 violating WP:NPOV
Edits by Fullmetal2887 related to the presidency of Donald Trump show a pattern spanning nearly three years of violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by clearly expressing editorial bias.
- United States Senate
- Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
- Fox News
- Donald J. Trump Foundation
- Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia
The most recent violation, made on 31 January 2020, deserves particular attention because it has widely discredited Wikipedia. It remained online for 1 hour 13 minutes before I undid it. That was long enough for screenshots to go viral on social media. After watching the hilarity ensue on Twitter, I called out Fullmetal2887 at his user Talk page. He did not respond. Two hours later, though, Fullmetal2887 did respond to my request for increased protection of the page he had violated, United States Senate. "I stand by my edit," he defiantly declared, "which was 100% factually correct." Subsequently, back at Fullmetal2887's user Talk page, administrator Fuzheado advised him: "Please stop adding opinionated and inaccurate information." Again, Fullmetal2887 did not respond.
The scandal has now spread from social media to news reports.
The latter outlet, incidentally, misinterpreted Wikipedia's edit history and credited Flyboyrob2112 for the "prank" instead of Fullmetal2887, who began it all before Flyboyrob2112 flew in to repeatedly restore Fullmetal2887's reverted content verbatim.
Fullmetal2887's defacement has also had a copycat effect that exposes Wikipedia to further disrepute. On 1 Feb 2020, first-time user Ethan Pond attacked Democracy, obviously inspired by Fullmetal2887. After reverting his edit, rollbacker Aoi informed Ethan Pond at his user Talk page that his contribution had been undone because it "did not appear constructive." Again following Fullmetal2887's example, Ethan Pond responded defiantly.
In view of Fullmetal2887's established pattern of violating WP:NPOV, I request that he be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. NedFausa (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE pertaining to this edit. If they wish to ameliorate that block with a milder restriction (such as a topic ban), they are welcome to draft an unblock request. But, indeed, having that edit for an hour on the mainspace is too damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. I, for one, am unwilling to take the risk of it happening again without some especially strong assurances. El_C 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)