→Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep: please request |
|||
Line 892: | Line 892: | ||
Unlike your contribution, I once again thank the helpful comments by [[User:Black Kite]], [[User: Pigsonthewing]], [[User: R8R]], and [[User: Mr rnddude]]. |
Unlike your contribution, I once again thank the helpful comments by [[User:Black Kite]], [[User: Pigsonthewing]], [[User: R8R]], and [[User: Mr rnddude]]. |
||
[[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 07:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 07:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
'''Request by Sandbh to all concerned:''' Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs. <u>Exception</u>: YBG, who has already advised me that, as a fellow WP:ELEM, they will be making a contribution. Thank you, [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 07:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Defamatory comment == |
== Defamatory comment == |
Revision as of 07:56, 28 September 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) |
|
Recent bot-like reverts of a specific user
While I'm still looking into other Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.
Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.
At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:
- adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
- making changes to the wording of the text.
In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.
The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The list of all reverts are as follows:
- FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is WP:RS.) —JBL (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- David Eppstein And let me guess, you get to make the decision as to what is low or high quality. It goes without saying that I'm against that.
- A massive revert such as the one done is only justifiable if there is a clear infringement of a wikipedia guideline. As such, Miaumee's edits' quality are largely debatable, and JayBeeEll should have brought up the problem in, say, Wikiproject Mathematics.
- You also miss my second point. I understand if it is hard for you, but try to place yourself in Miaumee's shoes for a moment. Hours of your work have been reverted, and with a quite unhelpful edit summary. This clearly goes the opposite way of WP:CIVILITY (particularly, but not exclusively, WP:ESDONTS). Ideally I want this to be solved in a way that is, at the very least, civil towards Miaumee. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 12:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You can't get that kind of response from the other party if you just throw facts on their faces. First of all, what guarantee do they have that you are correct? Absolutely none. That's why you need consensus, supports from other people. I'm much more likely to recognize that I am wrong if more than some random editor calls out on me. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm most concerned with the civility problem. JayBeeEll applied the edit summary "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" to over 70 edits. It would be hard to argue that that's appropriate; it seems to me like WikiHounding. I noticed the uncivil edit summary in one of the pages on my watchlist and it led me to comment on their talk page, and I also considered starting an ANI thread before I saw this one. Benny White (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it would help to make the following things explicit: I noted Benny White's concerns earlier and have not made any of thse edits since then. When I resume examining the rest of Miaumee's edits, if I revert them, I will endeavor to write edit summaries that don't rub people the wrong way. Likewise, I will proceed at a slower pace. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is WP:RS.) —JBL (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If there is no admin input to this, other than David Eppstein's (which was summoned here by JayBeeEll himself), I intend to take the role of an unrequested WP:THIRD opinion to solve the dispute. I will politely:
- explain to Miaumee, based on what was discussed here, that Mathvault and Mathworld can be seen as WP:QUESTIONABLE sources or largely WP:RSSELF published sources, and thus lack WP:RELIABILITY.
- explain how her persistent and somewhat bot-like edits to rephrase text, while good faith, go against MOS:STYLERET when there isn't a clear improvement to the text. In some cases, such as here, there was a significant improvement to the text, but I guess that's because the original article had more significant problems in writing style. Most of Miaumee's other edits were modifications to an otherwise fine text, some of which arguably decreased the text quality.
invite her to undo JayBeeEll's reverts where she is sure the two above items do not apply.- invite her to selectively undo JayBeeEll's reverts, so that the content that does not infringe items 1 and 2 can remain live in the articles.
- kindly request that she shifts her focus to adding actual new content to articles (properly sourced, of course).
Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- As the person who thought this was worth escalating to WP:ANI you are the wrong person to claim to take a neutral role in this. And your suggestion that Miaumee be encouraged to reinstate some of the bad edits and continue making more of them is unconstructive and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I was unsure if it was worth bringing the incident here, but now I am sure that's what should have been done. I'm glad to have this incident recorded here, but to some extent disappointed with the lack of feedback from neutral uninvolved admins.
- I still believe I am a neutral party here, as I never had any relation with Miaumee and I noticed this whole problem merely because I'm watching Variance, and suddenly a revert with a weird edit summary popped up in my watch list. To make it worse, it reverted a largely fine edit (thought I intend to remove the mathworld references soon).
- Might I add, I am now reminded that an RfA has just been denied on the grounds that the candidate had bad dispute resolution skills (withdrawn at 17 September), so the dispute resolution skills I am witnessing here is having its toll on me. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walwal20, Miaumee, David Eppstein, and JayBeeEll: Walwal20 reached out to me, as an uninvolved admin, which I am. Indeed I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, or interacted with any of you except David Eppstein, who I have had slioght but quite positive interactions with. Several points:
- I accept for the moment, the statement that Mathvault and Mathworld are generally low-quality sources.
- An editor who believes that a given edit is unhelpful may surely revert that edit as a matter of editorial judgement. No one's approval is needed for that, although if the revert is challenged WP:BRD applies.
- However to mass-revert over 75 edits at a rate approaching 5 edits per minute approaches the level of bot-like editing covered by WP:MEATBOT. This is not acceptable in the absence of consensus. I accept that all these reverts were done in good faith.
- As per WP:SUMMARYNO,
"Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing"
is not a helpful summery, and it looks pointy whether it was intended as a POINTY action or not. - I therefore ask JayBeeEll to refrain from any further such edits until there is time for a discussion of the matter. Please consider this a sufficient challenge to these edits to invoke BRD.
- I have as yet no substantive opinion on the merits of these edits. I will try to form one. There are both content issues and behavioral issues here.
- I will address :::Miaumeedirectly on that user's talk page, and ask for a Stop to the edits now being reverted.
- I ask for calm and civility from all involved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have now made This edit to User talk:Miaumee DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- JayBeeEll I am attempting to respond quickly to prevent further problems here. I have not yet had time to read everything written about this situation. I apologize if I have overlooked comments of yours, and i am thankful that you have already agreed to my requests, which I hope are reasonable ones, and which were in part addressed to all. Could you give me a pointer to the agreement you mention, please? or at least was it in this thread or elsewhere? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am going offline for a few hours, but will check back when I can, all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't mean to snipe at you specifically, I just find it ridiculous that this was brought to ANI in the first place, without waiting for a response on my talk-page. The comment I mean is the one is response to Benny White above -- although rereading it I guess it promises slightly less (or at least is vague about when I might resume looking at Miaumee's edits). So let me take the opportunity to observe that there is nothing urgent about any of this; to further make clear that I will not resume before this is resolved; and to restate my earlier committment to not doing the things that people object to (the speed and edit summaries) if I do resume after this is resolved. Finally, I appreciate your comment on Miaumee's talkpage, thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. Thanks for chiming in. I guess I'll start by saying that my edits are not exactly as systematic as some here have presumed. Often times, the editing barely happens because I find a sentence jarring or hard to understand, and the rest proceeds organically from there. The intent is often not to introduce new content, but to put myself as a first-time reader and see which passage appear nebulous (as is common in mathematical text) and how they can be rephrased. The edits weren't done with the intent of reverting style, although for someone with a certain grammatical style whose edits are often substantive, it could appear that way.
The other thing I thought I would mention is that during the course of editing, I've come to learn certain grammatical changes (outside of MoS) are touchier than others. In the beginning for example, I used to reflexively remove duplicate spaces after full stop as I read through the text. But after being notified that some prefer double spaces, I became more aware to adjust my writing to fit the predominant style of the article.
So this, among other reasons, is why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia (there are others more capable in making those sorts of judgments than me). The history of me being on Wiki has been me doing the editing, and others doing the reverting (if they so feel compelled). To be frank, the reverting basically didn't happen until fairly recently, but that's also why there hasn't been any edit war involving me in the first place—since I almost never edit an article twice.
So the point here is that I'm not the type who would seek to reinstate any reverting. I think that if the edit is good, then it'll find its way there somehow, and if it's bad, someone will either change things up or revert it altogether. That's basically why I have been confident with editing—knowing that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone in the process.
OK. Back to the concerns about grammar. To be honest, I didn't think that it would be such an issue since the MoS covered many aspects rather thoroughly. From my exchange with JBL, I've learned that he takes issue at least with my use of stray commas and em-dash. While the uses of these are rather common on Wikipedia, they have the potential of changing the meaning of the sentences. So that's definitely something I think twice before doing.
Apart from those, I really haven't got much clue whether the issue with grammar are indeed grammatical errors in the Wikipedia sense, since—as you might know—I haven't been able to get much info from the reverts aside from "grammatical disprovement". It'd have been nicer if the edits were modified instead of being reverted—but I guess that's hard to do due to the substantive nature of the edits.
As for the citations, that's something I have a mixed feeling about. As you might know, I have a few handy online sources I use for reading on a topic and doing the editing. If I slap a citation on an article, it's generally not because I'm crazy about them, but because they happen to be just around and ok for the sentences being substantiated. While I agree that these different sources (mathworld, mathvault, mathsisfun, brilliant, math insight) are of different levels of quality, I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least).
Hmm... how should I put this. I think I'll start by saying that it is generally not easy to find a citation in mathematics (though it sure is easy for those doing the policing). The point is that I've chosen those sites precisely because they are reference-based and non-self-published (at least in the appearance of it). Even if they were to be self-published, these are generally written or reviewed by competent individual (including mathsisfun, which admittedly looks very inappropriate for citing). I guess what I'm saying is that out of millions of questionable math sites, those are the ones that tend to stand out and happen to be around during the research (and are less likely to disappear like some academic PDF would).
For example, I also have some reservation about citing Brilliant.org, which is technically a wiki. But unlike open-for-all wiki, they have a curation process so that only certain individuals can edit (almost as a sort of peer-reviewing). If this were about biography of living person I'll definitely think twice, but if one considers those sites as low quality, then considering their factual accuracy and the amount of math resources they offer—it'd be like playing a game with your hands tied (unless one turns to textual sources, which I assume is possible but much less handy). My inclination is that them doing harm on the site is a bit of an over-stretch, but of course that doesn't mean that anything goes either.
Anyway, I am not saying this out of defiance, nor I am trying to discredit your points—as I'm sure I can do better on many fronts. Basically, this is yet another reason why I'm sort of prepared to have my previous edits reverted (if it were to come out that way). As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll refrain from any editing until the dust is settled. Though I really, really do appreciate the admins and fellow editors for standing out, I'd probably stay relatively low-profile to avoid clouding the judgment. Miaumee (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Miaumee, I am glad to read your comment above. I hope we are wewll on the way to resolving this.
- It seems to me that three are two parts to this, content issues and behavioral issues.
- The content issues are the quality of edits by Miaumee, and how they can be improved, and whether reverts are needed going forward. That is really out of scope for ANI, but perhaps needs further discussion somewhere. It could be done on User talk:Miaumee or on a separate page, perhaps a new page such as Wikipedia:Math edits by Miaumee (or I could create such a page in my user space if people prefer).
- The behavioral issues are fairly simple, and I hope will not need further discussions or any restrictions on anyone. On Miaumee's part, there must be a serious effort to make the best possible edits, and to work collaboratively. An attitude that if there is a problem with an edit, someone else will revert it or correct it is not optimal, it can seem as if that means expecting others to clean up after poor edits. Also attention to Wikipedia:Communication is required. And in this particular case, Miaumee should review their own past edits and revise them to remove problems where possible.
- On the part of JayBeeEll, care to Assume good faith and keep Wikipedia:Communication is required in mind. Mass reverts, as described in the comment by JBL
...I feel that you have left no option other than to revert all your edits...
and as carried out by JBL in the list of diffs earlier in this thread, are not usually appropriate. There are a few cases where an editor's contributions will be reverted in bulk. For example, when a Contributor copyright investigation has found that an editor has made sufficiently frequent copyright violations that a mass revert is warranted. But copyright issues are rather more serious than grammar and punctuation errors, for one thing, and such a decision is never made by a single editor, it is done by consensus, normally after a formal process. I do not think that the problems with Miaumee's edits rise to that level. Therefore I must also disagree with and disapprove of the comment by David Eppstein in this thread that Miaumee's editsare too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements.
WP:QUO saysIf you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.
Help:reverting saysConsider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it?
andn the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea.
WP:SUMMARYNO also points out the need for helpful, specific edit summaries, sayingWhile edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific.
andExplain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
Also WP:MEATBOT says thatHuman editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity.
and warns of the dangers of highly repetitive editing. I gather that JBL has agreed not to use such methods of reverting in future. - With JBL's agreement above, and with Miaumee's stated intent to do better (
I'm sure I can do better on many fronts.
) It seems that the behavioral issues have perhaps been addressed. Does anyone think that further discussion of these or of any other behavioral issues is needed here? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)- @David Eppstein: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: perhaps I was being too polite and circumlocutory. Your long comment here, accusing me of failing to follow WP:QUO, is forcing me to be more blunt. In fact, I have looked carefully through each of the several edits of Miaumee that I undid, contrary to your accusations. I found in them only the introduction of low-quality web sources, minor wording changes that added verbiage but no value to the article, bizarre choices of punctuation (especially frequent introduction of unspaced dashes in places where dashes of any sort were not appropriate, creating the appearance of compound words in technical articles where that could plausibly indicate some unknown technical meaning but in fact merely consisted of poor writing), gratuitous changes of citation style, and the occasional introduction of mathematical inaccuracies. There was never any attempt to introduce worthwhile content to the articles that could be salvaged with better editing; it was all cosmetic and all disimprovement. I did not want to say that there is nothing of value to salvage in Miaumee's edits, because I do still believe Miaumee is acting in good faith, but when you use my politeness as an excuse to attack me I must respond honestly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I did not intend to attack you, David Eppstein. If you reviewed an edit, or many edits, by Miaumee, and concluded that each was of no value to the article, reverting them was perfectly proper. I note in this revert (which seems to be your latest revert of Miaumee) for example, a helpful specific edit summary. This is in contrast to the repetitive reverts by JayBeeEll. My objection was the the implication which seemed to me to be present in your comments that, having reviewed a number of edits by Miaumee you found them of such consistently low value that it was justified to revert al of them without further examination or "at sight" as JBL described them. If I understand you correctly, that was a misdescription, and all your reverts were after examination. If so I have no problem with them. I apologize if I mischaractreized your commetns above. Can you see where they seemed to me, in conenction with the comments by JBL, to be endorsing a "revert-on-sight" approach? Do I take it you agree that even after finding many problems with an editor's contributions, individual reverts require individual, albeit perhaps brief, examination of the edit to be reverted? If so, they we agree. I was, i admit, more focused on JBL's reverts, and on you only in terms of your comments here that seemed to endorse them, or endorse a revert on sight approach. I apologize for not making this clearer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- When an editor makes dozens or hundreds of edits, all of the same type, how many of them do you have to examine carefully word by word, recognizing that they're all of the same type and providing careful individually-written edit summaries describing for each of them what their faults are, before determining that additional edits that look at a cursory glance to be of the same type can be treated the same way with a canned edit summary? You seem to believe: there is no limit, that cursory undoes with canned summaries are never appropriate, and that productive editors must be forced to either waste their time taking great care over each undo or let the articles they watchlist slowly rot by ignoring these disimproving edits. That is not reasonable. I would like to encourage new editors, especially in mathematics and especially if (as several others here have implied) Miaumee is female, because we need more editors of both types. But allowing new editors to persist in bad habits, rather than redirecting them towards a type of edit that can be more constructive, and forcing other editors to waste time indulging them, is not encouragement, and I would add that it is also not encouraging those other editors to direct their time and energy towards what should be the primary task here, building and maintaining an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say that every revert needs to be individually considered, not conducted en-mass with a canned edit summery, unless a clear consensus to revert all of an editor's contributions has been developed with multiple experienced editors contributing to the discussant, just as is done in a WP:CCI. And I think that is what current policy and guidelines call for. I would say further that such a process is not warranted unless the editor involved has been blocked or Tbanned by community consensus, or at least such a measure has been seriously debated at a noticeboard. There are other ways to redirect new editors with bad habits than mass reverts. Targeted reverts with helpful comments seem more likely to do the job if it is doable in a particular case, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- When an editor makes dozens or hundreds of edits, all of the same type, how many of them do you have to examine carefully word by word, recognizing that they're all of the same type and providing careful individually-written edit summaries describing for each of them what their faults are, before determining that additional edits that look at a cursory glance to be of the same type can be treated the same way with a canned edit summary? You seem to believe: there is no limit, that cursory undoes with canned summaries are never appropriate, and that productive editors must be forced to either waste their time taking great care over each undo or let the articles they watchlist slowly rot by ignoring these disimproving edits. That is not reasonable. I would like to encourage new editors, especially in mathematics and especially if (as several others here have implied) Miaumee is female, because we need more editors of both types. But allowing new editors to persist in bad habits, rather than redirecting them towards a type of edit that can be more constructive, and forcing other editors to waste time indulging them, is not encouragement, and I would add that it is also not encouraging those other editors to direct their time and energy towards what should be the primary task here, building and maintaining an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I did not intend to attack you, David Eppstein. If you reviewed an edit, or many edits, by Miaumee, and concluded that each was of no value to the article, reverting them was perfectly proper. I note in this revert (which seems to be your latest revert of Miaumee) for example, a helpful specific edit summary. This is in contrast to the repetitive reverts by JayBeeEll. My objection was the the implication which seemed to me to be present in your comments that, having reviewed a number of edits by Miaumee you found them of such consistently low value that it was justified to revert al of them without further examination or "at sight" as JBL described them. If I understand you correctly, that was a misdescription, and all your reverts were after examination. If so I have no problem with them. I apologize if I mischaractreized your commetns above. Can you see where they seemed to me, in conenction with the comments by JBL, to be endorsing a "revert-on-sight" approach? Do I take it you agree that even after finding many problems with an editor's contributions, individual reverts require individual, albeit perhaps brief, examination of the edit to be reverted? If so, they we agree. I was, i admit, more focused on JBL's reverts, and on you only in terms of your comments here that seemed to endorse them, or endorse a revert on sight approach. I apologize for not making this clearer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: perhaps I was being too polite and circumlocutory. Your long comment here, accusing me of failing to follow WP:QUO, is forcing me to be more blunt. In fact, I have looked carefully through each of the several edits of Miaumee that I undid, contrary to your accusations. I found in them only the introduction of low-quality web sources, minor wording changes that added verbiage but no value to the article, bizarre choices of punctuation (especially frequent introduction of unspaced dashes in places where dashes of any sort were not appropriate, creating the appearance of compound words in technical articles where that could plausibly indicate some unknown technical meaning but in fact merely consisted of poor writing), gratuitous changes of citation style, and the occasional introduction of mathematical inaccuracies. There was never any attempt to introduce worthwhile content to the articles that could be salvaged with better editing; it was all cosmetic and all disimprovement. I did not want to say that there is nothing of value to salvage in Miaumee's edits, because I do still believe Miaumee is acting in good faith, but when you use my politeness as an excuse to attack me I must respond honestly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- "why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia" You never check for insertion of vandalism, unsourced content, and POV edits? How does that work?
- "I almost never edit an article twice." Do you add the articles you edit to your watchlist? This allows you to check newer changes.
- "I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least)." Then you should discuss the reliability of the sources with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I've spent more time gathering your feedbacks from different pages. As mentioned earlier, I don't plan to reinstate any of my previous edits. If people feel that further revert is needed out of good faith, I won't object. And if people decide to reinstate some of the edits, it's ok too—I just don't think I'm experienced enough on Wiki to make the call.
When I think about it, it seems that we're all here because the communication broke down somehow with us holding onto our belief. I think the first line of attack is still the edit summary, which I think I haven't done a good job at monitoring. My watchlist grew very large very quickly, so I changed to monitoring using the contribution page instead, but somehow that habit slipped off, and by the time I received messages on the talk page, it's usually too late. I think I can do better on that front.
As for the citations, I think it boils down to me and JBL and David Eppstein having different threshold of acceptabilitiy (me being not a research scientist, hence a more liberal approach to it). At this point, they are the only ones who have reverted my edits on that basis, so I'm not sure how their viewpoint reflects that of the general wiki math community. While I think that whether the sources are questionable as per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF is debatable (not that I'm defending these sites, but these are not small sites, after all), I do think that they can definitely improved if I were to choose more scholarly sources. With that, the issue should be settled.
On the grammar front. I'm aware during the editing process, some mindless errors might slip in. I think the easiest thing I can do is to revise the edits once before submitting, and another time after submitting.
Other than that, I still have the feeling that the disagreement is more on style than anything. For example. both JBL and David Eppstein have objected to the use of em-dash as bizarre, citing that it could be confused with a compound word (even though a hyphen would be used in that case). I can see how it can be confused with a math operator if an em-dash were to occur after symbols, but then that's where the lack of spacing around em-dash is useful. It's true that some of my changes alter the meaning of the sentences, so I try to be more mindful on that front. In any case, I think that a good course of action for me is to go back to MoS again, read through a bulk of sample featured articles on math thoroughly. This should provide me with some clues as to how to proceed with editing. Miaumee (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos
Hi.
May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:
- 1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
- a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
- b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
- c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"
- 2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)
- 3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.
- 4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.
- 5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag
- 6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[1]]
Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.
Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).
- Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1)
"rare books"
is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2)"blogs such as Rappler"
is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subjectattract[s] WP:RGW
does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)- There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN.
"second RSN and third RSN"
as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)- Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [2][3]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
- Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN.
@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [15] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [16] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [17]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [18], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [1][2][3]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Question about outing a paid editor
(The names have been changed in the following to protect the guilty)
I noticed that a user who I will call User:Banana1 was doing a lot of editing promoting a cryptocurrency/blockchain product which I will call wackywidget.
A Web search found the following at cryptowackywidget.com, posted by user "banana"
"Hi there! I am Geoff Banana and wanted to introduce myself! I am Marketing Lead at CryptoWackyWidget and part of the BlockChainWidget family. I am working primarily on Community/SEO and growth hacking topics and love helping to grow a lively CryptoWackyWidget developer community."
Having the same name with a "1" at the end and editing about the same company where he is a marketing lead working on SEO (search engine optimization) quacks "paid editor".
But if I post the evidence at ANI replacing "Geoff Banana" with the actual name, "banana1" with the actual wikipedia user name, and "cryptowackywidget" with the actual company name, would I be violating WP:OUTING? If so, how do I report this?
Asking for a friend. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think in a situation like this it's best just to email arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- That can't be right. There are 14 arbs and thousands of COI editors. Asking Arbcom to deal with every slam dunk case that involves off-wiki evidence will swamp them with work. It would be better to pick a random admin and email them if the info can't be publicly revealed.
- But is it really true that the info can't be revealed? Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing says
- "We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements."
- So let me ask a more pointed question: if I post the evidence concerning "Geoff Banana" and his paid editing for "cryptowackywidget" corporation, is somebody here going to report me for violating WP:OUTING? Or is it better for some admin to block "Geoff Banana" but refuse to say why? Even a simple "User:Banana1 is blocked for paid editing" will allow anyone to look at the "cryptowackywidget" webpage (it's pretty obvious that Banana1's edits always promote cryptowackywidget) and see his publicly posted name and other personal information. How would an uninvolved admin be able to evaluate an unblock request when the reason for the block is not revealed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think the more widely published things are in off-Wiki reliable sources, the less you have to worry about "outing." If the name is nearly identical, it's almost a sure bet that either it's the same guy or a joe job. In either case, the name SHOULD be brought to an administrator's attention, because having a username that might suggest you are someone else - having a name or name and editing behavior that together suggest you are the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget when in fact you are not - is impersonation. Let's say the marketing lead's name is common, like Joe Smith. Let's say his username is JoeSmith1 (apologies to whoever has that username). If JoeSmith1 almost exclusively edits pages related to CryptoWackyWidget, then it should be reported. If only a small fraction are related to CryptoWackyWidget, and the other edits are not problematic in their own right, just assume it's a coincidence of names. On the other hand, if the marketing lead's name is very unique, then consider reporting it even if the majority of the user's edits are unrelated and okay, if for no other reason than to have an administrator strongly suggest that the editor put a disclaimer on his user page saying he is NOT the same person as the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget and that he has no affiliation with that company. Also, you may not have to go straight to WP:UAA, it might be enough to put one of the COI user-warning templates found on WP:Username policy#Talk to the user to get him to change his username and to get him to pay attention to WP:COI and WP:Paid editing disclosure if they apply to him, or to put a disclaimer on his user page if it's not "him." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- So let me ask a more pointed question: if I post the evidence concerning "Geoff Banana" and his paid editing for "cryptowackywidget" corporation, is somebody here going to report me for violating WP:OUTING? Or is it better for some admin to block "Geoff Banana" but refuse to say why? Even a simple "User:Banana1 is blocked for paid editing" will allow anyone to look at the "cryptowackywidget" webpage (it's pretty obvious that Banana1's edits always promote cryptowackywidget) and see his publicly posted name and other personal information. How would an uninvolved admin be able to evaluate an unblock request when the reason for the block is not revealed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW Guy when I found myself in that situation, I emailed an admin the off-wiki evidence and let them take it from there. Lev!vich 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- While there are cases where off-wiki evidence can be useful, this is usually best handled on-wiki via looking at the content and behaviour. WP:NOTSPAM is a policy. If someone is spamming admins can and should block without the need to involve functionaries looking at private information: the private stuff is rarely actionable (though it sometimes can be), and even in cases where it is actionable, you’re likely going to get a quicker response by handling it at WP:COIN and having one of the admins who regularly patrols that board block based on what can be seen on-wiki. If it really absolutely needs to be private, then yes, you can email ArbCom, but really most of this should be handled on-wiki without the need to involve private evidence. Admins can block for advertising without needing to see an off-wiki ad. My view is that they should do it more and be more comfortable with it. It’s not just about PAID— we have a policy that prohibits all advertising whether paid or not. If you enforce that, the paid question largely handles itself. Tl;dr— use on-wiki evidence and file a report at WP:COIN. In most cases that should be sufficient. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is what I decided to do:
- Warn editor: User talk:Andreolf1#Paid editing warning. Note that I did not mention where I got the "in your own words" information.
- Revert paid edits: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28].
- Propose merge: Talk:Digital Asset Holdings#Merger Discussion.
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Extra Eyes on Margot (activist) Please
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Experienced editors and admins with a free moment are kindly asked to keep an eye Margot (activist) for the near future. There has been some heavy duty edit warring there involving potential MOS and BLP vios (trans naming etc.). A brand new account also showed up for the party. I have blocked the editor I think most responsible and issued warnings to the others. Additionally I reverted the article back to the point where it was semi-protected by El C and have bumped the protection to extended confirmed. Thanks in advance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I think the ECP should be enough. I will say that Ad Orientem was incredibly lenient on User:Subtropical-man, however; I would have indeffed at this point. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, no. I've just looked again at this. The reply (to Ad Orientem) was "user:Plunginge xtremely (99%) agitates towards the promotion / defense of LGBT, you don't see it? Even Steve Wonder will notice it. If you think the destructive action by user:Plunging is good then you should be blocked indefinitely." I have therefore increased their block to indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW Plunginge does actually look pretty suspicious to me. Might be worth a look if anyone reading this has access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh indeed, however Subtropical-man is going to have to explain why they made eight edits to deadname a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- No disagreement. His history, quite beyond Margot, suggests somebody with an agenda. I have no issues with the indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh indeed, however Subtropical-man is going to have to explain why they made eight edits to deadname a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW Plunginge does actually look pretty suspicious to me. Might be worth a look if anyone reading this has access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
This is a request for administrative attention at
- Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede
I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."
- The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Incivility by Deacon Vorbis
I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.
My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:
It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already.
(02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff
It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.
When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:
Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest.
(17:42, 22 September 2020) diff
I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:
@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
diff, revert being referred toReally? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
diff
Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.
From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- For fuck's sake. Yes, I'm fucking human, and yes, when I get the sense that I'm talking to a brick fucking wall, I might let my fucking frustration show and drop a fucking F-bomb. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: I would never say anyone's feelings are wrong, and I've had the same reaction when dealing with certain people in text exchanges like this. Usually, for the sake of maintaining a productive conversation, when drafting my reply I ignore those feelings or wait until they pass. If it gets quite bad or I feel it would be helpful to express those feelings, I try to do so using civil language, like "I found your response frustrating because..." Getting loud and swearing a lot and calling people names might be a natural response and acceptable for a venue like a protest or a bar, but not for a civil discussion forum like a library or NPR or Wikipedia talk pages. That said, we should be able to work through disagreements without getting frustrated at each other, and I'd like to work to resolve the source of that frustration. I don't think it was fair when you said I hadn't read a word you said, as I found many of your responses quite helpful in terms of information content, and greatly improved my proposal. When you say it feels like you were talking to a brick wall, was that because I failed to drop this matter as you requested? -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Beland: I find your description of the issue difficult to follow. In the places above which you claim to be quotes, could you give diffs please? And could you also please mark them as quotes, by either using quotation marks (as you did for the first one) or better yet templates like "tq2" or "tq"? Paul August ☎ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Paul August: Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Enough of the swearing comments guys. I would say Beland it seems that you are over reacting a lot. I agree that DV's revert of you with that comment is very unhelpful and unproductive, don't understand what he thinks was going to happen, since nearly everyone would just revert him until he gives a proper reason. From what you have said and provided so far it seems an like overreaction. But I stand to be corrected if you give us more examples of actual incivility. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Personal attacks before continuing with this one. Games of the world (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary
mine's bigger so it counts more
here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly, your incivility is plain to see:
Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI
- NPA, ABF (1).DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late
- PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled
. - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3)
- What I am struggling to find in
the many links
is theefforts to discuss
. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.
[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.
[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)
[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.
[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:
<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>
[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:
<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>
"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.
LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. @Deacon Vorbis:, you've survived four years of editing. You should know this already. I know you can do better than the behavior you're currently displaying in this discussion. Happy editing & cheers to everyone. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at Deacon Vorbis' long contribution history, it appears there are many positive contributions, and dealing with other editors acting inappropriately. But there are also other instances of antagonistic behavior, typically aggressive removal or dismissal of messages from other users, inappropriate language, and edit warring. I would hope these behavioral problems could be resolved simply by having a constructive conversation about the harm they doing to the project and how to avoid that while still contributing constructively. And I think being less offensive and aggressive and more conversational would reduce the number of negative reactions from other editors, and increase the number of cooperative edits made after a smooth dispute resolution. Examples:
- The block log shows they were blocked in January 2020 for a 3RR violation, and in July 2018 for a vulgar personal attack they refused to apologize for (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988), saying the victim deserved it.
- Example of removal of a talk page message: this case where I think it's worth considering whether the answer to the user's question would be a good addition to the article, and the question highlights a problem with the article lacking references to sources where their question could be answered. (The user wrote as much in response to the deletion but was ignored.) At the very least they could be referred to the reference desk rather than being completely censored, and that could turn up some citations for the article.
- Here is an example of an unnecessary personal insult. The content that Inedible Hulk posted was indeed weird, though I probably would have replied to it or ignored it rather than deleting it claiming it was "disruptive". I don't find the deletion unacceptable, but I do find the caustic language used on the talk page to be.
- More gratuitous and uncivil language in edit summaries - "agreed my ass" "agreed, my bloated buttocks
- Another incident where agressive removal led to an edit war and ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#Deacon_Vorbis_reported_by_User:Count_Iblis
- Edit warring over a speedy deletion and archival cleanup: [29] and complaint
- Another incident of removing another user's talk post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Deacon_Vorbis_censoring_the_math_ref_desk
- An incident that combined overly aggressively removing another user's post and then using uncivil language in edit summaries during the fallout: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Possible_compromised_administrator_account
- -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [30], [31],[32]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh yes, he just changed my AfD talk page comment again by moving it to another part of discussion [33], even after all my explanations on their talk page [34]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [30], [31],[32]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Deacon Vorbis: you are certainly on notice that Beland does not enjoy vulgarities, so I would urge you in direct communications with them to eschew the saltier language. Beland, I mean this with all due respect, but less-than-solicitous language is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I would urge you to let a bit more roll off your back. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I rarely encounter such language on Wikipedia and it certainly shouldn't be standard or accepted, as it creates problems with editor retention and may even be contributing to the gender imbalance in the editor population. If I were a sensitive person, I wouldn't be here complaining, I'd just stop editing Wikipedia and go do something where no one is swearing at me for trying to help. Excessive conflict, edit warring, and bullying are problematic for editors of any gender, but have been specifically identified as reasons why some women don't edit Wikipdia. Check out points 4 and 5 at Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- "And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Dumuzid: Is the process we are currently engaging in top-down or bottom-up? I think of it as a peer-to-peer nudge to be better. The idea that women getting involved with Wikipedia will "snowball" seems like wishful thinking without any evidence. Why wouldn't it have happened already? It's not like there are large numbers of women who don't know what Wikipedia is. Why would it happen for women but not men, especially given the culture of Wikipedia seems to be disproportionately distasteful for women? I do agree that cooperative adversarial processes can improve articles, but the adversarial common law tradition in America has a stricter standard for civility that what you're advocating for Wikipedia, and that's part of what makes it work to the degree that it does. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Beland, by "top-down" I mean asking for an authority to do something about it. Nudging is per se fine by me, and I think I may even have engaged in it to a small degree. As for the "sbnowball" effect, it certainly is wishful thinking to some degree, but I am allowed that after all! I am not sure the answer to women on Wikipedia is any sort of precipitous action, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. And while you're correct that there's a stricter lexicon of civility in the American tradition, I am not sure that actually translates to a stricter standard. Most of that is more in the realm of norms and traditions, which are as often overlooked as honored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Dumuzid: Is the process we are currently engaging in top-down or bottom-up? I think of it as a peer-to-peer nudge to be better. The idea that women getting involved with Wikipedia will "snowball" seems like wishful thinking without any evidence. Why wouldn't it have happened already? It's not like there are large numbers of women who don't know what Wikipedia is. Why would it happen for women but not men, especially given the culture of Wikipedia seems to be disproportionately distasteful for women? I do agree that cooperative adversarial processes can improve articles, but the adversarial common law tradition in America has a stricter standard for civility that what you're advocating for Wikipedia, and that's part of what makes it work to the degree that it does. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- "And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- +1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right, it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Modifying a comment after it's been responded to, changing the context and meaning of that reply is far far worse. From WP:REDACT,
"But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided."
WP:THREAD also has further guidance on good practice, which I tried to point out, and no acknowledgement was made, despite asking for one. I'm not okay with comments I respond to getting major changes after the fact. My moving the comment was the least invasive way of keeping the chronology of the comments intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)- Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right, you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like
Please see an additional comment that elaborates on this below the subsequent replies"
tacked onto the end of the current comment, as long as the new comment stays after. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, but I have no way of knowing of MVBW would accept it...doing this on my own would have been a more invasive modification to the original, which I was again trying to minimize. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)- Honestly, this should be an easy one. Don't edit, move, adjust, or tweak others' comments. Full stop. Just don't do it. If you think they've done something in error, by all means, point it out. This behavior, is, to me, FAR more offensive than all the F-bombs in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to know what would be an acceptable compromise to the other party, the thing to do is ask. There are plenty of other possible compromises the two of you could come up with if you had stopped to think about it and weren't angrily undoing each other's changes. That's why I would have started the conversation after I was reverted once, whereas you reverted MVBW three more times after it was clear there was a dispute. Though they weren't following the convention strictly, it was pretty clear to me what was responding to what when, especially given that all the messages have timestamps, so I don't see a strong argument for objecting to what MVBW was doing. That sort of pushiness is equivalent to the in-person action of grabbing someone by the elbow while they're on a soapbox and moving them to somewhere they don't want to be. Even if they're not in the conventional location, it's perceived as strongly anti-social behavior. And it's really not worth the fistfight that ensues when everyone should be paying attention to the words that are said and not picky details about how the speech is being delivered. If you actually think it is important enough to argue about, wait until a third editor has weighed in to the conversation to validate one side or another. Either there will be much less resistance to the change you are proposing when it becomes clear it's not just you who holds that opinion, or the third editor will disagree with you and you can politely concede and avoid being accused of unreasonableness or vindictiveness or whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like
- "If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before." That's not exactly true. People do it all the time when they want to make an important comment to a post that has already been responded to. In this case, the editor was making a de facto "Edited to add" point, which is perfectly valid, as it had a new signature and timestamp and was indented enough to indicate newness in relation to the replies underneath. The point is, You are not the arbiter of posts in AfDs, and need to stop moving, deleting, reverting, replacing, complaining about, mocking, or edit-warring over them. Full stop. If the behavior continues, you are likely to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- that was my comment on AFD. Note that per Editing_own_comments - I did NOT change or modified my original comment, to which other contributors have already responded. I just added a note to my own comment with a reference to the relevant WP guideline (that unfortunately was missing in my original comment). And what Deacon Vorbis does? Moves my note repeatedly to a place where I did not mean it to be, over my objections on his talk page. This is an example of highly confrontational behavior, and without any actual reason, except me making a comment about civility in general in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right, you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Modifying a comment after it's been responded to, changing the context and meaning of that reply is far far worse. From WP:REDACT,
- +1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right, it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- A while ago Deacon Vorbis was removing my comments on the Math Ref Desk, edit warring to keep my posting there removed, despite the fact that the Ref Desk has the status of a talk page and removal of edits there is only done in case of vandalism. This happened several time, the last such incident led to us both being blocked, even though I did not make any mistakes restoring my comments. The problem with his behavior is not the incivility per se, but his attitude when he sees something he disagree with. The incivility is merely a symptom of that, which may irritate other editors, but I have a thick skin ,so I'm not going to be bothered by that.
- His aggressive attitude when his edits are opposed, causes him to not listen to the arguments of his opponents. When I told him that Ref Desk comments cannot be removed, at most they can be hatted, he did not listen. He could have looked up what the policy is if he didn't trust me. It took a few more similar disputes with him removing my comments before he finally understood that Ref Desk comments are not to be removed (unless it is outright vandalism, of course).
- If you are angry, then you don't tend to listen. It's not that the person opposing him are right on the judgement about the edits, but if he doesn't listen to what the argument against his edit is, then he obviously won't be able to engage with the issue in a constructive way. Deacon Vorbis should understand that his attitude when he encounters a problem with editing is not going to help make his point in the best way. He should learn to engage with other editors in a more constructive way, and that will also be a benefit for him outside of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I support Mr rnddude's proposal of a site-wide prohibition against in any way altering other people's posts, on penalty of escalating blocks. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Suspected Undisclosed Paid Editing by Micah Street on Draft:Micah Street
User:Micah Street has submitted Draft:Micah Street to WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, they are believed to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing since the article is heavily biased and at the end of the page, they stated (in revision 973670953) that "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage "Micah Street". We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding." This significantly proves that the editor in question is engaged in paid editing, but they have not disclosed such through:
- a statement on your user page (as of revision 971048430),
- a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (no talk page found on the draft in question), or
- a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions (as of revision 973670953);
in accordance to policy of the Wikimedia Foundation and English Wikipedia as stated in WP:PAID. Thus, I would like to report Micah Street for violation of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- You appear to have only notified them - the first such notification by any editor - of our policy on paid editing less than half an hour before raising the matter here (if you have previously done so, please provide a diff). They have not edited since then nor indeed or the last week. Please await their response before coming back here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- If this was reported at WP:AIV, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:
- "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage Micah Street. We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding."
- And that was before you notified them. I find no violation here. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- If this was reported at WP:AIV, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:
- WikiAviator, The user's COI was disclosed on 18 August 2020. The editor in question has not edited since that date. If you want them to declare their COI in a specific place, please leave them a precisely detailed note on their talk page, and give them the policy link, and tell them exactly what to do. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maile66, there's also the username problem -- they seem to be in violation of username policy. Can you deal with that issue? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Problematic editor
For a while now, the IP 47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unneeded hyperlinking of words in articles; linking common words e.g assassination, gang, etc in violation of MOS:OVERLINK. Likewise, they change the tone of information to informal, an example being this edit. I've contacted the editor about this and other problems on their userpage and explained in detail the problems with their edits and I linked some concrete examples there as well, but they're neither responding nor taking heed. Though the editor once in a while does something useful, the vast majority of their edits are simply not constructive and consist mainly of overlinking and changing to unencyclopedic tone. I chose to give the editor some time to see if they corrected it by themselves following the message left on their userpage along with me reverting the bad edits they made, but no luck. Eik Corell (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- User still going at it, now with vandalism too. Eik Corell (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I second this report. I found them yesterday and have been reverting on sight, with verifying first that there wasn't any valid edits just to be sure. More of the issue I've seen with this IP has been the unnecessary changes of various wikilinks with changes revolving around the concept that the MOS:PIPEDLINK plural styles section discusses. Their changes to various pages near always adds a unneeded redirect. Links where you started at page A and the link sent you to page B, but after their edits, you start on page A, click the link they changed, it sends you to page R that is a redirect page that still sends you to page B at the end, but with an added, unnecessary step.
Examples: [television program|TV broadcasts] to [tv shows] and [video game]s to [video games] seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Content_rating&type=revision&diff=980269146&oldid=969901178 [mashed potato]es to [mashed potatoes] and [Swedish meatball]]s to [Swedish meatballs] here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_cuisine&type=revision&diff=980166827&oldid=980134983 The list goes on and on. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Problematic user
For a long time, the IP user (IP variables) 2001:fb1:70:9069:29dd:7e84:bb3c:1a40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Marek Reichman ([35]) article, removing sources and information. Repeated many times, but it doesn't help. It gives no arguments or sources, all the time removing only source information. It is likely that it is a Theregan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user who, in a similar vein, also destroys the article and removes the warnings from his discussion page. LechitaPL (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Have you discussed or attempted to discuss on talk pages before coming here? Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The one who has been vandalising this article Marek Reichman for long is the user LechitaPL not me if you look at edit history, and he even accusing me and others with no reasons He wants the article to go his way and views without letting anyone to change it, His claim been proved as irrelevant and fake information, the User LechitaPL has been blocked so many times from vandalising and stubborn behaviour and couldn’t even come discuss in the talk page He can’t just ask the administrator to lock the article for no reason without discussing in the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregan (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced edits accompanied by a cn tag
Farhanakbar1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite repeated warnings as well as a personal plea on their talk page requesting them to stop adding unsourced information accompanied by a {{cn}} tag, this user continues and makes zero attempt at discussing this concern. Frankly, this just comes across as lazy to me and it seems they couldn't be bothered to learn how to add citations or perhaps there is some concerning level of incompetence that may need addressing. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- There ain't no incompetence there! It's deliberate. A lot of effort to add a tag to every fact for someone who is apparently lazy. I think they do know how to add references, but there is not any/reliable sources for what they are adding and therefore are adding it to stop what I would call a drive by revert. Games of the world (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have to be kidding me. This is indeed disruptive, so I've issued a partial block from mainspace until and unless they can convince us that this behavior will stop. They can propose edits on talk pages, and if they show that they can make properly sourced edit requests, I've got no objection to another admin removing the block. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability What do you mean "kidding me". I agree with everything that GOTW said. Anyways, thanks for putting a block. Jerm (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Jerm, that comment wasn't directed at you - it was a reaction to the user intentionally adding unsourced information with a CN tag. GeneralNotability (talk)`—Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks all for the feedback and a special thanks to GeneralNotability for tending to the problem. Robvanvee 06:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing by MRuniqat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MRuniqat keeps adding unsourced allegations to SUPER (computer programme), claiming that the program comes intentionally bundled with trojan viruses. See the article history. This is an extremely serious accusation that requires exceptionally solid sourcing, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. But MRuniqat refuses to add any source at all, despite being repeatedly asked on their talk page to do so.
What's worse:
- The user keeps cheating by adding a fake reference to the Microsoft website that does not say anything about SUPER at all (and previously also by marking those edits as minor).
- The user keeps saying "try it on your own" despite being explained that this is not acceptable (firstly, because original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, the claim requires a reliable independent source, secondly, because even if my antivirus software detects a virus in SUPER, that does not automatically mean the software contains a virus, as antivirus software is notorious for false alarms, plus it does not automatically mean the company bundles the virus intentionally).
- Good faith cannot be assumed anymore. The user keeps edit warring despite being asked to stop. The user keeps adding an extremely serious accusation without any proof at all. The user keeps ignoring all requests to provide any relevant source. The user knows very well that Wikipedia does not spread rumours and requires reliable sources—the user has deleted, and therefore acknowledged all warnings and explanations on their talk page, including my final warning and a detailed explanation. This user does not act out of ignorance—the user keeps doing it deliberately.
This is now clear wikitrolling. Intentional cheating and gaming the system is explicitly mentioned as a form of vandalism in the WP:VANDAL policy. The user keeps adding similar edits to Miranda IM, adding their own personal opinion ("one can assume" as a "source" for their claims) as a fact, and when I revert it, they add it back with an obviously false explanation that my revert is a personal opinion (which is now clear trolling). As the user has already received a level-4 warning and still keeps adding the same unsourced allegation, blocking the user is now the only option left.—J. M. (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked. J. M., even tendentious disruptive editing combined with personal attacks is not vandalism; it is done with the intent to push what the user believes to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
SillySympathy3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SillySympathy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In January, Richard Spencer is an "alleged" neo-Nazi [36] (warned by El_C here). Today, it's the history of racism against African-Americans that's "alleged" [37]. And also this piece of work. The rest of their edits seem to be adding redundant national adjectives in the lead of articles on footballers. I have difficulty seeing the benefit of allowing this user to continue. --JBL (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Holly2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This new(?) user has done virtually nothing but make nonsense edits to their userpage and AfC, vandalize articles by inserting incorrect information, upload useless and bizarre personal photos, and troll the Teahouse. I don't know which of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, or WP:DUCK fits, but they are costing Wikipedia too much time and energy at this point. Can we get this taken care of? Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. El_C 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, El C. Might be worth a CU check? Smells a lot like a returning troll masquerading as a young girl. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Holly2017 is a sock of Weeedd. There were a couple more where that came from, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, El C. Might be worth a CU check? Smells a lot like a returning troll masquerading as a young girl. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Potential vandal on the Shenyang WS-10 Page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello admins.
Please look into Shenyang WS-10 page. There is this user: RovingPersonalityConstruct
He keeps deleting credible sources and adding his own source, although his own source goes against his intended will.
He did it again today by keeping removing sourced materials including the sources themselves. He tried to use his own sources to proving his claims only ended up conflicting himself and he removed his own source. I tried to reason with him on the talk page but he ignores the talk page.
Today, I added more creditable information about the engine and provided source. He simply removed them all including the source. His behavior proved to be disruptive, could you please warn him.
Please revert his vandalism and protect the page.
Thank you,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Puerto Rico edits by User:Anonymous MK2006
Despite having had WP:PRUS brought to their attention multiple times over a period of eight days on their talk page, and despite numerous reversions by several editors, User:Anonymous MK2006 continues to edit articles in a contrary manner. Pertinent provisions of WP:PRUS:
- 'Regarding the inclusion of "United States" in the infobox, there have been many discussions over the years because Puerto Rico is not in the U.S. but is a territory of the U.S. "United States" thus shouldn't be included in addresses.'
- 'Puerto Rico in many respects behaves as a country and is a country, ....'
- 'In most cases, there is no need to obfuscate the reader with the political relationship of the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, information in the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject";[3] thus, if the subject of the article is the municipality, the infobox should not have facts that allude to the political relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.'
This user continues to use the formulation "Puerto Rico, United States" or something similar[38][39][40][41][42][43] and to add the United States as an infobox subdivision level (or removing Puerto Rico as the country or replacing it with the United States)[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] in article after article. The user was already engaged in these edits as an IP user before creating the Anonymous MK2006 account on 17 September,[52][53][54][55][56] some of them addressed by me at User talk:84.66.6.5 on 16 September.
User:The Eloquent Peasant has also been heavily engaged in communication with this user.
Does this user's editing warrant a block? Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I checked that the user has been warned sufficiently, indeed others tried to explain what they were doing wrong, but they still continued to add the US to the Puerto Rico infoboxes. I therefore blocked them for 31h and will try to roll back their edits now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards is a WikiProject advice page, not a guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a guideline but it indicates that the matter has been discussed at length, that there is an existing and heavily elaborated consensus among a group of editors that has discussed the matter, even if it doesn't rise to the level of WP:Consensus in terms of amounting to a guideline, and that editing contrary to it amounts to editing against existing consensus, no? Don't the responses by me and others to this user's edits reinforce the consensus? Further, Wikipedia:Consensus is policy and WP:BRD (which I raised the first time I wrote to the user) is an explanatory supplement to that. If nothing else, the user is in substantial violation of WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I should add that I wasn't just applying WP:PRUS without contributing my own view to the building consensus, but contributing my own support for what I found that it provides. I found it after seeing the user's edits, disagreeing with them, and looking to see whether the topic had been covered on Wikipedia before. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not editing against consensus unless there's an RFC or a guideline or policy page. Consensus among WikiProject participants is not binding on the community. Lev!vich 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- If a user repeatedly gets warned by other users that their edits are not appropriate, tries to discuss, gets their arguments rejected, and, instead of discussing further or opening an RfC or even a talk page discussion just stops replying and goes on making the same edits - well, this is disruptive editing--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not editing against consensus unless there's an RFC or a guideline or policy page. Consensus among WikiProject participants is not binding on the community. Lev!vich 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards is a WikiProject advice page, not a guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, the user posted an unblock request which convinced me that they can be unblocked at the moment. They promised to start dioscussing before making further edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Telsho & LTA socking
The LTA page can be found here. The relevant SPI can be found here.
See the history above. Telsho popped onto multiple editors' radars after filing an ANI report where he claimed to have "stumbled" upon the Adrian Zenz article and was observed by numerous editors to exhibit most of the characteristics of the LTA in question; the CU check found Telsho to be a Possible sock. However, the August 22 case was later closed (along with subsequent investigations) on September 2 and then archived without any conclusion regarding Telsho. Follow-up inquiries by me and Canucklehead about a behavioral analysis did not receive an answer. I'm bringing this to the community, considering Telsho has continued to be disruptive and has provided additional evidence of quacking since the SPI closure. If this should be redirected to SPI for a second Telsho case, I'll move it there, but I'm not clear on the policy about opening up the same SPI again.
Significant behavioral evidence was provided in the SPI, which I have linked to, but here is additional LTA evidence, regarding subjects the sockfarm tends to focus on
- Singapore (no diffs for this one, since the vast majority of Telsho's edits involve Singapore)
- Culture of Singapore (while sometimes removing mention of other countries): [57][58][59][60][61], multiple edits to bubble tea, the creation of List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries, edits to Michael P. Fay
- Economy of Singapore (a sampling of numerous examples, including some shoehorning in of mentions of Singapore): [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72], Hillion Mall
- Jewel Changi Airport [73] and Singapore Changi Airport [74][75][76], Singapore airlines [77][78]
- Lee Hsien Loong (no diffs needed here, since Telsho is all over the recent history, but diffs of pushing mentions of Lee in other articles can easily be provided)
- articles about Singapore transit: [79][80][81]
Quacking
- Telsho makes his one and only edit to George Floyd protests, which just happens to be a specific point a heavily involved sock was interested in[82]
- The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
- Japanese Self-Defense Forces[83][84][85][86]
- Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [87][88][89]
- Lee Hsien Loong [90][91]
- removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [92][93]
- Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [94][95][96]
- A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [97][98][99][100][101][102][103](note that warring over redirects, especially with User:Horse Eye Jack/User:Horse Eye's Back, continues with Telsho and resulted in his current block)
- Tag bombing and edit warring over them, just like Telsho [104][105][106][107][108]
- Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [109]
- Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [110][111]
- This one I put in the SPI and consider a smoking gun, but bears repeating as a one-time visit to an obscure page just to reinstate a sock edit under the guise of reverting vandalism
- There is another connection between Telsho and an earlier sock, but per WP:BEANS I'd prefer to share it with admins privately, upon request
Frankly, you can look at most of the socks in the EIA and find significant overlap with Telsho, which becomes overwhelming once you consider how far-reaching that overlap actually is. I haven't even brought up behavioral problems outside of the sock connections, but there is incessant edit warring, refusal to use talkpages or abide by consensus, resistance to the use of sources (which he has in common with the Feinoa sock), a number of personal attacks, and a persistent use of deceptive edit summaries (some of which can be seen in the provided diffs). I'm happy to provide diffs of any of these behaviors if requested, but I'm trying to keep this report manageable for now and focused on the LTA connection. I propose Telsho's block be extended to indefinite and that he be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets of Ineedtostopforgetting. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious
This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([122][123][124][125][126]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.- That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [127][128][129][130], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [131]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.
- Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.
- To summarize my thoughts:
- At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
- At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
- It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Baprow: Persistent WP:DE and WP:EW; WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE
Baprow (talk · contribs), an user that has seemingly garnered a troublesome collection of edit warring and disruptive behaviour-related issues throughout the last months (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), has engaged on it again on a number of articles. Most of the ordeal has been in place at Talk:President of the Valencian Government and President of the Valencian Government, but the issue has extended to Leader of the Opposition (Spain), President of the Principality of Asturias and President of the Community of Madrid as the user has attempted to engage in WP:GAME conduct in those to prove their point.
The content issue at dispute is actually minor (i.e. design aspects of timeline charts), but their edits are rather random and ultimately based on their own whim, and this has led to a number of severe behavioural issues (mirrored in other articles in recent times, like Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel or Hugo Chávez, with the involvement of users Asqueladd, ZiaLater or NoonIcarus in those cases):
- It's seemingly impossible to make any change to anything of what Baprow edits (with they claiming things such as
"I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes. I could ask you the same."
diff), which they will frequently (and persistently) revert in a clear show of ownership behaviour. They have backtracked these initial statements ever since, but their own possessive behaviour has persisted. - In a way to prevent any change from going further, they keep filibustering and gaslighting by raising additional problems when older ones have been addressed (or, similarly, engaging into circular arguments or outright fallacies). This is very evident on the issue of interim presidents: first, they claimed that there were allegedly two concurrent interim presidents and than that was the issue (diff); then, it was that other Wikipedias allegedly did not include those (though this was never backed up with evidence either; diff); then, that the name has to be "put well" (whatever that means; diff); then, that one-week tenures are (for some unexplained reason) not worth enough to be added into the chart (diff); finally, that the name "destroys the aesthetics" of the chart (a truly fallacious argument with no other evidence than their own whim; diff).
- Another example is them reverting justified reverts with statements of the sort of "I was going to answer your verbiage, but it happened. The changes are correct. Point.".
- They have engaged into personal attacks by dubbing me as "incapable" just because of not seeing the alleged "aesthetical issues" that they suddenly claim to exist (diff1 diff2), though this can be extended to their very first reverts when they patronized me by claiming that I "didn't understand" something as in a "But I know the truth!" situation, despite me having previously explained the rationale of my edits.
- There is the aforementioned issue of editing other articles to seemingly enforce their points in the discussion at Talk:President of the Valencian Government (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4).
Note that this extends to the discussion itself, which I had started almost immediately on 14 September in an attempt to give them the chance to explain their motives and seek out a compromise, if possible. This ended badly:
- I asked several times for them to revert their own edits until the discussion was over, for the sake of WP:BRD and politeness (diff1 diff2 diff3). These requests were not only unattended, but also left entirely unaddressed, something which I pointed out to them when they unilaterally edited the article (while the discussion was still ongoing) in a twisted interpretation of a compromise alternative which I myself had proposed for discussion, but with which I had not agreed yet (diff). They seemingly think that "consensus" and "compromise" mean some form of "I will accept your edits if you accept mine"-bargaining chip that can be imposed without further discussion (diff).
- They only keep replying in the discussion as long as any edit is done on the article: once I stop doing so, they go silent. They have done so several times: on 15 September, when they simply stopped replying to my own concerns, and a second time on 22 September; in this case, it was much more eggregious since I specifically pinged them not once but twice (diff1 diff2), with an additional comment in-between that was also unattended (diff3). They only re-started replying briefly on 21 September (after I re-edited the article as a result of they having abandoned the discussion) and today (for the same reason).
- Looks like, since July, they've been systematically removing any warning notices from their talk page (diff1 diff2 diff3). That's their choice to make, as it's their talk page, but this only self-evidences an outright unwillingness to seriously engage in constructive, consensus-building behaviour or to acknowledge their own misdeeds.
Either this user lacks the competence to work collaboratively, or they are simply not here to build an encyclopedia, but to pursue their own personal satisfaction (by essentially enforcing edits that are pleasant to him and him alone, even if they are contested by everyone else). In either case, this behaviour just needs to stop by whatever means required. Impru20talk 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your base argument is "Your edits are wrong because in Wikipedia things are done the way I'm saying they are done. Look at all these examples!" But when I show you other examples that not all things on Wikipedia are done that way, your counterargument is "Aha, you're using the same argument as me, then I'm right and you're not." And now you are saying that in a timeline there can be names in blue and in black at the same time, something that I have not seen in any other timeline (where the names are in blue or in black, never mixed). In other words, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says or what the majority say, but what you want to impose.--Baprow (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is the kind of behaviour I'm speaking about. It's just impossible to have any kind of agreement or compromise be reached when you systematically consider, regard and/or label the other party as an enemy as you do with others. Your editing history is out there, and it shows it's you the one attempting to impose your edits everywhere all the time and than that's the only thing you do in Wikipedia. No one but you has attempted to "impose" anything; in every situation I've linked it's your edits the ones being contested, and instead of backing down and discuss them when you get (legitimately) reverted you keep re-imposing them over, and over, and over, and over again until the other party backs down out of pure tiredom, or until you threaten with extending the disruption to so many other articles that other editors just cave in to prevent it. Please note that this is not a venue to discuss about content, but about behaviour, and yours has crossed the line by a large deal already. Cheers. Impru20talk 11:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your base argument is "Your edits are wrong because in Wikipedia things are done the way I'm saying they are done. Look at all these examples!" But when I show you other examples that not all things on Wikipedia are done that way, your counterargument is "Aha, you're using the same argument as me, then I'm right and you're not." And now you are saying that in a timeline there can be names in blue and in black at the same time, something that I have not seen in any other timeline (where the names are in blue or in black, never mixed). In other words, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says or what the majority say, but what you want to impose.--Baprow (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
User:ThatMontrealIP
The above editor has been bullying and intimidating me in edit summaries of Cherryl Fountain, on Talk:Cherryl Fountain and on the talk page of User:Valereee. Please help. I could cope if it stopped. But it doesn't. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not seeing any bullying. Please link to a diff. From perusing the different areas provided - their behavior and summaries looks constructive. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: I am truly sorry if my comments have upset you. I could have been more diplomatic, but I don't think any of my comment are bullying. I would encourage you to stop calling me a bully all over the wiki, and also to perhaps take constructive comments less personally. It's not personal. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- The comments aren't
bullying
, don't constitute harassment, they seem entirely descriptive of editing issues, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes people can come across as terse but it doesn't necessarily imply malice. I'd honestly suggest just taking the criticism on board and continuing, nobody's infallible. SITH (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) - There's no bullying or intimidation at all here, but just discussion of Wikipedia edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- For example, I published the article Cherryl Fountain and 35 minutes later the editor in question fixed its talk page with wikiproject banners, and used that as occasion to reprimand me for not doing it first. As it happened I was fixing the What Links Here aspect of the new article first. Is there a rule saying that I must fix the talk page with wikiproject banners within 35 minutes otherwise it's an offence? (there is no diff for that because it's two different pages).
- The editor in question said that I made up some theory about specific Wikimedia Commons images influencing the artist Cherryl Fountain to create particular paintings in response, which is nonsense. I put the pictures there to show the background context for the art and the artist, because most readers haven't been to Sheldwich and Badlesmere in Kent, England to see it for themselves. But due to that misunderstanding by the editor concerned, I was accused of making things up and OR. That is offensive. If the misunderstanding had been explained to me, I could have re-written and clarified the section with the pictures, or I could have removed it myself, and all would have been peaceful. It was the approach and accusations which were bullying and unnecessary.
- Re "constructive comments": it is not constructive to fill in the talk page within 35 mins of publication, before the article creator has had time to do so, and then accuse the article creator of causing problems and suggesting AFC on those grounds. That is inappropriate, it is not constructive. It is intimidating, unnecessary, and therefore bullying.
- Re being "personal": It is personal, because the editor concerned kept using the word "you." I kept asking them not to talk to me, hoping to end the conversation, but they kept replying with more issues, such as pretending that I was trying to ban them from the article talk page. Of course I was not trying to ban them from the talk page - I was asking them not to talk specifically to me. The only way to end issues with bullies is to end the conversation. I have tried to end the conversation but it won't go away.
- I am not arguing about edits that the editor concerned made to the article. You can see that by the way that I dealt with it by saving any removed elements of the article on the talk page, while carefully explaining the value of those reclaimed sections. My distress is caused by the accusations and insults, and the belittling of the (female) biographical subject. Example of belittling - the editor in question complained that it was not an achievement for the artist to have had work accepted for the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition over 28 different exhibition years, yet if you look at the listing you'll see that that only the minority of artists have achieved that. Storye book (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a problem with both the tone and the content of some of ThatMontrealIP's comments, such as "First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort." Since when are any of these things mandatory for articles? Where is the basis for this statement in policies and guidelines, ThatMontrealIP? Where does the documentation for the autopatrolled right say any of that? So, I will disagree with several of the comments above by other editors. I consider ThatMontrealIP's comments to be inimidating, needlessly aggressive and not based in policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Cullen on this and go further. While I have tagged many articles for Wikiprojects, there is a reasonable view that it is up to the WikiProjects that are active to tag articles for their Wikiproject. In this case it seems that Storye book agrees with tagging for WikiProjects, they just didn't do so in the first 35 minutes - not something they should be criticised for. As for not rating the article they contributed, is it ever OK for an editor to put a rating on an article that they have significantly edited? Surely we expect editors to let an uninvolved editor rate an article that they have written? I'm sure I have never rated any article that I have started. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers, I agree with you both. TMIP, autopatrolled doesn't mean "Creates perfect articles from scratch." Why in the world would you start heavily editing an article while the creator is still editing it? Your assertion at the article talk that Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort is both rude and incorrect. I move drafts to article space as soon as I'm convinced the subject is indeed notable and then continue to work on them in article space. It often takes me hours and sometimes days to realize I've neglected to insert default sort and auth control or that, oops, didn't add X wikiproject. And as for large removals, give the creator a chance to get the article where they want it, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I already retracted those comments yesterday. See below. I did not notice this was a new article when I saw it. it was very well developed, as it was two weeks old by the time I came to it. See here for the cut and paste move.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers, I agree with you both. TMIP, autopatrolled doesn't mean "Creates perfect articles from scratch." Why in the world would you start heavily editing an article while the creator is still editing it? Your assertion at the article talk that Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort is both rude and incorrect. I move drafts to article space as soon as I'm convinced the subject is indeed notable and then continue to work on them in article space. It often takes me hours and sometimes days to realize I've neglected to insert default sort and auth control or that, oops, didn't add X wikiproject. And as for large removals, give the creator a chance to get the article where they want it, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Cullen on this and go further. While I have tagged many articles for Wikiprojects, there is a reasonable view that it is up to the WikiProjects that are active to tag articles for their Wikiproject. In this case it seems that Storye book agrees with tagging for WikiProjects, they just didn't do so in the first 35 minutes - not something they should be criticised for. As for not rating the article they contributed, is it ever OK for an editor to put a rating on an article that they have significantly edited? Surely we expect editors to let an uninvolved editor rate an article that they have written? I'm sure I have never rated any article that I have started. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen: as I said above I could have been more diplomatic in how I phrased things. The autopatrolled jumped out when I checked out the editor (I have the gadget installed that shows editor permissions when you roll over their name). This article was chock full of the errors mentioned above, and there was a section called "Some rural influences" which was something Storye Brook created from images of Kent found on Commons. That was WP:OR. I also had the sense that the importance of the article subject was being puffed up. Since then, another editor just tagged some claims for primary sourcing and failed verification on two claims, and yet another editor removed a section that was apparently synthesis. There are other items that I mentioned to them on the talk page that, together with the above, make me wonder about the editing being done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, the problem is that the things that you call "errors" are not errors and not required, so when you berate an editor for non-existent errors, you have stepped over a line. You should withdraw the incorrect accusations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen, I am so glad you are an admin. ThatMontrealIP, I think it is a good idea to listen to Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328. Thank you for this. It is all to often that when attempting to rebuff bullying behaviour, one is told to "cut your losses." But I think the main problem is that when people intimidate online, they fail to realise that intimidation online can frequently cause the recipient to either just give up or to turn the problem inwards and consider suicide. Online intimidation cannot be resolved by either denial of intimidation by bullies, or by supporters of bullies saying "cut your losses." I have been editing for Wikipedia for 15 years. I have uploaded over 14,000 images to Commons. Like a lot of other dedicated WP editors I pay my own expenses for research, for travel to research or photoshoot sites and so on. I don't expect anything in return, apart from politeness. Is that really too much to ask? Storye book (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen, I am so glad you are an admin. ThatMontrealIP, I think it is a good idea to listen to Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen: Sure, I formally and sincerely withdraw the accusation that not having wikiprojects, the talk page, authority control and default sort on a new page is an "error". My claim was not supported by policy. However I would like to point out that it is a reasonable thing to wonder why an editor might be autopatrolled when there are things like WP:OR in an article, which is required not to be there by policy for autopatrolled users. Four editors have made significant edits to the article since it was published, meaning there were some problems to be corrected. I looked at SB's other article creations, and they all looked good. It's strange that this one had so many problems (in my view). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, since "wondering" is a mental process invisible to others, you can wonder whatever you want. But when you assemble a bunch of false assertions and use those to impugn the work of another editor, calling into question their suitability for the autopatrolled right, then you have gone beyond simple wondering to the edge of harassment. I encourage to to rethink your approach to interaction with your fellow editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen: I'll certainly follow your advice. Note also that I was not the only editor to claim to have found OR in the article: another editor found WP:SYNTHESIS in the article a little later. This is not expected to be something one would find in new articles by users with the autopatrolled right, per the autopatrolled policy. That is a valid concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have seen this happen before when intimidating tactics haven't worked, and the editors concerned attempt to shorten or weaken the article with the intention of deleting it instead. They are doing this now on the article talk page under the subheading Sourcing. I would like to see the article protected now. What happens is that if you remove enough of the article it no longer makes sense or hangs together. If you remove the sentence about the artist's father and the shooting, the patronage no longer makes sense, and neither does the artist's work, which is full of pheasants and so on. A lot of that material is context. They have removed the links to the pictures from the External links section, so you can no longer see the artist's work with the farm produce, pheasants and so on. I think the page should be reverted to its original condition, then re-edited by a neutral editor (preferably an administrator), because the current editing is no longer about improving the article, if it ever was. This same thing happened with a previous female biography that I created, and it was very fortunate that an administrator came in and called a halt to the editing. The admin then edited the article and it has remained stable since then. Storye book (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: The section you mentioned was about notability. Someone suggested the topic was not notable. I replied that the topic is likely notable, because they are in two museum collections. I went and found the sourcing for the second collection, pretty much guaranteeing that the article will be kept.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, since "wondering" is a mental process invisible to others, you can wonder whatever you want. But when you assemble a bunch of false assertions and use those to impugn the work of another editor, calling into question their suitability for the autopatrolled right, then you have gone beyond simple wondering to the edge of harassment. I encourage to to rethink your approach to interaction with your fellow editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, the problem is that the things that you call "errors" are not errors and not required, so when you berate an editor for non-existent errors, you have stepped over a line. You should withdraw the incorrect accusations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Re my previous comments about non-constructive editing, I am concerned about the removal of mentions of the artist's work on the grounds that the works are described as works and not as exhibitions. Regarding notability, WP:BIO says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This requirement for notability has been met. But there is more to a biography than just notability. (For example, in the Winston Churchill biography, the article has not been pruned of everything that is not strictly necessary for notability. A sentence about his "black dog" depression is still there, for instance. But it is there for context.) All biographies need some sort of context that relates to the subject. To get a rounded picture of an artist's work, you need to read all about as many of their works as possible. However the editor in question has attempted to remove mention of a lot of works by Fountain which are not in exhibitions, and (oddly) a lot of works which were in an important exhibition. None of this is constructive. I ask again that the page be protected, reverted back to its original condition, and re-edited by a neutral editor, preferably an administrator. Thank you. Don't forget that the living subjects of these biographies are reading this stuff, and probably wondering what is happening when so many of their works are deleted when they have been properly referenced and are genuine. Storye book (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Now you are really just talking about a content problem, which does not belong here. As I said above the notability is not in question; they are in two museum collections. Several other editors have been over the page and showed no problems with my edits. I think we're done here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Storye book, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, and you need to make your case on the article talk page, and build consensus there. Disagreement about content does not justify full protection of an article. Administrators are not "super editors" and have no more power or authority regarding content than anyone else. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Legal threat by User:NuggetYT
This [132] is clear legal threat. The editor claims to be the the director of communications of Monsignor Farrell High School [133] and thus is a WP:PAID editor. Meters (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've made it clear that if their next action is anything but withdrawing that threat, they will be blocked. I will grant that they might respond to a message directed to them on Meters's talk page before they see my final warning, however. Still, at this point, if their response to that message is to double down on the legal threats, I'm going to block even if they hadn't yet seen my final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaand blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It never ceases to amaze me that people think (even aside from WP:NLT) that this is a reasonable or effective threat. Sheesh. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- My lawyers says that no matter how fun I think it'd be, it'd be a bad idea to start all of my responses to such people with "my lawyer says." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- You always could do what Trey Parker and Matt Stone did. They instructed their lawyer to publish the following official statement: [134] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your edit summary.."Don't Taze me, bro." LOL. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- My lawyers says that no matter how fun I think it'd be, it'd be a bad idea to start all of my responses to such people with "my lawyer says." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It never ceases to amaze me that people think (even aside from WP:NLT) that this is a reasonable or effective threat. Sheesh. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaand blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Possible widespread birthplace vandalism
- Special:Contributions/140.213.2.27/24
I happened to see a recent unsourced addition of a birthplace to an infobox from this IP (not supported in the article), and then checked the contribs from the associated /24, and I see lots and lots and lots of unsourced additions of birthplaces. I have no idea if any of the changes are accurate or not, but they're certainly unsourced. I also haven't checked any wider of a range than /24. Extra help/eyes in examining this would be immensely appreciated, as would any suggestions in case this is determined to be a problem. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have checked out some of the IP's edits and they are outrageous. For example: Carmelo Garcia is a New Jersey legislator and the only mention of a birthplace within the article is "Garcia was born in 1975 and lived in Hoboken his entire life." but the IP placed the birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. I have currently checked twenty edits and all of them are without sourcing. - Jon698 talk 2:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hariolr
Hariolr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has made a total of three edits, all of therm disruptive.
- In this edit[135] Hariolr introduced a deliberate error. The cited source[136] says "Tradition dictates that, all eldest sons are to be named Rama Varma, the second son Kerala Varma and the third son Ravi Varma. The fourth son becomes Rama Varma."
- In this edit[137] Hariolr called Allopathic medicine (a term coined by the inventor of homeopathy to describe science-based, modern medicine) as "Pseudo Scientific".
- In this edit[138] Hariolr changed the wording of another editors talk page comment.
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hariolr, you look WP:NOTHERE to me. If you refactored aomeone's talk, that's wholly unacceptable, and if you're here to advocate for homeopathy , you are at the wrong encyclopedia. Ditto if you are misrepresenting sources.06:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)
- I thought we were welcoming to homeopaths. Didn't we just delete a userbox hostile to gay marriage? EEng 07:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Homeopathy is different to Homosexuality. One is home medicine remedies and the other is the sexual attraction to men. Giraffer munch 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Giraffer: [139]. —JBL (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- JayBeeEll, I'm lucky this isn't reddit. Giraffer munch 14:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I imagine that a homeopathic quantity of lesbians would agree with that definition of homosexuality. GirthSummit (blether) 14:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- JayBeeEll, I'm lucky this isn't reddit. Giraffer munch 14:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Giraffer: [139]. —JBL (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Homeopathy is different to Homosexuality. One is home medicine remedies and the other is the sexual attraction to men. Giraffer munch 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I thought we were welcoming to homeopaths. Didn't we just delete a userbox hostile to gay marriage? EEng 07:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
3 editors are reverting the page to an unreferenced revision. When told the edit is unreferenced the users simply stop responding but nevertheless have been reverting the page for over 2 days. Attempting to get me, as the sole user reverting back to the referenced version to trigger 3RR, get blocked and hopefully game the system at the article. Please put an to this which has been going on for 2 days. GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs: [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gala19000 Shadow4dark (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a duck, user GoldycDonald behaviour is fishy enought to be linked to proven sockpuppets Gala19000. See the latest Sockpuppet investigation.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user after they have moved to Karabakh articles. They were so kind to call me a "fucking tard"--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's always convenient when people do that - it save so much pointless hand wringing. WP:PBAGDSWCBY GirthSummit (blether) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- On another site, us sysops wished that we could impose a rule that problem users should be compelled to have serialised usernames: User:Spammer01, User:Spammer02, User:Troll01, User:Troll02, and so on. We never did manage to convince anyone in authority. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's always convenient when people do that - it save so much pointless hand wringing. WP:PBAGDSWCBY GirthSummit (blether) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user after they have moved to Karabakh articles. They were so kind to call me a "fucking tard"--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a duck, user GoldycDonald behaviour is fishy enought to be linked to proven sockpuppets Gala19000. See the latest Sockpuppet investigation.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep
I understand User:DePiep has a long record of incivil behaviour. More recently I recall he was blocked for one month.
I’ve experienced this behaviour myself, including his use of hostile and foul language, and, as a non-Admin, warned him about it
Much as I appreciate his contributions, and have put up with his unwelcome behaviour, his recent behaviour is the last straw for me.
What particularly annoys me is having to waste time writing up this post, when I have better things to do. That said, the time has come for short-term pain (this complaint) with a view to a long-term gain (the end of DePiep’s unwelcome behaviour).
What happened (25 to 26 Sep)
The action takes place here:
A. WP:ELEM Lead PT in PT article
B. Periodic table, article history
C. Template:Element, history
D. WP:ELEM Alkali metal color
Colleagues at WP:ELEM had been having a discussion about how to colour categorise the periodic table graphic appearing in the lede of our periodic table article. WP:ELEM is a small project with about a half dozen active to semi-active members, including DePiep. A few other editors drop in from time to time.
After a considerable discussion within the project, including a survey of the literature, the sequence of events was then:
- I posted an updated PT graphic to our periodic table article. [B, 04:44, 25 Sep]
- I told WP:ELEM about it and why. [A, 07:14]
- Two project members User:R8R and User:Double Sharp asked for a minor easily accommodated change, that is all. [A, 07:45; 09:16]
- User: YBG suggested some other really cool options. [A, 08:55]
- DePiep subsequently reverts my updated graphic. [B, 09:24]It is evident that DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners. As a fellow WP:ELEM member he could not be bothered doing his homework and checking for the background to the offending edit, a background discussion which he was supposedly following.
- I ping to DePiep that, as a WP:ELEM member, and in the context of the subject discussions and supportive feedback, the revert, as opposed to further discussion, was uncalled for. [A, 10:52]
- I took these comments by R8R, DS and YBG as indicating consensus for the change, subject to some modifications, which I enacted. In the comments to the edit I say, "D please DePiep, rather than R, if you have o/s concerns." [B, 13.12]
- User:ComplexRational chimed in saying he was basically happy with the graphic, and provided some further comments. [A, 13:33]
- DePiep reverts me for a second time. [B, 21:39]
- WP:ELEM member User:R8R posts a single associated change to the colour scheme for the WP:PT. He did this since WP:ELEM members generally do not like the particular colour shade in question. [C, 14:54, 26 Sep]
- WP:ELEM member User: Double sharp posts a "like". [D, 16:39]
- DePiep once again reverts. [C, 21:34]
I have since reverted DePiep’s revert, commenting that he (DePiep) is not the arbiter of these matters.
That was the last straw for me, and is why am here. I begrudge no one the right to revert. But not without context and not within a project without bothering to check the associated discussion. As noted, DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners, even within a project he is a member of.
On a few occasions I may have been tetchy in my interactions with DePiep. I believe none of my these were over the top. That said, if anything I have done is deemed to be inappropriate I am happy to held accountable.
That is another indication that I have reached the end of my tether wrt to DePiep’s ongoing incivility, and his proclivity for same, despite past warnings and a recent 1-month block.
Outcome sought
In light of this incivil behaviour, and DePiep’s record of same, I am requesting that he is once again sanctioned.
--- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, you need to provide WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. If you don't know how to create a diff, find the edit in question (either by clicking "prev" or using the radio buttons), copy the url, and post it here inside square brackets, like this random sample diff: [146]. --Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, don't see anything apart from DePiep reverting some what correctly for no consensus. Games of the world (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sandbh, rather than coming to ANI, and posting accusations about other editors in discussions, per WP:BRD what you should have done is posted [a link to] your preferred final version of the table on the talkpage of one of those pages, pinged every single participant from the discussions, and established a clear WP:CONSENSUS (preferably, with clear "Support" and Oppose" !votes). Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads and in various places, there is no actual consensus. Please go back and establish the actual consensus. If no consensus becomes clear even after pinging all the relevant participants, then create an official WP:RFC. Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD. Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you. And discuss content, not other editors. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bottom line: This is a content issue, and this thread can be closed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this should be closed ASAP, particularly due to apparent canvassing issues. Games of the world (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this should be closed ASAP, particularly due to apparent canvassing issues. Games of the world (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that I should add to this discussion before it is closed. I’d appreciate a couple of hours’ time to do so.—R8R (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments by DePiep
- TL;DR: I claim to have worked by BRD. That is me reverting and engaging in the talk. I asked to point out (or strive for) consensus.
- I am a long-time member of WP:ELEMENTS, as is Sandbh. We have had serious and fruitful discussions at WP:ELEMENTS, some taking over a year. Together the WP:ELEMENTS members and contributors have build a strong case and consensus alsmost every time. I have implemented these outcomes loyally.
- Recent months, a multitude of ideas and proposals were discussed at the project talkpage, mostly initiated by Sandbh. This involves dozens of threads and many hundreds of edits. Unfortunately, many threads meandered off into a different topic, and not a crisp conclusion (consensus) was reached. Most if not all threads' issues come together in periodic table and its image. So far, all fine. However, since last December there seems to be a chilled, less cooperative atmosphere on the talkpage.
- 04:44, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the main image in periodic table [147]. It included many changes, both content (the science) and editorial (graphic effects).
- I also added a question about a subtopic [153], and Sandbh actually implemented a result (albeit without consensus); this is to show that I did engage and that Sandbh acted upon my contribution.
- 13:12, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the image again into the new version, updated (image version history) [154]; I reverted [155] for the same reason.
- All in all, this is a straight BRD sequence. (Problematic is that consensus is hard to find in the talkpage for most of the changes; some changes were not even discussed at all, esp. the graphical ones. But this is a content & discussion issue, not relevant for ANI, I think. To me it looks like Sandbh is construing 'consensus' from the presence of the discussion only).
- In a separate place I reverted an edit [156], and engaged in the talk with arguments [157] (so BRD again). Sandbh replied with a personal attack not engaging in the argumentation [158].
- I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases, constructively. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments by R8R
- There is a reason why Sandbh wrote those words, "last straw." This is not an isolated disagreement.
- To set the stage, here is a couple of my past encounters with DePiep. Here is one of my previous disagreements with them: Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal. The core of that argument was that DePiep interpreted rules in a very particular manner. Even though nobody agreed with their interpretation and five people (including myself) opposed it, they still continued to act as if they were right. These actions included reverting a revert, oblivion to others' arguments (calling the version of the name of element 13 commonly used in the United States ("aluminum") outdated, even though other editors had pointed out that this was not the case), accusing others of misinterpretation of a guideline when the person had only, in fact, quoted it (the editor in question was surprised by this accusation as well as the accusation that they were not "performing this dscussion sincerely", see the same edit), and making an "utterly false claim" about another editor's actions. Save for the first one, I was not the editor involved in these episodes.
- Then there was another encounter at Talk:History of the periodic table. While ComplexRational and I were working on improving the said article (mostly if not exclusively CR at that point), DePiep came in and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done.
- In this particular case, my input was changing the color of one group of elements. I didn't expect this to be a controversial action: other editors called for that previously, and even DePiep themselves had said changing the old color was "good choice for access reasons" just a few hours before I made that change. In response, I got three consecutive messages from DePiep: in the first one, I was told that it "would be nicer if you had published it" (I will refer to this later), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave (I did not make any edits concerning this issue between those messages). That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw.
- At the same time, I am having a discussion (at times peaceful and at times not) with DePiep at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of two particular actions taken by DePiep: one is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page, and the other is using obscene language that was directed at another editor (myself). The former action, as you see, is not their first time doing something of that kind, and the latter action is something DePiep had done in the past, too.
- The reason why I wanted to return to "publishing" is that DePiep is often not having an edit unless it had been approved at WT:ELEM, including the two rather uncontroversial edits from this week mentioned by Sandbh and myself. Not that they oppose it, they merely impose having to make a bureaucratic request and have other editors approve it, and the approval must be good enough for DePiep or else it won't pass. This is rather unsettling because it stops other editors from being bold and improving the article without having to undergo our local bureaucracy that nobody is asking for. We do have a habit of discussing things that we find worthy of a full discussion. I want the uncalled for bureaucracy (and undoing others, and not listening to them, and obscene language) to stop so that we can be a part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, again.
- I am eager to stand accountable for anything other editors believe I should stand accountable for.--R8R (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Once more about this revert by me ({{Element color}}). In the editsummary, and in my subsequent talkpage post [159], I clearly noted the problem with this change. (For the interested reader: it created two nearly identical colors in the legend - ouch). Also, asking for a proposal/discussion after a bold edit is basic WP practice called WP:BRD; I do not see how that could be worth noting here. I also note that neither you nor Sandbh responded to the actual problem I noted, so evading D. Instead, you turn such regular BRD steps into some constructed nasty attitude you try to smear me with. And btw, the diff you added as "good choice for access reasons" is a misunderstanding on your side, and could easily have been cleared up in the talk had you mentioned it. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there is nothing wrong with noting what you think is a problem; that's fine, simple BRD is fine. That's not the takeaway from my mention of it. A normal BRD cycle doesn't result in telling another editor to "grow up and behave," that's the uncivil behavior here.
- The claim that I have not responded to your concern is demonstrably false.
- Even if I had indeed simply misunderstood you, that is still no excuse for the behavior you have shown. I made a bold change that I believed to be uncontroversial and was reverted with a comment that told me to grow up and behave.--R8R (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R:. You only entered the discussion after I posted a second call to discuss [160].
- "grow up and behave" is a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits. In this case: discuss up. Looks like anything I would say would land wrongly with you and with complainer Sandbh [161]. As this thread shows, the two of you had a tendency to turn content issues (or disappointments) into personal behaviour issues (or straight personal attacks). -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- When you have raised your concern for the first time, it was past midnight in my timezone. Of course I didn't react. And from then, it took you thirteen minutes and no action from me to tell me to grow up and behave. I replied to you soon after the midday of the next day (today), soon after I replied to a few other comments that required my attention. I replied twelve hours after you first raised the concern, I'd say that's quick enough, and yet, you decided to present here the argument that I had not responded to the problem you raised; not just that, you even added no further qualifications. Instead, you could have said, "I'm sorry, I was wrong to accuse you of that." In fact, you still can.
- "Grow up and behave" is indeed a colloquial address, but it's not by any measure civil; its remarkably condescending. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I told you something like that. But if that's the language you consider fine to be used among collaborators, find those people who agree with you, and talk to them in that manner. I am not responsible for Sandbh's words (and he isn't for mine), if you want to talk to me, talk about me or yourself, and you can discuss his behavior with him. I'll note that quite a while ago, you wrongly accused me of making personal attacks against you, and I've been extra careful since then not to let you be right the next time you make such a statement. Having said that, I'm sure other editors will find a way to assess my behavior here, and yours, too. Dixi.--R8R (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- The point is, @R8R and Sandbh: these are a clearcut Bold-Revert-Discuss processes, but you both are turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add. Let me note here that the multiple agressive violent comments like
DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners
I left aside -- but only by my choice. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- The point is, @R8R and Sandbh: these are a clearcut Bold-Revert-Discuss processes, but you both are turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add. Let me note here that the multiple agressive violent comments like
- @R8R: Once more about this revert by me ({{Element color}}). In the editsummary, and in my subsequent talkpage post [159], I clearly noted the problem with this change. (For the interested reader: it created two nearly identical colors in the legend - ouch). Also, asking for a proposal/discussion after a bold edit is basic WP practice called WP:BRD; I do not see how that could be worth noting here. I also note that neither you nor Sandbh responded to the actual problem I noted, so evading D. Instead, you turn such regular BRD steps into some constructed nasty attitude you try to smear me with. And btw, the diff you added as "good choice for access reasons" is a misunderstanding on your side, and could easily have been cleared up in the talk had you mentioned it. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
First commentary by Sandbh: As this is the first time I have lodged a complaint, here are my impressions of the way it has been responded to, aside from R8R's contribution.
- Thank you User:Softlavender for your advice regarding the provision of WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. I will do so.
- User:Games of the world I explained the basis for my impression that I had consensus. I further understood that (a) consensus does not require unanimity; and (b) that consensus does not necessarily require a formal RFC process and certainly not within a project within which the matter had already been discussed at some length, and of which DePiep is a member.I further see you have your own record of blocks and taking an undue interest in matters here at WP:ANI. Your comments are not welcome, by me, in this matter. You may like to take note of the advice provided to you on your talk page, today, by User: Girth Summit re, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.”Neither is your pile-on request, for an early close of my complaint, welcome, following the request by Softlavender.
- 1st request to SL: User:Softlavender: I will thank you to (a) not tell me what I should have done; and (b) not refer to my statement of facts as allegations. For that matter, you may like to advise me how I can post a complaint here about incivil behaviour without posting a statement concerning the facts of the matter, or allegations as you refer to them.
- Re: “Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads”, no the threads are not that lengthy, and I have provided the times and places of the relatively few posts of concern, albeit without the diff summaries, which I will provide.
- Please do not tell me, “Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD.” All you have demonstrated to me is your lack of understanding of the concise sequence of events and times that I provided. Further, there are three reverts involved in this matter.
- Please do not tell me to, “Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you.” I understand BRD and do not, as I said in my complaint, begrudge any editor’s right to revert. I explained my concern about BRD in this particular case, in my complaint. And please do not tell me to, “discuss content, not other editors.” I came here with a complaint about DePiep’s behaviour, and not for a talking down about how I should not set out the facts of the matter.
- I will thank you for not expressing your superficial and unhelpful bottom line opinion that my complaint can be closed (really?) in a matter with which you have had zero involvement and have zero appreciation of the issues at play.
- User:Games of the world I will thank you to please check your facts before referring to what you regard as apparent “canvassing issues”. If you could have been bothered to do so, as User: Black Kite seems to have done, you would have seen that no such canvassing occurred. As noted, your running commentary is unwelcome.
- User:Black Kite Thank you for your post. Quite so.
- My impression so far is that of a stampede to dismiss my complaint ASAP, comments by R8R and DePiep aside.
- I have worked with DePiep for several years, within the WP:ELEM project. This is the first time I have felt it necessary to bring my concerns to this forum. I did not do so lightly and did not expect my concerns to treated in a manner akin to spectator catcalls from a peanut gallery. I’m looking at you, Softlavender, and Games of the World. 2nd request to SL: Please stay out of this and please stop wasting more of my time (single helpful comment by Softlavender, aside).
- God help us if that is the way matters brought here are to be treated.
- I will wait for a real Admin who will give my complaint fair consideration and due process. Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases"
. This claim is bogus. BRD says (quoted verbatim): If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, I don't think you are helping your case by attacking (and name-calling) people who are trying to resolve the matter here, or by putting words in my mouth; I have never used the word "allegations" as you twice claimed. I do see that you have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167].
And here is you apparently defying WP:BRD, implying that the lack of consensus for your change did not merit a revert: [168]. So at this point, you either don't understand WP:BRD (which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss), or you refuse to abide by it and refuse to demonstrate clear consensus, but rather edit-war and then run to ANI. And it is true there is no clear consensus, as you admitted in that post, and it is true that the discussions are spread over massive threads comprising many lengthy paragraphs in at least two different threads. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh I'm an admin, and I'm definitely real[citation needed]. I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve. You have reported that DePiep has been uncivil, but I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us to deal with. R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation "WTF" - I know what that stands for, but it's a very commonplace way of expressing surprise and/or frustration, I don't think there would be any likelihood of a consensus emerging that it is a sanctionable mode of expression (in the way that I might block someone for repeatedly saying "Fuck you" to someone). Just so that I don't need to click through every one of the links above and read all of the conversations in full, are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?
- Failing that, I'd make the general observation that anyone reverting anybody else's work ought to be doing so because they have a specific disagreement with it, and they should be willing to discuss that disagreement on the article talk page - BRD is meant to offer a way to work constructively together, it's not intended to be a roadblock. I don't have the time just now to read through all of the above, click through all the links, and come to an opinion on whether anyone is trying to be obstructive rather than constructive - anybody wanting to demonstrate that would do well to offer a concise summary, supported by illustrative diffs. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, I would like to make a clarification. "WTF" may indeed be common in English, but that doesn't mean it's not obscene: for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary lists the abbreviation as "offensive slang." I also note that meaning of a word depends on the context, and both examples I have brought up are aimed at a specific editor, rather than merely feature the abbreviation. As a non-native speaker of English, I was once rather puzzled by the way some words are used in it, and I eventually made sure to learn what is permissible and what is not.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- R8R mild obscenities of that sort aren't prohibited here, unless there has recently been a massive shift in what's permissible that I'm unaware of. Personally, it's not a phrase I would use towards an editor whom I didn't know well, especially if it was someone I was in dispute with; however, admins have only a few rather heavy and unwieldy tools we can use to encourage positive collaboration, and blocking someone's account for using a very common phrase like that would be excessively heavy-handed. It's rather vulgar, but it's not an insult or a personal attack, all I can do about that is encourage the DePiep to try to bear in mind that they should try to choose words and expressions that will make it easier, not more difficult, to collaborate with colleagues. GirthSummit (blether) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, I would like to make a clarification. "WTF" may indeed be common in English, but that doesn't mean it's not obscene: for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary lists the abbreviation as "offensive slang." I also note that meaning of a word depends on the context, and both examples I have brought up are aimed at a specific editor, rather than merely feature the abbreviation. As a non-native speaker of English, I was once rather puzzled by the way some words are used in it, and I eventually made sure to learn what is permissible and what is not.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
3rd request by Sandbh to SL to Softlavender Per my request, unless you are the Admin who will be dealing with my complaint, please stay the hell out it and cease and desist the incivil, unhelpful, unproductive, time-wasting, unwelcome harassment, bullying and associated behaviour. I do not need you to run a damned play-by-play commentary on my behaviour, which I stand ready to be held accountable for, not that it is the subject of the complaint. As I said, and you blatantly ignore, you have zero knowledge of WP:ELEM and zero knowledge of the long-standing relationships involved within that project, and apparently zero knowledge of DePeip's past transgressions and proclivity for incivil behaviour. I am warning you. Any more of your unhelpful, and unknowledgeable pot-stirring commentary and I will lodge a complaint about your unwelcome, unprofessional, incivil behaviour. Go and stick your nose into someone else's business and waste their damed time, rather than mine! It is bad enough that I have to waste my time but I explained the reason for that. Get the heck out of it! Screw up someone else's life! Sandbh (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, crikey - that post was the least civil thing I've seen when looking through this. I get that you're frustrated, and ANI is not a fun place to hang out, but there wasn't any call for that. You might want to consider looking at Softlavender's last post as a useful example of how to make a point concisely, and to support it with diffs. Softlavender isn't an admin, but she's an experienced editor in good standing and I genuinely think she was trying to help resolve this. I hate asking people to calm down, I realise that it often inflames situations rather than having the intended effect, but really - please dial it back a few notches. GirthSummit (blether) 14:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, this isn't your personal domain or your talkpage, and you cannot bar people from posting here. This noticeboard is for problem resolution, and welcomes the input and insight of both administrators and experienced editors. Experienced editors add more eyes to the situation and add evidence, especially when evidence is missing or curtailed in the original request. Also of note is the WP:BOOMERANG aspect of noticeboard filings, which is that when you file a complaint about someone, your behavior will be scrutinized as well. If you have not done the obvious steps of resolving whatever dispute you are reporting (in this case the obvious step per WP:BRD would be demonstrating consensus, on the article's talkpage, for the change you wanted), and/or if your own behavior has exacerbated the situation or been equally problematical, then those factors are taken into consideration. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- On that note, two useful links:
1. Tips for dealing with incivility
2. ANI advice
--Softlavender (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- The 14:13 post by Sandbh re Softlavender is not nice to read, and not helpful IMO even in ANI. Also, I do not wish my current opponent to be judged by this single post. I request that his post be nullified ('as if not existant') and not considered at all. That leaves the rest of the thread to deal with. (So, to be clear: forget about this one post, and process the thread at best everyone. No harm to Sandbh for this one). -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- On that note, two useful links:
- I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Thank you for becoming involved in my complaint. I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can. Sandbh (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Second commentary by Sandbh
@Girth Summit: As I stated previously I will post the diffs as helpfully suggested by Softlavender.
In the context of my complaint I'm requesting due process. That is, a considered examination of the issues of substance and an impartial decision as to whether DePiep's conduct (a) constitutes incivil behaviour; and (b) warrants a commensurate sanction. Now that I look at what I just wrote I am surprised that I even need to set an expectation for due process.
With respect, as I see it, you have so far given my complaint a cursory examination bereft of the context of DePiep's repeated history of invicil behaviour, as has been previously raised in this forum, and the associated sanctions he received.
R8R has been editing for longer than I have and is the most civil, impartial, professional, deliberate, and nonplussed editor I have worked with. That he sees fit to add his concerns to my complaint, concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour, speaks volumes, for what my opinion is worth.
I said this was my first time at WP:ANI. That is after nine years from my first edit, and interacting with DePiep on and off during that time.
What is the first thing that happens? Softlavender chimes in, without announcing their status, and recommends closing my complaint. R8R, who I doubt has ever seen this, "panics" thinking the complaint is to be closed, and asks for a few hours so he can add his voice. His reaction just about matched mine.
As far as my comments regarding Softlavender, I called it as I saw it. I have seen and experienced more egregious unsanctioned behaviour, within WP, outside of this forum. In any event, what I wrote is not the subject of my complaint. That kind of righteousness, holier-than-though commentary and unrequested advice is unwelcome and incivil, as I see it.
I repeat my assertion concerning the unwanted commentary and advice rec'd from the peanut gallery, and that I should or should not do this or that, or read this or that.
4th request by Sandbh to SL: I understand this is not my personal domain. So I will repeat my request to Softlavender. Your running commentary is not welcome to me. If you are a valued editor, kindly desist from commenting on my complaint. I am not finding your commentary to be helpful to me.
User:Mr rnddude's comment (for which, thank you) that, "I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board." does not fill me with confidence that my complaint will receive an impartial hearing, with due consideration of the behaviour of concern.
If my own behaviour is of concern to anyone, anyone is welcome to raise that as a separate issue. Please do not conflate the two issues of my complaint concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour with my subsequent behaviour. Separate the two matters please, according each editor involved due process. I have nothing to hide. I stand by my actions and accept full accountability for them.
Regarding your comment, "I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve." There is no problem needing resolution. Rather, I have raised a complaint concerning incivil behaviour, that is all. I am seeking a fair consideration of my complaint. This includes deciding, in an impartial manner, if there is a case to answer, noting DePeip's extensive history of incivil behaviour and, if so, whether a sanction is warranted. I hope that is not too much to expect of an Admin, whether that is you or another Admin, or Admins.
I speak in the context of decades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct.
Finally I note and thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User:Andy Mabbett, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. On your part Girth, I note your inclination to dismiss R8R's concerns, and to highlight User:Softlavender's (unwanted by me) contributions, in the context of them knowing nothing about relationships within WP: ELEM, including their recommendation to close my complaint, which only caused unnecessary grief for me and R8R.
I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration rather than the near-shambles (as I see and feel it) that I have experienced to date.
The complaint has already burgeoned out far beyond what it needed to, including my latest 750+ words, here. No wonder you may not have had the time to fully assess it, presuming you will take the lead on it as an admin.
I have now marked out my four requests to User:Softlavender to cease what I regard as unwanted, unhelpful, harassment and bullying behaviour. I will not put up with a recurrence of this unwanted behaviour from a supposedly valued editor, in light of my repeated requests to them to stop doing this to me.
Sincerely, Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can.
Was this really as concisely as you can? Given yourdecades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct
, how would you rate your own approach to conflict resolution here? Did you adhere to, or stray from, the basic principles of conflict resolution? Did you focus on the problem, or on the people? Did you do more reading (listening) or writing (talking)? Did you validate others' points of view, or dismiss them? Did you identify shared interests, or only your own? Did you propose solutions that everyone can say yes to, or did you approach it as a zero-sum game? These were rhetorical questions.I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration ...
It won't. Your responses to the editors who engaged above will not attract more participation in this thread, other than from people like me pointing out with a healthy dose of snark that you have truly bungled your request for assistance. Though this trainwreck of a thread might be fouled beyond repair, should the problem you're having continue, you might try posting here again in the future, but next time, put to use those decades of experience in conflict resolution and present the complaint in a way that actually makes volunteers feel invited and welcome to help. Good luck. Lev!vich 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Your comments add nothing to progressing the management of my complaint. God help us if this is the way a first complaint here at WP:ANI, after nine years of contributing to WP, and a request for due process, is treated. The topic is my complaint of uncivil behaviour by Depiep. Please leave my behaviour out of it, or raise a separate complaint about me. You comment about my decades of experience in conflict resolution and dealing with misconduct Guess what: I followed due process! How novel; is that something that might possibly be extended to the shambolic way I've so far been treated here?
How about considering the good advice of Girth re dial it back a few notches? How about waiting until I de-stress enough to be able to post the diffs, rather than stirring the pot with what I regard as biased self-righteousness, which is only contributing to the problem rather than its solution?
Unlike your contribution, I once again thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User: Pigsonthewing, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Request by Sandbh to all concerned: Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs. Exception: YBG, who has already advised me that, as a fellow WP:ELEM, they will be making a contribution. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Defamatory comment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If an admin would be willing to change the visibility of this false and defamatory comment I would appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Under what criteria do you think that criticism qualifies for revision deletion? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- New account first and so far only edits are to say that. Alarm bells ringing. But Ivan is right on what grounds do you think that is going to be hidden for all of eternity? Games of the world (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: It's a "smear", which falls under "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Personally (and others may certainly disagree) I do not feel that the comment falls under that criterion. It does not use vulgarities, bigoted language, or other degrading language inappropriate for civil discourse. Merely being false doesn't qualify for revdelete. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly used to the revdeletion criteria and how they are interpreted, but I agree that it seems unlikely this falls under them. If it did, we'd be revdeleting a lot more edits than we are now, including quite a few on AN//I etc. BTW, if some editor is sure the edits qualify for revdeletion, I'm confused why the edits are still on the talk page. The longer they are on the talk page, the messier the revdeletion will need to be. The page is not particularly active any more, still there is already one archiving bot edit which will be caught up. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Personally (and others may certainly disagree) I do not feel that the comment falls under that criterion. It does not use vulgarities, bigoted language, or other degrading language inappropriate for civil discourse. Merely being false doesn't qualify for revdelete. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: It's a "smear", which falls under "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- New account first and so far only edits are to say that. Alarm bells ringing. But Ivan is right on what grounds do you think that is going to be hidden for all of eternity? Games of the world (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is the kind of comment that gets thrown around in any highly emotional/contentious political or sociological article on Wikipedia, especially one currently still raw and still in the news. I don't think it merits revdel. One could keep an eye on the editor that posted it, and make sure that he doesn't go off the rails. One could also consider simply removing it from the talkpage if it serves no useful purpose. But it shouldn't be revdelled. It might need to be in evidence at some later date, for whatever reason. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know some admins are more liberal than others when it comes to revdel but extending it to this type of comment would be going too far. P-K3 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am very quick on the draw when it comes to revdeletion, but this is not something I'd scrap. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Recurrent problem with Paris 1 page
There are IP addresses and User:Marco Carrasco (alumnus of Paris 1 according to old version of his page) who are putting old positive rankings of this university. Last one: [169] Others are listed there: [170] (removed "no longer..."). --Delfield (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I also notice that this was not closed and that the user continues with its behavior in talk pages. --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
User:HistoryEtCulture circumventing their block
It would appear that alas, the P'ent'ay article issue, which involved a certain user agenda pushing and block evading (for however many times the Wikipedia administration know), has returned via a random IP address and continued their contributions (which a consensus was never reached on). This user, HistoryEtCulture, is without a doubt, in good faith, the culprit. Could this article be protected further from IP addresses and new Wikipedians, for safety's sake? The IP acting verbatim as the contributor is 129.174.240.247.- TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @TheLionHasSeen: I've requested semiprotection and added the sockpuppet reports since there's been more since you wrote this, but a few things:
- First, as the editnotice on this page states, you must notify the user on their talk page when creating a thread here about them.
- Second, requests for page protection should go on WP:RPP - there's a good chance you'll get a faster response there.
- You can also report the IP to the relevant sockpuppet investigation if you see it in the future.
- One last thing is just a point of clarification, bans and blocks are different things. A block is a technical measure to prevent an account/IP from editing, while a ban is more or less a social thing saying "this editor is no longer welcome here". When someone is banned, all of their edits in violation of the ban can/should be reverted. That's not the case for simple blocks though. In this case they're technically banned under the three-strikes policy as CheckUsers have confirmed that they've circumvented the block more than two times.
- Wikipedia policy and guidelines can be pretty confusing, so I just wanted to clarify a few things with you. I've been here off-and-on for a decade and there's still plenty I don't know. Keep up the good work! – Frood (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there, Frood. HistoryEtCulture is permanently blocked for the following, and may be found in the archives of the noticeboard as evidenced here and here; this is just providing some additional evidence for evidence's sake. Next, thank you for the reminder, as I was in the midst of multitasking and forgot to notify the IP they highly seem to have performed these contributions through. That, is occurring right now as I type this expanded response and forgo my initial response. I appreciate the assistance, greatly so!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is a random question, but would't it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to contact the VPN companies utilized and request their information for constant disruptive activities? Also, with harassment seeming to extend to outside of Wikipedia from the cases opened against them, that the Wikimedia Foundation confidently contacts those harassed or cyberstalked giving them the option to perform a cease and desist? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- In theory, yes. There used to be WP:Abuse Response but that was shut down because it was pretty inactive. There have been cases when the WMF has gotten involved such as with Grawp but I imagine they only do that in extreme cases. Unfortunately this is pretty run-of-the-mill socking. – Frood (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is a random question, but would't it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to contact the VPN companies utilized and request their information for constant disruptive activities? Also, with harassment seeming to extend to outside of Wikipedia from the cases opened against them, that the Wikimedia Foundation confidently contacts those harassed or cyberstalked giving them the option to perform a cease and desist? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Like @Frood says, Hoaeter/Habesha Union is technically banned, anyway. It is difficult (for me) to imagine any circumstances in which Hoaeter, et al could successfully appeal any of the various accounts' blocks -- see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter#June 2020 as to why. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- IP blocked, article protected. The blocked editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter) is editing from the same location as previously (a US education facility). Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Meaning Translated has moved the article out of the draft space even though Curb Safe Charmer declined the review twice. Shouldn't this article stay in the draft space? Moumou82 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Moumou82, AfC is an optional process. If you or CSC feel that it's not ready for article space, you can nominate it for deletion either by CSD (if it meets the criteria) or at AfD if you think the subject isn't notable. GirthSummit (blether) 18:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created
- Starzoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user above appears to have semi-automatically created thousands upon thousands of pages using WP:AWB in their userspace—e.g. User:Starzoner/3117, User:Starzoner/3116, User:Starzoner/3115, ... see their recent userspace contributions. According to XTools, they have created more than 32,000 pages in their userspace. I was alerted to this situation last night by DannyS712, and I provisionally revoked their AWB access pending an answer to a query about this editing, see User talk:Starzoner#Mass page creation (permalink). Their rationale was I just created some pages so that I can built off of them later. In the future, when I get to them, I can just continue where I started, instead of copy pasting content later on.
As I stated on their talk page, I don't fully understand this rationale unless they intended to create a bot that could create articles, which would have certainly needed a WP:BRFA and quite possibly also an RfC before starting. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure what should be done with the 32,000+ pages, and so I could use more eyes. Should they be deleted? If so, I could use some help deleting them. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It appears the user has also created at least 850 articles in mainspace, most of which are one-line stubs that they indeed used WP:AWB to create, e.g. Schefflera simplex. So it seems this issue is not restricted to userspace. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've come across similar plant stubs in NPP over time and I ask to please not try and move more plant stubs into mainspace when they are a single unreferenced sentence. Numbered stubs are an absolute waste of time. We aren't going to run out of article any time soon, so you don't have to grab them all up. (And if we do, now I know where to find some free ones.) Natureium (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: Since he seemed to respond well to the warning, hopefully a firm "request" to not make new pages of any kind until his total number of "incomplete" drafts is under some reasonable number, like 20, AND that he be given an opportunity to ask for a mass-deletion of these drafts. As for the stubs he created, I'll be happy to skim a representative sample for notability. If the fast majority are notable, just leave them alone, if too many are non-notable and have no other page history, mass-deletion under WP:TNT may be the answer. If it turns out he's not willing to play by the rules after being told what they are, well, that's what AN/I is for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Most of their new articles are about taxons which are all notable. I do not see any issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Right, I should clarify that they were apologetic in response to my query, and they said they were okay with me deleting the userspace pages if I wanted to. I don't think I'm necessarily looking for any sanctions here, but rather some more eyes to see just what should be done with all these pages. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Most of their new articles are about taxons which are all notable. I do not see any issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment continued: He has "page mover" user-rights, which is useful when moving drafts of notable topics, such as the taxons that Ymblanter just mentioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is my impression that Starzoner has previously experimented with an "assembly line" approach to taxon articles, which resulted in plenty of problems and about ten screens worth of comments by me and other NPPs. After some teething troubles, the current stubs are generally fine (although still in need of the odd touch-up) but that seems to be contingent on them not being stamped out from templates - whenever they fall back on that, we get inapplicable refs, deactivated cats, and replicated grammar issues. I'd really hope the take-away from that would be not to mass-produce stubs, and certainly not on that gorgeous scale. Hint, hint. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment): I concur with Elmidae's comment. An example is one of the articles moved into mainspace today: Vernonia goetzenii. The species is notable and the Infobox is valid. But the botanical author should always be referenced, in this case the provided reference is fine. Also the botanical author should really be linked if applicable, in this case to Karl August Otto Hoffmann. That it's a perennial plant is not in the provided reference. For a single article these points might be nit-picking. But when we're talking about hundreds of stubs being mass-created, these small things add up. In fairness, I don't think there's a whole lot more than can be said about Vernonia goetzenii, it's a little-documented species. But I'm not sure the same can be said for all the other stubs. And from Schefflera abyssinica (originally created in February) to today, these stubs don't really seem to have evolved much beyond the "is a plant" level of detail. Declangi (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Elmidae: I disagree about a total ban on mass-producing stubs. However, "you are responsible for every edit you make" should be the rule of thumb. As a general rule I would say when it comes to semi-automated edits with tools that aren't proven to be reliable nearly 100% of the time, the editor should review the edit before saving it. The same of course applies to "assembly line edits" even if done manually. In other words, I don't see any problem running a script or "manual assembly line process" that rapidly creates taxons or whatever kind of stub from a list of clearly-notable topics, where having a bunch of stubs is clearly better than having a bunch of missing pages, as long as I preview each and every one before hitting "save" and take full responsibility for each and every save. If my script is well-written and my input data is good, I should be able to crank out 100-200 stubs an hour this way without harming the encyclopedia. If it's 90% good then I'll have to stop every 10th stub and do fixups, which might slow me down significantly but it will still be faster than doing it all by hand. The problem comes when you don't preview your edits well, or at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, they aren't stopping to fix those problems. On 11 August I left a note on their talk page about problems with articles they created in February. They didn't respond, and deleted it with several others (including an earlier message I'd left them about a different problem) rather than waiting for them to be archived. The problems with the articles remain. Perhaps they're waiting for someone else to fix them? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I see no administrative issue to address here. Having helped out with some of these userspace drafts, I think those objecting are failing to see the forest for the trees. We have an established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles. Frankly, given the number of identified species, we are absolutely going to need some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). BD2412 T 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment)(and new to ANI) They're not in correct shape, despite multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision. What's the next step after a user is unresponsive to these requests? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't this why we have Wikispecies? Atsme Talk 📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is, but that is a far less trafficked project than this one. We have previously established that all confirmed species are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which may be a separate discussion to undertake. BD2412 T 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Rémy Ryan Robert and summer hits
Rémy Ryan Robert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like to draw the attention of the administrators to a user named Rémy Ryan Robert and his activity related to the article "Summer hit". Almost every week, for a couple of years now, he has been trying to prominently mention Jessica Simpson and/or Geri Halliwell there. Moreover, his additions are either unsourced or inadequately sourced. He has been warned several times already. I even gave him two level-4 warnings, but he doesn't stop.
Actually, some edits are made anonymously from the IP address 176.190.126.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I think it is reasonable to assume that Rémy Ryan Robert and the IP are the same person. At first, I wanted to file a checkuser request, but then I thought this was a clear WP:DUCK case anyway.
What Rémy Ryan Robert does is he adds some photo with more or less the same description in poor English:
- [171]: "Since 1999, Mi Chico Latino by Geri Halliwell, is one of the best summer hit in several countries."
(The sourcing is inadequate. Officialcharts.com simply says the song spent 1 week at number 1 at the very end of August 1999. And it is highly unlikely that a reference book titled British Hit Singles & Albums can possibly be a source for all of this.) - [172]: "Since 2004, Ride It" by Geri Halliwell is one of the best summer song in serevals countries."
- [173]: "Since 2004, Take My Breath Away by Jessica Simpson is one of the best summer hit in severals countries."
He also seems to like a song titled "If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton, he has added it to the list of examples:
- [174]: "2020: "If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton"
(The sources don't seem to exist.)
And "Promiscuous" by Nelly Furtado:
- [175]: "2006: “Promiscuous” by Nelly Furtado"
(The reference is a link to the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart for the week ending on October 7, 2006. It just lists the song at number 40, that's all.)
--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously unconstructive editing, trying to evade scrutiny... that's an easy call, blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Omg55557w77w7
User:Omg55557w77w7 is removing Moscow and St. Petersburg from the List of tallest buildings in Europe saying that these cities are not in Europe [176][177][178]. Seems to be vandalism. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Also he added the "counterpropaganda message" [179] to the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds like someone has an WP:AGENDA. Jerm (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- But it's definitely disruptive. Jerm (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked for 36h (in particular, for this) and reverted, but this is most likely a sock, I just can not guess of what master.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Seems to be WP:SOCK. Uses the same wording style, writes words with uppercase. – user:81.132.29.226 [180]--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked for 36h (in particular, for this) and reverted, but this is most likely a sock, I just can not guess of what master.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Александр Мотин If you suspect sockpuppetry, please start a case @WP:SPI Jerm (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Bcliot33
Bcliot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bcliot33 is currently blocked for edit warring at Laura Loomer but they have a concerning enough history we might as well go over it now. They started off trying to simultaneously mainstream Loomer (downplaying her far-right politics and removing "conspiracy" from Loomer's conspiracy theory that Ilhan Omar married her brother for US citizenship) while also labeling Rashida Tlaib as "left-wing" or "leftist." ([181][182][183][184]). After this, they tried to add "left-wing" and "radical-left" to the Rashida Tlaib article ([185]), where NorthBySouthBaranof reverted them and explained on their talk page that we normally don't start off articles with "-wing" labels, especially when sourced to an opinion column. He didn't say "we never do this" and he didn't cite policy, but Bcliot33 proceeded to cite this post in the Loomer article to force an all-or-nothing false equivalence before launching into an edit war (still at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bcliot33_reported_by_User:Ian.thomson_(Result:Blocked_for_72_hours_)). The apparent reasoning being that if Tlaib is left of Loomer, and sources don't primarily label Tlaib a leftist, then we can't call Loomer far-right (even if sources mainly note her for her extremism). No matter what anyone else told Bcliot33, they kept citing that post by NBSB over and over, insisting that they were the only person following the rules.
While this was going on, they cited Marvin Stuart Antelman in a discussion about whether Adam Weishaupt was Jewish (a point that is mostly pushed by antisemitic conspiracy theorists and only accidentally reported by a couple of non-antisemitic non-specialists). I pointed to this RSN discussion where other users and I have pointed to the website of the author of the main source in the Illuminati article (as well as other comparable specialists), which Bcliot33 tried to say was me "using a conspiracy theorist website to discredit National Geographic magazine and Winston Churchill". This, in isolation, could be seen as them failing to actually look at a source because they're pissy at me and so opposed to anything I say. Their attempts to emphasize Jewish involvement in the pornography industry ([186][187]) could also be taken as innocuous enough in isolation. Buuut in light of attacking someone for pointing out that the Nazis used the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory to justify the Holocaust, and edit warring to assert that Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) is right about Jews and not a conspiracy theorist ([188][189][190][191])... it's not hard to be suspicious of their motives.
Then there's their activity in the article on fascist mystic and antisemitic conspiracy theorist Julius Evola, where they previously tried to argue that he wasn't a conspiracy theorist (despite advocacy for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and also removed claims sourced to a Routledge-published work to downplay Evola's racism. It's also interesting that he chose to cite the website of Greg Johnson (white nationalist) instead of the original book. And apparently Evola wasn't a misogynist because it's only natural for men to dominate women because women are spiritually inferior (not just a one-off).
Then there's emphasizing the role of Jews in the Communist revolution at Jewish Bolshevism (not just once, or twice). This isn't even touching their previous edit war on Communism to assert Masonic involvement (e.g.), which they didn't abandon.
I think it's pretty clear what we're dealing with here. At a minimum, they need to be topic banned from articles relating to politics and Jewish people. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agh, sorry about the rollback! That was indeed a watchlist misclick. Thanks for reverting, Pawnkingthree and sorry about that Ian.thomson! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given how the discussion at Talk:Adam_Weishaupt has gone, it seems like User:Mdaviskinodblue must be a sock? --JBL (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- JBL Since people cited me I'll give my two cents. Since XDev was caught lying in the wikipedia and in his article (which was used as source), plus considering the fact other editors have used his article as a "source" to censor information, there is nothing else to do other than people create a conspiracy there is a network of nazis. User Ian.thomson was strongly promoting XDev fraudulent sources for quite some time and this is suspicious. I'd suggest investigating if they were collaborating in using fraudulent sources other than in the "Adam Weishaupt" page.Mdaviskinodblue (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Legal threat
Here, by Bcliot33 to Ian.thomson. Bcliot33 then self-reverted. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have extended the block to indefinite based on the evidence of POV pushing presented above, plus the legal threat which was blanked but not unambiguously withdrawn. Any administrator who disagrees can reduce the block duration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- The editor has blanked the block notices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that means they read them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- The editor has blanked the block notices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Graeme Bartlett and denying G4s
- User:Techie3/onemanonewoman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Techie3/marriagebox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DAYS after we had a discussion - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination, ending in deleting dozens of similar userboxes, new ones are coming up - and G4 speedydelete is being refused by the admin who recreated the box for his own use
First of all, should User:Graeme Bartlett be recreating a userbox that Wikipedians had just agreed was discriminatory as an administrator, and secondly, about these refused deletions:
- "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted"
- "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted" (different page)
G4s are meant to include things "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Now, this could just be an error, but it smacks rather strongly of POV-editing on his behalf. The first one is basically identical to DOZENS of ones deleted in that discussion, the second is within the range of ones that were deleted, though one would have to look a little harder, so if it had been just that one, I wouldn't have commented.
I've started another MfD for this, but, frankly... this is not how this should work. I really, really didn't want to bring this up here, but it's getting far too ridiculous. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 06:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the consensus in the MFD was delete, and that was closed in error.
- You'd think an administrator would know better than this. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the edit that created this version of the template has an edit summary reading "(Backup copy of template)". You know, a re-creation. Of something previously deleted. How does that square with Graeme_Bartlett's claim of "never previously deleted"? --Calton | Talk 06:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I find it extremely distasteful that GB, an admin, copied the code of one of those templates onto his userpage while the MFD was in progress and it was beginning to WP:SNOW. Narky Blert (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- These "backup copies" were made before the MFD was officially closed, on the 23rd and 24th of September.I wanted to change the wording of some of the boxs, particularly the marriage box. I hope this ends peacefully Techie3 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I will preface this with the statement that I strongly supported the deletions and a brief look at my user page will show I don't support declarations undermining the validity of my family. I do think this issue needs to be monitored and fully support Adam Cuerden and the repot here. But this is a heated subject and I think this might have been done in the heat of the moment, by an otherwise positive editor. They might be having second thoughts regarding this and I think we should wait until they have replied to form any conclusions. Maybe I'm a hopeful optimist, but I'm just trying to assume the best about individuals I strongly disagree with. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 07:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As the author of the userpage concerned, I am OK with deletion. Techie3 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have been closing off speedy deletes after about 24 hours of non-action by other administrators. Any for the case mention I have suggested that Rhododendrites retag the pages listed for G4 to let someone else consider a G4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- The pages have now been deleted by JJMC89. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- This makes it sound like this 24 hour thing is just a reason you are giving after the fact to try and justify it, besides in one of the two cases you gave less than 12 hours - not that this 'rule' of yours is really meaningful, you could equally apply the logic that you delete pages indiscriminately after 24 hours of nobody contesting the deletion. And you admit that you were looking for a reason to save the page so don't you think you should have realised that you were involved? - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- The pages have now been deleted by JJMC89. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)