Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →Block on [[User:Thewinchester]]: replies |
Borgenland (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}} |
|||
{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}} |
|||
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} |
|||
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|maxarchivesize =800K |
|||
|counter = 251 |
|||
| |
|counter = 1156 |
||
|algo = old(72h) |
|||
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d |
|||
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |
||
|headerlevel=2 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{stack end}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot]] |
|||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE |
|||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> |
|||
== Jonharojjashi, part 2 == |
|||
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|||
{{userlinks|Jonharojjashi}} |
|||
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> |
|||
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|||
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption. |
|||
== Gregory Kohs' co-conspirator == |
|||
Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Skandagupta%27s_wars_with_the_invaders&diff=prev&oldid=1218428784], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per [[WP:OUTING]]. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. |
|||
Looks like [[User:Andman8|someone else]] is also looking to make a buck off of Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&curid=11088435&diff=133906294&oldid=133894800 here] and my response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andman8&diff=133962418&oldid=133887402 here]. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndman8&diff=133967292&oldid=133965950 response] was, shall we say, less than mature. |
|||
These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jonharojjashi/Archive] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive], but they were mostly fruitless. |
|||
This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andman8&diff=108186818&oldid=107544362 earlier edit] to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. If he's so unhappy with not making any money here, perhaps someone can assist him in moving on to where he'd be happier? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 === |
|||
:What a weirdo. Is there any reason to have that link around? Could we blacklist it? [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="green">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="purple">ka</font>]] 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Mr+Anonymous+699&users=Jonharojjashi] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at [[Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent]] and kinda repeating each other [https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&users=Jonharojjashi&users=Mr+Anonymous+699&server=enwiki]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Indo12122 Indo12122], a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section). |
|||
:Oh, and I like how you refuted his points one by one, as he apparently asked you to, and then he couldn't respond with more than arm-flailing and childish attacks. Good work. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="green">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="purple">ka</font>]] 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at [[Kambojas]] in a [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] manner [https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Kambojas&users=Jonharojjashi&users=Mr+Anonymous+699&server=enwiki] |
|||
::Thanks. Maybe a note at the spam blacklist page -- which I'll have to hunt around for, first -- is in order. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#At [[Kanishka's war with Parthia]], Mr Anonymous 699 restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1176385142] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi. |
|||
=== Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122 === |
|||
:::For what it's worth, I think either Centiare or Gregory Kohs should have an article, given the notability afforded by the Washington Post and others. --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at [[Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=prev&oldid=1186516518] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=prev&oldid=1186571586] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=prev&oldid=1186583916] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=prev&oldid=1186585968] |
|||
#After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at [[Chola invasion of Kedah]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_invasion_of_Kedah&diff=prev&oldid=1191427146] |
|||
#Jonharojjashi made a [[WP:POVFORK]] variant of [[Kingdom of Khotan]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jonharojjashi/sandbox&oldid=1207642199], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by [[WP:RS]] to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Khotan&diff=prev&oldid=1191728020]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence. |
|||
#When multiple concerns were made over the article at [[Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh]] (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Campaigns_of_Chandragupta_II_Vikramaditya&oldid=1189539365 Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya] two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Campaigns_of_Chandragupta_II_Vikramaditya&diff=prev&oldid=1189522328] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Campaigns_of_Chandragupta_II_Vikramaditya&diff=prev&oldid=1189522236] |
|||
=== Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan === |
|||
::::The very slender reed of a single -- or even more than one -- newspaper mention is nothing to hang an actual article on, whatever grasping at straws Kohs or his helpers engage in. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Vikramaditya%27s_west_Oxus_valley_campaign&oldid=1189143429 Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign], which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even [[WP:RS]]) as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandragupta_II%27s_Campaign_of_Balkh&oldid=1189512478 Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh] by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Vikramaditya%27s_west_Oxus_valley_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1189143429 "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?"]. |
|||
#Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_Parthian%E2%80%93Kushan_War&oldid=1176765591] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chandragupta_II%27s_Campaign_of_Balkh&diff=prev&oldid=1189614078]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of [[Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1189174674] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1189498827] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means). |
|||
#Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thewikiuser1999 User:Thewikiuser1999], and has a very similar EIA [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jonharojjashi&users=Shakib+ul+hassan&users=Magadhan3933&users=Indo12122&users=HistoricPilled] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of [[Maratha–Sikh Clashes]], HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At [[Bajirao I]], they edit warred together [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajirao_I&diff=prev&oldid=1188758023] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajirao_I&diff=prev&oldid=1188750481]. |
|||
=== Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330 === |
|||
:::: Well, A.B., I personally know someone (& who has attended all of the Wikimanias so far) who has been doing ''exactly'' what Kohs wants to make a killing from -- but the Wikipedia article on his company was placed on [[WP:AfD]]. His Wiki is also one of the ten top Wiki sites according to [http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/05/24/top-50-wikis-by-traffic-rank/ this person], too. So I'd be surprised if Kohs is the subject of an article in Wikipedia soon. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Melechha created a wikitable in [[Ahom–Mughal conflicts]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahom%E2%80%93Mughal_conflicts&diff=prev&oldid=1166479051], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahom%E2%80%93Mughal_conflicts&diff=prev&oldid=1168498126] |
|||
#Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at [[Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luso%E2%80%93Maratha_War_(1729%E2%80%931732)&diff=prev&oldid=1168562156], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luso%E2%80%93Maratha_War_(1729%E2%80%931732)&diff=prev&oldid=1168629337] |
|||
#And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at [[Dogra–Tibetan war]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogra%E2%80%93Tibetan_war&diff=prev&oldid=1168857410], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogra%E2%80%93Tibetan_war&diff=prev&oldid=1168985021] |
|||
#Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at [[Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha%E2%80%93Portuguese_War_(1683%E2%80%931684)&diff=prev&oldid=1169947999] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha%E2%80%93Portuguese_War_(1683%E2%80%931684)&diff=prev&oldid=1169968368]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha%E2%80%93Portuguese_War_(1683%E2%80%931684)&diff=prev&oldid=1171643076] |
|||
#Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested [[Kanishka's war with Parthia]] by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1177010143] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1177010295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1177010343] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1177243301] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka%27s_war_with_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1177255111] |
|||
=== Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11 === |
|||
* I think this is just another sucker taken in by Kohs, who is very charming and persuasive when he wants to be. Kohs' project looks to be dead in the water, despite his undoubted SEO skills, so I can see why he is desperate for links from Wikipedia. He can get lost. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Jonharojjashi more or less restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka&diff=prev&oldid=1174706434] the unsourced edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka&diff=prev&oldid=1147013261] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush. |
|||
=== Closing remark === |
|||
::<sarcasm>I know several people who have been mentioned in newspapers and been on TV, can I make articles about them?</sarcasm> This guy's just trolling; I think a short block would be good, and if he keeps on going, indefblock. (Revert, block, ignore trolls.) · <font face="Times New Roman">[[User:AO|'''A'''''ndonic'''''O''']] <sup>[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</sup></font> 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In made response to my previous ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149?wprov=srpw1_1#Jonharojjashi%3B_concerning_edits_and_suspected_meatpuppetry], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ImperialAficionado&action=edit&redlink=1] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "[[WP:HOUNDING]]" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to. |
|||
There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I went to Meta, but Kohs has popped up to dispute my nomination and the admin there doesn't seem to really understand the history or be convinced by the evidence of linkspamming. Some more opinions [[Meta:Talk:Spam blacklist|there]] would be helpful. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. |
|||
:Hmm, despite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andman8&diff=134498536&oldid=134497701 yet another warning], [[User:Andman8]] still figures [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElectricEye&diff=prev&oldid=134585677 spamming is OK]. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Tq|"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord}}. Yes, '''you believe''', I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but '''unrelated call''' and '''two different users'''. |
|||
:Anyone can claim that they have got some '''literal pictures''' and '''screenshots''' of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such '''pictures''' because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying. |
|||
:Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be '''unrelated''' with me. |
|||
:#HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is '''pov addition of Johnrajjoshi'''? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of |
|||
:[[Kanishka's war with Parthia]] Why are you still lying? |
|||
:#2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in [[Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha]] the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves. |
|||
:#The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#Emerging_issues_involving_brand_new_Indian_editors_on_articles_about_wars.]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers. |
|||
:#'''more or less'''? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka&diff=prev&oldid=1174706434&title=Kanishka&diffonly=1] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanishka&diff=prev&oldid=1147013261&title=Kanishka&diffonly=1] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user. |
|||
:[[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::And what's so cheery picked in it? [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Editing issues of Jonharojjashi=== |
|||
I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta]]. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, [[Gauda–Gupta War]], and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War]]), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--[[User:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color:Blue;">Imperial</span>]][[User talk:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Garamond'; color:Purple;"><sup><nowiki>[AFCND]</nowiki></sup></span>]] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the [[Gupta–Hunnic Wars]] to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. [[User:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color:Blue;">Imperial</span>]][[User talk:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Garamond'; color:Purple;"><sup><nowiki>[AFCND]</nowiki></sup></span>]] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
is anyone monitoring his recent changes? because he could be blocked if he spams again. it's getting a little annoying.--[[User:Camelcast|Camelcast]] 10:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with '''Gupta victory''' again [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1221973041&title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diffonly=1], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1221977891]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1222065378]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1222057941]. --[[User:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color:Blue;">Imperial</span>]][[User talk:ImperialAficionado|<span style="font-family: 'Garamond'; color:Purple;"><sup><nowiki>[AFCND]</nowiki></sup></span>]] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Marioemily101]] Chronic Edit Warring == |
|||
::::Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Responding to relevant points in @[[User:ImperialAficionado|ImperialAficionado's]] first comment:- |
|||
:*The discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War]] is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis. |
|||
:Responding to relevant points in @[[User:ImperialAficionado|ImperialAficionado's]] second comment:- |
|||
:*I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at [[Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars]]. |
|||
:Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them {{Tq|see how funny he posted this on my talk page}} and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be [[WP:TAGTEAM]]?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see [[Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption]]. |
|||
:Responding to relevant points in @[[User:ImperialAficionado|ImperialAficionado's]] third comment:- |
|||
:*Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him. |
|||
:I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at [[Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars]] and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ImperialAficionado&diff=prev&oldid=1222543418&title=User_talk%3AImperialAficionado&diffonly=1] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mnbnjghiryurr&diff=prev&oldid=1222074860&title=User_talk%3AMnbnjghiryurr&diffonly=1] [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind=== |
|||
User has an extensive history of vandalism and edit warring, first in [[List of best-selling video games]] and most recently in [[Insane Clown Posse]]. User has made a habit of "correcting" already well-sourced material, and has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosicrucian&diff=prev&oldid=133021813 displayed hostility] when edits are restored to their sourced versions. User has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarioemily101&diff=133224166&oldid=133022677 been warned] against 3RR violation and edit warring. Though user is not currently in violation of 3RR (edits are more than 24hrs apart) the user has persisted in altering data that has been accurately sourced in the [http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp database of RIAA album certifications] even after having been warned.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insane_Clown_Posse&diff=prev&oldid=133739093][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insane_Clown_Posse&diff=prev&oldid=134169395][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insane_Clown_Posse&diff=prev&oldid=134169494]--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|Malik-Al-Hind}} |
|||
My god, can they make it less obvious? |
|||
:I concur; this user is being disruptive on [[Insane Clown Posse]]. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::User now been issued level 2 and level 3 warnings for introducing incorrect information into the article, with the edit pattern continuing.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Both Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1223020706#Reliability_of_this_book] and brand new [[User:Malik-Al-Hind]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Kandahar_(1605%E2%80%931606)&oldid=1223017308] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OIzreCGlHxIC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=siege+of+kandahar+1605&source=gbs_navlinks_s Dictionary of Wars] |
|||
Also, admittedly belatedly, I've restarted discussion on the article's talkpage in hopes of keeping this civil. We've discussed this on the talkpage before, but that was prior to this user actively editing on the article. We'll see if that works out, I guess.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Both fixiated on making poorly sourced [[WP:SYNTH]] war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mughal-Safavid_War_of_1593-1595] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars] |
|||
#Like Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars#Constant_disruption], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse ([[WP:SYNTH]]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1222380239] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gupta_Empire#Inaccurate_Map_of_Guptas] |
|||
#Both Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1222820273] and Malik-Al-Hind [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1222773719] are fixated on me not focusing on [[User:DeepstoneV]]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me. |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat]] == |
|||
Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in [[Afghan-Maratha War]], so I thought it would be a [[WP:RS]]. |
|||
Page has been deleted three times so far and recreated three times by [[User:Ned Scott]]. |
|||
Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it. |
|||
User [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3ACool_Cat&diff=134226205&oldid=134195193 reverted the MfD closure by an admin] and went ahead and recreated the page. |
|||
Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing. |
|||
I find this to be disruptive. |
|||
Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the [[Gupta Empire]] page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1222380239][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Later_Gupta_dynasty&diff=prev&oldiid=1222885291][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Sindh&diff=prev&oldid=1222396904][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahameghavahana_dynasty&diff=prev&oldiid=1222885481]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. |
|||
--<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1222727349&title=Talk%3AGupta_Empire&diffonly=1]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The MFD was incorrectly closed, that is all. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Here we go again, @[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik Al Hind]] If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this [https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Dictionary_of_Wars.html?id=OIzreCGlHxIC&redir_esc=y book]? As per RSN it is a reliable book [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1223020706&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_this_book], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1221908690&title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diffonly=1]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=prev&oldid=1222538542&title=User_talk%3AHistoryofIran&diffonly=1] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1222773978] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1223158815] and Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chandragupta_II%27s_Campaign_of_Balkh&diff=prev&oldid=1189614078] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite [[Gupta Empire]] "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab === |
|||
::Indeed, Doc glasgow's closure was based on a misunderstanding of policy. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|Sudsahab}} |
|||
#Both Jonharojjashi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunala&diff=prev&oldid=1213587037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Khotan&diff=prev&oldid=1213586600] and indeffed user Sudsahab [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1214370598] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-[[WP:RS]] by a non-historian [https://www.amazon.in/Bharats-Military-Conquests-Foreign-Lands/dp/B0C58CDF11 Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands] |
|||
:::If you've a problem with how the MfD was closed, please make a request for review at [[WP:DRV]]. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Both make poorly sourced [[WP:SYNTH]] war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Saka_campaigns_of_Cyrus_the_Great&oldid=1219587470] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Saka_Wars&oldid=1222167454]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Saka_campaigns_of_Cyrus_the_Great&oldid=1211379601 2 March 2024] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Saka_Wars&oldid=1212738790 9 March 2024], this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonharojjashi#Sun,17_March] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this. |
|||
::::Why? Doesn't it make more sense to just keep it open, rather than opening a DRV, which will naturally result in "inappropriate early closure" and another MfD? What does that accomplish? —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book {{cite book |url=https://www.amazon.in/Bharats-Military-Conquests-Foreign-Lands/dp/B0C58CDF11 |title=Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands}} is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::A user Based Kashmiri is selecting articles for deletion that do not appear to have any issues. It seems that he simply dislikes these articles, which is why he is deleting them. Surprisingly, another user, Rawn, has voted for deletion on every article this user has selected for deletion. |
|||
:::<ref>{{Citation |title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226) |date=2024-05-17 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Ranthambore_(1226)&oldid=1224266144 |access-date=2024-05-18 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh |date=2024-05-18 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maratha_invasion_of_Awadh&oldid=1224456355 |access-date=2024-05-18 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226) |date=2024-05-17 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Ranthambore_(1226)&oldid=1224266144 |access-date=2024-05-18 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughal conquest of Baglana |date=2024-05-17 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mughal_conquest_of_Baglana&oldid=1224317800 |access-date=2024-05-18 |language=en}}</ref> [[User:DeepstoneV|DeepstoneV]] ([[User talk:DeepstoneV|talk]]) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== पापा जी === |
|||
:::What misunderstanding was that? User pages can be speedied on demand. Put a note in the deletion log with the user's new name if it's that big of a deal. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|पापा जी}} |
|||
पापा जी is a "brand new user", yet they are already aware of [[WP:SYNTH]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maratha_invasion_of_Awadh&diff=prev&oldid=1225066751] and [[WP:NPOV]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arab_conquest_of_Kaikan&diff=prev&oldid=1225065885]. Their first edit was restoring info in an article by Shakib ul hassan [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandragupta_II%27s_Campaign_of_Balkh&diff=prev&oldid=1225065101], does this edit summary seem like that of a new user to you? using "rv" in their very first edit summary. They then immediately went to support the deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab conquest of Kaikan]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh]]. Not even remotely close to the traditional journey of a new user, good thing they're trying to hide it. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:CSD#U1]] points to [[Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?]] for details on how to handle such situations. There it says "''...If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page....''" -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== A remark about closing === |
|||
:::::What "disruptive behavior" do you want to retain? It's a redirect. If it's that big of a deal to everyone, what about using protected titles? We can make [[User:White Cat/New identity]], protect it, and transclude the old page. That way, it will be a redlink, but anyone going there will get a message telling them where to find his new identity. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
@[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224791664 please] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224791627 stop] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224051856 non-archiving] this thread. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1221929265 You have been warned about this previously.] The administrators do not appear to be interested in this report. It's time to close and move on. I have removed the no-archive. [[User:BoldGnome|BoldGnome]] ([[User talk:BoldGnome|talk]]) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|BoldGnome}} That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sudsahab&diff=prev&oldid=1223032025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sudsahab&diff=prev&oldid=1223094036]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::We could do that, but a redirect is much simpler—this is the purpose of redirects, and presumably for whatever unknown reason Cool Cat doesn't want a redirect, he wouldn't want the message. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. [[User:Ahri.boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri.boy|talk]]) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::According to Section 19 of [https://discord.com/guidelines Discord Community Guidelines], they may not be allowed to create accounts that would evade platform-level sanctions, if the server or the user is banned. Discord is very closely regulating the use of servers. [[User:Ahri.boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri.boy|talk]]) 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::From what I can see, a big problem is that the key evidence of meatpuppetry coordinated over Discord is something that we can't actually see. You say you sent the evidence to Arbcom and they advised you to come here. It would be helpful if an Arb who has seen the evidence could post here and tell us whether it is compelling. Until then, as an admin and SPI regular I'm not really comfortable taking action based on information that I don't have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, this constant DNAU-adding is essentially [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] ("raising essentially the same issue ... on one [noticeboard] repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"). HistoryofIran made a "closing remark" a month ago; they seem to think they have the authority to decide what is worth having at ANI, but as far as I can see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HistoryofIran|they don't]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I never stated that I have any form of authority. It's disappointing to see a veteran user act like this. I hope you're glad that you got to take that dig at me. Who cares about the Discord meatpuppets right? Let them run amok. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Discord meatputppets will be easily detected upon reporting with sufficient evidence to Discord employees. [[User:Ahri.boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri.boy|talk]]) 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::First time I've been called a "veteran", so thanks for that, I guess. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That was what you got out of my response...? [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 02:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's not how forum shopping works. The issue is not being raised "repetitively". And quite frankly, HistoryofIran has a very good track record when it comes to ANI reports. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know that they have a good track record. I was the one who first notified them about how to use DNAU. I did not think that they would use it to keep their own agitations at ANI indefinitely. Yes, the issue is not being raised "repetitively" in fact, but in spirit it has the same effect, as the same thread, without resolution, is constantly being prohibited from archiving. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You did not introduce me to DNAU, that was another user. Calling my reports (the vast majority which leads to the reported user being blocked/banned) for my "own agitations" is frankly at [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] territory, do better. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 02:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::DNAU? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's a template that stops a thread from auto-archiving [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Do_not_archive_until]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 23:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Community responses to this long report=== |
|||
:Ned Scott has overridden the deletion of the page by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3ACool_Cat&diff=134253108&oldid=134252643 4 admins] (2 speedy 2 MfD close) so far. --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Creating a subthread for non-participants in the distpute to get their responses in, in a centralized spot. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
* It seems pretty obvious that something untoward is going on here. I'm not really certain what the propriety is of joining the Reddit in question and observing the behavior in detail and how it may correlate with on-WP action. Probably not necessary, and hard to do without [[WP:OUTING|outing]]-related issues. It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing [[WP:RS|poor sources]], misusing better ones in an [[WP:NOR|OR]] matter, and [[WP:POVFORK|PoV-forking]] at will, all to [[WP:NPOV|push a viewpoint]] that is clearly [[WP:FRINGE|counter-historical]] and India-[[WP:NOT#SOAPBOX|promotional]]. That they're frequently collaborating with [[WP:SOCK|sock- and meat-puppets]] to do it is probably only of incidental interest, especially since the puppets are routinely blocked anyway without AN/I needing to be involved. I'm not sure if this just calls for a topic-ban (perhaps a time-limited but non-trivial one), or if further action is needed, like listing various of the crap sources at [[WP:RSNP]] so there is less future question about editors trying to rely on them in our material. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Subreddits and Discord servers in question must be reported to respective admins of those sites. Provide evidence as soon as possible. [[User:Ahri.boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri.boy|talk]]) 02:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Bravehm == |
|||
::It does not make sense to include days-old actions prior to the MfD that were already disposed. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 05:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|Bravehm}} |
|||
:::I think it is very relevant. It shows the fascination of Ned Scott with my former userpage I want to get deleted. --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry to break it to you, Cat, but I've done nothing wrong. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221419769]), likely a sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iampharzad], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again. |
|||
:::Ned Scott, I count 4 reverts on the user page itself and 3 on the MFD. I strongly suggest you not revert either again. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#At [[Talk:Hazaras]], Bravehm blatantly lied that [[User:KoizumiBS]] removed sourced information [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hazaras#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_18_April_2024_(2)], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed [[User:Jadidjw]], whom I still believe to this day was a sock of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad]], who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at [[Hazaras]]. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account. |
|||
:I am probably one of the least "process wonky" people you'll see on Wikipedia, and I can understand the desire to be bold, however I do think that we should extend respect to our colleagues by not arbitrarily reverting *fD decisions simply because we don't like the outcome. Mr. Scott has been edit warring on this matter and is close to violating our three-revert policy, and while I tried to re-instate the original decision, I don't feel as though my further participation in this matter will help resolve things. Cheers all [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220302854] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220338639] |
|||
:::I really feel he has already violated 3rr by repetitively restoring the page 3 times and also revert waring over the speedy deletion tag. --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220727994] |
|||
::I generally don't condone unilateral reversals of other sysops' closures, but it's difficult to fault Ned for undoing one that was based entirely on a verifiably incorrect premise. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220708316] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.") |
|||
#Same here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220923819] |
|||
#And here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221031538] |
|||
#And here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221353169] |
|||
#And here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221399309] |
|||
#And here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221353368] |
|||
--[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm still waiting to hear why it was an incorrect premise. Unless that redirect somehow is evidence of bad behavior, I don't see any reason in policy to deny the request. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Except the part where other editors might express a reason to keep the redirect? I did just quote that to you.. Even without that, we have ''lots'' of bad behavior if you think that is the only reason for keeping the redirect. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221407886 diff]. [[User:KoizumiBS|KoizumiBS]] ([[User talk:KoizumiBS|talk]]) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Because [[Babur]] never said those words in his [[Baburnama]], but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see <ref name="Babur">Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur (1921).[https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10156335502831675.pdf "Memoirs Of Zehir-Ed-Din Muhammed Babur. Volume 1."]. Oxford University Press. Pages 44, 243, 279."</ref> [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::[[WP:CIR]] issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as [[WP:RS]], but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221419312]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1221888370]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220681185] [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::There's a valid point buried in this. If a modern translator/editor of period manuscript material is injecting their own interpretation about what the original material probably really meant, then that translator/editor is a primary source for that editorial judgement/claim/change (it's their own personal opinion), and while they may be within RS definitions as a subject-matter expert, their view needs to be attributed to them as a modern scholar, not masqueraded as a statement of the original historical manuscript writer. This sort of thing comes up pretty frequently with regard to modern scholarly intepretation of ancient writings, and more often than not other scholars can also be cited in support of and sometimes against such a modern analytical intepretation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:"HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::*According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords. |
|||
*::*According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words. |
|||
*::*According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words. |
|||
*::*According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words. |
|||
*::I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220708316 This] (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You appear to have misread the quoted text, BigDT. A history of disruptive behavior is a reason for the speedy deletion request to be denied. If it's fulfilled, "others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, '''the page should be undeleted and listed on [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion]] for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page.'''" (emphasis mine) |
|||
: |
:My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220682690] [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|HistoryofIran}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220302854], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1220338639] |
|||
:::::If I am a disruptive user, I should be blocked indefinitely. I request that I be blocked indefinitely if I am a threat to wikipedia. Take it to arbcom or community sanctionboard. |
|||
:They are not removal but restoration. |
|||
:::::That policy was intended for pages with {{tl|Sockpuppet}} and etc on them. My block log is available with or without the redirect on my userpage which I provide as a courtesy and I am neither expected or required to do so. The redirect neither generates a link to my block log nor is it in any way informative. The speedy deletion request was granted but was overturned by [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] contradicting two administrators via "recreating" the page and two other administrators by reverting the MfD 3 times and recreating the page once. |
|||
:I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::--<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I've reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You have reverted 4 admin actions so far by recreating the deleted page three times. You also revert warred on the speedy deletion template. In a 24 hour period how many times have you restored the redirect? --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Once this is over I'm certain this will warrant an inclusion on a [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars|certain BJAODN page]] *sigh* [[User:CharonX|Charon]][[User:CharonX/Userboxes|<font color="Black"><b>X</b></font>'']]/[[User talk:CharonX|<i>talk</i>'']] 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghor_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1221844253]. [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] & [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!]] |
|||
Delete per [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] and [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!]]. [[User:Wikiewok|Wikiewok]] 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:"More unsourced" not "unsourced" |
|||
[[User:Doc glasgow]] |
|||
:I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far". |
|||
And [[User:Doc glasgow]]. Will you pursue him as well, Ned? [[User:Wikiewok|Wikiewok]] 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghor_Province&oldid=1221780513] [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow [[WP:RS]], not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not [[WP:RS]] for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
=== Request for closure === |
|||
:Did you bother to read the MfD debate, or did you simply insert your comments (similar to the above)? |
|||
Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gharchistan&diff=prev&oldid=1221943609]. They are [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] and have clear [[WP:CIR]] issues, exactly like [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad]] and co., they even all have the same English skills! --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Those are the editors' '''current usernames'''. Anyone who sees such a red link is fully capable of identifying the individual in question, viewing his contribution history, and contacting him with any concerns. |
|||
:'''[[User:Cool Cat]] was not a user page''', and no one has argued that Cool/White Cat is required to have one. It could be a redirect to his talk page or contribution history, or it could be a page explaining the name change. The point is that Cool/White Cat has provided no rationale (apart from "I want so") why some sort of connecting page shouldn't exist at that title. He's acknowledged that this inconveniences others and plainly stated that he doesn't care because it isn't his problem. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me. |
|||
I have speedy-deleted [[User:Cool Cat]] and closed the MfD. This has become a ridiculous and disruptive waste of time. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&curid=172699&diff=1222230240&oldid=1219858978]. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS. |
|||
::This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&curid=172699&diff=1222230240&oldid=1219858978]) [[User:Bravehm|Bravehm]] ([[User talk:Bravehm|talk]]) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I second the request for closure and have removed the non-archive from this report as well. [[User:BoldGnome|BoldGnome]] ([[User talk:BoldGnome|talk]]) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. [[User:BoldGnome|BoldGnome]] ([[User talk:BoldGnome|talk]]) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{tq|This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.}} |
|||
*:::This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BoldGnome&oldid=1225359920]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). [[User:BoldGnome|BoldGnome]] ([[User talk:BoldGnome|talk]]) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::The problem is that this is a complex report, and it involves a topic area that most administrators and veteran editors know little about. In addition to the language barrier, most of us lack the necessary cultural context on Central and South Asia topics. That makes it hard to evaluate sources and figure out who is right. Another issue with editors from these parts of the world is that there's a ''ton'' of POV pushing and sockpuppetry on all sides. In my SPI work, I see articles in [[WP:ARBIPA]] topic areas where multiple sock/UPE farms are fighting and reporting each other as sockpuppets. The way ISPs in this region hand out IP addresses makes it very difficult for Checkuser to produce useful results. SPI is also incredibly backed up, so unfortunately these cases can linger for a while without more volunteers. |
|||
*::::::If you want your reports to be more actionable, I can make a few suggestions. Focusing on user conduct issues like [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]], [[WP:OWN|ownership]], [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and edit warring are more likely to get results, because the evidence for them is usually pretty clear. A lot of this report looks like content disputes, and we can't really determine who is POV pushing. It might also be better to use [[WP:AE]]; the format there is better for demonstrating problems concisely without participants arguing amongst themselves. One other suggestion is to open discussions about the more common sources at places like [[WP:RSN]]. As an example, I don't read [[The Times of India]] or [[Telesur]] and can't evaluate their reliability the same way I can with something I do read. But they've been discussed at RSN, so now we have [[WP:TOI]] and [[WP:TELESUR]] to tell editors and admins how to handle them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Thanks The Wordsmith, will keep that mind. It also doesn't help that Bravehm is blatantly lying, this is perhaps the clearest example I can show; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1225479191], restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove more sourced info (-1189 bytes) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1225499580], having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. This is manipulative. I then revert them again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1225504868], only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to go the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1225510732]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Well, they just violated WP:3RR, so I guess this thread won't needed anymore. Bravehm will be back after their block though, as have all the previous (indeffed) users trying to do the same in that article. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Boldgnome's and The Wordsmith's advice is pretty good, actually. And it can sometimes be better to close a drawn-out report that is proving too "TL;DR" to attract input and action, and open a new one later that concisely presents the evidence, from most egregious down to supporting-but-not-itself-actionable. It's also not helpful to just keep repeating "is being disruptive" over and over again. If the actions in question were not allegedly disruptive, then they wouldn't be at AN/I in the first place. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence. == |
|||
:Also, ironically, if ever the intent was to hide the connection between the old and the new username, that effort has now massively backfired. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Support Brad's [[Gordian Knot|actions]]. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm interested to read your explanation of how an MfD debate conducted in precise accordance with the [[Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?|user page guideline]] was "ridiculous and disruptive." Personally, that's how I would describe the two out-of-process closures. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Radiant, that was not the intention. There is a very easy way to clear all my block logs and past history as people might already know. It is as easy as 4 mouse clicks and few keyboard buttons. To clear all block log/user history: first click on "sign out" (1) link, then click on "sign in/register" (2) link, then click "register username" (3) link. On the new menu type in your new identity and password. Then click "submit" (4) button. I feel the paranoia is unnecessary. |
|||
::Users are neither expected nor required to provide any information on their past accounts or past blocks on their userpages. All that is available in the form of logs. Users should however be encouraged to provide such courtesy to create an environment of transparency. It's completely optional. |
|||
::Unless you are willing to take it to the arbitration committee or any other form of dispute resolution do '''not''' complain about my past contribution as a pretense of your argument. I am not a criminal requiring special tagging. Do not treat me like one. |
|||
::I am more than open about my history, more than anybody else if I may boldly claim. How many of the users have a link to the blocks they received on their userpage? |
|||
::Many of the contributors in this very history has a block log although none have links on their userpage (I haven't actualy checked everybody). [[User:David Levy]], your block log indicates you had been blocked twice. You were once blocked for 24hrs for trolling on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2]] (although later pardoned as it was a "Totally unjustified block" (according to the block log)) and secondly you were blocked indefinitely for what I believe is the deletion of the main page (the log isn't perfectly clear). Your account was probably among the admin accounts compromised which you have recovered from (since you were unblocked). All this is "artificial/nominal controversy" irrelevant to your worth as an editor to the project. You (David Levy) are far too valuable to the project to be dismissed just over your block log. I'd like to point out that the logs are available for public view even if you do not put them on your userpage. I'd like to make it clear that this wasn't intended to be an attack to you, just a mean to self expression. I am sure practically everyone in this discussion had made at least one mistake or several others in the past some even leading to blocks. |
|||
::--<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I happen to be in disagreement with David Levy at the moment about the inane MfD under discussion here, but neither of the blocks in his block log had any substance. The first was reversed by general consensus almost instantaneously (and led in part to the blocking admin resigning his adminship), and the second was borne of confusion and also had nothing to do with David having done anything wrong. Let's not bring that up again, okay? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::For the record, the second block was performed ''by'' the hijacker of a sysop account (as part of a rampage) in response to my ''un''deletion of the main page. (My account was not compromised.) |
|||
::::Thank you, Brad, for noting the irrelevance of these blocks. :-) —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Alright. I did try to say the same thing. --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I've reverted brad's closure of the MFD. Brad and Doc might have their own views about this, but that's what the MFD itself is for. Policy does not back up a speedy closure/delete, and in fact says the opposite. It is completely inappropriate for these admins to have closed the MFD and deleted the redirect. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Get some perspective. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
And now [[User:BigDT]] has re-closed it and protected the MFD page. How the fuck is this acceptable? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] |
|||
:Because it's an unimportant no-brainer. Take it to DRV if you want to prove a [[WP:POINT|point]], or else take a step back and think about what you're arguing over. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::How is reverting 5 admins closing a deletion discussion acceptable Ned Scott? This kind of persistence is unheard of... Ned Scott please be civil. --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't close the MFD. I reverted your un-closing of it. There is a message at the top of that page in big red letters asking you not to modify it. When that message is ignored repeatedly, protection is used to enforce the closing. This isn't anything novel. You may want to read [[Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates]]. If the guy wants his user page deleted, who gives a frick? I'm the fifth admin to delete the page and you're the only person to re-create it ... take the hint and move on with life. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I should take the hint and allow myself to be bullied off the issue? If five vandals vandalized an article, and I was the only one to restore it, should I take a hint then? Get off your high horse, because you are not in a position to force such a discussion closed. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or ... take the hint and stop recreating the page. The appropriate way to contest a deletion is at [[WP:DRV]], not by recreating the page or reopening the deletion discussion. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::As two other admins have also pointed out, taking it to DRV just wastes time and causes more disruption. If we see something was done wrong, we can simply FIX IT and move on. But no, you think it's better that we make a bigger deal out of this and waste more of our time. ''Thanks, BigDT, you really helped''. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::How can you be bullied Ned Scott? It is ''my'' userpage. You are the one revert waring 5 admins + me. How is this '''NOT''' disruptive? --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
See here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1224015578][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=1224016604] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Slow news day, I see. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**ROFL. Thanks, I needed that. ;) --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a [[WP:BLP]]. We are specifically looking at '''living people''' because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*It's now on DRV: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#User:Cool Cat]] -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: So... who's going to add this to [[WP:LAME]]? [[User:DrumCarton|DrumCarton]] 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{nacc}} Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at [[WP:BLP]] that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:<br />{{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, ''recently deceased'') that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be <strong>removed immediately and without waiting for discussion</strong>.}} Italics mine, bold in original.{{pb}}[[WP:BDP]] also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu 🐲</span>]] ( [[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]] ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I nominate/volunteer you for the job. :) --<small> [[User:White Cat/sig|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/sig|chi?]]</sup> 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
:::::::No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
::Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Viriditas}} that or a BOOMERANG. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening ''now''. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::No I have not {{tq|indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago}}. I clearly and unambiguously stated that {{tq| I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues.}} Please don't make things up. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|horse horse i love my station}} |
|||
::::::::I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
:::For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1224015578 This hatting] is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP ''would absolutely'' apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia ''now''. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly ''are'' similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show '''ongoing''', which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show '''recent''' problems. I'm ''sure'' you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're ''trying'' to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be ''less'' collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter '''agrees with you''' (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page: |
|||
*::::::* "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence. |
|||
*::::::* "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on ''today's'' issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix ''now'', let's focus on ''now''." - that's val asking 3 times |
|||
*::::::* "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas |
|||
*::::::Oh and here's a bonus: |
|||
*::::::* "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything" |
|||
*::::::Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*@{{u|AndyTheGrump}} I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: {{tq|Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy.}} And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out ''in my initial post in the thread you hatted'' that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@{{u|Nil Einne}} I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per [[WP:AGF]]. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::<s>{{ec}} This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the [[WT:DYK]] page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>my comments are not not needed.</small> |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
# {{u|AndyTheGrump}} opened a thread at [[WP:ANI]] referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1223522581] |
|||
# {{u|4meter4}} responded to the legitmate [[WP:BLP]] concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1223996500] |
|||
# {{u|AndyTheGrump}} responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1224010037] |
|||
# 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1224015190] |
|||
# {{u|4meter4}} hatted that part of the larger discussion. |
|||
This is probably why we have [[Wikipedia:Civility]] as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread [[WP:DOX|doxxing]] them.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1223903679] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== {{user|Mike18xx}} == |
|||
:Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that '''it wasn't there''' when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of ''wishing to'' be taken seriously. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Userlinks|Mike18xx}} is a disruptive editor who frequently engages in incivility, tendentious editing, and edit warring, as demonstrated by his block log. he has shown complete disdain for Wikipedia policy for well over a year now, and he continues unabated- with recent incivility (i.e. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWikiislam&diff=131341391&oldid=131339993], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikiislam&diff=next&oldid=131440073], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=133815342], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=134265948], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=134267840], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=133033589&oldid=133028481], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=133134368&oldid=133121125]), edit warring (for which he was blocked recently, please see his contributions post-block), tendentious editing (i.e. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutaween&diff=131824027&oldid=131816988], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad_Watch&diff=134267331&oldid=134157036][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wahhabism&diff=prev&oldid=133028901]). he also refers to me abusively as "Intaqallah", both on- ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith_Freedom_International&diff=prev&oldid=132854832], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutaween&diff=prev&oldid=134270051]) and off-wiki, the latter being when he was unashamedly [http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=838246&sid=c432bdbbee553a2bef1feb13518d4fc6 soliciting meatpuppets to "vote-away" in an AfD and edit war on select articles], in the interests of gaming Wikipedia. he does not heed the warnings given to him by multiple administrators, and his talk page is testament to that. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
At this point it almost seems like ATG {{em|wants}} sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.[[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:What do you want us to do about it? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at [[Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know]] that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so ''urgent'' as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that ''intractable'', with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1224098046#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior], administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::whatever you deem reasonable in ceasing the personal attacks, incivility, and other inappropriate behaviour. i do request some sort of intervention, apologies if i wasn't specific with that. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suggest that Itaqallah should cool down a bit. He himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Itaqallah reverts] at least as much as Mike18xx, and misspellings of his user name such as "Intaqallah" can hardly be seen as "abusive", unless one is somehow very focused on finding "reasons" for making allegations of "personal attacks". If Itaqallah (better check that again for typo's, or it will come back hard on me it seems...), is so sensitive about how other editors spell his user name, then perhaps he could choose a new more common English user name, that other editors are more likely to remember the spelling of. This being said, Itaqallah has been extremely active in his attempts to get users that disagree with his personal opinions removed and banned from the English Wikipedia, and among other things he has previously made attempts to get me banned from at least parts of the 'pedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=112919148]. Perhaps Itaqallah should try to work with other editors instead of harassing them with his constant attempts to get them banned. For now it seems that he haven't made a single contribution to Mike's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike18xx&limit=500&action=history discussion page], except for a couple of templates regarding an image. In my opinon, Itaqallah should consider actually working with people, instead of harassing them with requests about them get banned. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely [[WP:DIS|disruptive]] and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::This issue is more serious than "Itaqallah should consider actually working with people" Karl. My main concern would not be Mike 18xx's uncivility or his 9 times blocks, mainly for uncivility, but [http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=838246&sid=c432bdbbee553a2bef1feb13518d4fc6 solliciting meatpuppets]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive203#off_wiki_calls_for_systemic_meatpuppetry This issue re solliciting meatpuppets at Faith Freedom International blog has been discussed a couple of months ago here at the AN/I] and now it is getting disruptive with {{User|Tauphon}} as well. So action needs to be taken. I cannot do anythng as i've been involved in a debate w/ Mike in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiislam]] (conflict of interests?) and probably my action would not be appropriate as my username would be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=134268888 "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname"] for Mike 18xx. So which is important? "Itaqallah needing to work better w/ others" or all these disruptions and uncivility? Meatpuppeting should stop once and for all and Mike 18xx should consider actually working with people in a civil manner. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something |
|||
::::::Frankly, I don't see why it should be a problem that an editor go to a website that he has created an article about, and mention this on the sites forum. The users of the websites is likely to be some of the best informed people regarding what perhaps makes it notable, and their input might very well be useful in the process of determining whether or not it is indeed notable and should be kept or deleted. Another fact is that the point about soliciting meat-puppets doesn't make sense either. First, an AfD is not a vote, it is a debate, second, any "votes" from new and/or unregistered contributers doesn't count. It doesn't make sense to blame him for the actions of Tauphon. Mike, like all other editors is only responsible for his own actions, and he has as far as I know never supported him in any wrong doing anywhere. Any speculations about what might have motivated him to come here is also only just that; Speculations that is entirely irrelevant to Mike's good standing on Wikipedia. What I frankly more worried about is Itaqallah's obvious [[WP:Stalking|stalking]] of editors outside Wikipedia, where he take it upon himself to monitor various forum's for comments made by Wikipedians, in order to attack them here. As you properly know, this is not the first time he has used the results of his off-site monitoring efforts to attack people here. As for his comments regarding your surname, I'd wish he haven't done that. As an administrator that actually seems to genuinely care about remaining reasonably neutral, I don't think you deserve to have such accusations and suspicions raised against you. I don't know if he has already apologized for it, but perhaps he will do the right thing if you ask him? As for his block log, I believe it is also important to notice that he has only been blocked one time the last eight months, and that was for a 3RR. The other issues in the block-log seems to be mostly a thing of the past. I believe the best solution would be that Itaqallah give up his project monitoring editors outside Wikipedia and end his constant attempts to have editors disagree with banned. Mike should on the other hand be more careful about what he accuses people off in heated moments and remember that this is against policy. It would properly help to clean the air a lot if he admit that he was wrong about making such accusations and insinuations. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks. {{pb}}I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump === |
|||
:::::::Well, as you've noted from my words, all i ask from Mike 18xx is to behave in a civil manner and avoid controversies. He's just ''not'' a newbie. We don't have to waste our time arguing about matpuppeting. It is just ''highly inappropriate'' according to the policy. We don't have to waste our time arguing about Mike 18xx meatpuppeting: ''Everyone please attend to the revert war on Wikipedia's FFI page concerning Intaqalla's repeated attempts to marginalize and POV the WikiIslam section. '''All I need are one or two people to revert'''. Please also keep track of whether or not Intaqalla violates Wikipedia's 3RR policy.'' So as you see, the solliciting isn't limited to votes but to edit warring and game the system to get someone else blocked for 3RR. '''Noway!''' |
|||
* '''Support''' as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1224319392#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook a prior thread], AndyTheGrump's violations of [[WP:CIVILITY|Wikipedia policies on civility]] and his ongoing [[WP:DIS|disruptive]] behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::As for my username, i just don't need an apology as it doesn't matter if someone calls me X or "my mamma". He is invited to read these quotes. |
|||
* '''Support a t-ban from DYK.''' I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative ''at that project''. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*"We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box." - Anon. |
|||
*:I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he ''has'' walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with '''oppose TBAN''', and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, '''oppose indef'''. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*"They stick you with those names, those labels -- ‘rebel’ or whatever; whatever they like to use. Because they need a label; they need a name. They need something to put the price tag on the back of." - Johnny Depp -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::This happened on the 15th. That's ''three days'' after [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook|his previous disruption]] on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Karl, i don't really have the time to deal with much of what you wrote about me - not only is much of it pretty fanciful, you certainly are not an impartial party here given our history. you noted that Mike had only one block in the past eight months. that would appear reasonable, were it not for the fact he went on a hiatus in October, returning days before he was blocked again. you employ an incredible amount of spin to downplay Mike's soliciting of meatpuppets, gross incivility, and his deliberate baiting, yet you appear quite eager to take pot-shots at my own person for issues which you have blown out of proportion. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people ''as'' they're walking away. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Itaqallah: I am sure that you don't have much time replying to comments about your stalking and endless attempts to have editors that disagree with your personal opinions banned. Tracking down Wikipedian's down off-site must be a time consuming business. It is true that Mike18xx was not very active on Wikipedia during a few months, and it is also true that he was "welcomed" back by you with sometimes sarcastic comment such as "having trouble logging in Mike?". Anyway, you don't have to reply to my comments. You just have to end your crusade to have editors disagreeing with your personal opinions banned. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::FayssalF: To post what was posted at that forum is of course the most appropriate one can think of, but at the same time I believe off site staking of Wikipedian's is something that much worse. I believe it is something that can really discourage a lot people from editing here. I still remember BhaiSaab who took his off-site stalking as far as calling the workplace of a person that he disagreed with. The intend of his off-site stalking I believe was to drive people he disagreed with away from the site, just like Itaqallah use his off-site "investigations" to get rid of people that he disagree with. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away. |
|||
:::::::::::Karl Meier, it should go without saying that off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppetry is inappropriate, and I see nothing wrong with Itaqallah keeping an eye on it. Can you blame him, seeing as he's been twice been specifically identified as an enemy editor? Soliciting meatpuppetry is bad enough, but urging FFI participants to scrutinize particular editors borders on harassment, and is completely unacceptable. See [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground]].[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I see it this way: |
|||
I had extensive interaction with him on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination)]], and not in an exactly "allied" way - however, I never found him to be especially incivil, or in any way disruptive - rather, he just seems to be determined, outspoken, and edits with feeling. I actually quite liked discussing with him - although my opinion on the matter was eventually disagreed with by the debate, I still think my discussions with him played an important role. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::* There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan) |
|||
:Oh I don't know. I picked more or less the top four contributions of his just now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutaween&diff=prev&oldid=134270051], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=134271815], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith_Freedom_International&diff=prev&oldid=134270708] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=134266704] and in my view there isn't a collegial edit in the bunch. I'm not sure this user has learned much from previous blocks. I don't think I'd care to edit in the same areas as him as it would be less than pleasant. That's the definition of a (mildly) disruptive editor if you ask me. I admit bias, I've blocked him before after he didn't heed warnings to be less disruptive in his approach. I'd support at least an admonishment that his approach is in need of changing. But of course, pure civility blocks don't often work. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::* He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap. |
|||
::Assuming that there has been an effort to resolve this dispute, a user-conduct RfC might be considered. I suppose this section qualifies as such an attempt if there has not been one already, and I urge Mike18xx to respond to it in a productive spirit.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::* Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK. |
|||
*:::So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. ''Maybe'' he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more [[WP:ROPE]] should be given here. Call me a softy? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I would also '''support a topic ban''' from Did You Know. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support a t-ban from DYK''' per Valereee. [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support a t-ban from DYK''' per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef'''. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:<small>I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself [[User:Levivich|LevivichTheInsufferable]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*::<small>there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Comment''' I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.{{pb}}Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor {{u|Lightburst}}. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:That question is easy to answer: DYK posts <del>9-18</del> <ins>8-16</ins> new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::A 9th list item has snuck in today! [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Serial Number 54129|Serial Number 54129]], halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but [[Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough]], and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for [[WP:DYKHOOKBLP]]. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and {{tq|their own behavior}} wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It was a general remark not based on any single editor. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did ''not'' call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said ''of a comment you made'' that {{tq|I can't read this as something that's not transphobic}}. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Chaotic Enby}} The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1224095917&oldid=1224095704 after I complained] - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose Indef''' I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in. |
|||
*:::::::What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support non-indef block''', '''weak support t-ban''' - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's [[WP:CIVIL|core pillars]], but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow [[WP:CIVIL]] with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:4meter4|4meter4]], are you suggesting a logged warning? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Valereee}} I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for the explanation. I would definitely support a logged warning then.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Me too. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Oh wait, nvm, that's [[Special:Diff/1223676400|already happened]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that ''"There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future.''" That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own [[User:Just Step Sideways/fuck off|essay on how I learned this lesson]]), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]], Andy ''opened this''. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at [[Andrew Tate]] (as some sort of reaction to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook|controversial BLP hook issue]]), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been [[User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Civility_in_contentious_topics|officially warned]] it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose indef, oppose t-ban''', support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I ''could'' support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block ''can'' be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it ''will'' be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::@[[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]], thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support topic ban from DYK'''. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth ''after'' the old evidence was presented). — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose both''' I don't see any ''new'' issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:You realize ''Andy'' opened this "re-do"? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then ''no'' he did not open this re-do. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I '''''hate''''' the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::He brought the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook|last one(? can't keep up)]] here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process. |
|||
*:::::Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::He. Brought. This. Here. If <s>you think</s> it wasn't worth bringing here, ''it's disruptive''. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::(Note the comment above was only {{tq|He. Brought. This. Here.}} when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::<s>Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.</s>(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)<br />It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria.<br />What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::Taking this to user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support (temporary?) T-ban''' I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Response from AndyTheGrump'''. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Unless you have anything new to say here, please just [[WP:GETOVERIT|get over it]]. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly [[wikt:idiotic|idiotic]] (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose both''' I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is ''not'' ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue ''at all'' in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the [[WP:BADGER|badger]] a rest? [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @[[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]]? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because [[WP:SATISFY|no one is obligated to satisfy you]]. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Taking to user talk. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::For reference sake see [[User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Civility_in_contentious_topics|BLP incivility warning]] that was given. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''oppose''' This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am <s>not bloody-minded enough</s> lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Christ on a cracker, Mangoe, would you get the facts straight. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve." |
|||
:The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome. |
|||
:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': Close reading of this thread reveals a link [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] provided: [[Special:Diff/1223676400]]. See also the exchange beteen Andy and [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] on Andy's talk page [[User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Civility_in_contentious_topics|here]]. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose indef'''. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*<del>'''Oppose indef''' - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia.</del> He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. <del> I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. </del> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] the thing about the "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia clichés|net negative]]" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor ''could'' modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[User:Mackensen]] - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a [[WP:CIVIL|civility problem]].) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{tq|I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors}} I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Also, I didn't make a statement about a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with [[User:Valereee]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Prefer T-ban from DYK''' but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support indef block''' also '''fine with DYK topic ban''' Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': to make everybody happy, I '''support''' a three months block from DYK. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose indef'''. I thought long and hard about this. Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose sanctions''' as shooting the messenger, though Andy would be well advised to tone it down. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Just Step Sideways <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose both'''. There's certainly nothing like cause for an indef here. I could see a T-ban happening if AtG continues this level of DYK-related invective and we end up back here again with the same approach still in evidence. But some of AtG's concerns are valid, and this is not TonePolicePedia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom=== |
|||
All measures should be preventive and not punitive. Following this logic, Mike 18xx should refrain from meatpuppeting and chill out in order to avoid being uncivil. If there was no meatpuppetry there would have been no off-site ''stalking''. Anyone has the total legitimate right to follow my off-site activities which are directly related to the functioning of wikipedia. In this case, Itaqallah found out that there is a massive meatpuppetry based on the '''''All I need are one or two people to revert''''' strategy. Would you accept to ask people to do the same Karl? I am certain you wouldn't. This is an unacceptable thing in wikipedia. We stand firm against harming the smooth process of how stuff work here. Itaqallah doesn't go forum''ing'', voting and disrupting the off-wiki site. Mike 18xx has been doing just that. So i don't quite understand how you legitimate Mike's actions by accusing Itaqallah of something that wikipedia has no business w/. One is free to browse any page in the net and report to wikipedia about things that could harm it. I tell those people that '''We don't vote and we don't count them''' & '''We do not encourage edit warring indeed'''- we just discuss. I'll leave the civility issues for anyone else who might be interested to discuss them with Mike. So whether he would follow out train or else he could just easily change at the next station. There are many other busy passengers as there are trains. We don't need passengers avoiding payment (come to vote once in a year) and we need our train to preserve and protect its standards so we can attract more passengers (new editors who have much more to give to this project than a single seasonal vote). Anyway, it is time for the user in question to respond. Itaqallah has already said his bit. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of [[User:AndyTheGrump]], and the second is conduct and interactions at [[WP:DYK|Did You Know]]. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others. |
|||
I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of [[WP:Unblockables|unblockables]], who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK. |
|||
:Oh, please.... To paraphrase Rodney King, ''Can't we all just be '''honest'''?'' They say I'm tendentious, uncivil and distruptive -- my goodness, you'd almost think I was being accused of not '''''getting my facts right in the articles'''''...except I'm not being accused of that here. In fact, I'd submit that this business is going the way it's going because I ''am'' getting my facts right in the articles, and some people find it very unpleasant when a cherished belief is skewered on the spit of a ''reference''. To boil this broth down to its essence, FayssalF and Itaqallah do not appreciate the contributions of many editors (of which I am only one) to various Islam-relating articles, and are well-versed in laying about the Administrative Cudgel to get their way. This has been going on for years, and I doubt it's going to stop anytime soon. I see little to alter my expectations that it's probably going to get worse in the future. Personal mail: ''I urge you to respond to them with a productive spirit, aiming to address these complaints and resolve the dispute. --Proabivouac''. I receive strong indication that there will never be any satisfactory "resolution" to the "dispute" short of complete ''"Submission"'' (a ''double-entendre'') before the concerted campaign to savage articles by bad-faith AfDing absolutely everything in sight and drawing upon ''their own'' networks of supporters to swing in and post "delete"s regardless of merit. What can't be deleted will be neutered, merged, smooshed, crunched, reverted, marginalized and mangled down into as small of a nearly invisible and innocuous a pellet as possible. Maintaining a "productive spirit" is extraordinarly difficult amidst such destruction. |
|||
:You will do whatever you are going to do, and whatever the resultant effect upon article veracity is will in turn affect Wikipedia's credibility as a source of accurate and pertinent information in matters occupying the great void between dry scientific obscura and cartoon episode guides. Such credibility is forfeit in the blink of an eye in the internet age, and, once lost, virtually impossible to recover.--[[User:Mike18xx|Mike18xx]] 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Mike18xx, think practically: ''let's suppose'' just for the sake of argument that Itaqallah and FayssalF want you gone, as you say, because you are adding facts to the articles that they don't like. Okay. They can't just say that, because that's not against policy, so they point to things like incivility, meatpuppet solicitation and edit-warring instead. Okay. So don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. There, you see, I've accepted your assumptions at face value, without judgment or rebuttal, and the way forward is still exactly the same.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::We want you gone or not gone. Choose your train. I am focusing on '''[[WP:MEAT|MEATPUPPETING]]'''. It is in '''bold'''. I am not talking about your uncivility (i am proud of my name as you are - plus don't forget that your username is biblical and therefore it is middle-eastern as well. So next time be accurate and say Arab or Muslim so people would understand better what you mean). So talk about it. Don't talk about your edits as i haven't mentioned them at all. I may not like edits of a dozen of editors but still this is wikipedia where anyone can edit. '''Meatpuppeting encouraging edit warring is not acceptable'''. Instead of aknowledging what you've done wrong you are still trying to talk about cakes. We got rules here. As per Proabivouac, ''don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them''. So again and again, you stop or you'll be stopped. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know perfectly well why you don't want to talk about article veracity, FayssalF. As regards to the rest, I dare you to claim with a straight face that Wikipedia Muslims aren't ''organized''. Why, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itaqallah#Need_your_help_in_defending_Ibn_Warraq_as_a_RS look at this!] See? Everybody's doing it -- except that one side isn't mounting a hypocritical ''jihad'' over artificial differences in order to silence its critics.--[[User:Mike18xx|Mike18xx]] 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::that's right. myself and Matt57, a user who i frequently disagree with (to put it lightly), are part of a cabal, because he asked me to prove [[Ibn Warraq]] was a reliable source (which he isn't). you've shot yourself in the foot in spectacular fashion, Mike, and have simply vindicated peoples' comments about your [[WP:ABF|approach]]. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Mike18xx. Till this moment, you haven't answered and defended yourself re the accusations which are backed by facts above. Failing to do that, i'd consider this thread as a waste of time and choose another path as per Proabivouac → RfC. What do you think? Would you acknowledge your wrongdoings and promise to stop them or would you gamble by going thru an RfC? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 11:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
To chime in, I only recently came across this user in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination)|Jihad Watch]] AfD. That and the post history shows very clearly a user with an anti-Islam axe to grind, with "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" being a rather notable slur. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:A quick look through your contributions on articles such as [[Mohammad Amin al-Husayni]] and [[Hamas]] makes it obvious to me that you yourself are not entirely without opinions, Tarc. I can understand that you may be annoyed that the article that you mention above wasn't deleted, and that Mike voted against your wishes, but the media attention it has received should have made it obvious to you that the articles subject was clearly and without any doubt notable. The debate just reflected that reality. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Karl, what can be said about X can be said about Y. Please focus on the issue or else we would just fill this thread w/ unnecessary talk. People are talking about incivility, edit warring and i personally focus on meatpuppeting. We got all these issues and you are talking about the opinions of someone else? Irrelevant and i am afraid if this goes on i'd just consider it as an avoidance to discuss the issues on hand. Mike is being accused w/ incivility and meatpuppeting and that are supported by facts presented by Itaqallah. So let's talk about incivility and meatpuppeting. Would Mike18xx aknowledge that? If yes, would he promise to stop it? Talking about anything else outside this scope would be irrelevant. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The accusation that Tarc made was that Mike18xx is somehow biased in his contributions. I believe it is very relevant to see such accusations in the light of what appear to be the opinions of the accuser himself. In Tarc's case, a quick look through his contributions gives me reasons to believe that his opinions are very different from the opinions of Mike18xx. -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't see why that has any bearing on the accusation - if Bill O'Reilly told me Ted Kennedy was a drunk, does that affect the truth of the allegation? Moreover, I don't see why "bias" is a big deal, in either direction - the point is if they meet Wikipedia standards for good editing practices. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Can we get back to the subject please? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Tarc wrote that Mike18 has an "anti-Islam axe to grind". Whats wrong with that? Some people like Islam here, some dont. It shows up in our edits. If anyone hates candy, they'll go to the [[Candy]] article and talk about its harmful effects. Someone who loves candy will put in the benefits of Candy. Thats how an article is made from different viewpoints. Same is the case with Islam. I raised this issue of "POV" on a Talk page of a policy here but no one responded there. I dont like Islam, there and it shows up in my edits. There are many people who like Islam a lot and that shows up in ''their'' edits. I dont see anything wrong with that. All that matters is that viewpoints contributed are relevant, balanced with each other, sourced and scholarly etc, thats all. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In response to Karl, yes, I have a certain point of view. We all do. The problem is that a single-minded POV coupled with such a vile and bigotry-tinged attitude is what leads people like Itaqallah to drag people like mike into the administrative noticeboard. Don't think for a moment that I am comparable to this person. And no, I was not "upset" that the article was not deleted. That was a rather silly/spurious comment to make. Finally, if you're going to trawl though my contributions, then be sure to take note that they run the gamut from the [[Brady Bunch]] to [[Gertrud (novel)]], as well as Middle East affairs. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I totally agree w/ Matt. Tarc intervention was out of line and discussing it further would be just a waste of time and space. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether [[WP:BLP|the biographies of living persons]] policy trumps or is trumped by [[WP:CIVIL|the civility policy]] are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in [[WP:DYK|Did You Know]], but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that [[WP:BLP|the biographies of living persons policy]] is non-negotiable, and that [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] is [[WP:5P4|the fourth pillar of Wikipedia]], because those principles apparently need to be restated. |
|||
== Rash of reverts in [[Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka]] == |
|||
It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at [[WP:DYK|Did You Know]] and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. |
|||
After a controversial AFD closure a number editors including an admin are indulging in reverting and counter reverting without a single intent to discuss these changes without ever reaching consensus. Please look into it. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Issues related to Srilanka and Tamil have to be sorted out once and for all via the dispute resolution process. Many admins tried to help but in vain. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd have to say that [[WP:RS]] is pretty clear on this one. Since when was Tamilnet not a partisan source and a random tripod site, random videos posted on google, info from websites of openly activist organisations acceptable. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|cranky admin anniversary]]) 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I was being bold and simply removing sources which are clearly not RS, and I noted this as such in my edit summary. The problem is some singletopic people on either side of the fence randomly adding whatever suits them. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|cranky admin anniversary]]) 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::There another thread below discussing this as well. I'd suggest discussions to be held at one place. So i'll be commenting below. Thanks Blnguyen. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom ''is'' to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== {{user|Matthew}} edit warring == |
|||
:{{Agree}} with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the [[WP:DYKBLP|ambiguous wording]]: {{tq|"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided"}} being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment'''. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Matthew has repeatedly changed the {{tl|Memoryalpha}} {{tl|Memory Alpha}} {{tl|HarryPotterWiki}} and {{tl|hpw}} templates citing [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for doing so. This has resulted in 6 or so edits to the Memory Alpha templates over the past 72 hours, sufficiently spaced out to avoid any blatant 3RR blocks. When asked where a discussion took place regarding the Memory Alpha templates and where consensus could be found, Matthew responded on my talk page with the reason "Silence equals consent". It's quite clear that there is not silence, nor a consensus for the changes Matthew has made. |
|||
:There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said {{tq|lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, <u>if it does at all</u>}}. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. {{pb}}There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said {{tq|a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive}}. {{pb}}It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_198&oldid=1223976737#Andrew_Tate_nomination please do!]. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CommunityNotesContributor]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. '''[[User:Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">Pinguinn</span></span>]] [[User talk: Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">🐧</span></span>]]''' 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:[[User:Pinguinn]] - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
** Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.{{pb}}That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion. Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit. And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here. It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of [[WP:PA]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and [[WP:TEND]] and just follow that route. {{pb}}Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him. He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors.{{pb}} But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he [[WP:RGW|is pushing the right idea]] or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project. This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards. Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm. The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. The RFC is now open at [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy]]. All are welcome to participate.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:This solves the procedural issue at DYK, but the second overlapping issue, which relates to user conduct, is still open. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND == |
|||
Something needs to be done regarding Matthew's behaviour here and I'm open to suggestions on whether a strong reprimand would the preferred option, or whether there is a need for a block and perhaps further editing sanctions. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Elinruby}} is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at [[Canadian Indian residential school gravesites]] and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are ''extremely bad''. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150?wprov=srpw1_8#Potential_Disruptive_Behavior_by_Elinruby]), warnings ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081734685]), and a block ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=149842337]). |
|||
:To set things straight: I'm enforcing policy > Phil's POV pushing. I intend to file an arbitration case in due course, principally due to the misuse of administrative abilities. [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Accusations of another editor {{tq|whitewashing mass murder}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1224297415] |
|||
*Accusing me of inserting {{tq|fake news}} and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACanadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=1224319829&oldid=1224308005] |
|||
*Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag {{tq|if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia}} is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=prev&oldid=1224358074] |
|||
*Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1224362600] |
|||
*When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page {{tq|out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours}} and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having {{tq|triggered}} other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1224409945] |
|||
Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Related: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Elinruby%27s_conduct|Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct]]. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{an3|b|one week}}: [[User talk:Elinruby#Block]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|apparently gloating about having triggered other editors}}: On reading the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1224409945#Are_you_mad_because_I_am_referencing_%22your%22_article? diff], something seems taken out of context. The text is {{tq|Q}}[uestion]{{tq|. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A}}[nswer]{{tq|. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO}} [line break] {{tq|Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO}}. I'm not 100% sure what it ''is'' saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.{{pb}}By way of context for {{tq|different editor did heavily maul the article}}, there is an [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_Spiked_Online_regarding_genocide_of_First_Nations|RSN discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1224565770#Using_Spiked_Online_regarding_genocide_of_First_Nations permanent link]) about the use of unreliable sources in [[Canadian Indian residential school gravesites]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Computing pseudocode. [[If else]] is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure ''trigger'' here is the general ''trigger'', not [[trauma trigger]]. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet.<span id="Usedtobecool:1716093759068:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
:::It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best,<span id="Usedtobecool:1716098049977:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
:::::I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "[[you mad bro]]" meme, which ''is'' related to [[triggering]] and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while [[WP:COOL|too hot]]. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::OP put the "triggered" in quotes, and that's where the word occurs in the diff cited.<span id="Usedtobecool:1716304377646:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
* From [[User talk:Elinruby]] ({{diff2|1224763388|Fresh summary|permalink}}): |
|||
{{tqb|text= |
|||
'''The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.''' |
|||
I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a [https://theconversation.com/residential-school-system-recognized-as-genocide-in-canadas-house-of-commons-a-harbinger-of-change-196774 formal finding] to that effect by the [https://globalnews.ca/news/9232545/house-of-commons-residential-schools-canada-genocide/ Canadian House of Commons] and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canadas-residential-schools-were-a-horror/][https://www.aljazeera.com/program/people-power/2023/8/31/residential-schools-canadas-shame] Certainly [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/five-reasons-the-trc-chose-cultural-genocide/article25311423/ legalities] prevented the [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/five-reasons-the-trc-chose-cultural-genocide/article25311423/ Truth and Reconciliation Commission] from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-by-the-numbers-1.3096185][https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/truth-and-reconciliation-final-report-1.3361148] Or [https://nctr.ca/memorial/ specific]. Or that they didn't [https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_215/trc/IR4-9-4-2015-eng.pdf show the receipts]. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on. |
|||
::You've accused Phil of POV pushing, you've also accused me of conflict of interest. I assume you can substantiate both of these - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think that {{u|Pbritti}} misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example: |
|||
*current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by {{u|Star Mississippi}} (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to) |
|||
*current diff 146: Discussed with {{u|El C}} in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient |
|||
*current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself |
|||
Then the complaint itself: |
|||
*{{tq|Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder}}: I actually should have said that {{they|Spingee}} ''denied'' it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJordan_Peterson&diff=1224287016&oldid=1224286723] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points. |
|||
*{{tq|Accusing me of inserting fake news }}: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI. |
|||
::What POV am I pushing, exactly? Also, which administrative abilities have I misused? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*{{tq|removing reliably sourced material}}: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations |
|||
*{{tq|refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented}}: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes. |
|||
*{{tq|spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present}}: Uh...no. see next bullet point. |
|||
*{{tq|the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons"}}: Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[https://news.ubc.ca/2024/03/the-2024-wildfire-season-has-started-heres-what-we-need-to-know/][https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-could-face-another-very-challenging-wildfire-season-officials-say-1.6812251][https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/04/10/b-c-2024-wildfire-season-expected-to-begin-earlier-last-longer-feds/] The same week, [[Lytton wildfire|Lytton]] spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere: {{tq|By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned}}. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia! |
|||
*{{tq|Saying they don't need to engage in discussion}}: Misinterpretation of {{tq|I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement}}. |
|||
*{{tq|suggesting that I'm racist}}: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: {{tq|If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice}} |
|||
*{{tq|CBC News investigation that determined a link}}: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE <nowiki>{{so?}}</nowiki> tag. |
|||
*{{tq|When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours}}: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going... |
|||
*{{tq|apparently gloating about having triggered other editors}}:Capably translated by {{u|Usedtobecool}}; thank you |
|||
*{{tq|a list of Q and As}}: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits. |
|||
'''This is long so I will close by thanking {{u| Hydrangeans}}''' for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby#top|talk]]) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It should be noted, Matthew first nominated [[Template:FreeContentMeta]] for deletion. When this was obviously failing to generate consensus, he nominated [[Template:HarryPotterWiki]], a child template of the first. When this started going badly he decided to just bugger the failure to get support on TfD and revert away. It is... an unfortunate style of edit war. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
}}{{small|copied by '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
:'''Pinged note''', no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Per El_C, {{tq|I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified.}} What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with {{U|Springee}} that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the [[Jordan Peterson]] page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections. |
|||
*::As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound [[WP:NPOV]] failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at [[WP:RS/N]] and you can see how that turned out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_Spiked_Online_regarding_genocide_of_First_Nations here]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page: {{tq| as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI}}. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Requesting TPA revocation and block extension=== |
|||
:I believe that an arbitration case would be both unwise and ridiculously premature. This looks like a completely ordinary edit war to me. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page: |
|||
:: A rather ill-advised one, don't you think? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they {{diff2|1225186746|replied}} with {{tq|I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills}} |
|||
:::Isn't any edit war. bit of a pointless argument if you ask me.. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*They falsely claim {{tq|The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI}}, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=prev&oldid=1224358074 left an edit summary] that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning |
|||
*They claimed a hostile notice they {{diff2|1224412428|added}} to their talk page {{tq|mentions no names}}–despite {{diff2|1224412764|pinging me}} with {{tq|@Pbritti: please see section below}} immediately after adding it. |
|||
*The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and {{diff2|1225216146|this reply}} |
|||
I am not keen on the project allowing further [[WP:ROPE|ROPE]] for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging {{u|El C}} as original blocking admin. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]]: The diff for {{tq|left an edit summary}} is linking to a 2008 revision. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|talk]]) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Let's just stop the edit warring, and see what comes out of the discussion about these prettified external links/ads for free-content wiki's. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>{{re|2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C}} Thanks, I must've deleted a digit. Fixed. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) </small> |
|||
:'''Oppose''' - I do not see anything there that requires revoking TPA. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose'''. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' because I'm not even convinced that the original block was good. Particularly the {{tq|triggered}} accusation seems difficult for me to read in good faith: it's very difficult for me to imagine any good faith editor reading that as a reference to [[trauma trigger]]s. And upon reading them closely none of the others seem to be anything but curt. I agree Elinruby has not responded great to the block, but like, it seems very kafkaesque to me to block someone because of their behavior in response to a block that shouldn't have happened. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::There appears to be an unusual obsession with analyzing that single word instead of reflecting on the totality of Elinruby's behavior. They weren't blocked over one word. They were blocked for repeated BATTLEGROUND behavior. Additionally, if an editor engages in misconduct following a block, that's still misconduct. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Friend, if you are watching this thread so closely that you are responding to new comments within five minutes, may I suggest it's not (just) Elinruby that's guilty of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's a button you can click when you open a discussion that allows you to 'subscribe' to the discussion. This allows a notification to appear when someone replies even if they don't ping you. It spares one from having to add cluttered noticeboards to a watchlist and enables rapid response. Please review what constitutes [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|BATTLEGROUND]] behavior, as prompt response is not one such action. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I subscribe to discussions regularly. In fact, I subscribed to this discussion right after I first commented, like I normally do when I comment in a discussion. I assure you it does not explain that quick of a response, and it definitely doesn't explain either your bad faith readings of Elinruby's posts nor coming back to the well with more alleged evidence of wrongdoing that nobody else has taken you up on. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:CLIQUE|CLIQUE]]-like behavior at [[:Elephant]] article== |
|||
Just popping this down for the record. This is a case of, as far as I can tell, a single edit warrior warring up to what he considers the limit of his "entitlement" to edit war against multiple opposition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&diff=134381301&oldid=133862610] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&diff=134381301&oldid=133875822] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&diff=134381301&oldid=133902262], then waiting a couple of days and starting again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&diff=134372705&oldid=133903285] (note disingenuous edit summary) ignoring warning messages about disruption [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthew&diff=prev&oldid=134374406] and continuing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&diff=134375350&oldid=134373171] . |
|||
Certain users ([[:User:Wolverine XI]], [[:User:LittleJerry]], others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the [[:Elephant]] article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolverine_XI#c-Wolverine_XI-20240518060200-Zenon.Lach-20240518000700], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&action=history]). Notifications to follow this posting. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Zenon.Lach}} Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as [[WP:FA|featured]] (I'd say that's the mildest sort of [[WP:biting|biting]]), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. [[User:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#000080;">'''''Wolverine'''''</span> <span style="color:#8A307F;">'''''XI'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#2C5F2D;">talk to me</span>]])</sup> 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} {{tq|incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying}}, {{tq|removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists}}. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
In addition it seems that Matthew engaged in a brief but very broad edit war with [[User:TTN]] on the following articles: |
|||
:: '''I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong.''' I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic? |
|||
* {{la|The Shadow Duelist, Part 2}} |
|||
:: '''Far more important, however, are the following:''' |
|||
* {{la|Boss Luffy Returns! A Dream or Reality Lottery Trouble}} |
|||
::* ''"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads."'' -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale. |
|||
* {{la|A Man's Promise, Luffy and the Whale Vow to Meet Again}} |
|||
::* ''"the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen"'' -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/45818198]) as well as [https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant#:~:text=The%20Sri%20Lankan%20elephant%20population%20has%20fallen,elephant%20is%20protected%20under%20the%20Sri%20Lankan]. |
|||
* {{la|The Shadow Duelist, Part 1}} |
|||
:: However, since I am blackballed from the [[:Elephant]] article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Completely Infuriated! Kuro vs. Luffy, Final Battle!}} |
|||
:::The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|An Unexpected Guest! Sanji's Food and Gin's Grace}} |
|||
::::"Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Battle! The Black Cat Pirate Crew, Battle on the Slope!}} |
|||
:::::"The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century. |
|||
* {{la|Desperate Situation! Beast Tamer Mohji vs. Luffy!}} |
|||
:::::(https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant). [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|List of The A-Team episodes}} |
|||
::::::"The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([https://news.mongabay.com/2023/05/one-elephant-a-day-sri-lanka-wildlife-conflict-deepens-as-death-toll-rises/#:~:text=The%20government%20estimates%20the%20population%20of%20Sri,Asian%20elephant%20(Elephas%20maximus)%2C%20at%20about%207%2C000]). [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Honorable Liar? Captain Usopp}} |
|||
:::'''(likely copied and pasted from the reference source)''' No it wasn't, stop making false claims. [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Even if I Die, I Won't Kick You! Sanji's Manly Chivalry}} |
|||
::::"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- '''then what was the original wording?''' Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Fukurou's Miscalculation - My Cola is the Water of Life!}} |
|||
:::::You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available [https://archive.org/details/livingelephantse00suku_0/page/120/mode/2up here]. [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Grand Duel! Zoro the Swordsman vs. Cabaji the Acrobat!}} |
|||
::::::It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|The Famous Cook! Sanji of the Floating Restaurant}} |
|||
:::::::It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Fear, Mysterious Power! Pirate Clown Captain Buggy!}} |
|||
::::::::No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See [[Special:Diff/1224543588]] —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|The Detective Memoirs of Chief Straw Hat Luffy}} |
|||
:::::::::This is okay too: [[Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|The First Obstacle? Giant Whale Laboon Appears}} |
|||
:::::::::Thanks. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|The Blueprints Aren't Passed! Franky's Decision}} |
|||
::::::::::You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|The Criminal is Boss Luffy? Chase the Vanished Great Sakura Tree}} |
|||
:::::::::::Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. [[User:Zenon.Lach|Zenon.Lach]] ([[User talk:Zenon.Lach|talk]]) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Luffy's Revival! Kaya's Life and Death Confrontation}} |
|||
::::::::::::If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. [[User:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#000080;">'''''Wolverine'''''</span> <span style="color:#8A307F;">'''''XI'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wolverine XI|<span style="color:#2C5F2D;">talk to me</span>]])</sup> 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Revealing The Conspiracy! The Pirate Caretaker, Captain Kuro!}} |
|||
::::::::::::I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Retrieve the 5 Keys! The Straw Hat Crew vs CP9}} |
|||
:::::As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Protect Kaya! Usopp Pirate Gang Takes Action!}} |
|||
::::::Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at [[Talk:Elephant#My edits]], the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Power of the Devil Fruit! Kaku and Jyabura Transform}} |
|||
:::::::The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, ''especially in a featured article''. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't ''easily understandable'', as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. <small>(Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.)</small> The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.{{pb}}Hopefully, {{u|Zenon.Lach}} you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King}} |
|||
::::::::Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Morgan vs. Luffy! Who is This Beautiful Young Girl?}} |
|||
:::::::::What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write {{tq|Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals.}} [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Luffy's Past! The Red-Haired Shanks Appears!}} |
|||
::::::::::That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "{{tq|Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads).}}" (page 121). [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Bubble User Kalifa! Nami Draws Near to the Soap's Trap}} |
|||
:::::::::::Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|Zoro's New Technique Explodes! The Katana's Name is Sogeking?}} |
|||
:::There's nothing even faintly "unintelligible" about the material regarding parasite load and predation. I have no degree in zoology, but I have no trouble of any kind understanding all of it. If someone thinks the wording can be improved anyway, then go improve it. But do not delete properly sourced material just because you personally don't like exactly how it was worded. Our "job" is improving content not suppressing it. If any editor has comprehension problems either because this is not their first language or because they lack any background in subjects to which such a sentence pertains, then they should go work on other content that is more within their language-skills sphere, not engage in protracted fights with other editors who actually know the subject well. There sometimes {{em|can}} be an issue of the inverse of the [[Dunning–Kruger effect]], with persons highly steeped in a subject assuming that their understanding of complex material relating to the topic will automatically be understood by people who lack their educational/professional background, but this does not appear to be such a case, since the material is not complicated at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{la|You are a Special Animal! Gaimon and his Wonderful Friends}} |
|||
{{out}} |
|||
* {{la|Who Will Win? Showdown Between the True Powers of the Devil}} |
|||
:While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm ''very'' disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine): |
|||
::{{tq|Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and '''chauvinistic'''?}} |
|||
:What in the world prompts such an accusation here? — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing == |
|||
Coupled with singular unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion, this is problem behavior. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles [[Gbenga Adigun]], [[Tony Edeh]], and [[JOM Charity Award|Jom Charity Award]] for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors [[User:LocomotiveEngine|LocomotiveEngine]] ([[User talk:LocomotiveEngine|talk]]) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As well as the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juice_Plus&action=history Juice Plus]. I agree with Tony. [[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>T</b></font>]]<sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk to me]]</sub> 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the ''quality'' of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, [[User:LocomotiveEngine|LocomotiveEngine]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC). |
|||
:::{{ping|LocomotiveEngine}} A bit of further advice: When nominating such claptrap for deletion, address each of the sources in the order in which they appear in the article and outline why they are either insufficient to support notability (typically for lacking [[WP:INDY|independence from the subject]]), or not good enough to be used as sources at all. This will help AfD particpants evaluate the material as it stands and evaluate the article as a whole as to whether it it does (or might) pass notability, e.g. because some of the sources cited don't have such failures, or because other and better sources in the interim have been found (or, conversely, none are findable and the article should not be retained). It fairly often turns out that a total-crap article is on a subject that is actually (perhaps marginally) notable and the page simply needs to be rewritten and re-cited, not deleted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User: Hopefull Innformer == |
|||
:As unpolitical the behaviour of Matthew is, when it comes to the reverting of the redirecting of the external link templates to the interwiki boxes, Matthew was right. There was no proper consensus on the replacement of this link template with the linkbox. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*{{userlinks|Hopefull Innformer}} |
|||
*{{pagelinks|Yasuke}} |
|||
There have been numerous instances of [[User:Hopefull Innformer]] seemingly violating [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] on[[Talk: Yasuke]]. Specifically, [[User:Hopefull Innformer]] has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda. |
|||
:: It the behavior which is the problem. There are more sensible ways of disputing bold actions than massive reverts. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I approached them here [[User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke]] to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, [[User:Hopefull Innformer]] accused me instead of violating [[WP:GF]], and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. |
|||
===Twist=== |
|||
[[User:X0n10ox|X0n10ox]] ([[User talk:X0n10ox|talk]]) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This case needs some further review. Yes matthew TfD'ed {{tl|FreeContentMeta}}. He did this at 18:15, May 26, 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_26&oldid=133661044]. He had every right to dispute this new style of external link. However it was considered to be WP:POINT behaviour because of the relative small edit war here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TardisIndexFile&action=history]. However that was not to say that the TfD was totally out of line. There was a little bit of discussion for less than one day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2007_May_26&diff=133678636&oldid=133661044], which was going nowhere, because the same people of the previous edit war were involved. |
|||
:As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying {{tq|The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it}}, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. <small>(Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...)</small> [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. [[User:X0n10ox|X0n10ox]] ([[User talk:X0n10ox|talk]]) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"Higher powers"? I guess I know what you mean but I've had a long day and that made me laugh. Time to get back to my mop. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Is it possible to close this out in some way? They said they had wanted the opinion of "moderators", but they've since continued to contribute on [[Talk: Yasuke]] while not even responding to any of this, or responding on their own talk page. Plus they've stopped accusing people on [[Talk: Yasuke]] of deception, so I don't even see that there's a point to this any longer. [[User:X0n10ox|X0n10ox]] ([[User talk:X0n10ox|talk]]) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]], but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over ''this'' comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the [[Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS|aspersions]] which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term. |
|||
*:"is <u>'''people from twitter'''</u>, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just '''<u>people who don't care for integrity or accuracy</u>'''" |
|||
*:'''"I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever <u>inaccurate narrative you want to push</u>"''' |
|||
*:'''"<u>I don't think Theozilla is being sincere</u> here let's focus"''' |
|||
*:The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] and [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith]]. [[User:X0n10ox|X0n10ox]] ([[User talk:X0n10ox|talk]]) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't buy this as actionable at all. First off, the notion that "[came here] from Twitter" is a dogwhistle for "leftist" is absurd when Twitter/X has been completely overrun by right-wingers in the wake of Musk's takeover in October 2022, his explicit promotion of ring-wing notions, and his undoing of virtually all content moderation against false news, conspiracy theories, violent rhetoric, bigotry, anti-democratic actvism, and other noise (a change which overwhelmingly disprotionately boosts the ability of right- not left-wing voices to promote their viewpoints via that platform). Second, there is no policy against raising concerns that incoming participants in a hot topic may have arrived there via social-media attention/promotion; we would not have [[WP:MEAT]] if we were not permitted to do so, though one generally expects there to be some evidence, short of [[WP:OUTING]], that something like this is actually happening. In this case, we already know for a fact that there was a bunch of related controvery on X/Twitter. Next, being a Twitter/X user (supposed or known) is not a political or other even-vaguely-possibly-relevant "affiliation", under any sensible interpretation of that word. I also use Facebook, and YouTube, and OpenOffice, and Notepad++, and PDF24, and Duolingo, and FamilySearch.org, and drive a Mazda, and use a zillion other services and products, but that does not make me "affiliated" with them, much less consititute a socio-political affiliation of any kind within the meaning of our policy. Even if a political affiliation were at issue, it is only problematic to bring one up in an {{lang|la|[[ad hominem]]}} manner; we do in fact have actual and demonstrable problems with right- and left-wing activists trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotional platform at a large number of articles, and it is not forbidden to try to address this. But there's no evidence here of this even being an issue in this case in the first place. Moving on, questioning another editor's accuracy is something we do routinely; it's downright necessary to the work we're doing here. Questioning "integrity" is much more a grey area, since that term has multiple indistinct meanings, from academic integrity (i.e. properly interpreting, representing, and citing the source material) to personal integrity more along the lines of meaning 'honorableness', and it's easy for someone to walk away with the most negative possible interetation of what was meant (but that's still largely on the interpreter not the writer; cf. the distinction between [[wikt:inference|inference]] and [[wikt:implication|implication]], a frequent confusion but an actual confusion nontheless). "I understand it is upsetting to you when ..." is inappropriate {{lang|fr|faux}}-mindreading, but not a transgression someone would be sanctioned strongly for, unless there were proof of it being a habitually uncivil approach of trying to put thoughts in people's heads and words in their mouths. Wondering whether someone's prior comment was "sincere" or something else (sarcasm, a joke, a PoV-pushing attempt, etc.) is also not some kind of actionable fault. Poorly phrased, perhaps. Furthermore, X0n10ox is drawing improper connections between disconnected statements, and engaging in a consenquent [[wikt:correlation|correlation]] vs. [[wikt:causation|causation]] error; to wit, Hopefull_Innformer was critical of those who allegedly "don't care for integrity or accuracy" at a variety of articles on topics that attract new-editor attention from offsite, and likened this to similar attention at this specific article, which H_I believes has been driven by Twitter/X in this particular case. That does not equate to a claim that all Twitter/X users lack integrity or accuracy. (As a side matter, "don't care for" has multiple colloquial meanings, and here might mean "don't like/want", "don't seem to care enough about", or "are not interested in caretaking", and the second and third of these are reasonable concerns while only the first is bogus "mindreading". In closing: "being critical and snarky" (what's happened here), "assuming bad faith" (it's not actually clear that happened here at all), and "engaging in a personal attack" (which didn't happen here) are not synonymous. "Someone offended me or made me unhappy" does not equal "I was personally attacked". As I said in another thread on this page, WP is not TonePolicingPedia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== 180.75.233.40 == |
|||
From here on, I'm sticking to the Memoryalpha case, but almost the same applies to the HP case... Until recently all pages used {{tl|Memoryalpha}} in this revision: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&oldid=129774459] On May 27, 2007 00:57 [[User:Phil Sandifer]] created a new version of this external link template [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memory_Alpha&oldid=133736791]. On 16:24, May 27, 2007, Phil redirected the textual version of the templated to the "pimped out" version of the template. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Memoryalpha&oldid=133856448]. This is where Matthew protested against and he reverted. He did not like this "pimped out" style and did not see why it became necessary all of a sudden to force this upon everyone. A lot of reverts were the result and that was some bad judgement of several people. Matthew had every right to question wether this was at all needed, although not trough an editwar. |
|||
Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Phil then on the 28th requested [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Bot_Run] [[User:^demon]] to run his bot to replace all occurences of the old {{tl|Memoryalpha}} to the newly styled {{tl|Memory Alpha}} This bot started running at 01:37, May 28, 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20070527005856&limit=500&target=%5EdemonBot2] and made most of the replacements. This has made this entire TfD of FreeContentMeta explode of course. Now this new style was being forced upon people, while the TfD of the "parent"-template wasn't even finished, and also made this whole thing terribly hard to revert. |
|||
:Malaysia is not a Chinese country, the official language is Malay written in both Latin and [[Jawi script]]. [[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]] ([[User talk:180.75.233.40|talk]]) 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
To summarize: |
|||
::Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
# Matthew behaved bad for edit warring |
|||
:::Ok next time I will put the summary, btw I already put the statement in the caption. [[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]] ([[User talk:180.75.233.40|talk]]) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
# Phil behaved bad for pushing his pretty boxes out there, while some people were objecting to it, and he didn't give a lot of warning to other users.. He could have easily waited with his MA changes to see the result of the TfD. Why the hell couldn't the two templates have co-existed for a while ? |
|||
:::And you should have tried ''discussing'' with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. [[Special:Contributions/108.35.216.149|108.35.216.149]] ([[User talk:108.35.216.149|talk]]) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
# David took Phil's side without looking further then to revert Matthew and not considering the fact that others might object to this as well. |
|||
::::The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. [[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]] ([[User talk:180.75.233.40|talk]]) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”. |
|||
:::::Hence only Latin and Jawi are recognized nationwide, Chinese and Tamil are not recognized under Malaysian constitution and law. [[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]] ([[User talk:180.75.233.40|talk]]) 07:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]]: Are you the same person as the IP discussed in [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles|#Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles]] ~2 months ago? – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D|2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D|talk]]) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Same language indeed. FYI ping [[User:Ponyo|Ponyo]]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]]@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Deb|Deb]] and @[[User:El_C|El_C]], who may want to deal with this case? [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of [[User:180.75.233.40]], but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise. |
|||
::::Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. [[Special:Contributions/180.75.233.40|180.75.233.40]] ([[User talk:180.75.233.40|talk]]) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Enough of that. I've re-blocked the IP for continued edit warring and incivility.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Behavior-related block aside, the anon seems to have a valid underlying point. Malay in Latin-based Rumi script is the official language, and Malay in Arabic-derived Jawi-script has at least official recognition as an aspect "of the national language", while we don't seem to have reliable sources for Chinese and Tamil having any such status. Someone mentioned "legislation" without citing any, and if such legislation doesn't confer at least a Jawi-level quasi-officialness on them, then they shouldn't be used in WP articles about this country (per [[MOS:FOREIGN]], [[MOS:LEADLANG]], etc.), except where specially contextually pertinent for some reason, e.g. a subject pertaining particularly to the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] [[User:BilledMammal]] == |
|||
Personnally i'd like to see the textual version back on all the pages. If people want a pretty box they can add it to each and every article they want, but this is not something you should force upon every article by redirecting the old version and having a bot rename all the old inclusions to the new inclusions. Yes Matthew was out of line, but it wasn't a baseless issue as some are trying to argue. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them. |
|||
: I also took Phil's side. He did not make these changes without support. To state that Phil was wrong to edit the wiki is simply incorrect. He handled it very well. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yes you are also involved yes. And i do think he was wrong. These were a lot of inclusions, and the edits have been of such a type that it was made difficult to revert and didn't leave people much choice as to what kind of link they want. At least not for the ordinary uninitiated editor. This was a major change to these external link templates and it could have been dealt with a lot better. There is BOLD, and there is pushing your box trough peoples throat without telling them. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 00:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::To clarify a tad more. Any call upon WP:BOLD is limited by scope and the ease with which bold changes can be reverted. Trough the forced redirects and template transclusion replacement this BOLD box became an action that surpassed the limits of WP:BOLD. If this needs to be reverted, then we need to do merges of edit histories or other stupid stuff to keep this proper.--[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Nonsense. It's easy to fix. You just have to undo the redirect and change the template to include its own bullet point and you should be back to normal. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This badly misrepresents what happened. First of all, I asked on several pages about converting the Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia templates to the box versions. There were no objections, and so I acted, which was reasonable and in line with [[WP:BOLD]]. The bot was not used to change templates - that would be silly, since the templates were at that point equivalent. The bot was used to clean up a relic of the old version of the template - a stray bullet point that appeared in the external links section with no item after it. I removed this only after being asked by people to. Other than that, there was no objection on the talk page of the Memory Alpha templates or on the Star Trek WikiProject for my changes. The only objections came from Matthew, who did not even bother until today to come to the talk pages of the templates and then only contributed two comments before going off to run an unapproved bot. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1183452987 reverted] a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1183457204 arbitration notice] against me. |
|||
::It might misrepresent your intentions, but for most of the editors of the pages this will be how it is perceived. It's cool that you asked and that no one responded. Fact is that just not that many people actively follow most of those talk pages (believe me i know). I'm quite sure that most people only became aware after you started your changes, and many people still won't have noticed (well perhaps after the rename of the template, because that triggers a lot of watchlists). However badly Matthew handled it, he had an actual concern and was the first to respond in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying that regardless of Matthew, the case could have been handled better. For instance by simply having both versions of the template co-exist for a while. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::And by putting the original template up for TfD. That's usually also a great way to get some actual people involved in these cases. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::So I posted on the talk pages of the templates and the relevant WikiProjects, got no opposition, went through with the change, got requests for some clean-up but still no opposition, and somehow I'm the bad guy anyway? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Don't take the "bad" comment too seriously. It was ironic mostly. But I do think that you excercised haste during your WP:BOLD action, and that's when haste should be avoided more then anything. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Fast forward to present day, I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1224768798 reverted] another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecrusized&diff=prev&oldid=1224771647 Threatening to have me blocked] unless I restore their edits. |
|||
I have proposed a solution to deal with this edit conflict here: [[User talk:Phil Sandifer#Proposed_solution_to_Memory_Alpha]] --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know if this is behavior is allowed on Wikipedia or not but it's certainly immoral. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Unblock request by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey == |
|||
:For context, [[wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324%23Ecrusized|the full November AE report]]. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] to say {{tq| an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here}} |
|||
:That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting a {{diff2|1219851984|1RR concern from a different editor}} without responding to it, and then today a {{diff2|1224770597|concern from me about the removal of a disputed tag.}} |
|||
:Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently [[wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement%23Dylanvt|a week ago]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"''an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here''" |
|||
::"''That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting''" |
|||
::You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1224769836 talking to you] on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{green|"This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them."}} [[The pot calling the kettle black|Pot, meet kettle]]. That is pretty much how I would describe construing a note as a block threat and escalating it immediately to ANI. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{tq|Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=1224776257 permanent link]): I must admit my confusion about this link from BilledMammal (and therefore also about the forumshopping charge leveled against Ecrusized's behavior). The link isn't to a concern about BilledMammal brought to Arbitration Enforcement; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1224676755#Dylanvt it links to an Arbitration Enforcement request that BilledMammal submitted] about a different user, Dylanvt.{{pb}}Without commenting one way or another on Ecrusized's behavior and whether boomeranging applies, the concern about some of BilledMammal's edits verging on (or becoming) battlegrounding seems unfortunately plausible. BilledMammal has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=123155949 previously sanctioned] for abuse of process [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1051578659&oldid=1051577990#Request_concerning_Nableezy also in this topic area] that the admin called [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&diff=1051722626&oldid=1051704527 using boards {{tq|for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing}}]. In April and May, BilledMammal was advised about unproductively bludgeoning discussions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&oldid=1224774626#RSN] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&oldid=1224774626#::::::::::::::::::::::]) and received an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=161916232 Arbitration Enforcement block] for edit-warring in the Israel–Palestine topic area. At a minimum, I would hope that the present thread reminds BilledMammal to exercise restraint when contributing in contentious topic areas. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1223777044 personal commentary towards other editors], we're firmly in topic ban territory. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] has posted a request that he be unblocked. Please see [[User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]. I am referring the request here for discussion and consensus. All good-faith contributors are welcome to present an opinion here; any trolling or SPA accounts interfering with the discussion will be blocked. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yeah, that's about it. I probably should have explained that earlier. I left this open so community discussion could continue. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I find [[Special:Diff/1224771647|posting on an editor's user talk about edits that occurred a week beforehand, with an edit warring notice]], to be problematic and it is not unsupportive of the OP's claim that BM has gone trolling through their edit history the moment they've come into some sort of conflict. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*<s>That indeed seems problematic.</s> But you should use [[trawling]] rather than [[Trolling (fishing)|trolling]] to express such purported [[WP:HOUNDING]]. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:@[[User:El C|El C]] thanks for the correction. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:Which would y'all rather have: |
|||
:*:# Editors complain about 1RR vios right away each and every time they happen |
|||
:*:# Editors never complain about 1RR vios |
|||
:*:# Editors let 1RRs slide for a while until they get to be too many, and then bring all the recent ones up at once to show it's not a one-time thing |
|||
:*:I prefer # 3. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*::That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to [[WP:AE]], which is what I hoped would happen when I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1190273095 proposed] the gentlemen's agreement [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Andrevan|here]]. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out: |
|||
:*:::* Key background: on 13 May, Ecrusized filed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Galamore]], reporting 1RR violations by another editor, with diffs going back to 19 April (which requires "trawling" through others' contribs) |
|||
:*:::* [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Ecrusized&page=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&server=enwiki&max= Here are Ecrusized's edits to Israel-Hamas war] |
|||
:*:::* On May 14 they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas+war&date-range-to=2024-05-14&tagfilter=&action=history a bunch of edits to that article], crossing 1RR |
|||
:*:::* Among those May 14 edits is [[Special:Diff/1223789201|this edit]], which they [[Special:Diff/1223789671|self-reverted]] with edit summary "This probably puts me in 1RR" (true), only to [[Special:Diff/1223832227|reinstate that same edit a few hours later at 16:43]]. Their first revert was on 15:49 13 May, which is why they waited until 16:53 14 May to reinstate it. Unfortunately, despite the rather obvious gaming involved in waiting 25hrs to make a revert, because of other intervening reverts, that 16:53 14 May edit was still a 1RR violation. |
|||
:*:::* The 14 May edits included adding [[Special:Diff/1223776365|inline]] [[Special:Diff/1223777485|tags]] and a [[Special:Diff/1223834426|hidden HTML comment]] telling other editors not to change content, while also [[Special:Diff/1223789305|removing an inline tag placed by others]] (while [[Special:Permalink/1223787921#Casualties in lede downgraded from 35 to 24 thousand|discussion was still ongoing on the talk page]], the most recent talk page message was made [[Special:Diff/1223787921|only 16 minutes prior]]) |
|||
:*:::* Ecrusized made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas+war&date-range-to=2024-05-20&tagfilter=&action=history no edits to the article between 14 May and 20 May] |
|||
:*:::* On 20 May, they [[Special:Diff/1224768798|once again removed another editor's disputed tag]], [[Special:Permalink/1224768591#Shouldn't we simply follow RS?|while discussion was ''still'' ongoing]], with [[Special:Diff/1224768591|the most-recent comment was made only 2 minutes]] prior and Ecrusized made a comment [[Special:Diff/1224768970|2 minutes later]], ''and'' they [[Special:Diff/1224769142|restored their hidden comment]] that had been removed by others |
|||
:*:::* On 20 May, BM posted a [[Special:Diff/1224770025|message on Ecrusized's talk page]] asking them to self-revert the removal of the disputed tag. No block threat, no incivility, just a please self-revert request. |
|||
:*:::* Ecrusized's response was to post [[Special:Diff/1224770516|this message]] on BM's user talk page, and [[Special:Diff/1224770597|blank BM's post on their own user talk page]], 10 minutes later |
|||
:*:::* ''Then'' BM [[Special:Diff/1224771647|posted a second message]] bringing up the 1RR violations on 14 May. It was a request to self-revert. There was no block threat, no threat to escalate. |
|||
:*:::* Ecrusized's response was to call BM a [[Special:Diff/1224772352|"wiki warrior"]], and to accuse BM of [[Special:Diff/1224773137|"threatening to have me blocked"]], which never happened. [[Special:Permalink/1224773597#WP:1RR at Israel-Hamas war|Here is that whole discussion]], which took place over the course of 18 minutes, 10:50-11:08 |
|||
:*:::* At 11:17, Ecrusized opened this ANI |
|||
:*:::Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while ''at the same time'' complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like [[Special:Diff/1223777044|"virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias"]] ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year. |
|||
:*:::I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that ''BM's'' behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I ''can'' see how someone who ''didn't'' look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this [[bill of particulars]] out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*::::{{Tq|virtually inexperienced editors}} and {{Tq|heavy Israeli bias}} is strong wording that ''I'' don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn't {{tq|look at this history}} (that is to say, a different user's behavioral history) {{Tq|and think that BM's behavior is problematic}}; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*::::Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*::::Thanks for that @[[User:Levivich|Levivich]]. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::TarnishedPath, "a week old" is not very old at all. Some of us do have lives, and problematic patterns sometimes take a while to become evident; sometimes the decision to let something slide has to be rethought because the behavior worsens. If this had been about an incident from many {{em|months}} ago, I could see the concern (though evidence, when it fits a pattern, is often relevant for {{em|years}}, even if a newer incident is expected as the cause of the report). But "it happened more than 6 days ago so it has magically become unactionable" is not a WP principle. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Unreliable reference work, not engaging with concerns by CoptEgypt136 == |
|||
:I would support an unblocking. He'll be being closely watched anyway and is clearly interested in editing the Cherokee and connected articles, in which he unquestionably has expertise, and states he doesnt want to get involved in wikipedia: type pages, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Did you actually read what he wrote? All that about Citizendium and Conservapedia? This is editing Merkey-style: do what I say or your rivals get the cash instead. This cannot be permitted. Quite apart from all the stuff about trolls, which he seems to define rather loosely. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|CoptEgypt136}} |
|||
:::He has actually said the cash isnt available any more and our rivals are irrelevant, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:No. He does not recognise that he has done anything wrong, quite apart from the rest of the message, which can be briefly summarised as "Let me do whatever I want or you lose out on the money". We can't allow this. It's patent intimidation. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Concur. It's just a varient of a legal threat, and you turn your noses up a them as well. [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I am concerned that CoptEgypt136 is repeatedly inserting content that is either supported by unreliable sources or else entirely original research. I encountered their editing while reviewing the new pages [[Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta]] and [[Our Lady of Maulawin]]; in both cases, after I identified serious reliability issues with their cited sources, they responded only by removing tags ([[Special:Diff/1224816435]], [[Special:Diff/1224816381]]) and otherwise declining to engage. Upon looking to start a discussion on their user talk page, I saw that they have previously deleted but otherwise ignored multiple warnings from {{u|Veverve}} and {{u|Pbritti}} ([[Special:Diff/1165819612]], [[Special:Diff/1179393452]], and additional warnings from Pbritti before then), and that they have yet to actually make a single communicative edit to a Talk page (other than deleting comments or adding WikiProject flags). At this point, unless they decide to finally engage with the community, I think that a CIR block may be needed. It's debatable as to whether I am [[WP:INVOLVED]] here, as my only interaction has been to tag articles for AfD as part of NPP, which is an admin-adjacent task, but I figured it would be best to err on the side of caution and request independent review rather than proceeding to a block. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Also concur. I've been off the wiki for a bit so I'm still not sure I have a clue as to what the hell is going on, but there's nothing in that unblock request. There's a threat and some complaining, but not really anything pertaining to the block or why he should be unblocked. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] <small>([[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|talk]])</small> 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't want to make a snap judgement regarding this most recent set of concerns regarding CoptEgypt136, but I have spent a long time reverting/correcting errors and OR inserted by them. If they have been continuing to do this, I am inclined to support a CIR block that forces them to engage with these issues. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I've been pretty sure that CoptEgypt136 is the latest sock incarnation of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Imanuel Granados|Mark Imanuel Granados]]. I had gotten tired of playing whack-a-mole with his socks both here and over on wikicommons. I had also hoped that maybe he could focus on editing according to policy as opposed to creating socks to keep pushing his edits that had been reverted. I would support a block, but I also do not anticipate this to solve the problem as he will likely just create another sock. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 01:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User: A.Viki Wiki7 == |
|||
:I saw no relevant information in his unblock request. (Hint: relevant information would involve him recognizing where he went wrong and saying he won't do it again.) [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|A.Viki Wiki7}} |
|||
:::Agreed, he continues to argue that the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but "He who has the Gold, Rules". While that probably works elsewhere, it fails miserably when applied to a community based site like WP. He is still angling for special, preferential treatment based on him being a "major donor". Until that changes, there is nothing to discuss [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
User is [[Special:Contributions/A.Viki_Wiki7|disruptively editing numerous pages]], inserting unsourced, often nonsensical or unencyclopedic content, excessive Wikilinks (e.g., to numbers in pages), and what appears to be the unsourced addition of LLM-generated content. Their focus appears to be on islands, mainly the islands of Greenland. User's disruptive behavior has been brought up on their talk page numerous times, including with warning templates, since 12 May by three different editors (myself included). User has acknowledged the warnings, but continues to edit disruptively. The repeated acknowledgement then ignoring of warnings leads me to believe this user is not editing in good faith. |
|||
::::Perhaps we should be debating why exactly he should be blocked not why he should be unbl;ocked, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Disruptive edits include: |
|||
:::::I thought that was pretty much settled, Squeak. For disruption, breaches of CIVIL and AGF. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Uummannaarsuk]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uummannaarsuk&diff=prev&oldid=1224811208 here] |
|||
:::::: To me, it appears as though he's [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick being a dick.] [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Clavering Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clavering_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224610632 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clavering_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224609980 here] |
|||
::<s>I'm inclined to say no at this time. If Jeff had left his point 1 off, I might be more inclined to agree to an unblock, but as [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] succinctly summarized, this would appear to me to be a a thinly veiled attempt by Merkey to buy his way back in and I don't necessarily see a reason to condone that sort of attitude. If he had honestly restricted himself to Cherokee related articles on his return, this would be a different story (the only contact I've ever had with Merkey was well over a year ago on a Cherokee related article and it was not an unpleasant experience despite his reputation). Given his attempts to redefine Wikipedia policy I don't see much value in having him edit right now. IMO, the Foundation can unblock him if they are so inclined. All that said, I don't think the continuation of a block right now should preclude him ever being unblocked. He's been the subject of a fair bit of trolling that appears to be intended to cause just this outcome (i.e. a Merkey block) and I'm not especially happy about the trolls being rewarded as it were.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|||
*[[Disko Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disko_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224458364 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disko_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224457898 here] |
|||
:::Per the clarification he gave on his talkpage, I'm striking my comment. If Jeff voluntarily stayed away from policy/guideline discussions and stuck to article/talkpage edits, I'd have no issue with him being unblocked.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Lynn Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynn_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224456840 here] |
|||
*Concur with all those above. Merkey's answer to wanting to be treated as "a normal editor" is that he'll stop his donations. This shows that he doesn't yet understand that what he donates is completely unrelated to how he's treated. Whether he donates $10M or nothing, if he acts like "a normal editor" he'll be treated as one, and if he acts in ways that require a ban, he'll be banned (and has been). The money is completely unrelated, and the only person who seems to think it's not is Merkey himself. When he recognizes how his actions here crossed the line so many times, and attempts to change that about himself, he'll be allowed back in whether he's still donating money or not. --[[User:Maelwys|Maelwys]] 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Queen Louise Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_Louise_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224384447 here] |
|||
:Personally, I don't see how such a relentlessly arrogant and litigious individual could be a net positive to the project, no matter what he actually brings to it in terms of positive contributions. He clearly does not understand the fundamental mission of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation, and appears to have the sort of sense of entitlement that would get his coffee spat in at the local Starbucks. [[User:Haikupoet|Haikupoet]] 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Chagatai Khanate]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chagatai_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1224181294 here] |
|||
*There is no consensus for the controversial block in the first place. He has knowledge and insight that would benefit the project. It is time to unblock and hopefully the editors who like hounding him will stop or they will find themselves on the wrong end of a block. This block has rewarded the trolls as well as jerks. I say no to the trolls and yes to the unblock. :) - <b><font color="669966">[[User:QuackGuru|Mr.Gurü]]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>[[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/QuackGuru|contribs]]</sub></font>) 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Tasiusaq Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tasiusaq_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224169662 here] |
|||
:*To be clear, did you just pull out the whole "if you're not with us, you're a [terrorist/jerk/troll]" [[False dilemma|thingie]]? That's not particularly conducive to a civilized discussion. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] <small>([[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|talk]])</small> 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Sermitsiaq Island]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sermitsiaq_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1224156170 here] |
|||
::* I wonder if I should be mildly insulted...? [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[United States Virgin Islands]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Virgin_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=1223996548 here] |
|||
:::I say no to the trolls, but I also say no to the unblock. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sounds like an 'if you're not with me, you're against us all' to me. Are we really going to let 'I've got the money, so you all better like me or I won't buy the ice cream' be the new rule for Wikipedia? Would that go under [[WP:WHOWANTSICECREAM]]? Leave him blocked. Legal threats (Indians will shut down WP if yu don't like me), dick moves (I'll take my money elsewhere) and general incivility. Take your money, there's the door, don't let it hit you in the ass, bye bye. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Money for ice cream. What a naive statement as if wikipedia doesnt need continuous money to survive, let alone grow in a fiercely competitive market, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wikipedia needs money to survive. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should grant special privileges to editors that donate. I'd like to see advertisements covering a quarter of each page before that happens. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Whatever Merkey's faults are, your comment is unproductive and needlessly inflammatory. —<tt class="plainlinks">'''[[Special:Contributions/Freakofnurture|freak]]([{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk])'''</tt> 20:53, May. 29, 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Why are we still discussing this? I thought it was old news that Merkey was a troll. Can't we get back to doing something more productive than wiki-jerking over this? [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*I completely agree. Merkey has caused way more than his share of problems and drama. Our integrity is not for sale. --[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm totally behind the block, probably more than the blocker. If he's all lovey-dovey with the Foundation, they can always intervene and unblock him. Until that happens, his outright ridiculous attitude of entitlement is enough justification for me to want to see him stay blocked. [[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] <small>[[User talk:Lexicon|(talk)]]</small> 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Please understand that it is almost certain that Merkey has never contributed '''anything''' to the Foundation. [[User:Ben-w|Ben-w]] 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think this might be a [[WP:CIR]] issue.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
***Indeed, let's focus on editorial contributions rather than financial ones. —<tt class="plainlinks">'''[[Special:Contributions/Freakofnurture|freak]]([{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk])'''</tt> 21:00, May. 29, 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then this might be a [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE]] and/or a troll. |
|||
:::I think they might be a troll because on there userpage, they claim they a #1 of [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count|the list of Wikipedians by articles created]]. Even though they are not even on that list.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
User continues to make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meteorite_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1225055283 unsourced, nonsense edits] to uninhabited islands off Greenland. The continued behavior after all the friendly advice, warnings, and now an ANI leads me to believe this is just strangely targeted vandalism. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Leave Merkey blocked. He obviously doesn't care to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In addition, the threat of cutting off donations if he doesn't get his way also strikes me as a form of legal threat. That said, I'd also block the editors who have been harassing Merkey. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello, I'm A.Wiki Wiki 7. I wish all Wikipedians a good and lucky day. I'm afraid of vandalizing Wikipedia. My edits present the knowledge and skills I have acquired. Thank you. Happy editing! [[User:A.Viki Wiki7|A.Viki Wiki7]] ([[User talk:A.Viki Wiki7|talk]]) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*He's had his second chance, he blew it. I see no reason to give him a third chance. Even if he's only editing the Cherokee articles he's still more than likely to be disruptive in the process. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>''Above comment by A.Viki Wiki7 moved from new section they started at bottom of page.''</small> [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:p-blocked from article space. Not sure it shouldn't have been full, but as long as they don't become disruptive elsewhere, maybe that's sufficient. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Given their own userpage nonsense and their sealioning at various usertalk, I would have full-blocked. But no harm in waiting a bit to see what they do next. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
UPDATE: Looks like this user has created a sockpuppet account [[User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08]]. This user thanked me for an edit where I removed a number of A.Viki Wiki7's comments from my own talk page, account was created immediately after A.Viki Wiki7 was banned, and has a language pattern on strangely similar to the banned user, and is making the same kind of nonsense edits. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Support blocking as stated above. Also protecting his talk page to avoid future disruptions. Its clear this user won't changed and has already caused problems with [[user:Hipocrite|one user]]. [[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>T</b></font>]]<sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk to me]]</sub> 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hm, there are many accounts starting with those 2 words followed by a number, multiple blocked: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=Abduvaitov+Sherzod+&group=&wpsubmit=&wpFormIdentifier=mw-listusers-form&limit=50 Special:ListUsers]. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|talk]]) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It would be a really nice thing if somebody from the Foundation would either verify or deny his claims of $10M in contributions. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Yikes, good catch. That's extremely strange. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Why? Would we unblock him if he donated that much? Can someone buy unblocks now? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It's an xwiki sockfest dating back at least to December. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7]]. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, not at all, and sorry if I didn't make that clear. It would be nice to get a final yea or nay on his claim. If it's a nay, then it's been a lie all the time, if it's a yea, it's still just a "so what?" [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah this is a little out of control. [[User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08]] is now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee&diff=prev&oldid=1225296757 pinging admin talk pages] asking why they got blocked...pretty cut and dry admission of sockpuppetry if you ask me. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought there was a donations listing page... I know I found my name on there when I made my donation (back during the last donation drive). I agree that it's a moot point, though. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Pretty sure there are more, there's overlap through UZ Wiki history (first article the 08 sock edited there) for names like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=A.Sherzod+&group=&wpsubmit=&wpFormIdentifier=mw-listusers-form&limit=50 A.Sherzod _] and multiple combinations of A. (short for Abduvaitov?), Sherzod, Wiki, Viki (short for Vikipediya, Uzbek for Wikipedia) and some number or other. |
|||
:Here is Jeffrey's response to this thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&curid=11027902&diff=134417730&oldid=134416660], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::There's also this account which is globally locked and was blocked along with some related accounts at UZ Wiki: [[Special:Contribs/Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi|Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi]] (unless Sherzod is some sort of meme, it seems like there's a connection: [[Special:Diff/1176560934|diff]]). |
|||
::Hopefully a checkuser finds most of the relevant ones. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985|2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985|talk]]) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If anyone has any additional accounts with evidence of being part of this sock set, please add to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7]]. CUs will be looking there in due time and that's also the place anyone else will be looking in the future to help keep track of this set. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit warring on ship-related articles == |
|||
:: I like how the first additional response is "leaving aside the fact that I am a MAJOR contributor" and then the next is basically "Now let me tell you as a contributor.." - he's still trying a hold-up. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah. He's an ''anonymous'' contributor. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Userlinks|Merzostin}} <br> |
|||
::There appears to be some confusion in his response. From my observations, which I admit are limited compared to most others, the problem wasn't that he was a good editor who received bad feedback after making claims about his donations. The problem was that he tried to justify disruptive edits with the fact that he made donations. Taking away his donations doesn't solve everything, because he still doesn't seem to be admitting that any of his edits were disruptive. Yes, there are trolls here that should be banned as soon as we can find them because their only purpose on Wikipedia is to harass him. No, their harassing behavior does not justify much of his behavior. alanyst's request may seem somewhat extreme, but other than the point about being banned immediately, they are all standards which should be met by ''every'' editor. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Userlinks|Obsidian Soul}} <br> |
|||
{{Pagelinks|Djong}} <br> |
|||
{{Pagelinks|Junk (ship)}} |
|||
Hi. There is an ongoing edit war on the articles I've linked above, primarily between Merzostin and Obsidian Soul. Both editors have warned each other, yet continued with the reverts. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. <small>(I didn't post at [[WP:ANEW]] because I wasn't sure whether I could, as I'm not directly involved in this, sorry if I should have posted there)</small> <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The argument for blocking is the likelihood, based on past experience, of continuing disruption. I see two arguments for unblocking: first, organized harassment should not be allowed to be a factor in driving anyone from the project; second, if his work is likely to improve the encyclopedia, then it's better to have him editing than not. Ignoring all the stuff that has little to do with the project, he says he wants to edit articles in an area I know nothing about, and that he will follow policy while he does it. If others who do know about native American history support unblocking him, I would not object. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::But he also says he refuses to be limited as to what and how he edits. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Not just those two articles. He also removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%27un-lun_po&diff=1221248349&oldid=1217421049 a large portion of sourced content on K'un-lun po]. [[Talk:Junk_(ship)#Reverts|I have already tried talking to him]]. His removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation" and "disruptive editing" motivated by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junk_%28ship%29&diff=1220063539&oldid=1219985485 nationalism] in complete disregard to sources. -- <small>[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">OBSIDIAN</span>]]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">SOUL</span>]]</small> 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Please leave this alone for now. I am talking to Mr. Merkey and to others. These debates add fuel to the flames, I'm afraid. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:ANEW]] is indeed the right place for reports of edit warring violations, even filed as an uninvolved party. Although short of highly contentious topics, I don't believe action is typically taken until [[WP:3RR|3RR]] is broken, which Merzostin seems to have done on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junk_%28ship%29&action=history Junk (ship)]. [[User:GabberFlasted|GabberFlasted]] ([[User talk:GabberFlasted|talk]]) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Any editors who want to know about donations should go to [[foundation:Benefactors]] and read for themselves, rather than speculating. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This editors have made a lot of reverts based on nothing literally, he didn't check the arguments neither did he check the sources, his reverts is definitely disruptive motivated by nationalism or bias towards other ethnicity. |
|||
:Anyhow this users adhered to a certain biased agenda, as his edits contained double standard, for example he said that Chinese sources are not reliable and should be removed from [[Junk (ship)]], that they might exaggerate the size of ships but at the same on the Djong, he provided the same "unreliable" Chinese sources as fact on [[Djong]] page because the Chinese apparently describe a large ships of the Southeast asian from 3rd century, i guess they are reliable now and they didn't exaggerate ''this'' size of the ship. |
|||
:he did this a lot, which showed his real intention in downplaying one ethnicity over the other. [[User:Merzostin|Merzostin]] ([[User talk:Merzostin|talk]]) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I am not Indonesian.-- <small>[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">OBSIDIAN</span>]]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">SOUL</span>]]</small> 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::who said that you are? "downplaying one ethnicity over the other" you don't have to be of that ethnicity of the main article to downplay other ethnicity. While i am Indonesian and i hate misinformation and disinformation in general, especially regarding my own country and culture. [[User:Merzostin|Merzostin]] ([[User talk:Merzostin|talk]]) 17:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I said [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources including direct quotes from Chinese historical texts (many of them legendary, like your texts from pre-Han China) are not reliable, can not be taken literally, and need to be filtered through a reliable secondary source. That is not "downplaying" anything. Mentioning that the terms "junk"/"junco"/"juanga", etc. originally applied to Southeast Asian ships per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing quotes from medieval travelers who are describing Southeast Asian (not Chinese) ships again, per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing irrelevant sections on legendary naval battles in ancient China that did not involve junks, is not "downplaying" anything. Expanding and clarifying foreign and Chinese maritime trade from the Han to the Ming dynasty, is not "downplaying" anything. Correcting the actual characteristics that define a Chinese junk (and how it differs from the Southeast Asian ships) per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. -- <small>[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">OBSIDIAN</span>]]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:gray;">SOUL</span>]]</small> 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}I fully protected this page by way of RfPP ([[special:diff/1224996220|diff]]) while unaware of this thread. But [[User:Merzostin|Merzostin]], your approach suffers from excess [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], which you need to tone down. Above, [[User:Obsidian Soul|Obsidian Soul]] made cogent points regarding the reliability and veracity of certain sources, expressed in a matter-of-fact tone. If you disagree, you need to likewise tone it accordingly. That is to say, in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]; in a dispassionate and scholarly and civil manner. This, then, is a <u>formal warning</u> that if you choose to continue engaging the content dispute/s, you need to fulfil that. No more [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] about {{tq|''underlying ethnocentrism''}} ([[special:diff/1220063539|diff]]), and so on. Otherwise, you risk sanctions that, in one way or another, may remove you from the page/s in question. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Yoyo360]] Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin == |
|||
:* The advice to avoid speculation is sound. It is not that simple. And while we're on the subject, let's not follow ED down the "we need more IRL moneys NOW!" route, get those PayPal accounts buzzing :-) <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
User:Yoyo360 is not adhering to page restrictions after having been warned by an administrator. |
|||
Warning by administrator |
|||
== [[User:Lions3639]] == |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoyo360&diff=next&oldid=1224563846] |
|||
Edits in violation |
|||
<s>Above Endroit mentioned the recent RFCU which confirmed [[User:Davidpdx]] as a puppetmaster and was discussing additional possibilities for checkuser at the vote. I presume that the puppets will be blocked, but wonder if there should also be some action against the puppetmaster in this case. In additional to vote fraud (with his socks) he attempted a disruption of the RM poll by canvassing literally millions of people by writing an article for a [[Chosun Ilbo|major Korean newspaper]] which concluded with a sentence about how to vote in the poll, picked up later by major Korean portals and Yahoo news Korea. The talk page itself required semi-protection, required a great deal of clean-up effort, and turned the already controversial proposal into a downright mess.</s> |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224940843] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224918695] |
|||
Intention to ignore and violate the restrictions |
|||
We know this user is the one who made the article because he created a sock with the name of the article author before the news went to print and voted again in the poll. There are few worse examples typifying disruption on Wikipedia. |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoyo360&diff=prev&oldid=1224960648 edit description sets out intention to ignore admin warning and page restrictions] |
|||
[[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If someone feels this is too similar to Endroit's post on the subject delete or merge it; it seems Endroit is asking for discussion on checking the users in the poll (as well as blocking Davidpdx's socks). My question is about Davidpdx himself, and is specifically about not only the violation of sockpuppetry but advertising to/canvassing a nation of people. --Cheers, [[User:Komdori|Komdori]] 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed, [[User:Komdori|Komdori]] describes a very serious incident and I humbly ask that administrators take strong action here. If this is true, it is clearly a serious situation when a professional journalist posing as a Wikipedia editor engages in such malfeasance. [[User:Mumun man|Mumun 無文]] 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Here is the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lions3639|checkuser]]. --[[User:AnonGuy|əˈnon]][[User talk:AnonGuy|gahy]] [[Special:Contributions/AnonGuy|♫Look What I've Done!♫]] 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think I'd need a clarification to determine whether this is at all actionable. It seems that after being cautioned Yoyo360 did not, in fact, edit in article space and, instead, edited at article talk. Is the 500 edit restriction relevant to participation at article talk or is it only relevant to article space edits? Tagging {{ping|Acroterion}} as the admin who issued the warning in question. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: Since Davidpdx is now unlikely instead of confirmed, this problem largely goes away (although that is some extreme incivility when you tell editors "you will pay for this" and "I you to hang", I guess having been found guilty by checkuser when you're not might prompt some to being upset). It might be worth permanently blocking Lions3639 since they obviously are solely a bad faith editor (one edit, that was to kick off the disruption). --Cheers, [[User:Komdori|Komdori]] 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Never mind. I re-read the original caution from Acroterion and it answered my question. Maybe a very short-duration block just as a way of them understanding that their edit history on FR-Wikipedia isn't relevant to these sanctions? The diffs presented don't seem particularly disruptive so I don't think a major action is necessary at this time. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If the topic is under an extendedconfirmed restriction then non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk page. This is not quite that but it's in the spirit IMO. No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am sensing coded language here that somehow Am I prohibited from editing in a way which is not prohibited by others? what on earth do you mean by "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them" It seems that there is a failure by the people to stop going after me as I and admin asked for a group of people to not comment on my talk page and that was ignored. This seems to be a way of going PP666 stop doing what are normal editing practices. Are you accusing me of harassment? [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Apostrophe]] disruption == |
|||
::::The wording of the warning is clear and I do not get the oblique comments above about what was said regarding "stop bothering them".[[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I see that the wording of the notice was not optimal. Acroterion has already been pinged, but I'll remind everyone here that, per [[WP:ARBECR]], {{green|Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make [[WP:EDITXY|edit requests]] related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.}} I interpret the two edits you linked to as making an edit request, although they did not use the template to request it but [[WP:NOTBURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]; [[WP:IAR]] applies. Other admins reviewing might disagree with my interpretation, I'm just going to leave it at that. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Please see this revert from an admin which this report is a follow up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224560856] |
|||
::::::Can this edit then be looked into as to if it was correct as it seems to have caused confusion. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This is a tempest in a teapot, I just reminded an editor that the talkpage is under editing restrictions. They are free to make appropriate edit requests, but not to generally opine. Since this is a confusing area for restrictions, there's no reason to be draconian unless there's significant problematic behavior, we just need to remind people. Wikipedia isn't a court or a bureaucracy. PP666, I don't see anything that merits more than what was done, different language WPs handle things differently, and it takes some getting used to. This isn't about you. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Seeing as my edits are being discussed I will chime in and say that I do find this a bit confusing. My edits (the deleted ones highlighted above) were intended to be edit requests, so with the above taken into account I'm now not sure why they were deleted. I won't kick up a fuss about those specific edits because the issue they refer to was resolved, but clarification on what is/what isn't allowed would be useful in this area. For instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224958813 PP666 is currently policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus'] based on this deletion, but it's hard to tell where "edit requesting" and "consensus making" draws a line. If edit requests are allowed but opining isn't, then it sounds like I would be allowed to suggest an edit, but just not publically agree with someone else who suggests an edit? Is that correct? I just want to know what's expected here because there seems to be several different interpretations here [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::My ''personal opinion'' is that the Arbitration Committee did not sufficiently clarify in their decision regarding edit requests, and so in the limited instances where I do enforce the sanction (because I think it's very badly overused) I interpret their decision as allowing any talk page comment which suggests an improvement to the article, but disallowing general discussion and conversations with other editors, though I usually let those slide as well as long as they're not disruptive. Many other admins will interpret this as meaning that only properly formatted [[WP:EDITREQUEST|edit requests]] using the {{tl|edit extended-protected}} template may be considered and will remove any other edit; I feel that's [[WP:NOTBURO|bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake]]. Still others will indiscriminately remove any edit by a non-EC editor, which is clearly wrong but it still happens. In shorter words: Arbcom left too much space for interpretation, and so it depends on which admins see your edit. If you are proposing an improvement to the article then you ''should be fine'', but some admins have harder asses. I believe it to be unfair, but that's what we've been given. If you think an admin is removing comments inappropriately, you can ask for a review at [[WP:AARV]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I'm pretty much in agreement with Ivanvector. It's a question of drawing a line between chat and specific suggestions for article improvement (''sans'' editorializing), and it's sometimes hard to discern where that is. For this kind of thing, I would prefer a fairly format edit proposal, rather than an extended commentary, since that tends to lead to trouble. I really meant to remind everyone in general to maintain decorum. Bugghost has 120 edits, which is a little scanty for contentious areas, so I just want them to think carefully before commenting in areas where restrictions exist, however fuzzily defined. As I've noted before, the Eurovision contest is a strange place to see restrictions like that, so editors may need more guidance than would be the case than if it were plainly within a contentious topic. . '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm involved in this content dispute, so I shouldn't use any admin tools myself, but... |
|||
::::::::::Ok, thanks to both of you for more clarification on the topic. I won't be going to AARV because I understand that the scenario is nuanced and I think Acroterion is being reasonable. As a side request, if someone possibly reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224958813 this comment] to refer to this discussion or a summary of it? At the moment I think it is misrepresenting what you two are saying. I did it myself but realised that me doing that would ironically probably actually be against the rules that we're talking about, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=1224998014&oldid=1224995049 so decided to self-revert it] for my own peace of mind. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 19:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Please with draw your comments of ‘policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus'’ as that is unhelpful to this discussion. I could say the same about people trying push me off the page for having an opposing viewpoint (I’m not it’s an example of what I could say). That though is not helpful. Perhaps take the invective out and we’ll all get along better. Yes this is contentious but don’t let it eat you. I don’t think inflammatory language helps anyone. |
|||
:::::::::As has been said the Arbcom decision is ambitious let’s focus on that and not go after each others throats with barbs and alike. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'm pretty sure "policing" is the correct term here, and it's not invective. You are taking the interpretation of the rules and attempting to enforce it on the public, which is the definition of "policing". I don't feel like squabbling over terms or causing a derailment. This AN/I doesn't strictly involve me, so I'll be going now. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::You may consider it correct but it is inflammatory and unhelpful to furthering the positive moving on by all. If you do not wish to withdraw it then I will know the colour of the person I am talking to. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Demanding apologies for every minor infraction does not seem to me to be in the interest of "furthering the positive". You may be interested in reading the essay [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::@PP666, appointing yourself as moderator of that that talkpage and posting your interpretation of policy/consensus on what restrictions imply is a bad idea. We're trying to do this with a light touch. Please revert your notes on who can and cannot post. You are not an uninvolved party. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::This is done but the irony of your comments is not lost on me. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::For the record, this wasn't done. The posts weren't reverted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225009089 they were simply wikicommented out] and your instructions still sit uncorrected and visible to other editors of the talkpage, just slightly obscured. Commenting-out is not the same as deleting and I don't think it should be used in this way. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 10:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{OD}}Having read the guidelines on talk pages the guidelines frown upon deletion. I don’t think a strike through is a good idea as the comments themself are still visible. I did though remove them from being viewable. This way content is not deleted as the guideline frowns upon that and the inflaming content is not viewable. The relevant section is [[WP:TPO]] of [[WP:TALK]]. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 13:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::For wider context, this is part of a longer set of contentious discussions where there are claims of consensus and there have been quite ugly comments on a lot of sides this user included. Would you like me to provide diffs relating to that? [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Restricting participation in talks due to edit number is absolutely ridiculous, especially in regards to the fact that, if we were to discard sections launched by contributors with less than 500 edits, we would discard all edit requests from these editors. And they may be pertinent. Also discarding an opinion based on a number is ridiculous. As for my wiki:fr edit number, I mostly bring it up because I am actually more experimented on wiki than my count edit here lets know and I feel infantilized by PP666. I just try to collaborate here because the corresponding project in French isn't active and I like to have opinions from other editors. Block me if you think that is necessary and that my actions are disruptive but I think, once again, that blocking edits on a talk page is ridiculous and counter effective. [[User:Yoyo360|Yoyo360]] ([[User talk:Yoyo360|talk]]) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, it's ridiculous and stupid, but [[WP:ARBECR|that is the rule]]. Anyway, you are now extendedconfirmed, so this thread is moot. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thank you for your leniency. And with my apologies if my behaviour was incorrect. Maybe I don't have the subtleties of wiki:en yet. [[User:Yoyo360|Yoyo360]] ([[User talk:Yoyo360|talk]]) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It's more a matter of giving you the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation. I don't think your behavior is a matter of concern, it's more a general concern that the talkpage discussions remain within boundaries. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to double check, you're using WP:TPO, the section titled ''"Editing others' comments"'', as the reasoning for not being able to remove ''your own'' comments? [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This seems futile now and I am disengaging. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Related question==== |
|||
{{user5|Apostrophe}} who is a long-term editor in apparent good standing has decided for no apparent good reason to ignore discussion or consensus building after I objected to and reverted pending discussion some merges he BOLDly made. He has now reverted the merges back in 3 times on each of two pages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=prev&oldid=134381100] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&action=history Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dauntless_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=prev&oldid=134381015] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dauntless_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&action=history Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean)], and twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interceptor_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=134276636&oldid=134238164] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interceptor_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&action=history Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean)]. I believe that multiply reverting to an un-discussed merge and refusing to discuss it in favor of just redoing it is disruption, and it's clearly in violation of [[WP:MERGE]] (''"Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. |
|||
Can I get an admin opinion on this question/request by a new user on the talk page [[Talk:Eurovision_Song Contest 2024#Revert needed]][[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PicturePerfect666|contribs]]) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages."''). |
|||
:There doesn't seem to be anything in the disputed content that warrants mandatory removal (i.e. [[WP:BLP]] violations), and otherwise edit warring is forbidden, including edit warring over whether or not certain content should or should not be visible while being discussed on the talk page. In other words there is no particular policy or guideline compelling keeping it in nor keeping it out, the important thing is to discuss. Your suggestion to take it to dispute resolution is a good one, but say what your issues are with the content itself, don't just argue about keeping or not keeping it in the meantime. If someone else has restored the content after you removed it, let them, and keep discussing. There's no rush. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Noted and thank you for the suggestion. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[Special:Diff/1225071062|Welp, so much for that idea]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I’m off to the teahouse now see what they say. Also thank you for the close in the discussion. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User: NKing1313 == |
|||
I would violate 3RR to revert anymore and I shouldn't make admin decisions regarding someone I'm in a disagreement with. I would like to request uninvolved admin attention... Thanks. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{atop|NKing1313 [[User talk:NKing1313#Indefinite partial block|partially indeffed]]. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> - [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Can something please be done with this editor?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NKing1313] He keeps making changes to actress [[Allison McAtee]] article without any sources to back up his changes. Twice now he's reverted info I've added which is sourced[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allison_McAtee&diff=prev&oldid=1224883583][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allison_McAtee&diff=prev&oldid=1224985805] claiming it to be misinformation. I don't want to end up violating the three-revert rule. |
|||
He's been doing this for sometime now. I've warned him and another editor warned him a couple months ago. But he's obviously ignoring them. I've looked at his editing history and the account was made in 2018 and the only edits he's ever made were changing or removing dates on that article. So this may be [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Addendum: I'm perfectly happy for there to be a merge proposal and discussion, and if I wasn't at 3RR I'd put the articles back with mergeto tags as appropriate, etc. (I probably should have earlier) But that's a grey area when treading on the edge of 3RR, so I would rather someone else review and do so if you feel it's appropriate. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would suggest a partial block from the article (or all of mainspace - it would be equivalent in this case) until the editor (who, as far as I can tell, is at least as likely to be a "she" as a "he") explains things on the article talk page. I'll start a section for them to do so in a moment. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{an3|b|indef}} '''([[WP:PB|partial]])''': [[User talk:NKing1313#Indefinite partial block]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== [[User:GamerHashaam]] == |
|||
*I've notified Mr. Apostrophe of his involvement in this incident board. --[[User:AnonGuy|əˈnon]][[User talk:AnonGuy|gahy]] [[Special:Contributions/AnonGuy|♫Look What I've Done!♫]] 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
** Ah, good. I should'a done that. My bad. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A user, named GamerHashaam has been conducting a series of disruptive edits on the [[Third Balochistan conflict]]. He, with no sources or talk page interaction, changed the results of the conflict to “Baluchi victory”. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Balochistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1224919356&title=Third_Balochistan_conflict&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] When I reverted it and told him to take it to the talk page, he threw what seemed to be a tantrum, calling me a “bootlicker” and a “faujeet” (a merge of Fauj, which means army, and “pajeet”, which is a racist term for Indians.). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Balochistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1225021291&title=Talk%3AThird_Balochistan_conflict&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>]. |
|||
Are the pages being reverted because there was no discussion or because people disagree with the information being merged? If it's the latter, that seems fine; a discussion should happen. But if you're just reverting just "because there was no discussion", that makes little sense. It's doing no more than forcing unneeded discussion. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Yeah, I don't get it - the only reason for opposing the merge is due to it being an "undiscussed merge". That's not exactly compelling. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**I've made it clear to Apostrophe that I object to the merge; I'm happy for a discussion to conclude to merge anyways, but I'm not ok with him just merging over my objections and requests to discuss it. I'm not wonking this insisting that he just discuss it to check some boxes on a form somewhere that procedure was followed; if there was no objection, [[WP:BOLD]] would be fine here as elsewhere, but that has to give way to process when there are objections. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***It really doesn't look that way. It just seems that the whole thing is based upon if discussions always are required on "controversial" mergers or not. I see no comments like "the information is important" or "it can be brought up to standards." The merger isn't automatically controversial with just "discussion is required" messages because they're often just used to stall or wikilawyer. I'm sorry if I missed a comment that did express actual desire to keep them. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****This got somewhat legalistic sort of quickly because he initially didn't even believe we had a merge process documented anywhere. If in that discussion I didn't clearly enough communicate that yes, I object to the actual changes, then let me do so here and now. No, I don't want articles redirected; I believe the merges are bad for the Encyclopedia. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You received uninvolved administrator attention at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined]]. However, it isn't an answer that you liked. The issue got legalistic because ''you'' were wikilawyering, not [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]]. You've abused the vandalism rollback tool several times in an edit war; you have threatened to abuse more administrator tools; and your logic here is entirely circular. This is explained in detail at the aforementioned noticeboard section. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*There appears to be a pattern of people focusing on the wikilawyer issues, which the argument with Apostrophe clearly degenerated into. However, as I have said, and will say again: Yes, I do have a content dispute with doing the merges. Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. If I have not effectively communicated all of this then that's my fault, but the situation remains that he's trying to bulldoze merges through against opposition without discussion. Even if there wasn't a policy document on the subject, that's against other general policy.<p>I have not intended to abusively rollback, and wasn't aware that I'd used it more than the one goof I knew of last night. If anyone wants to pursue the issue feel free to; the record is whatever it is. I don't think rollback versus undo makes any difference to the end result on those edits.<p>It's apparent that there have been communications breakdowns in this, in addition to the root problem. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**''Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process.'' — You opposed ''solely on the grounds that he didn't follow process'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AApostrophe&diff=134357845&oldid=134059780 same diffs as before]) and created a wholly [[Franz Kafka|Kafkaesque]] set of hoops for an editor to jump through for no real reason.<p>[[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] performs a bold merger. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apostrophe&diff=prev&oldid=134225492 state that you are reverting because xe hasn't followed procedure], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=prev&oldid=134225857 revert]. Xe [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&diff=prev&oldid=134230625 asks that you do not revert simply because some process hasn't been followed] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=next&oldid=134225857 reverts]. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apostrophe&diff=prev&oldid=134237833 point to WP:MERGE] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=prev&oldid=134238115 revert again]. Xe points out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&diff=prev&oldid=134276491 that you weren't actually supported by what you are pointing to], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endeavour_%28Pirates_of_the_Caribbean%29&diff=prev&oldid=134276661 reverts].<p>Characterizing this as [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] trying to bulldoze things through without discussion, when xe plainly ''has'' discussed this with you, on your talk page, is wrong. The problem here is not xem. You've been beating [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] over the head with rules, yet ''you have still to articulate any concrete objection to the merger'', in the several places that you've now discussed this, apart from the fact that ''it didn't follow a process that it isn't required to follow''. Your circular logic continues to be that the merger must be discussed because it was objected to, it was objected to solely because it didn't follow a process, and it didn't follow a process because it wasn't discussed. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***I did not oppose soley on the grounds that s/he isn't following process. I oppose because the merges are bad, taking large contentful referenced pages on a topic of high interest and turning them into small unreferenced uninteresting sections in a collection page. The articles were not stubs, were not bad articles, and should not be merged. The whole policy thing has become a red herring. It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy, put Merge tags on the articles and discuss on the talk pages as they are required to do if they want to push a merge against opposition. But I am not opposing because the policy was not being followed. I understand that I may not have communicated that effectively last night. I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. If it was unclear previously it should have been clear since then. Please knock it off. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****''It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy'' — Once again: '''[[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] was not disruptive, and was not "refusing to follow the policy".''' Your continued mis-characterization of the other editor in your dispute, over and over again here, is part of the problem. And yes, you ''were'' objecting solely because the process was not followed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AApostrophe&diff=134357845&oldid=134059780 You ''said exactly that'', several times over].<p>And I see that you are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apostrophe&diff=134433998&oldid=134412106 still], despite what we've told you here, mis-characterizing this as [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] not discussing this, when (see diffs above) xe did discuss this with you, on your talk page, explaining why you are wrong — the very same explanation that you've had here from me and others. If the "policy thing" is a red herring, it is one that is entirely of your own making, when you resorted to wikilawyering. Yet, despite your assertion that it is a red herring, you are ''still'' beating the editor over the head with assertions of "improper process" and failure to follow policy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it here. You don't get to claim that it's a red herring that is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst you are still using it as a club to beat the editor with. '''Please stop beating the editor over the head. Xe isn't the one who is in the wrong here.''' The person who needs to knock things off is ''you''.<p>''I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge.'' — Because they aren't clear statements of a concrete objection. You simply said that you objected to the merger, because it was "bad", as if that were enough. We already knew that you objected, and that the reason that you thought that it was "bad" was because xe, in your own words, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apostrophe&diff=prev&oldid=134225492 "merged a bunch of POTC ship articles in to a single "minor characters" article without any discussion on the article talk pages"]. Saying "I object because the merges are bad" does not magically turn your prior objection into a concrete one. It doesn't clarify a thing. What you have just written is the ''first time in any discussion'', on your talk page, on [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]]'s talk page, on either of the places on the Administrators' noticeboard that you've brought this up, and on the talk page of [[WP:MERGE]], that you have actually articulated anything like a concrete objection.<p>As for your objection, quite what makes you think that [[Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean)]], an article with zero citations and that had been marked as lacking cited sources since April 2007, is "referenced", or that the "large" articles were turned into "small" sections, when [[List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean#Endeavour]] is ''word-for-word identical'' with the prior content of the merged article and contains everything that the article did (and even a few things extra), is mystifying. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*****Endeavour is the weakest of the articles, arguably. The strongest that s/he zapped was [[Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean)]], which is a much bigger and better article, and is also the one that another editor has undone the last redirect on. If you think that the weaker ones should get merged, then argue it on the talk pages. When Apostrophe merged the Interceptor article, less than half the content ended up on the merged article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean&diff=next&oldid=134041279]. This is the strongest case for not merging. I objected to the whole series of merges, but perhaps some will stand up on community review. Cherry-picking the weakest of the merges objected to, as opposed to reviewing all of them and noting which one someone ''else'' had also reverted and restored, is not being helpful. |
|||
*****In circular logic, what goes around comes around. Your own arguments turned circular a while ago. I've been attempting to clarify that I have content objections to the merges, and separate policy objections to the procedure followed in response to those objections. Whether I communicated well last night / this morning or not, I think that the cards have all been on the table for some time. It is factually true that I object to the content of the merges - the Interceptor article at least should be separate, and probably the others, from a content point of view. It is factually true that [[WP:MERGE]] says that if a merge is opposed, the merge proposer is to place the tags and talk about it on the talk pages. It is factually true that Apostrophe refused to believe that there was a WP:MERGE policy when initially confronted, re-merged several times after objectiosn and reverts, and has not placed merge proposal tags on articles or started discussions on article talk pages. |
|||
*****Regardless of earlier communications difficulties, which may well be my fault, Apostrophe has not followed policies s/he is now aware of, regarding objections s/he is now aware of. Assuming good faith, the communications failure earlier can explain their initial actions. They have not fixed what they did, however. Per policy, the burden of initiating merge discussions was theirs, and they didn't do that to date. |
|||
*****Another editor has un-merged the Interceptor article. Tomorrow midday, I am going to unmerge the other two if Apostrophe or someone else doesn't first, apply the MERGETO / MERGEFROM tags as appropriate, and initiate talk page discussions. I have no objection to anyone else going first; I'm going to wait well past 24 hrs from the start of all this to avoid 3RR technical objections if I have to be the one to do it. The community can consensus on whatever result it ends up with on the article talk pages. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
******Uncle G has it right. There is no such thing as a "merge out of process". I would suggest you take a step down from this bureaucratic approach. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Uncle G is correct in every count, and articulates it better than I did. If you had simply provided reasoning beyond "this is out of process" (which is nonexistent), as you finally did today, I would have left the matter alone. I'm male, by the way. =) [[User:Apostrophe|<b>'</b>]] 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have constantly attempted to make him use the talk page for a civilised conversation as seen from my edit summaries, and issued him warnings on his talk page, but it doesn’t seem to make him act any more civil. Even accusing me of being an asset of the Pakistani military, accusing me of spreading “bullshit” and accusing me of being a captain in the Pakistani army. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerHashaam&diff=prev&oldid=1225026058&title=User_talk%3AGamerHashaam&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>] |
|||
== {{user|Matthew}} blocked for running an unapproved bot == |
|||
I tried to keep an open mind, but he simply wants to engage in insults and bad rhetoric. I eventually found out that the result I was reverting to (Pakistani victory) had no basis, so I had reverted it to the “ceasefire” result it always had before, I even apologised to him and said I hoped that this would be a fair compromise. But to no avail, he constantly puts it as a “Baluchi victory” despite no sources, and even has the audacity to tell me to use the talk page, when he has been editing the result without the consultation of the talk page, and only eventually using it to insult me. |
|||
Just a quick note, I've been asked by Phil to leave a note here about Matthew who in addition to the above concerns, has now been found to be using an unapproved bot on his main account, editing at speeds in excess of 10 edits per minute. The block is for 24 hours. Hope this is acceptable to all. I must point out I've not looked into why/what Matthew was actually editing, I'm simply reporting the block. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
What’s even more suspicious, is that an IP created the same exact edit to the result parameter he did, only 9 minutes before. I’m not sure if this was merely an accident, but I’d just thought to mention it anyway.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Balochistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1224918564&title=Third_Balochistan_conflict&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>] |
|||
: Ah, I was wondering about that. I had meant to ask why his edits were coming in so fast in those long runs. Perhaps it will scale the problem back a bit if he has to go on foot. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This isn’t the only page, he edited the casualties on the [[2024 Azad Kashmir demonstrations]] and simply stated “per local sources”, with no citations and links. And even when it was reverted, he simply re-inserted it back. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Azad_Kashmir_demonstrations&diff=prev&oldid=1223869268&title=2024_Azad_Kashmir_demonstrations&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[5]</nowiki>] |
|||
::He told me about the bot beforehand on MSN, but only that it was a regex bot, written in [[Perl]]. He did explain the edits ([[User:Matthew/tv.com]]), though, but I think it was foolish running an unapproved bot. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[Flying the Flag (for You)|We're flying the flag]] [[User talk:Sceptre|all over the world]])</sup> 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In summary, I have attempted to rectify the issue, even apologising to him for my mistake.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Balochistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1225029095&title=Talk%3AThird_Balochistan_conflict&diffonly=1 <nowiki>[6]</nowiki>] |
|||
:::It was an unapproved bot, and it was running on his main account instead of a bot account. The edit summaries didn't even note it was a bot. It was very, very bad bot usage, and something that required immediate action as the bot was still running. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I urge the administrators to take action against GamerHashaam, he has been disruptively editing and extremely insulting and uncivil. His disruptive editing is still on the Third Balochistan conflict page, as I do not want to continue an edit war. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Actually to be accurate, it seems the bot finished about 9 minutes before Matthew was blocked, not that it really matters. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I note he has been unblocked already, and he has told me he will not be botting again soon and will seek BAG approval first. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I apologize to you of any ill behavior but I thought that you were promoting the narrative by the state as a military handle of ISPR but I recognize that claim is bogus without evidence so I apologize for that. I changed it to a Baluch Victory with some more edits such as changing baluchis to baluchs as baluchis is used by only punjabi people in pakistan as they tend to use a "i" with "s" to pronounce plural of ethnic groups or peoples. |
|||
== Vandalism only account == |
|||
:I changed it to a baluch victory as I clearly defined that the demands of the Baluch had been accepted by the government as even in the article original state it mentions that yahya sued for negotiations and reverted the one unit scheme aswell gave a general amnesty not to mention releasing all captured insurgents. [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Clearly defined without a source. [[User:48JCL|48JCL]] ([[User_talk:48JCL|talk]]) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297949740_The_resurgence_of_baluch_ethnicity_and_nationalism_in_Baluchistan?enrichId=rgreq-7b34a998ca96ef754c3352b1de0972d1-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Nzk0OTc0MDtBUzo1MzY5NTQ1Nzc5NzMyNTRAMTUwNTAzMTM1NTgzMg%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf |
|||
:::This is one source I citate for the research, Its from Multan Zakariya University. [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:RESEARCHGATE]] ResearchGate is not reliable according to Wikipedia. [[User:48JCL|48JCL]] ([[User_talk:48JCL|talk]]) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::He (VirtualVagabond) continued to make the claim that the rebels wanted Independence or sucession from Pakistan and provided no sources or citations for such claims and as per the demands, we have of the rebels , nearly all were fullfilled. thus I saw it to edit it into a baluch victory from a ceasefire or pakistani victory. [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The military dictator [[Yahya Khan|General Yahya Khan]] sued for a [[Ceasefire|cease-fire]] with the [[Parrari|Pararis]]. In spite of their recognition of a cease-fire, the [[Parrari|Pararis]] were persuaded a [[1970s operation in Balochistan|revitalization of hostilities]] with Islamabad was only a matter of time. The [[Parrari|Pararis]] upheld their [[Partisan (military)|guerrilla forces]] unharmed and enlarged their reach, powers and numbers after the 1969 cease-fire. In certain areas, they were capable to run a [[Parallel state|virtual parallel government]]. [[Yahya Khan|General Yahya Khan]] broke up of One Unit on July 1, 1970 and Baluchistan for the first time became a full-fledged province. But no attempt was done to take the internal administration of the province in line with those of other provinces. The general elections were held under the [[One Unit Scheme|Legal Frame Work Order in December 1970]] for the first time in the history of Pakistan and the result of the [[1970 Pakistani general election|1970 elections]] unleashed a whole set of new and [[1970 Balochistan Provincial Assembly election|contradictory forces]] into the political agenda. |
|||
::::::here's the text |
|||
::::::We need to verify it in a journal |
|||
::::::ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of [[Wikipedia:UGC|user-generated]] publications, including [[preprints]]. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a [[Wikipedia:SPS|self-published source]]. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed [[academic journal]]; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an [[open access]] link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I agree it was a ceasefire, which I had inserted. On the other hand, nothing says about a full-fledged Balochi victory. |
|||
:::::::It doesn’t matter about your claims about ResearchGate doing “fact checking” or whatever. Wikipedia policy deems it as unreliable, through and through. It even states that it does not do fact checking on [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ResearchGate WP:RESEARCHGATE], and states it as a “self-published source.” [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::'''yes a self published source although we can find a factual journal on a other site for it.''' |
|||
::::::::'''Second I didn't say it was a full-fledged baloch victory rather a simple baloch victory due to there demands being accepted for which we can find other sources in the article other then me as listed below:''' |
|||
::::::::[[Third Balochistan conflict#Insurgency]] |
|||
::::::::[[Sher Mohammad Marri|Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri]] led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare from 1963 to 1969 by creating their own insurgent bases. '''Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the [[Sui gas fields]] with the tribal leaders and lifting of [[One Unit Scheme]].''' The insurgents bombed railway tracks and [[Ambush|ambushed]] [[Convoy|convoys]] and [[Raid (military)|raided]] on [[Cantonment (Pakistan)|military camps]]. |
|||
::::::::[[Third Balochistan conflict#Military response]] |
|||
::::::::This insurgency ended in 1969, with the '''Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire granting general amnesty to the separatists as well as freeing the separatists'''. In '''<u>1970 Pakistani President [[Yahya Khan]] abolished the "[[One Unit Scheme|One Unit]]" policy, which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan),</u>''' including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and [[Gwadar]], an 800 km<sup>2</sup> coastal area purchased from [[Oman]] by the Pakistani government. |
|||
::::::::'''Also I humbly require you to use proper pronoun for the balochs not balochi as balochi is the language not the people.''' [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::@[[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]]: Please stop [[WP:SHOUTING]]. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F|2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F|talk]]) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I was not shouting rather just highlighting the important text in the passages [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I was talking about your response, not the quotes, we can read it just fine without the bold. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F|2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F|talk]]) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Alright [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::What even is a “simple victory”? Your claims don’t make any sense. Wikipedia policy doesn’t accept that. |
|||
:::::::::What is this other factual source? You didn’t send a link or citation, nor any other source, but regurgitated what the unreliable source said. |
|||
:::::::::Please, let’s take this to the talk page of the conflict. Let the administrators here do their job easier. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Not how Wikipedia policy on a military victory works. Again, please take this to the talk page. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 23:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Alright take it to the talk page , add some sources and context please I request for it to be a ceasefire or pakistani victory. I have to go now but I will Inshallah Review it in 12 hours and provide a reply. Allah Hafiz [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Also Its baloch not balochi , Please fix the pronoun [[User:GamerHashaam|GamerHashaam]] ([[User talk:GamerHashaam|talk]]) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to ask, does anybody know when an admin will come to make a decision? It seems that the reports before and after this one have mostly been solved or at least have been looked over. But not for this, I understand it might take some time but I’ve heard that ANIs get archived if there’s no activity for three days. Hence my curiosity. [[User:VirtualVagabond|VirtualVagabond]] ([[User talk:VirtualVagabond|talk]]) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Kautilya3]] == |
|||
<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; padding: 6px; margin-right: .5em;">[[Image:☑.svg|20px|Resolved]] [[Template:Resolved|Resolved]]</span>{{#if: {{{1|}}}|<span style="font-size: smaller;">{{{1}}}</span>}}</div> |
|||
{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Kautilya3| [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 00:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Please block {{userlinks|Notsharon}}. This account hasn't had a full set of warnings so there's no point posting it on AIV, but it's an account user by a vandal who has targeted the [[Craig Charles]] article since July 2006 using IPs registered to [[Flinders University]] or 58.84 prefixed IPs and repeatedly inserted libellous allegations. The latest vandalism was to move the article to [[Famous Rapists]]. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Blocked. While not a vandalism-only account, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Charles&diff=prev&oldid=131194883] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Notsharon&diff=prev&oldid=131195172] make this user's intent clear. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Good afternoon, Wikipedia. |
|||
== Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge == |
|||
Today I've been on my toes all day from the user in question who keeps reverting my edits pertaining to [[Sikkim]], ostensibly due to my source, the book "Sons of Sikkim" by Jigme N. Kazi, being self-published. |
|||
When i took to [[Talk:Sikkimese monarchy referendum]] to explain that the source used fell within Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources, being written from an established Sikkimese writer, as well as give the sources that the author himself used in the book, one of which is already cited in the article on its own long before I ever made any edits to it, I have yet been met with zero response to this section on the talk page, despite said user being active in that time and continually removing my edits, which I keep going back and undoing, which is very frustrating for me, and frankly my patience is wearing thin to having to keep an eye on these pages while my requests for dialogue are continually ignored. |
|||
I had not intended to visit ANI prior to pursuing dispute resolution, but now think it might be a good idea, and I look forward to any advice people can offer here, prior to dispute resolution. |
|||
Furthermore, I have reason to believe this user is not acting in good faith with these edits and is instead trying to push a viewpoint in favor of the Indian nationalist interpretation of the events in Sikkim in the first half of the 1970s. |
|||
I was recently blocked by [[User_talk:Bishonen|Bishonen]] (an administrator), after she accused me of harassment and gave me a block warning.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133987101&oldid=133981499] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFerrylodge&diff=133987939&oldid=133975724] Allegedly, I was harassing another administrator, [[User_talk:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] ("KC"). The incident I am reporting here is action by Bishonen, and '''''not''''' action by KillerChihuahua; KillerChihuahua did not make the accusation of harassment, and did not give me a block warning. |
|||
*Only edits I made with this source concerning these events have been challenged, I used the same book to add information to articles of [[Chogyal|Sikkimese monarchs]] going back to the mid-17th century. I find it suspicious that only information pertaining to these 1970s events was removed, while nothing else that I wrote using this book as a source were removed. |
|||
The unblock request, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferrylodge#Unblock_request which is here], was denied not because of harassment, but rather "for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I disagreed with that unblock decision (because I had already promised to disengage from KillerChihuahua before the block), but this ANI incident report is '''''not''''' about the block or the unblock request. This incident report is mainly about Bishonen's preceding accusation of harassment. I deny the harassment accusation, and want it resolved. Unfortunately, the background is a bit complicated, and I will try to be as brief as possible. |
|||
*On the [[Sikkimese monarchy referendum]] page, information not posted by me and not sourced from the book I used was also removed at the same time as my edits, primarily China and Pakistan's statements of opposition to the 1975 annexation of Sikkim. If the issue was me or my source, why would these passages that I didn't write and that are not sourced from the book I used be an issue? |
|||
Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. This whole controversy began regarding an organization called the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). On May 23, an editor who I do not know (and never communicated with) wrote in Wikipedia's [[fetal pain]] article that RCOG is "pro-choice".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetal_pain&diff=133038996&oldid=131878070] Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetal_pain&diff=133044011&oldid=133038996] I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetal_pain&diff=133100487&oldid=133044011] KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetal_pain&diff=133172126&oldid=133100487] Also in the discussion thread at [[fetal pain]], KC said: |
|||
*As something of a smoking gun, on [[Talk:Sikkim]], this user makes the statement "This kind of royalist nonsense can be found through the journalistic writings on Sikkim.", showing a ''very'' clear bias against the Sikkimese monarchy, and by extension in favor of their deposition by India, and then implying that the Sikkimese king could not have had support as he was from an ethnic minority in the country, which not only goes against what the multiple sources cited by my own have said, but also has an undercurrent of ethnic prejudice, ended by giving a single line from a paper on JSTOR to back up this idea (despite just a few sentences before implying journalistic writings were "royalist nonsense"). |
|||
{{cquote|The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fetal_pain#RCOG]}} |
|||
I think that it is abundantly clear that this user is not interested in critiquing my writing or my source and is instead only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom. |
|||
So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is ''not'' a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the [[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]]. |
|||
Edit: (as a final note, I apologize if this is not the right place to open this discussion. I've never really had to do something like this before and have never looked into doing this sort of thing so in a way I'm flying blind.) |
|||
At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133204147&oldid=110239993] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133456165&oldid=133217539] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133667924&oldid=133493860] Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a [[pro-choice]] position that [[abortion]] 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue. |
|||
[[User:Crazy Boris|Crazy Boris]] ([[User talk:Crazy Boris|talk]]) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a [[pro-choice]] position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133723196&oldid=133678413] Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133763924&oldid=133723196] I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Please_Assume_Good_Faith KC's talk page], where I asked her to assume good faith.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Please_Assume_Good_Faith] Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133902228&oldid=133865571] |
|||
:It seems excessive to bring this to ANI over this dispute and to allege a lack of good faith, especially since you don't seem to have established consensus for either the reliability of your source or the changes you want to make. Unless I'm missing something, you're the only contributor to [[Talk:1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum#On "Sons of Sikkim" as a source]]. In other words, treat this like a content dispute and use some form of [[WP:dispute resolution]]. Which frankly could be just waiting, you posted this 3 hours after your comment on the talk page. Also as a reminder, a source of limited reliability, like a SPS might be could be acceptable for something relatively uncontentious but not for something more contentious. Likewise someone could be a subject matter expert on 17th century monarchs but not some political controversy in the 1970s even if it relates to monarchs. Finally it's perfectly ordinary to notice some changes, and when deciding whether they are good or bad, to notice the article has other problems and so correct both these. Remember also that an SPS cannot be used for anything relating to living persons. This is unlikely to come up for 17th century monarchs, but could be an issue for some 1970s controversy. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&curid=5968902&diff=133763924&oldid=133723196 here] where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133974946&oldid=133974336] KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133979798&oldid=133974946] And she said: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was obviously incorrect, because KC had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133981499&oldid=133979798] I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again," and my edit summary said "let us not engage in smear jobs." |
|||
::Indeed. Three hours? Probably not even three days. Maybe three weeks... Wikipedia is not a chatroom, so waiting a few days for a response is expected. Where is the proof that this represents {{tq|''urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems''}}? This is also a topic falling under [[WP:ARBIND]], which makes this premature submission even more problematic. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Apologies, it is my first time ever in a situation like this (or even seeing such a situation), so I admittedly don't really know how this works. I just think it's very obvious (particularly illustrated by my second and third bullet points) this person is going after my edits purely to wipe any information disagreeing with their own perspective off the issue, and it should be dealt with, I'm not sure what the proper channel for that is, and this is just the closest thing I could think of. [[User:Crazy Boris|Crazy Boris]] ([[User talk:Crazy Boris|talk]]) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Given your comment that "{{tq|only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom}}", it clearly seems to me that you are the one being problematic here. <span style="font-family:'Forte';">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#d93634;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</span> 02:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
At this point, Bishonen jumped in.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133987101&oldid=133981499] KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. After the harassment accusation, I left a message at Bishonen's talk page saying I thought that KC was the one being malicious here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&diff=133988543&oldid=133983167] |
|||
*:I may have worded that poorly (I hate to pull the autism card, but I can be pretty awful at speaking), what I mean is that this person is removing information pertaining to the events in question that do not follow the Indian nationalist narrative that the annexation was totally willing and peaceful, which, as far as I'm aware, according to primary sources cited by the author of the book I used as my own source, is untrue, it's not unlike when Chinese nationalists argue that Tibet willingly joined China without any objections. Edits downplaying or denying aggressive Chinese actions in that situation would not be tolerated, very rightly so, and so the same logic should apply here. This person is very clearly and openly biased on this topic, and as illustrated by my second bullet point, is not interested so much in the validity of my source as in enforcing the Indian government's narrative, that is in itself infinitely more "problematic" than anything I have done. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem for the article. [[User:Crazy Boris|Crazy Boris]] ([[User talk:Crazy Boris|talk]]) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::You do not have to explain why diverging viewpoints might be a problem, this is a [[WP:CTOP]] area, so the problem is relatively well known. Nonetheless, assertions of edits that overtly promote a particular POV should come with a lot of diffs as evidence, which was not done here. However instead of finding diffs and trying to figure out something on AN/I, it would be advisable to continue discussion (in good faith) and then follow further [[WP:DR]] where needed. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* My [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikkim#India_%22bent_on_annexation%22 comment] on "journalistic nonsense" was directed at an article published in ''The New York Times'' in 1981, regarding the former queen of Sikkim who happened to be American. I countered it using a peer-reviewed journal article published by the University of California Press, who says that India, rather than being "bent on annexation", was in fact ''protecting the king'' from 1950 to 1973. So, this gives you an idea of the level of divergence found in what we normally regard as reliable sources. |
|||
So those are the basic facts. I will not describe here the subsequent block; that block was upheld on other grounds which I find very unpersuausive, but that is a somewhat separate matter from the harassment accusation. I very much believe that I was not harassing anyone, and therefore the harassment accusation was false. Do you agree or disagree? What sort of dispute resolution would you recommend? Bishonen has already rejected mediation.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&diff=134372834&oldid=134361084] I feel very strongly that the harassment allegation was unfounded.{{unsigned|Ferrylodge}} |
|||
: If we bring into this mix a non-reliable [[WP:SPS]], and start claiming that it should trump everything else, it is not going to fly. I have had a brief look at the book. It is certainly pro-royal, polemical book, throwing around conspiracy theories everywhere. But the high level of understanding as in the journal article I mentioned is nowhere to be found. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Still, ''The NYT'' is the most prestigious of the 4 American papers of record listed in [[Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers]], so {{tq|''journalistic nonsense''}} seems a bit much. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps, you should consider the possiblity that you may be incorrect, instead of parroting whatever apologetics you've been fed by the anti-Chogyal disinformation campaign. It's laughable you'd call Sons of Sikkim "polemical" and "conspiratorial", when it is very well-sourced itself as previously established (which makes the claim of it "throwing around" conspiracies downright insulting, conspiracy theories don't exactly tend to be backed up by much of anything), and your counter is an article that is so blatantly one-sided it may as well have been written by Indira Gandhi herself as Indian soldiers had their guns raised at the palace guards in Gangtok. I'd wager the ex-Gyalmo interviewed by the NYT probably knew more about the situation in Sikkim than the pseudointellectual propagandist you're toting as if he were Moses bringing down the ten commandments, seeing as she, you know, was there for everything and saw it happen. (and very convenient you don't aknowledge my second point where you removed text that wasn't even put there by me or cited in Sons of Sikkim that showed other countries expressing negative reactions to the annexation, I can't see that as anything other than an intentional obfuscation) You have a single article from a university journal, which, let's be frank isn't necessarily authoritative, any bozo with a degree can get published in one of those by packing an essay with jargon that reaffirms the journal's own biases, it's hardly much better than self-publishing, I have a whole book that backs itself up with dozens of primary and secondary sources. Self-published or not, it's more rigorous and objective than anything I have seen otherwise in my 12 years learning everything I can about Sikkim. You yourself said that journals are supposedly full of quote "royalist nonsense", if it's so widespread, is it not worth at least considering you may be in the wrong and approaching it with an open mind? When everyone agrees Copernicus was right, the man who still believes in geocentrism may want to reconsider his position instead of stubbornly refusing to listen to any opposing viewpoint. |
|||
::You show a clear bias on this topic as I outlined in my three bullet points (to which I would like to add the fact you removed "disputed" from "disputed referendum" on the main Sikkim page, when the very fact we're having this conversation shows it is in dispute, and frankly, I could have been a lot more forward and called it a "rigged referendum" but I wanted to be charitable and fair), that, in my opinion, make it glaringly obvious that you don't care about the truth at all, and just want to promote the official narrative in a nationalist fervor. There is no place for that sort of thing frankly anywhere, let alone on what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational website. Truth is apolitical, and this blatant attempt to stifle anything that doesn't fall in line with a certain perspective is no better than if I were to ransack articles pertaining to the annexations of Tibet or Hawaii to try and whitewash those events to support my own biases (for the record, this is just an example, I'm not really interested in opening up those cans of worms). I stay away from certain articles that I feel I may have too much of a personal bias on specifically to avoid causing trouble and letting my own feelings override objective fact, I suggest you learn to do the same. I'm just here to share things I learn with the world, not to try and reshape reality to fit what I want it to be instead of what it is. |
|||
::I really don't want to deal with this, I hate that I've ended up causing a problem, and I hate having to argue, especially when it feels like people are not willing to listen, I'm under a lot of stress as it is, so I won't be making any changes to any articles to reinstate my edits or debate further, I want to be done with this, and I will leave it up to the Wikipedia community and leadership to decide how to end this situation once and for all. Whether they take your side, mine, neither, or a little of both, I won't protest, but I will close by asking people to really think and consider everything that's been discussed before coming to a conclusion. I've made my case, it's up to people higher up than me to decide now, and I will accept their judgment. I really do feel terrible for having caused this, and I will be leaving Wikipedia after this so as to not cause any trouble in the future, I don't want to be responsible for any more stress or conflict for myself or others. [[User:Crazy Boris|Crazy Boris]] ([[User talk:Crazy Boris|talk]]) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The length of this comment is excessive. Please condense. We're all volunteers here. You are asking a lot of others when being so un-concise. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Some kind of mediation is needed. In the UK the term "pro choice" is loaded, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry about RCOG, which is a medical body. You've said lots of stuff about RCOG which doesn't agree with their webpage. One example would be about membership -- they've been very clear about who can be a member, and what type of member they can be, and what the requirments for that type of membership are. The term "Pro choice" does nothing to add any useful content to the article. Why is it there? It's obvious that a group of obgyns will include many people who do not disagree with abortion. Allow the term "pro choice" to be taken out, find a suitable alternative, and let people make up their own minds. [[User:DanBeale|<span style="color:yellow;background:black; ">Dan Beale</span>]] 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''condensed comment:''' I believe you're being stubborn and unwilling to engage due to your own biases, which I believe there is good evidence for, when really we're both probably near the same level when it comes to how authoritative our chosen sources may appear to the other. You should be more open to the possibility you may be mistaken instead of being so dismissive of everything I say. I will no longer take part in this debate and leave it up to whoever decides these things to make the call, I want to wash my hands of this whole sorry situation. I feel ashamed for having caused this, and will take my leave from editing Wikipedia because I don't want to risk being the cause of anything similar in the future, I'm a very conflict-averse person and the last 24 hours have been incredibly stressful for me. |
|||
::In response to this specific point, I'd agree with that - "pro choice" is an american term and is biased towards american thinking and it's use would indicated an unbalanced articel as it tries to impose an americian context on external agencies, social and political systems such as the RCOG. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Noted, I've added a shortened version to the end of the previous comment [[User:Crazy Boris|Crazy Boris]] ([[User talk:Crazy Boris|talk]]) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::RE: {{tq|''which I believe there is good evidence for''}} — yet not a single piece of evidence in either the full or condensed comment! Also, please don't adjust the order of comments. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Dan, I appreciate your comment, but this Incident Report is not about whether the word "pro-choice" should be taken out or not. You say,"Allow the term 'pro choice' to be taken out." It already has been taken out. Whether it should be reinserted is a different question. The question here is: is Bishonen correct that I harassed KC?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Please don't modify or remove comments that have been replied to! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Note that Crazy Boris has chosen to vanish themself. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== New editor, mass changes in article descriptions, what could go wrong? == |
|||
:::Folks, I appreciate the info about the use of the term "pro-choice" in England, I really do. But no one made that point during the controversy at issue. You may be right, and I would be interested in looking into the different usages of the word "pro-choice" in the UK versus the US, but that is just not relevant to whether I harassed KC. And, Dan, every fact I stated about RCOG was fully cited by references and footnotes at the [[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]] article; if you think there are mistakes in the RCOG article, please point them out at the RCOG article. Thanks.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::In my opinion the accusation of "harassment" is correct. You posted controversial material on a page against concensus, you then travelled to another page to make a similar point, you then posted on a talk page, and then you posted after reading this -"Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" message. In my opinion it'd be interesting to see an RfC. [[User:DanBeale|<span style="color:yellow;background:black; ">Dan Beale</span>]] 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{user|ByzantineHistory435}}, changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" in dozens of article descriptions without discussion or edit summaries. More eyes, please. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Dan, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=134554314&oldid=134554245 your edit summary] says that you think the harassment was perhaps "mild." I don't think there is such a thing. It's kind of like saying a "genial" case of murder. If it weren't a very serious charge, I wouldn't be here discussing it. |
|||
:Oh joy, it had been far too long since someone decided to mess with the delicate status quo there... [[User:Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Iazyges</span>]] [[User talk:Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Consermonor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Opus meum</span>]] 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've mass reverted most of the problematic edits and issued a Final Warning. This is a new editor, so I am not inclined to block them for now. Hopefully they will take the hint. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you {{U|Ad Orientem}}. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== IP 2409:4070:4403... == |
|||
:::::<s>Anyway,</s> I don't think you've correctly described what happened. I added a LOT of info about RCOG at the [[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists|RCOG article]], in addition to info about their abortion stance. The diffs are in my initial post above. A [[fetal pain]] article was not the appropriate place to get into such detail about RCOG. Moreover, when I was at the fetal pain article and decided to get the RCOG article involved, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFetal_pain&diff=133223668&oldid=133206510] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFetal_pain&diff=133261074&oldid=133259623] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:4070:4403:4E16:0:0:2366:30B1 2409:4070:4403:4E16:0:0:2366:30B1] is a one-purpose vandalism IP causing disruptive edits such as changing and adding false years in film-related articles. [[User:Carlinal|Carlinal]] ([[User talk:Carlinal|talk]]) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Instead of focusing on various other edits, please focus on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=133723196&oldid=133678413 the edit that prompted this whole thing.] This edit was not against consensus, because this edit had never before been made at any article; there were not even any comments at the RCOG talk page when I made this edit to the RCOG article. |
|||
:Hi @[[User:Carlinal|Carlinal]], I see you reverted their edits to [[:Disney.com]]. Since they'd already had a level 4/final warning recently for vandalism, the quickest remedy is to report them to [[WP:AIV]]. (I've done that now.) Your Twinkle dropdown menu (the '''ARV''' option) makes it simple to do. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah, thank you. I hope I did this most responsibly. [[User:Carlinal|Carlinal]] ([[User talk:Carlinal|talk]]) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Consistent vandalism by [[User:UsernameTalk]] == |
|||
:::::Anyway, regarding an RfC, the guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users say] "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible, unless someone volunteers to join me. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to ''endorse'' the complaint; i.e. to agree that it has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC, even though this whole thing is extremely time-consuming and costly for me.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{atop|{{nac}} UsernameTalk blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing (and possible socking) by {{noping|Ad Orientem}}. [[User:JeffSpaceman|JeffSpaceman]] ([[User talk:JeffSpaceman|talk]]) 12:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{userlinks|UsernameTalk}} is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. They have been observed vandalizing multiple pages on WP Pakistan. For instance, it is unreasonable for someone with constructive intentions to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Muslim_League_(N)&diff=prev&oldid=1225130661&diffonly=1 change the leader] of the [[Pakistan Muslim League (N)]] from [[Nawaz Sharif]] to [[Abid Sher Ali]]. Are they here just to have fun and waste others' time? [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] | 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:SheriffIsInTown|SheriffIsInTown]], [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The White House from Faisalabad|SPI filed]].<span id="Saqib:1716400546765:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —[[User:Saqib|<span style="color:#005080">Saqib</span>]] ([[User talk:Saqib|<span style="color:#700090">talk</span>]] I [[Special:Contributions/Saqib|<span style="color:#996600">contribs</span>]]) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== [[User:Dmytrootamanenko]] == |
|||
Hmm, let's have some definitions. From [[Wikipedia:Harassment]], harassment is defined as "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Is the second part of that the problem here? No views as yet either way, I'm just providing the definition of what is not allowed. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Moreschi. The second diff in my initial post here indicates that Bishonen was particularly accusing me of "user space harassment." Here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HARASSMENT#Types_of_harassment the definition], in case it might be helpful: |
|||
I alerted {{user|Dmytrootamanenko}} on their [[User talk:Dmytrootamanenko#May 2024|talk page]] about [[WP:RUSUKR]] on 7 May as they are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] and I gave them a final warning on 12 May as they continued to make edits about the Ukraine war. Despite this, they continued to make edits about the war. For example on 19 May they made a series of edits on [[Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas]] such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas&diff=prev&oldid=1224671253 this]. As another example, they created the article [[Volodymyrivka (Subottsi rural hromada)]] which references the war. They have not responded on their talk page. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cquote|Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. |
|||
A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.}} |
|||
:Is there a requirement to use the GS/ALERT template to make a user formally aware of such general sanctions? My understanding is mostly from Arbcom sanctions where the appropriate templates are generally required. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Incidentally, I also quoted this definition in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferrylodge#Unblock_request unblock request].[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Also, neither [[Olenivka prison massacre]] nor [[Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas]] appear on the [[WP:RUSUKR]] list of page level sanctions from what I could see. I guess my question would be whether this user is doing anything disruptive. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line, {{tq|During the Russo-Ukrainian War a local volunteer Viktor Yarmoshevych died, a memorial plaque was opened in his honor.}} into a page then I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::From my understanding, the template looks to be a relatively recent addition. It was sufficient to simply notify without any sort of template, but I am not sure if this has changed. Perhaps an admin who is familiar with this area can say for sure. I do not think there is any exception for non-extended confirmed editors to edit such pages since it is broadly construed. Regarding disruptive edits, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryazan&diff=prev&oldid=1222734323 made] this edit which is disruptive. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The fact that they have still not acknowledged anything or even responded while continuing to make edits is not a good sign that they will stop making edits in the topic area. If we do not want to enforce GS, then why have it in the first place? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User:Siya johnson3 == |
|||
:P.S. '''''Would someone please help me with an RfC?''''' The guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users say] "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to agree that the RfC has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{atop|Siya johnson3 has been blocked indefinitely due to using their account only for advertising or promotion. --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 03:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
* {{User links| Siya johnson3}} |
|||
Repeated addition of spam links to online shop: |
|||
* [[Special:Diff/1225073676|diff 1]] |
|||
* [[Special:Diff/1224978664|diff 2]] |
|||
* [[Special:Diff/1224930738|diff 3]] |
|||
[[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;color:#292928;">'''Wiki'''<span style="color:red;">'''''Linuz'''''</span></span>]] ([[User_talk:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;">talk</span>]]) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I have indefinitely blocked Siya johnson3 as a spam only account. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Need advice for courtesy on problematic user == |
|||
* Comment: Ferrylodge is stating his block was unfair, as he'd only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on my talk page. He is leaving out a few details. After I said "I'm done", Ferrylodge posted twice more[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133980602&oldid=133979798 still arguing the RCOG edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133980716 accusing me of disruptive editing]. Bishonen posted her "that's enough" message[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133981499], then Ferrylodge posted "I most certainly am done here"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133987101], then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133989725 linked it] to another post he'd made on Bishonen's page, where he stated "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring". I removed that, as it constituted a back-door method of getting one last attack against me on my talk page, and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133995319 replaced the content], expanding slightly, but not the link. This constitutes edit warring on my talk page, to the tune of '''''five''''' edits, including a link to an attack and reverting me on my talk page, after being told the conversation was over. Oddly enough, he has mistaken five for once before, see my talk page for details (see the part of the section [[User talk:KillerChihuahua#Please Assume Good Faith]] concerning the diffs he'd asked for.) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
An editor who has recently been unblocked for ARBPIA after a month and who has been flagged for [[WP:CIR]] has resumed making the same [[WP:CIR]] violations and inserting poorly-written content into certain articles, the most terrible of which is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Isfahan&diff=prev&oldid=1186643602] on [[Timeline of Isfahan]]. I have just '''bluntly''' warned the user, but given that they have had a record on ANI, can a third case be filed directly against them? Withholding full name of offender until I get clarification on this. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would appreciate if KillerChihuahua would please use quotes instead of misdescribing what she thinks I stated. I '''''never''''' said that I only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on your talk page, KC. So, please don’t claim otherwise. What you say is false. |
|||
:I don't see why not if their edits outwardly demonstrate lack of competence. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::My initial post above focuses on what happened up until the harassment charge and block warning. For details about what happened '''''after''''' the harassment charge and block warning, people can see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferrylodge#Unblock_request unblock request], to which I linked in my initial post above. The issue here is whether the harassment accusation (accompanying the block warning) was appropriate, not whether the block was appropriate (I don’t think it was, but that matter is distinctly dealt with in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferrylodge#Unblock_request unblock request]). |
|||
::In that case, can I rename this section or do I have to file a separate section for this? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Might as well just rename the section, since this section doesn't serve a purpose otherwise, and everyone can tell by the diff who the user is that you have in mind anyway, so this pseudo-secrecy is pointless. However, the diff provided above shows this user, Baratiiman, correct and otherwise improving their own earlier claim that 60 Baha'i women were "persecuted" (somewhere unspecified), with a revision that agrees with the cited source that it was 10 women, and in Iran. (While it would have been nice if Baratiiman had gotten the information correct in the first edit instead of the second, no one is perfect. Baratiiman should also have replaced the PoV-laden "persecuted" with the "prosecuted" used by the original source, or rather as translated from the orignal source which is not in English; "prosecuted" and "persecuted" are radically different things despite the spelling similarity. And Baratiiman had no reason to write "Iranian Islamic state government" when "Iranian government" or even just "Iran" will do. But ANI is not a venue for punishing people for insufficiently beautiful prose.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)<p>PS: {{U|Borgenland}}, on multiple pages I see you inserting broken link code in the form <code><nowiki>[[https://en.wikipedia.org/...]]</nowiki></code> That's the format for internal wikilinks like <code><nowiki>[[Mongolia]]</nowiki></code>. The format for full-URL links is <code><nowiki>[https://en.wikipedia.org/...]</nowiki></code> with single square-bracketing. So, I'm not sure you're in a position to make "competence"-related criticisms. If anything is to be actionable here, you need to demonstrate an actual pattern of policy failures on the part of {{U|Baratiiman}}, not vague claims of "incompetence". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)</p><p>PPS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABaratiiman&diff=1225146472&oldid=1224578470 this] is also a bit concerning, being aggressive and menacing: {{tq|If I catch you making such [[WP:CIR]] edits again I'm afraid I will have to file an ANI against you for a third time.}} It's not Borgenland's or anyone else's job to try to "catch" people doing things they don't like and make threats to gin up [[WP:DRAMA]]board trouble as a punitive measure to try to get what they want. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)</p> |
|||
::::I appreciate pointing out that I have problems in coding. But it does not absolve them from the fact that the user I am referring to has had a edit history of incoherent editing, misinterpreting and exaggerating statements and has not once made any response or commitment to improve their behavior. This was also raised by other editors in a previous archived report involving them last month. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Mass AfDs despite warnings to gain experience == |
|||
::I do not think it would be helpful to get into an argument here about what I did or did not do '''''after''''' the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning. Things are complicated enough already. Suffice it to say that I believe a person charged with harassment should be entitled to at least make a brief and polite denial of the charge, at the place the charge was made. That is why the following statement by me occurs at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Please_Assume_Good_Faith KC's talk page] '''''after''''' the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." As I have said elsewhere, I am grateful to KC for not deleting this denial of the harassment charge. And yes, KC, I think your behavior toward me was malicious; I said so when the harassment accusation was made, I said so in my unblock request, I said so in my initial post above, and I'm saying so again now. Saying so is the plain truth, and is not harassment.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I stand corrected: you claimed to have made ''two'' posts, not one, according to your talk page: ''"I posted a brief goodbye which was deleted, and an hour later I posted the following at KC's talk page: '''"I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. ''Please do not delete this comment''"''' (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me."''. You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done, and the edit in which you linked to your post on Bishonen's page - which she linked to as "the last straw", '''not''' your third edit after Bishonen's warning as you state on your talk page. Its still five edits, not two, and you left out, not only here but so far as I can tell, everywhere you've protested this block, the link you made to your post on Bishonen's talk page which was the reason Bishonen clearly linked to in her block statement to you. And if the issue is Bishonen's block, which you have stated is the case (unless I am somehow misunderstanding you) then what happened after the warning is highly germane. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::KC, you are misdescribing what I said, yet again. This statement of yours is simply false: "You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done." When you said "I'm done," you in no way suggested that I should not respond, and I immediately responded twice. The bulk of my two responses to your "I'm done" remark is quoted in my initial post above, as well as in my unblock request: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice." |
|||
{{userlinks|SpacedFarmer}} |
|||
:::::I have to work at my job until the end of the day, and therefore must take a break.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Since creating this account on November 30, 2023, 54% of their edits have been to Wikispace[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/SpacedFarmer]. These edits have consisted of mass-nominating articles to AfD at a rate that would make TenPoundHammer jealous. They appear specifically to want to delete articles about sports broadcasting. Of their edits to mainspace, most of those are either AfD notices or merges. |
|||
This is stupid. Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge is told to stop. Ferrylodge does not. Bishonen blocks. Why are we talking about this? End of story. Can't we find better things to cry about, like GNAA, or dead babies on wikipedia? [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>Denny Crane.</sup></small>]] 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Concur with Swatjester. Let's move on and write some articles, shall we?. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
On their usertalk, the user has been repeatedly told, either directly or implicitly, to gain more editing experience by established users such as {{ping|Legoktm}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1189252493] {{ping|Vossanova}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1197218733] {{ping|John B123}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1218958243] and {{ping|Liz}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1216083571] Additionally they appear, based on the comment by John B123 linked above, to not understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration. |
|||
:I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This issue is compounded by several factors which all combine to make this actionable, in my opinion. |
|||
::Ferrylodge, give it a break. The more you type, the more any pretext to AGF in your case goes *poof* and the closer you get to being considered a troll. And see [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]], and [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Firstly, copy/paste rationales. The user started the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndyCar Series on NBC]] discussion with a rationale saying {{tq|"Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans"}}; however the [[IndyCar on NBC|article in question]] is not a list, nor is it even a NASCAR article! How can we trust that this user is doing [[WP:BEFORE]] checks when they are making it so painfully obvious that they don't even bother to read articles they nominate? We also have a strikingly similar rationales for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on CBC commentators]] that similarly show a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side. |
|||
:::I see, swatjester can call me a harasser without providing any explanation whatsoever, and imply that I am stupid to boot, but I must be polite and sweet. And you can suggest that I'm a troll, whereas I should be respectful and polite.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Secondly, on that same ''IndyCar on NBC'' AfD, they refactored their rationale after I called them on the NASCAR error, without striking that part of their comment, and ignored my request to do so. |
|||
===Putting this in context=== |
|||
This incident is the tip of an iceberg that is six months deep. Ferrylodge has been making [[WP:DE|tendentious edits]] throughout abortion-related articles since late Dec. 2006. If you want a full picture of the level of activity, see the the talk page of almost any abortion-related article (for example, [[Talk:Abortion]] (archives 26-27), [[Talk:Late-term abortion]], [[Talk:History of abortion]], [[Talk:Intact dilation and extraction]], [[Talk:Fetal pain]]), or even the talk pages of some articles which are not inherently controversial and which are not natural extensions of the abortion topic ([[Talk:Stillbirth]], [[Talk:Fetus]], [[Talk:Pregnancy]]). Honestly, I don't know what Ferrylodge hopes to accomplish with this, because, frankly, it's beginning to look like the "campaign to drive away productive contributors" described in [[WP:DE]]. Whether it was inappropriate for Bishonen to intercede at KillerChihuahua's talk page, the posts Ferrylodge made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133989725&oldid=133987101 on KC's page] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&diff=133988543&oldid=133983167 on Bishonen's page] subsequent to the warning were hardly constructive, and served little more than to have the last word after being told not to post there again. There are a thousand things Ferrylodge could have said which might have justified posting again after being requested to stop, if the intent was toward dispute resolution, but confrontational statements like "''I most certainly am done here''" and "''You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her...''" aren't among them. This dispute arose when Ferrylodge did not observe [[WP:CON|consensus]] at [[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133454405 adding the description] "pro-choice" to the article, which had already been objected to by 3 editors at [[Talk:Fetal pain]]. I don't really see where Ferrylodge's complaint is coming from in light of this and in light of the history of his involvement in Wikipedia. -[[User:Severa|Severa]] ([[User talk:Severa|!!!]]) 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thirdly, <s>they appear to have found a [[WP:TAGTEAM]] partner in {{userlinks|Conyo14}}. [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=SpacedFarmer&users=Conyo14&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki editor interaction history] shows several recent instances where Conyo replies within hours, if not minutes of SF starting a new AfD, and indeed ''AfD Stats'' shows these being delete !votes overwhelmingly so[https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=SpacedFarmer&max=&startdate=&altname=][https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Conyo14&max=500&startdate=&altname=].and then we have this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1223444919 this talk page comment]. {{tq|"It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: [[User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list]]."}}.</s> |
|||
:Severa, it always muddies the waters to bring in extraneous issues. That has been happening in this thread from the start (e.g. "pro-choice" means something different in the UK than it does in the US). My regard for you is I'm sure as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower. However, it does no good to get into a huge brawl about extraneous issues, without addressing the issues at hand. And you are dishonest and misleading, as usual. When I said those words you quote --- "I most certainly am done here" --- that was shortly after KC had said "I'm done" and Bishonen had said "you're done." And now you're using those words of mine as some kind of evidence against me. This is most insincere of you, as usual. And neither you nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Lastly, SF was warned for incivility by Liz on their talk page on May 13 and has been brought to ANI late last month[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Uncivility%2C_profanity_and_name_calling_by_user%3ASpacedFarmer] for similar incivility. Since the warning by Liz was more recent than the diffs I have, I won't post them unless asked so as not to risk double jeopardy. |
|||
:P.S. Now I really must go for the day.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::"My regard for you is as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower." Wow. Great way to prove you're a civil and cooperative editor. Next time, you might want to ''really'' impress people with your manners, and say, "dear nazi". Anyways, this is veeery simple. If bishonen had posted no warning at all, you might have a point. If she'd blocked you indefinitely, you'd probably have a point. ''But'', when an administrator feels the need to get involved, and tell you, "Look. This is harassment. You're done.", and you follow that by posting, ''anything''... um... no. Sorry, but just accept the block. It was just 24 hours, for the sake of stopping a specific behaviour. And you really might want to just stop for a little while, and look at everything that led up to this, and ''then'' see if you really think you were so horribly wronged. Or not. Your decision. [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm having more of an issue with his assertion that Severa is "dishonest and misleading, as usual" - excuse me? One, Severa is painstakingly honest and a role model for AGF, and Two, NPA anyone? I'm getting more or less accustomed to having trash heaped on my head, as virtually my entire watchlist is controversial subjects, where I attempt to guide editors to work with each other, work towards and within consensus, follow policies, and remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, so I of course have lots of bad-faith and confrontational editors making wild accusations against me. So far in this thread Ferrylodge has managed to insult Bishonen, Swatjester, myself, and Severa, and that's just today. I'm beginning to think an Rfc might not be a bad idea after all. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In one rare instance where Conyo !voted keep in an SF AfD, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes who came out of retirement]], SF shows a lack of knowledge or desire to fix articles rather than go for the deletion option, {{tq|"But I think that list needs fixing....Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD."}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_athletes_who_came_out_of_retirement&diff=prev&oldid=1223469373] For an editor spending the vast majority of their time at AfD, this is a huge problem that needs addressing. That the majority of their AfDs result in deletion should not distract from these core issues that lead me to conclude that SpacedFarmer is not fit to edit in deletion discussions. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::(edit conflict, reply to Ferrylodge's last post) It is completely relevant to consider the RCOG incident from the context of being the most recent example in a long pattern of similar incidents, rather than as being an isolated, first-time occurrence. It's seeing the forest for the forest, and not just its constituent trees. To quote the relevant bit of [[WP:DE]]: |
|||
:*My main concern about all of these nominations is the overall incivility and bludgeoning attitude of Spaced; I've voted on one nom only specifically because of Spaced's overall harassment and that all of their noms do not have unique rationales or just misabuse drops of WP: links. I'd like to hear what they say, but they really need to improve their overall attitude in editing, because as-is, they are refusing to compromise, much less apologize for the personal attacks they have been giving out towards those who disagree with them. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"''Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.''" |
|||
::::I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester. If you have a specific concern, please put it forward, but vague accusations like "''you are dishonest and misleading, as usual''" are only a hair's breadth from being as completely unhelpful as personal attacks ("''I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester''"). This is all starting to remind me of Cindery. -[[User:Severa|Severa]] ([[User talk:Severa|!!!]]) 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::From my brief reading of this thread, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with how it's being handled. If there were personal attacks, then could someone simply post the diffs, and this can be over with? Otherwise, as it stands (and I'm ''not'' saying this is the case), it just looks like people are unhappy with Ferrylodge for his/her position in an edit war (which, BTW, doesn't look like disruption to me, at least from what I've seen). If people could simply give the diffs, and tell Ferrrylodge ''exactly where (s)he went wrong'' rather than simply stating ''you made personal attacks, you deserved it'', this could be over. In any case, the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made. Guys, provide the diffs, and we can close this dumb thread. Otherwise, it will look like a personal block. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:If I may absolve myself of some of the accusations, I tend to lurk around AfD like everyday. One of the AfD's I decided to nominate this year was in my primary scope of editing: [[List of NHL Western Conference finals broadcasters]]. So, my interest in deleting articles that this user nominates is similar to mine. However, the premise that I notice his articles for deletion are a [[WP:TAGTEAM]] is inherently false. I'll admit I did indeed copy-paste some of my rationale within his hour of nominating. That being said, I performed a [[WP:BEFORE]] search on all of these articles. I would not just !vote into the void knowing my rationale is not backed without due diligence. Hence, I wanted to tell him to slow down as users like him tend to get placed into ANI and told formally to slow down or else. Also, in case it wasn't noticed, I do have the ability to change my !vote if proper sourcing is given. |
|||
::(ri) You're kidding, right? Ferrylodge's personal attacks on ''this page alone'' should be sufficient evidence. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I will also accept any formal warning from any admins if they deem my conduct to be misbehaving. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Before this gets any more lost in the shuffle, I'll say that I'm satisfied by this explanation that there's nothing nefarious going on as far as this aspect is concerned and have struck that part of my post. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are no diffs because there was no harassment before the harassment charge was made.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:While I agree this editor may need some patience (I think it is good practice to not make mass deletions your ''sole'' contribution to Wikipedia), I dislike the onesidedness of these accusations. Mass nominations at a rate no one can keep up with are of course a problem, but ''so is dumping piles and piles of listcruft into article space''. |
|||
:::Severa, you say that I've been "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive". You cited a comment that I made ("I most certainly am done here"), but this was misleading and dishonest of you, because that quoted comment immediately followed the statement "I'm done" by KC, and "You're done" by Bishonen. Can't you see that the example you cite proves that I was merely echoing what had been said to me? Why should you be able to call me "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive" (and a million other disparaging words you have used for me), but I should never say anthing less than flattering to you? Do you deny that when I said "I most certainly am done here" it was immediately after almost identical statements by KC and Bishonen? |
|||
:Their current record is around 91% deletion success rate - https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=SpacedFarmer. That puts them above average for nominations. |
|||
:Honestly, if people want these articles to be not deleted, they should consider looking for encyclopaedic coverage to meet [[WP:NLIST]]. I agree with the vast majority of this user's nominations. There's a huge backlog of terrible articles that ought to be banished, especially those relating to sports. Lugnuts created over 93000 articles in their lifetime before someone put a stop to it. There's no limit to the rate at which people can vomit terrible articles into mainspace, and so reporting someone to ANI for nominating quickly (unless accuracy is exceptionally poor) is also not against the rules. On the question of copypaste rationales, while this ''can'' indicate bad behaviour, it can also indicate that a very persistent fan has blasted (and even, ''shocked gasp'', copy pasted) dozens of very similar articles into existence.<span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? <span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Press releases are not automatic disqualifiers for a source and Spaced has been told this and refused the advice on what a reliable source is. They're expecting to paint a wide brush like Dan said to get these articles deleted by obfuscating their rationales or bludgeoning with so many WPs an average voter wouldn't question them, when most who do read the sources do. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::A source being reliable is not the same thing as indicating notability. Press releases do not contribute to an indication of notability because by and large they are primary sources that are published without editorial oversight, although they may be suitable to verify basic facts that are unlikely to be contested. [[WP:ANTECEDENT]] - being ''verifiable'' and ''notable'' are both necessary conditions for an article to exist, but on their own are not sufficient. A notable subject that can't be verified doesn't get an article, and neither does a verifiable one that isn't notable. The standard for notability requires ''being noted'' by a secondary source - hence the existence of [[WP:NLIST]] and [[WP:SYNTH]].<span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 21:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:While this guy could use a little work, he seems to be correct much more often than not. Wikipedia is filled to the brim with useless lists. I'd say all he needs to do is take a little more time to make sure he is AFDing stuff with a correct reason and to remember to not get into pissing matches in AfD. This, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the level of sanctions being needed. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 22:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I take back the nice things I said about this guy. I gave him a little friendly advice and for some reason he decided to revert my post (fine, it's his talk page), and then caution me for a personal attack (what?) on my own talk page and then revert it. This guy needs an attitude adjustment. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Ah! This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do. He is totally wrong when he accuse me of showing {{tq|"a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side"}} as they have been checked through before making the nominations. |
|||
:Anything {{u|Conyo14}} involve in my nomination is unexpected and incidental. |
|||
:I don't see what is wrong with copy/paste rationale as they all have everything in common, low quality garbage that plaque Wikipedia which needs to be put out of its misery, I checked through them before via [[WP:BEFORE]] and nothing, so I just put on my black hoodie, get out my big sickle and execute the decision. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps those YouTube parasites at bay but then they won't touch those lists with a 10ft bargepole. |
|||
:I have done my attempt of {{tq|"a little work"}} but after discussion, they got pissed down the wall. Also, there is nothing to write about anymore. |
|||
:As he had pointed out, one or so was done in error as I have just being back from work, unaware I was tired. I only had just woken up when I got that message and logged off soon, so I couldn't get back to him. I nominated these are I cannot see them passing notability guidelines. |
|||
:This guy now can relax as I am going to slow this AfD down for the summer given most of the easy nominations have been done and many others is less likely for this time being, as time is needed to look the sources through. [[User:SpacedFarmer|SpacedFarmer]] ([[User talk:SpacedFarmer|talk]]) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Calling someone a "fanboy", saying they are "[spiting]" you and that they have a "hateboner" is not the way I'd reply to an ANI report about myself if I had just been warned twice in the last month over incivility. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Your standard of discourse here is a bit troubling. There are reasonable standards of behaviour expected of all editors everywhere on Wikipedia, as you have already been made aware. Phrases like "hatebonering" and "pissed down the wall" don't seem appropriate to me, neither does describing another editor as a "fanboy" and I'm not sure whether "YouTube parasites" is meant to refer to something on that site or YouTubers/viewers editing on Wikipedia. It is not difficult to be civil in online discourse, and failing to do so here could result in your editing privileges being withdrawn. |
|||
::On the subject of your AfDs, I have no strong opinion either way. They do seem broadly correct, if a little too frequent. But your interactions with other editors leave a lot to be desired. [[User:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black_GB|<span style="color:orange">c</span>]]</sup> 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::> This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do |
|||
::This is disappointingly dismissive behaviour. <span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::So rather than improving the quality of list articles which always appreciate new sources, you decide to denigrate editors as "fanboy...YouTube parasites", cast yourself as the Wikipedian version of the Grim Reaper who has no designs on improving anything and only removing through bludgeoning, make a blanket statement that these list articles are 'low quality garbage' and dismiss everything you've done as 'work' and 'easy nominations'? |
|||
:::I can't assume any further good faith with you, Spaced, and I am highly doubtful that you performed most BEFORE as intended. You are to assume good faith of '''all editors''', not just select ones. I know working with others can be frustrating, but you need to talk out things rather than dismissing them out of hand because they were part of the YTTP or whatever Roblox/Discord friend group you think is an affront to your deletion spree. Your attacks on others are uncalled for, and your civility needs some serious work. I do see a point to some of the deletions (which long needed to be prose rather than long lists), but the way you're going about it is not in the normal manner of the AfD process. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You also need to put down the [[WP:STICK]] and walk away - a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] can fly both ways. <span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm allowed to state my views properly and from experience and have understood how AfD works at its best for years, along with these mass noms. They are poorly done and Spaced's continued insistence on being rude and brusque will not lead to a long editing career if they continue as-is, nor taking my comment as an immediate PA. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 01:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Dismissing everything you've nominated, which include some articles such as [[List of MLS Cup broadcasters]] that are well-written, extensively researched ~300 reference articles – as {{tq|low quality garbage}}, and that you're the grim reaper who needs to {{tq|execute}} such articles, while describing any who don't support such actions as "'''''parasites'''''" – because ''there's nothing to write about''??? Wow... [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think for Spaced, it is important to realize that while some nominations have been clearly flawed, the use of how sources are analyzed can get exhausting (and frustrating when editors confuse reliable and notable) when doing mass nominations as he's been doing. So, I think at this time, perhaps they should stop commenting or nominating for now. Let the current AfD's run their course. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::SpacedFarmer, while I have agreed with most of your nominations (if not the entire rationale), a few have made me question how much of a [[WP:BEFORE]] you have been doing on them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find numerous sources showing that [[List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports]] was notable, and several others I found to have sufficient sources present fairly quickly. I am wondering what exactly does your BEFORE entail? |
|||
::Part of the issue for some editors here is the lack of bundling (as seen with the recent nominations of the Monday Night Football results articles and a handful of other nominations), leading to more spread out and lesser attended discussions for articles that are similar to each other. Perhaps bundling 3-4 similar articles (but no more) in each discussion would help with determining a broader consensus on some of these articles, along with slowing down of the overall number of nominations. Copy and pasting rationales which don't make any sense (such as the NASCAR mention in unrelated articles) doesn't help the project. [[User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] ([[User talk:Let'srun|talk]]) 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It entails a check through each one of the source first then a search via Google. Having done the first, I don't see it surprising that they would be nominated. [[User:SpacedFarmer|SpacedFarmer]] ([[User talk:SpacedFarmer|talk]]) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I am not surprised to see this here though I had hoped it would never come to this. I agree that the behavior of [[User:SpacedFarmer]] at AFD has not been good. The copy and paste rationale on his requests shows that a BEFORE is not being done, but the replies are far worse as evidenced by the users own comments above. I think a very short ban could be useful here, but I would hope that this thread alone would be enough to change some of the behavior. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Or maybe a rate limit of 1–2 AfD noms every day? Although I expect that's much more difficult to enforce than a technical partial block from creating pages with prefix {{code|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*}}. Agree that the response by the reported user above in this thread is distinctly unimpressive. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I feel that you are simply trying to distract from the issue here. There was no harassment by me to justify Bishonen's accusation of harassment. No one has cited ANY diff of me harassing KC prior to when Bishonen uttered the word "harassment." No one here at this ANI page has bothered to consider the facts of this edit dispute. You can bring in extraneous accusations if you like, and maybe you have found some Wikipedia guideline to justify trying to bring in extraneous factors, but I know this for certain: there is no Wikipedia guideline to justify ignoring non-extraneous factors.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I had planned to slow my AfD noms to 1–2 every day. [[User:SpacedFarmer|SpacedFarmer]] ([[User talk:SpacedFarmer|talk]]) 11:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::How about not doing AfD nominations at all. Anyone who accuses people of being "fanboys" and "parasites" (which are personal attacks and you still haven't struck them/apologized for them btw) clearly doesn't have the temperament to work at AfD. <span>♠[[User:JCW555|<span style="color:purple">JCW555</span>]] [[User talk:JCW555|<span style="color: black">(talk)</span>]]</span>♠ 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Evil Spartan, you obviously didn't take the time to look at Killer Chihuahua's talk page. You should go do that now. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>Denny Crane.</sup></small>]] 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A 91% success rate at AFD says a LOT. Looking at the list, most of those articles/lists look like (compound criteria) list articles that are so overspecialized that nobody is going to be looking for such a list. But their wording that they used in this thread (and apparently elsewhere) particularly when referring to other editors and their motives is pretty terrible. Looks like a newish editor who got very active in "hot areas" pretty quickly. Maybe has yet to learn that what's considered normal discourse on most on-line forums is far over-the-top at Wikipedia. Suggest realizing and learning the latter more quickly and maybe slowing down on AFD work until they learn that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: When did it become the responsibility of the reader of AN/I to find the relevant examples of misbehavior? Telling us to "do your research" when someone asks for these diffs only makes your case look less persuasive. I'm with Evil Spartan here: you make your point more quickly & more effectively by furnishing diffs than all parties involved exchanging heated words with each other. And if you don't like that opinion, then don't complain when you fail to persuade the rest of us that something bad happened. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:A 91% success rate at AfD says nothing (or even NOTHING). It easy to achieve a far better rate than that without performing any [[WP:BEFORE]]. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious how to do so, but there seem to be some people who don't realise it, so, in the spirit of [[WP:BEANS]], I won't reveal anything. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Please focus on what this thread is: Ferrylodge started it to see if there was support for an Rfc against Bishonen's block of him (not an exact quote). Many diffs have been provided by several people posting here. The question at hand is ''not'' the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of; nor is it Ferrylodge's incivility (which comments about here concern almost exclusively his posts in this very thread, hence, no link necessary). The block was made, and reviewed by at least two administrators and unblock was delcined. Ferrylodge is seeking some kind of redress or acknowledgement that the block was inappropriate. Do you find grounds for this? Do you require diffs for ''his'' assertions? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
There seem to be 3 separate issues with SpacedFarmer's editing. As a relatively new user their understanding of WP policies and guidelines is limited. Whilst this is to be expected with newer users, the problem here is they take no notice when things are explained to them. For example they were warned that copying within WP requires attribution[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacedFarmer&diff=prev&oldid=1197522626], yet still continued to copy and paste between articles without attribution. Secondly, their attitude towards other editors who disagree, as witnessed in this thread, is unacceptable. Lastly, given the sheer number of articles sent to AfD of which, as mentioned above, some are clearly notable, it would seem a diligent [[WP:BEFORE]] is not being carried out and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability. |
|||
:::: No, KC, put yourself in my place. I don't spend an inordinate amount of each day on Wikipedia, but I have been around for a while. I don't like troublemakers, I don't like tendentious editors, & I don't like established editors who decide that they're special & the rules don't apply to them any more. So any time someone claims that they are the victim of one of these three, I'll start to read what they have to say. |
|||
I'm sure SpacedFarmer could be a useful editor if they take note of what's been said in this thread and modify their behaviour appropriately. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time with the understanding that should this behaviour continue more severe action is likely. --[[User:John B123|John B123]] ([[User talk:John B123|talk]]) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: '''However''', too many effing times when a charge like this is raised, the discussion disintegrates into the equivalent of a bunch of 5-year-olds whining "he hit me first" -- "no he hit me first". In other words, the good guys are acting just like the bad guys & I can't tell the difference. I might have wanted to get involved, find out who did what & act on it. But like too many other threads in this forum, after a few minutes of reading, I end up wanting to just toss all parties involved into a windowless room, lock the door, & tell them only one person gets to leave the room alive. |
|||
:{{tq|"...and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability."}} I think this is the key takeaway from your post, John. Based on their behaviour in here, I am unfortunately suspicious now that SpacedFarmer's primary motivation for editing is to delete this certain type of article, other opinions be damned. This apparent refusal to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with editors having many different opinions will only see them taken here more if they do decide to do other things. |
|||
:::: I've been involved in a few disputes myself. So I know quite well that only a true saint could keep her/his temper in such a situation, & not start playing dirty because the other side has been. That is why I'm insisting that all parties actually try to fight this temptation, & '''just give us the diffs'''. Otherwise if I want to get involved, I have to choose my side based on which person is more familiar to me -- because I'm very much aware that I only have a small slice of time to decide & make a difference. The time I spend untangling a dispute is time I could have spent making edits -- & I'd rather make edits. |
|||
:I'd like to see them at least address the civility concerns that have been brought up since their initial response. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Harassment == |
|||
:::: Yes, I am being lazy. Yes, this is unfair to everyone who is involved in the dispute. But I'm going to let you in on a secret: most people involved in Wikipedia think like me -- we're here '''to edit articles'''. We could care less about how X is being treated unfairly by Y. Why shouldn't we just give them heavy & sharp weapons, lock them both into a room, tell them only one gets to come out alive, & let the rest of us contribute to Wikipedia? If you want me to care, then do the work for me so I understand what the problem is & make me care. |
|||
I have been the subject of reversions and harassing comments from Bloom6132. He has reverted two of my articles because he objects to the use of the title "Biography" in my articles. I asked him to show me in the MOS anything that prohibits that usage and he has failed to do so. In his latest response to me, he has threatened to revert any other articles I edit if I continue to use "Biography". I have no objection to him changing that in any articles, but I object to him reverting entire edits because of it. I don't know why Wikipedia allows editors the power to do this, but that is another story. I want Bloom6132 to stop reverting me. |
|||
:::: So far I've spent an hour writing a response to you that I could have spent improving articles on Wikipedia -- well, I hope my edits improve them. I happen to know I'm a crappy writer, so it takes me probaly twice or three times as long to write a response that is as intelligible as anyone else. Asking me to defend my opinions steals far more time from my ability to edit than anyone else. If you want me to argue my point -- that people disputing behavior in this forum need to furnish ample facts & not just argue over who hit who first -- I'll argue them. But some articles I could be improving will continue to languish in their present state because I didn't have the time to work on them. |
|||
This is part of the communication from my user talk page |
|||
:::: <A very naughty word or phrase>, maybe I ought to simply '''not''' care about who is screwing over whom on Wikipedia, trade my Admin bit for a gift certificate on Amazon, & stay in my forgotten corner of Wikipedia where I can edit undisturbed. Some days, I think that would be a better use of my time. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I've never edited an article called "John Carroll" (I'm assuming you're referring to this one). Frankly, I'm not surprised to see there are others who want to revert your problematic edits (which you mistakenly believe to be "improvements"). I'm certainly not going to be lectured about "taking the lazy route" or how I should spend my time usefully by someone who (1) can't give me the correct article title of the page I was editing; or (2) thinks that copyedits like "The Redemptorists then sent as a missionary to Vieux Fort …" are an improvement – they're evidently not. And so what if it is just my opinion that we shouldn't be using "Biography" as a section heading? I've brought 34 articles to good article status (18 of which are biographies, with 4 of them on Catholic bishops). None of those biographies use the heading "Biography". What quality content contributions have you been making lately that use "Biography" as a heading? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::KC, you say, "The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of...." It's not surprising to me that you would want people to look the other way, and ignore the description of administrator misconduct that I gave above. You certainly have ignored the blockquote. No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation. You are doing your best to direct people away from that edit dispute, and quite understandably so, given what the facts show. |
|||
Frankly, I am not going to waste my time debating you. If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it. I don't appreciate your condescending remarks either. I also don't care what awards you have gotten. I love Wikipedia, but editors like you make it less pleasant sometimes. Rogermx (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The question at hand is whether I harassed you during the edit dispute, i.e. '''''before''''' the harassment accusation was made. Yes, I reacted imperfectly '''''after''''' the harassment accusation, and I even got blocked, but all that happened '''''after''''' the harassment accusation was made. Will you ever address the blockquote in my initial post above? Will anyone? Is there anyone here who has bothered to consider the implications of that blockquote? Or is everyone at Wikipedia too busy to consider details? That's where the devil is, in the details. |
|||
"I am going to continue doing it" – and I'll continue reverting you. Regarding "condescending remarks", don't throw stones when you're living in a glass house. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
And I will file a harassment complaint against you. Suggest you review Wikipedia:Harassment Rogermx (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rogermx |Rogermx ]] ([[User talk:Rogermx #top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rogermx |contribs]]) 18:30 22 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::The whole matter leading up to the harassment accusation was one long personal attack on me. |
|||
*You really should take the content dispute to the article TALK in question. I would also recommend linking to the correct article and proofing your comments. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Now, I am not being soft-spoken here. I know that. Swatjester calls this whole thing "stupid" and says I'm a harasser without saying why. So I'll call him vapid. It was a vapid comment he made. "I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester." What I hope to do is convey my disrespect for people who are not considering, much less addressing, the facts. |
|||
::{{u|Rogermx}}, your signature is not functional. Clicking it does not lead either to your user page or your user talk page. Please fix it. On to other matters. You are not being harassed. When another editor disagrees with your edits, that does not constitute harassment. As to the dispute, a Wikipedia article about a person is a biography. Every aspect of such an article is part of the biography. When you create a section header called "Biography", that implies that the content in other sections is not part of the biography. In my opinion, that is incorrect and misleading. When you write {{tpq|If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it}}, I am telling you that is a very bad attitude. Policies and guidelines are not all-inclusive and cannot specifically forbid every single bad practice. Look at [[WP:GA|Good articles]] and [[WP:FA|Featured articles]] that are biographies, and model your section headers on what is commonplace in those articles. Adopt a collaborative attitude and do not edit disruptively. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cullen summed it up perfectly. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, but I don't need your lecture about attitude. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2007 and have over 50,000 edits. What gives this guy a veto over what i do in multiple articles? What gives him the right to threaten to revert my articles in the future because he disagrees about the use of a single word? |
|||
:::I use the biography heading because it is an article, first and foremost. There are sections for bibliography, see also, references that have no biographical information. Secondly, by creating a biography title, it gives a reader a cleaner view of the article contents when they look at it immediately. If this makes the Wikipedia bureaucrats happy, I will stop use the biography title in future articles. |
|||
:::As for editing disruptively, I am not the one who reverting all the edits in article instead of simply changing the one that he does not like. If you bother to read my statement, I told him that he is free to change anything in the article that he does not like. I do not revert articles over typos, spelling mistakes and edits that I don't agree with. I read this stuff on Wikipedia about being bold, but it is just nonsense. |
|||
:::It also very difficult to be collaborative with someone who doesn't treat you with respect. I thought that was another requirement of Wikipedia policy, but maybe that is bullshit too. [[User:Rogermx|Rogermx]] ([[User talk:Rogermx|talk]]) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::References are the resources that are about the person and their biographical details (otherwise, why would they be listed?) SeeAlso are other WP articles related to this person. Cullen328 is right...the whole article is their biography, otherwise it is content that does not belong on that page. The alernative is that all body-sections are subsections of Biography. So why is that container section needed rather than making the secions of the biography more prominent? But again again, this is all a content issue not an administrative or behavior issue except to the extent that editors are expected to discuss with each other and get input from others as relevant on the various talkpages, remembering that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 03:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Rogermx|Rogermx]] Your edit count doesn't exempt you from requirements of civility and/or collaborative editing; and, respectfully, I suggest a focus on ''quality'' of contributions over ''quantity'' could be helpful. Your proposed structure is well out of step from the standard structure of biographies on virtually every other biographical page. [[User:Local Variable|Local Variable]] ([[User talk:Local Variable|talk]]) 16:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I mention the edit count in response to a previous comment about my supposed bad attitude. The reason I put in this complaint was because of the incivility of Bloom6132 and his threats to revert my articles. I have already acceded to the request about using not biography. Suggest you look at any of my edited articles before you lecture me about quantity over quality. |
|||
:::::The point is that I want to be treated with respect by this editor and not have to listen to him threaten to revert articles that he could easily edit himself to his own satisfaction. Obviously, it was a waste of time to make this complaint. [[User:Rogermx|Rogermx]] ([[User talk:Rogermx|talk]]) 17:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, it clearly was. Next time, listen to people instead of accusing them of harassment and incivility. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Personal attacks and original research from Itisme3248== |
|||
:::I'm sorry this is coming across negatively. But I feel that KC is urging people to ignore my initial post (especially the blockquote), just like she has been consistently doing. I feel like KC, and by extension Bishonen, are just having whatever they did rubberstamped here, without any serious consideration of the edit dispute.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{userlinks|Itisme3248}} |
|||
::::I guess I am the person who brought up the initial concerns at [[Fetal pain]] that lead to the content dispute. I've been following this quietly, and felt like I can try to address this concern of Ferrylodge: the blockquote. I think the most important part of the blockquote is ''It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over.'' Note '''may''' and '''I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over'''. So KC posted something that MAY have been sympathetic to the content Ferrylodge wanted to include concerning the RCOG. However, KC clearly stated that she needed time to think that one over. Was KC given that time? The comment was made 22:58, 24 May 2007 but the phrase "pro-choice position" which was still under dispute at [[Talk:Fetal pain]] was added to [[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]] at 13:26, 25 May 2007. 24 hours later, this addition was reverted by Severa, and in an edit summary Ferrylodge acknowledged the KC stated that she needed to think things over. |
|||
Itisme3248 has been making personal attacks at the [[meat]] talk-page. The user was blocked for personal attacks [[WP:PA]] and repeatedly inserting [[WP:OR]]] in August 2023 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itisme3248&oldid=1219934448#August_2023], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AItisme3248], so since their last block they have not taken on any advice they were given. |
|||
::::What is clear to me is that KC's biggest concern was that associating the word "Pro-choice" with the RCOG would paint them as some sort of political activist group, when they are a reputable medical organization. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's rewording did not alleviate these concerns; that saying the RCOG held a pro-choice position was still connoting that they were an activist group. Ferrylodge has tried to paint KC as having flip-flopped on this issue, but I only see consistency. The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text. |
|||
Examples of personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meat&diff=prev&oldid=1225156765] "''Vegan editors like Psychologist Guy, who promote a vegan perspective, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same''" and this edit accusing another editor of adding lies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Greek_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1224864377] which the user was warned about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itisme3248]. |
|||
::::I believe that in this content dispute Ferrylodge was a little premature in the editing, and it would have helped to discuss things out further on talk, and perhaps make proposals before editing the article. I also admit that because this conflict dealt with 2 different articles (some perhaps not on the watchlist of those editors involved in the dispute), things were not always cut and dry (I was not involved at RCOG, but I was involved at Fetal pain). I also that KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were "disruptive" was accurate. Editors should know better than to re-insert a disputed wording right in the middle of a content dispute. Someone doesn't get controversial content into an article by force, you get it in through consensus (well... if it's controversial enough, it won't get in at all). After that, happened, Ferrylodge went to an admin's page (KC) and told her to assume good faith, trying to defend his edit warring as non-disruptive. It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with "Please Assume Good Faith". The fact of the matter is, we had been discussing the "pro-choice" label in regards to the RCOG on the fetal pain talk page. That spilled over to the RCOG page. The content was removed from the fetal pain article while discussion was on going. Then the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice, with no editors supporting the changes (yet 3 showing concern over them). Just because Ferrylodge posted a justification for the edit on talk does not give him a free pass to edit war. The proper process would have been to post on talk first, see what other editors felt, and once reached a consensus, then edit the article. Not the other way around. So when KC wrote, in reply to the AGF claim Ferrylodge threw at her on her talk page, ''edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent.'' I agree 100% with that sentiment. |
|||
If you read over my posts on the talk-page I have not accused anyone of being biased nor I am bullying new editors. I said this user was not acting in good-faith because it's obvious they were not. They have repeatedly argued on the talk-page that the systematic reviews cited on the meat Wikipedia article do not account for BMI or smoking. I cited several of these reviews (they all account for these) and this user doesn't reply to that, then they went on a rant about something else. All I see from this user on the talk-page is a long list of spam, personal attacks and [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
::::The discourse went downhill from there. Uninvolved editors and admin got involved, siding with KC, and it got to the point where Ferrylodge was warned by an admin. Ferrylodge readily admits that he ignored the admin and was banned for doing that. That ban was uphealed by other uninvolved admins. I just wanted to post my perspective above, and say that I support the admins actions thus far and do not feel that any action or sanction against Bishonen is appropriate. Trying to get the last word in, and defending his pride, even when told to back down is what got Ferrylodge blocked. It seems like this block has only made the sentiment stronger (I was hoping for the opposite result). I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
There is a repeated pattern of disruption here involving original research and personal attacks. They disrupted the [[Ancient Greek cuisine]] article. They disrupted the [[Race (human categorization)]] article and now this type of behaviour has spilled out onto the [[meat]] article and talk-page. |
|||
:::::Andrew c, I would like to respond. You say that the most important part of the blockquote is ''"It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over."'' But you have grabbed that sentence completely out of context, without either the preceding or following sentence. The full blockquote is: |
|||
I do not see how this user is improving the project. If you read their talk-page they have already been given plenty of warnings about adding original research and making personal attacks. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"The way you have it phrased, they are a 'pro-choice group' - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group." |
|||
:You've accused multiple people of bias simply for citing better and more relevant studies. Not only do you first personally attack them that they are biased, but you also accuse them of rule-breaking when they point out your bias and dishonesty after you personally attacked them first. To hide this, you even deleted my comment that exposed the truth about your behavior. You were the first to accuse me and others of bias. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The sentence before and the sentence after make it crystal clear that she was 100% certain that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group." There is no ambiguity there. Zero. Yet when I later made a single edit that said RCOG had a pro-choice position on the issue of reducing abortion time limits, she cited diffs that had absolutely nothing to do with that being a pro-choice position. And she cited those diffs as evidence of me being (A) disruptive, (B) edit-warring, (C) having bad faith. And merely for arguing to the contrary I was charged with harassment. There is not one single diff of one single harassing thing I said to KC prior to or leading up to the harassment charge. This has been one long personal attack against me, and I do not find your plucking a sentence out of context to show anything relevant. |
|||
::{{u|Itisme3248}}, please provide evidence that uninvolved editors and adminstrators can evaluate. This is not an argument between you and the OP. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have removed the attack text from the [[Talk:Meat]] comment but otherwise left the comment in place. That whole subsections almost needs closed because more time is spent talking about the editors than the material. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::An example from the meat talk page: <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itisme3248|contribs]]) 20:41 22 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
{{cot|Comments copied from another page <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] ([[User talk:Schazjmd#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Schazjmd|contribs]]) 21:19 22 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
:::: "Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged. |
|||
:::: Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "''the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet''" [https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/370775/9789240074828-eng.pdf?sequence=1 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>]. You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "''most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies''". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[<nowiki/>[[Talk:Meat|reply]]] |
|||
::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meat/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1224995584 <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>], '''again this is bad-faith editing.''' There are good reviews found on the article in the health effects section [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33838606/ <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>], [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36545687/ <nowiki>[5]</nowiki>], [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/ <nowiki>[6]</nowiki>]. You have not explained why these sources are not "proper sources". [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[<nowiki/>[[Talk:Meat|reply]]] |
|||
:::::: If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)" |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
:::::::Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meat]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You even have accused people of being conspiracy theorists, further demonstrating your tendency to discredit others by questioning their motives. ::::::::::[[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Comment copied from another page <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] ([[User talk:Schazjmd#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Schazjmd|contribs]]) 21:21 22 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
::::::::::"''Medical organizations are not reliable sources? Ok sure, next you will be telling us the earth is flat. This talk-page is not a forum to promote '''your conspiracy theories'''. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article suggest them, otherwise cut this nonsense out. You do not need to keep creating new accounts either. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[<nowiki/>[[Talk:Carnivore diet|reply]]'']" |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
::::::::::: That comment was left a month ago on a completely different article. The drive-by IP was claiming that the entire medical community is wrong and that all medical organizations are unreliable. That is a conspiracy theory. No, it's not a personal attack to call someone's nonsense a conspiracy theory. We have established here that you are disruptive, you have not provided any evidence I have personally attacked you, so now you are going through my editing history a month ago to try and dig up anything unrelated to this that you think looks bad for me. Can an admin just block Itisme3248 before their disruption goes any further? I am tired of this now. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Why are you ignoring and misinterpreting what I said? I stated that the systematic reviews cited in the meat Wikipedia article repeatedly fail to account for BMI or smoking on the talk page. However, I also mentioned many other important confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, race, country, exercise, macronutrients, and more. Additionally, I emphasized that the total mortality rate is the most important factor, which is being ignored on this Wikipedia page. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are making false claims without any evidence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meat&diff=prev&oldid=1225174735]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Itisme3248's personal attack was removed but now they have just re-added it to their talk-page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itisme3248&diff=prev&oldid=1225175363]. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I am probably [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the 'discussion' (for want of a better word) at [[Talk:Meat]], but in my opinion Itisme3248 is creating a lot of noise, and behaving in an uncollegiate manner, and their wall-of-text-bludgeoning is making productive discussion very difficult. Looking a bit more closely at their editing history makes me more concerned - they seem to make a habit of wading into potentially contentious areas and demanding that their additions, which are often based on their own interpretation of primary sources, be allowed to stand. See, for example, [[Talk:Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece#SmallJarsWithGreenLabels_why_did_you_remove_my_edit_that_had_direct_ancient_Greek_text_citation?|this discussion at Pederasty in ancient Greece]]. Or [[Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#The_most_important_scientific_information_ever_added_here,_Fst_genetic_differentiation|this one at Race (human categorization)]]. I don't doubt that they are sincerely trying to improve articles, but by 'improve' I mean 'make them reflect what they know to be The Truth', and they do not seem willing to adapt to our way of doing things. I personally believe that we're in time-sink territory here. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**A timesink with a dash of [[WP:RGW]], methinks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1194838157 This comment] is fairly indicative of their apparent mindset. You cannot form a consensus with someone who above all actively wants to believe that you are wrong. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:Yeah, this sounds like either a pblock from the article, or tban from dietary articles in general, will be necessary to avoid it being a complete timesink. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Trolling and harassment by 50.88.229.139 == |
|||
:::::You emphasize that "The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it." There were ambiguous aspects of the blockquote, but KC was completely unambiguous that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group." |
|||
{{atop|result=Block extended, TPA revoked. — [[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]] ([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|contribs]]) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Ingenuity}} Ack. I blocked a few seconds after you. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You are correct that "KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text." So she reverted my edit at the RCOG article. However, she also accused me at that same instant of being disruptive and editing against consensus, at which point I took the discussion to her talk page and politely asked her to assume good faith. She refused, accused me of edit warring and bad faith, cited irrelevant diffs, and then Bishonen accused me of harassment. The whole thing was a set-up as far as I can tell. There has been a history of friction between myself on the one hand, and KC/Severa/Andrew c on the other hand, and this incident followed directly therefrom, IMHO. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{userlinks|50.88.229.139}} |
|||
:::::Andrew c, you say that, "KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were 'disruptive' was accurate." It's very difficult for me to know which reverts you are speaking of. I made an edit at the RCOG article saying that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. KC reverted it. I never reverted it back. It remains as KC left it. So I do not know what two reverts you are speaking of. |
|||
:::::You say, "It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with 'Please Assume Good Faith.'" She had just called me disruptive, and I wanted her to assume that I was not being disruptive. What was I supposed to say, "Please Assume Bad Faith"? |
|||
:::::You say, "the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice." Andrew c, the edit that led to this whole dispute was an edit where I wrote that RCOG took a pro-choice position on abortion time limits. I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement. KC reverted it, and I never reverted it back. Is there now a zero-revert-rule for Ferrylodge (0RR), where Ferrylodge gets into deep doo-doo whenever he reverts zero times in a row? When KC wrote, ''edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent.'' I also agree 100% with that sentiment. However I was not edit-warring against consensus. Multiple editors had '''''not''''' informed me that it would be inappropriate to characterize as pro-choice RCOG's position against reducing abortion time limits. |
|||
:::::And Andrew c, I do not readily admit that I "ignored the admin and was banned for doing that." What I admit is that I wanted to deny the harassment charge before leaving KC's page, and I ultimately did post that denial under threat of a block ("I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment"). All of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality. |
|||
:::::You are correct that the block was upheld by uninvolved admins, but not because of any harassment. Go look at the unblock request at my user talk page. It was upheld merely to disengage the dispute. And again, all of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality. |
|||
:::::You say, "I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on." I would like to oblige, but I feel that the edit dispute here was outrageous leading up to a bogus harassment charge, and I have been unfairly branded a harasser, an edit-warrior, a disrupter, and a person of bad faith. I will continue to make every effort to get an acknowledgment that I am none of those things. And then I will decide whether to stay or leave Wikipedia.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm going to address the edit warring issue. KC posted the 3 diffs on her talk page regarding the RCOG article. Here they are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133454405 (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133668934 (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133678413 (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007]. You said above ''I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement'' However, the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition, it's over the "pro-choice" label. Look at the diffs. You added "RCOG takes a [[pro-choice]] position" to the article 3 times. The first 2 times you were reverted by Severa, the last time by KC. The content dispute that started on [[Talk:Fetal pain]] and spilled over at the RCOG talk page dealt specifically with the label "pro-choice" and how and if it applied to RCOG. There clearly was no consensus yet on this topic when you added the content. Severa removed the controversial content while the content dispute was ongoing. You re-inserted it twice after this which eventually resulted in KC's revert where she said you were being disruptive (which lead to you going to her talk page and the rest is history). As I stated above, there is no reason to insert controversial content into an article during an edit dispute. This does not necessarily make you an "edit-warrior", but it does demonstrate that you were edit warring at this particular article. And by association, edit in this manner is disruptive. 3 times you added content which labeled RCOG as "pro-choice" even though multiple other editors had previously shown concern over this and no consensus had been reached yet on the matter. I'm not saying this in order to brand you as negative label, mind you, but I am saying that KC's initial concerns that sparked your comments to her are not simply 'bogus'.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Andrew c, I do not see that you are saying anything relevant here. |
|||
:::::::First of all, regarding the three diffs you cite, none of them happened at KC’s talk page. Bishonen charged me with user space harassment, so I don’t see how those three diffs establish anything regarding the harassment charge. Perhaps I misunderstand, and Bishonen meant to charge me with harassment at the RCOG article. But the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferrylodge&oldid=134005899#You_have_been_blocked only type of harassment she mentioned to me was user space harassment]. |
|||
:::::::Regarding what happened in the RCOG article, perhaps a brief analogy will help. Suppose you make edits at some article to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. These are three different issues. If you get reverted on the first one twice, it’s not any offense at all for you to write the last one once. That’s basically what happened to me at the RCOG article. I wrote that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits only once, and then I was reverted with the accusation that I was disruptive, which soon escalated to accusations of edit-warring, bad faith, and harassment. |
|||
:::::::You and KC cited three diffs from the RCOG article. How they relate to ''user space'' harassment is beyond my understanding. But let’s consider those three diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133454405 (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133668934 (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists&diff=next&oldid=133678413 (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007]. |
|||
:::::::Only in the last one did I assert that RCOG takes a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits, and that's what got me in trouble here. Andrew c, you say “the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition.” But then why is your third diff about the time limit addition? KC was very clear that the edit-warring accusation was indeed about the time limit addition. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKillerChihuahua&diff=133974336&oldid=133955878 See here.] |
|||
:::::::KC was wrong. I never wrote at any other article that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. It simply never happened, and therefore KC’s accusation of edit-warring is simply false. |
|||
:::::::KC wrote that my characterization of the time limit addition was “virtually the same contested assertion” as assertions I made elsewhere, and therefore amounted to edit-warring. But the blockquote in my initial post above shows KC saying that merely using the word “pro-choice” twice in connection with RCOG does not create two assertions that are virtually the same. RCOG’s position on reduction of abortion time limits deals with a political question about what the governing law should be. It is very different from an RCOG statement about what should happen under existing law. I was trying to address KC’s assertion that RCOG was merely trying to follow the law --- she had said that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetal_pain&diff=133172126&oldid=133100487] |
|||
:::::::Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges. The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two. And of course NONE of them occurred at KC’s talk page, and thus they do not help to establish user space harassment.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Excuse me for being totally confused. When KC above suggested "Please focus on what this thread is" regarding your initial concerns with Bishonen's harrassment ban, you said ''No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation.''. How can you say that the original edit dispute is so important, yet when I address the original edit dispute, you say that it is off topic? That I am comparing apples to orenges? You disputed that you were an edit-warrior and a disruptor (in addition to disputing that you were a harrasser). Above, I was addressing the former claims. The latter claim was addressed in my post below this. I'm perfectly fine with not addressing the content dispute again. I guess I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss it when you claimed KC wanted "people to look the other way".-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(reset)Since there is this big issue about "post the diff of harrassment", I felt I'd give it a shot. I'd first ask editors to simply read [[Talk:Fetal pain]], [[Talk:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]], and [[User talk:KillerChihuahua]] and look at the article diffs. FL and KC were involved in an edit dispute. FL was edit warring at RCOG, and KC reverted the controversial edits and said ''Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit.'' The consensus and OR remarks reference previous talk page discussions, and the "disruptive" remark references the "RCOG takes a [[pro-choice]] position" disputed text that was twice added to the article after it was removed once due to talk page concerns (by Severa). So in defense (or retaliation) to having been called a disruptive editor: |
|||
*FL goes to KC's talk page and posts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133865268&oldid=133784945 this]. Asking an established editor to "Please Assume Good Faith" may be baiting, or it may be a gentle reminder that we are all human and fallible. The post starts off polite. It digresses into accusations against two editors, claiming that they needed to address the topic to FL's standards in order to remove disputed content. Nothing completely unreasonable at face value, mind you, but still on the offense and maybe even antagonistic. Bold and brash. |
|||
However, KC and FL have a history, look at [[User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive09#Moving Stuff to Talk Page]]. It's almost deja vu. Back and forth between the two. With this taken into consideration, the initial "Please Assume Good Faith" post by FL is a round about way of saying "I'm in the right, you are in the wrong, explain your actions to my satisfaction". In a very succinct manner, KC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133902228&oldid=133865571 replied] to this, stating clearly "edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive." This explains how FL's behavior can be classified as "disruptive". While perhaps these points could be disputed (I personally agree with them), FL does not respond by saying "how was I edit warring?" or "where is the consensus?": |
|||
*FL replies with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133903185&oldid=133902630 this], accusing KC of edit-warring, and ignoring the previous comment. This sort of accusation and tone can be seen as harassment. The conversation is no longer a dialog about wikipedia policy and past actions, its about who is in the wrong. |
|||
At this point, and uninvolved editor comes along and says "Nope, don't see any edit-warring on KC's part. Sorry." |
|||
*FL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133915359&oldid=133909461 replies] asking if the user feels he had participated in edit warring, and if he agrees that KC ignored the initial post. This is another snide comment regarding KC's reading comprehension. |
|||
Then an involved editor comes along and tries to explain further how FL was edit warring but KC was not. |
|||
*FL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133966157&oldid=133955878 replies] by saying the accusations against him are "totally ridiculous" and that everyone is lacking even an "ounce of objectivity". But somehow saying that is ok because he used an emoticon. |
|||
KC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133974336&oldid=133966417 replies] that FL has misrepresented the situation and explained how this was about more than a single edit by FL. |
|||
*FL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133974946&oldid=133974336 replies], implying KC is lying or being deceptive, and demands that evidence is supplied up to his standards. |
|||
KC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133979798&oldid=133974946 does so], but not without saying the task was tedious and not necessary unless for the purposes of a RfC. |
|||
*FL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133980602&oldid=133979798 replies] that KC is "very much mistaken", and tries to claim that KC said something that FL believes to support the controversial edits that started this mess, while neglecting to comment on the the diffs KC provided that he had previously demanded be shown. |
|||
*He then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133981499&oldid=133980716 posts] a post script where he says ''and I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ''your'' disruptive editing again.'' Again this comment is only reactionary and antagonistic towards KC, accusing her of disruptive editing again, using a snide tone. |
|||
Sure KC had ended her previous post by expressing that she was fed up with trying to meet the demands FL had placed on her. KC wasn't entirely calm and sweet through the conflict. There was some back-and-forth going on, but KC stuck on point and avoided unfounded claims. At this point, the uninvolved admin came along and warned Ferrylodge to stop posting on KC's talk page. He had demanded that KC explain her revert up to his standards. Demanded an explanation on how his edits were disruptive, demanded an explanation on how he had edit warred, demanded diffs for his edit warring, and then once all that was meet, replied by saying KC was very mistaken and accused her of being a disruptive editor. All of this was because Ferrylodge edited the same controversial content multiple times during a content dispute, was reverted, and told those sorts of edits are disruptive. Read the conversation for yourself and judge whether it is harassment or not. Regardless of whatever label you want to use for the situation, the warning and subsequent ban were necessary at the time to deter the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Provocation|provocation]] and escalation of the situation. Unfortunately, as shown by the continuation of this discussion, the ban did not serve the intended purpose but itself acted to escalate matters (but at least the personal talk page conflict for KC has ended). That is how I see things. If other users (especially those asking for diffs) now want to examine the situation themselves and comment on FL and KC's actions, on the appropriateness of the ban, or anything else, please do so.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll respond briefly. Andrew c, your comment begins by saying "FL was edit warring at RCOG." That's what you argued in your previous comment, and I've already responded to it as well as I can in my previous comment. So I will not now repeat what I said in my previous comment. However, I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page, so I would urge anyone who may still be around to please read my previous comment rebutting Andrew c. |
|||
:Andrew c, to your credit you are now citing what happened at KC's talk page. However, you have cited about seven diffs of my statements at KC's talk page without indicating which ones you think establish user space harassment. For example, you cited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=133865268&oldid=133784945 my initial comment at KC's talk page], and I do not understand how it in any way helps to establish harassment. It was completely polite. Just citing a bunch of diffs without saying which ones you think establish harassment is kind of vague. |
|||
:Moreover, Wikipedia has a specific definition of harassment: "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment] But I did not notice where you pointed to any nitpicking I did of any good-faith edits, or where I made repeated personal attacks (certainly none that were any more personal than what KC was saying to me), or posted any personal information. And you have not specified which diffs (if any) suggest comparable stuff on my part. You can't. |
|||
:Wikipedia also has a particular definition of user space harassment: "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HARASSMENT#Types_of_harassment] But I do not notice where you pointed to any warnings I made at KC's talk page, or used sockpuppets or tags, or posted embarassing info, or '''''anything like that'''''. I do concede that I may be annoying to KC, and she is certainly annoying to me, but I suspect that the "material" referred to in the guidelines refers to "material" other than mere conversational statements. |
|||
:Anyway, I've responded this morning as best I can to your two long comments here, Andrew c. I don't think Bishonen had any legitimate grounds for accusing me of harassment. Again, I've got to be unavailable for the rest of the day, due to employment. Thanks for hearing me out.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:P.S. It also might be helpful to look at things the following way. Suppose you ''presume'' that all my conduct in the RCOG article was completely legitimate (i.e. no edit-warring, no disruption, no bad faith), and that KC was mistaken about that. Using that presumption, was there anything remotely approaching harassment at KC's talk page? I think not.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, yes. Even if one outright ignores that the RCOG article even exists(and this is easy for me to do, because I'd never heard of it before this incident, and never went back since), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133980716 this] was arguably somewhat harassing. (Little 'PSs' are almost always asking for troubles. Especially when they're phrased in the style of, "I know you are, but what am I?") |
|||
::And, when you saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133981499 this], and you thus absolutely and definitively knew that another single post on KC's talkpage would be considered harassment, and get you blocked, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133989725 still did it anyways]. You ''knew'' that'd be considered harassment, and yet you did it anyways. And yet, KC simply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133990465 removed it]. But, if nothing else, you now knew for ''certain'' that your comments were not desired. At all. Not even to say "I'm done". And yet you '''still''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=next&oldid=133995319 did it again]! By then, there was no way to take it as being anything ''but'' harassment. Because you knew for certain that it wouldn't be welcome, and yet you added it anyways. ''And'' you tried to use it to get the last word in. ''And'' you implicitly acknowledged that it was unwanted harassment when you asked him not to delete the comment (it perfectly illustrated that you ''knew'' he didn't want it there, but still expected him to keep it anyways). That is, even if you are given the heaviest of bias in regards to the RCOG article itself, there was absolutely no excuse for that last addition. And no way to take it as anything but harassment. I don't care about RCOG. I don't even remember what it stands for. This wasn't about someone unfairly taking sides. Nor was it based on personal opinions on a content dispute in some article. It was about clear and easily identified misconduct. My only suggestion is that you simply drop it and move on. There's no reason you can't contribute a lot; but that'll require assuming a bit of good faith in people. [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Bot delinking dates == |
|||
[[User:Lightmouse]] is running <s>a bot</s> an automated process, that is systematically removing all links to dates from articles. In doing so, he is destroying thousands of hours of work by other editors. There seems to be an agreement that dates should not be overlinked. The links removed by Lightmouse and his bot are in no way overlinking. They are carefully selected by the editors to highlight the important dates in the article. Even if they are not, Lightmouse does not know it, as he is not reading the articles. He is selecting years, and attacking every page in "What links here". I have asked him to stop, but this has had no effect. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Quick yes, is this really running bot speed? He's not just running AWB or a variant or something? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Beat me to it. I was just about to ask what makes you think this is a bot. The speed doesn't appear to be excessive, and the user has communicated their reasons for deleting. Disagreeing with him, and asking for comments is fine, but don't make unsubstantiated accusations. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Looks like he is editing up to six articles a minute, which is amazingly fast for someone not using AWB. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, it's not 15 edits a minute, and some minutes have no edits at all. This looks like a script or AWB (or some variant thereof). It looks to me like a thinking person is making each call here (no comment on the dispute itself). [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::The thinking only seems to go as far as to check the desired effect, delinking of dates. There is absolutely no thinking on whether the date should or should not be linked. This thinking has been done by hundereds of other editors before. Effectively, what he is dooing is making year articles '''delinkable'''. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::He actually says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightmouse#volume_of_changes here] he's using a script. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever he is running, it is an automated process. He does not have time to read the article and evaluate the effect of the changes. He was earlier reported for vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=134257436], but the report was dismissed by [[User:Fire Star]] based on an assamption of good fait. Later I see that Fire Star has reverted a large number of his edits. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, this user only started editing a week ago. With this skill level, I find it unlikely that he is a new user. More likely he is or has been editing under an other username. The user is not revealing his main account, so I am not sure this falls under [[WP:SOCK#LEGIT]]. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''P.S.'' Removing critical comments and pleas to stop from his talk page, as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse&diff=134531180&oldid=134464560 here] does not give an impression of good faith. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Well if that edit summary is correct, he's moving those comments to the relevant editors pages - that's seem a pretty normal thing to do. His explanation of his acts seem reasonable to me. I don't see (at the moment) any problem here - I actually agree with his reasoning for removing. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me rephrase my argument and let it rest: ''Automated processes should only be used for edits everyone can agree on. They should not be used in cases where there is a content dispute.'' What he is doing is analogous of having a bot changing every occurance of ''Ukraine'' to ''the Ukraine'' or vise versa. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have no comment on Lightmouse's behaviour, but I feel a need to point out that {{user|Petri Krohn}} has a history of imprudency in recent past regarding at least three of the issues raised: |
|||
* He baselessly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congress_of_Estonia&curid=11216584&diff=132557058&oldid=132457981 called a human "bot"] on [[May 22]]. |
|||
* He has repeatedly made assorted accusations towards other editors ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_25#Eestimaa_.E2.86.92_Estland], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Petri_Krohn/Evidence] etc.) based on nothing other than edit disputes. |
|||
* He has made a formal accusation of sockpuppetry knowing full well it was baseless, and consequently deliberately causing a lot of trouble to five editors for harassment purposes: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren]. |
|||
These reasons, and others, are a basis to put any accusations made by this editor under heavy suspicion. I would suggest dropping the matter unless somebody else -- somebody without a history of wantonly throwing heavy but baseless charges around -- will back it. |
|||
([[Disclosure]]: I happen to be among the ones targetted by this editor.) [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In his edit summary, [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] is citing [[WP:CONTEXT]] as his rationale for date delinking. BTW, [[User:SmackBot|SmackBot]] does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Cox_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=134553444 year delinking]. --[[User:Jtir|Jtir]] 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
OK I've had a further look into [[User:Lightmouse]] work and would add the following - 1) his actions seem in line with policy 2) when asked to consider his action and make improvements (such as a more informative edit summary), he has responsed to the questions, cited policy, engaged in debate and made improvements. I honestly don't see any here beyond an editor trying to improve the readability of the encyclopedia. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse&diff=134565009&oldid=134563890 this] use of a vandal tag is NOT helpful and should not be applied when editors are acting in good faith. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== New block for [[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]] == |
|||
This user well known for disrupting behavior just came back for a blocking (more info at [[User talk:Hayden5650]] and [[User_talk:125.237.116.59]]), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour (just to quote yesterday's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Holocaust&diff=134499260&oldid=134488986 "euthanasia of Jews"]). Personally, I gave him some time ago an initial [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARomani_people&diff=128602699&oldid=128601466 advice], then I made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARomani_people&diff=129222674&oldid=129220981 presentation] of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARomani_people&diff=130725718&oldid=130670339 just to mention Romani issues]), or repeated abusing words like Gypsies, Negroes and so on. Now he is following me in my edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFilipinos_of_Indian_descent&diff=134539900&oldid=134328031 opposing me], in all kind of fields he has no knowledge about, deleting my talk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARomani_people&diff=134549009&oldid=134547201], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFilipinos_of_Indian_descent&diff=134548623&oldid=134547944]. |
|||
and abusing me racially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARomani_people&diff=134550385&oldid=134550181], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filipinos_of_Indian_descent&action=history]. |
|||
What do you think about considering this case for [[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard|a permanent community ban]]? [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have given my opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romani_people#New_block_for_.5B.5BUser:Hayden5650.7CHayden5650.5D.5D here]. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'll exercise my right of reply after work, but after my block all I have done is revert a few of Desiphral's edits, (her edits were simply the deletion of information), while a discussion can take place to reach a consensus on the matter. --[[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]] 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I also notice that other users are taking the same action in reverting her edits, whilst the topic is up for discussion. --[[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]] 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:First of all, I am "him", not "her" (this is just part of this user's disruptive behavior). The edit war concerns a category listed for deletion [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Population_groups_of_mixed_ancestry]], that is irrelevant for the article [[Romani people]], only used by racist users for Romani bashing. Anyway, this is diversion from the main reason of the presentation of this incident, concerning repeated disrupting behavior in many other contexts (almost all of this users's edits are looking for controversion) [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm beginning to see your point. But I just don't know. I think only an admin can really decide whether a ban should be issued, and if so, what kind. |
|||
::Last time we had a vandalism issue, I recommended an admin I know. Should I ask him to take a look at the [[Talk:Romani people|Romani people talk page]] again, also asking him to look at this page? Or what? --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal of RS sources == |
|||
After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blnguyen&diff=prev&oldid=134313718 here]) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampalakamam_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=134507290 here]), (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mylanthanai_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=134507157 here]), (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1990_Batticaloa_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=134507035 here]), (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarathambal&diff=prev&oldid=134505961 here]), (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilayathambi_Tharsini&diff=prev&oldid=134505432 here]) |
|||
There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of [[Tamilnet]]. |
|||
{{Cquote|'''Comment:''' Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. '''RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)'''}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ida_Carmelitta] |
|||
Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources see here] |
|||
When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation]. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet '''reports''' that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:) |
|||
::Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krishanti_Kumaraswamy&oldid=134505286 here]). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_of_Jaffna_library_archive1 here] for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past. |
|||
::[[User:RGTraynor]] another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ida_Carmelitta] So we have diverse opinion here about this source. |
|||
::Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the [[French]] colonials were very fond of the game of [[Cricket]] in [[Vietnam]]:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in [[Dravidian]] and [[Tamil]] related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned [[User:WikiRaja]]. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about [[Tamilnet]]. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become [[WP:RS |reliable sources]]. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past [[WP:RS]]. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide [[WP:RS |reliable sources]] like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is <u>absolutely</u> no dearth of [[WP:RS |reliable sources]](and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape. |
|||
And what do you mean by - ''"...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."''? Are you suggesting that ''you'' have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations. |
|||
And please read [[WP:RS]], [[WP:EL]] and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about [[Tamilnet]] then. Thanks |
|||
:::Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are [[TamilNet#cnote_MW|divided]] with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like {{user|213.181.56.12}} who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like ''TamilNet '''reports''' that...''. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing [[WP:N| 'notability']] and [[WP:RS |'reliability']]. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a [[TamilNet]] on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them '[[WP:RS |RS]]'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''': The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an [[John_Moody_%28journalist%29 |editor]] with rather [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2132,00.html impeccable professional credentials] who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is ''their'' POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just [[WP:SOAP]]. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a '''qualified source''' (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS? |
|||
:Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been ''any'' consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like [[Sydney Morning Herald]] and the tabloid [[Adelaide Advertiser]] say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about [[Sarathambal]] case [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as [[WP:RS]]. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as [[WP:RS]] for the events purported by the [[State Terrorism]] in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as [[WP:RS]] in various articles. Whether [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iwazaki&diff=prev&oldid=134717443][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowolfd4&diff=prev&oldid=134717275] who are adamantly against the view there is a [[State Terrorism]] in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a [[RFC]] against him subsequently.[[User:Lustead|Lustead]] 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this [http://www.tamilnation.org/digital/Mark%20Whitaker.pdf see this]. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about [[Tamilnet]] as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind. |
|||
::Tamilnet passes RS because |
|||
::*1. It has an editorial board |
|||
::*2. It has an editor |
|||
::*3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy |
|||
::*4. It is used as a primary source by notable media |
|||
::organizations such as [[BBC]] and [[CNN]] (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka. |
|||
::5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as [[Asian Human Rights Commission]] and [[HRW]] (just to name a few) |
|||
::To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all. |
|||
::For example in the [[Sarathambal|Sarathambal rape and murder]] case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article. |
|||
::Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations. |
|||
::I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the [[Supermarket_tabloid|quality]] of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources. |
|||
:::A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives. |
|||
::::''"It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. <u>Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media.</u> The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product."''<ref>{{cite web |author= Kasun Ubayasiri |title=PHD thesis|url=http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/ubayasiri621.pdf|accessdate=2007-05-31}}</ref> [http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/ubayasiri621.pdf here is the link] |
|||
:::Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in [http://www.aucegypt.edu/conferences/iamcr/uploaded/4Finished%20.PDF/CD_Hoda%20Ragheb%20Awad.pdf conference papers] and [http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?docid=75&cid=0&sec=REF other] research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. [[User:Praveen pillay|Praveen]] 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::May I point out that '''Kasun Ubayasiri''' is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Raisestoodbn == |
|||
{{resolved|Both users have been blocked for 31 hours due to their edit warring and cautioned not to resume after their blocks expire [[User:Nick|Nick]] 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{user5|1=Raisestoodbn}}<br> has been accused of sockpuppetry and wiki stalking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nevercoast12], recently he has been blanking the pages of his user page and removing the sock puppet tags from his main page and those of his sock puppets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:83.249.100.210&diff=prev&oldid=134522828], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nevercoast12&diff=prev&oldid=134522797], , as well reverting my edits (mostly picture additions which no other editor has had a problem with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SKS&diff=prev&oldid=134526582], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SKS&diff=prev&oldid=134557870],) |
|||
also he just made a 3RR violation on [[SKS]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SKS&action=history] |
|||
he has also made personal attacks by claiming I am a nazi and racist without any proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkSutton&diff=prev&oldid=134557585] --[[User:Bleh999|Bleh999]] 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Personal attacks and other misconduct of [[User:Cleo123]] == |
|||
There has recently been a rather heated conversation at [[Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity]] regarding inclusion of a particular subject. I unfortunately was one such party. I full well volunteer to take any penalty any of you may seek to impose for my own actions. However, there is one other party involved who I believe well crossed the line, and seems to be hiding as a result. I am speaking of [[User:Cleo123]]. I am specifically speaking of that user's statement that his/her own actions were prompted by a wish to prevent a libel lawsuit arising, based on assumptions which are nowhere put forward in any policy or guideline. I am also speaking most directly about the thread at [[Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Hypocrisy]], which I believe is clearly and explicitly a violation of the rules regarding no personal attacks. The fact that this user has since on his/her own talk page stated that s/he saw no reason for admin involvement in this matter, and actually seemed to oppose involving any oversight [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACleo123&diff=132846686&oldid=132846293 here] after making the accusations in the Hypocrisy thread makes it clear to me that this user may well have been engaged in the conversation from the beginning for, as another user has stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity&diff=131319844&oldid=131317494 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=132696321 here], the purposes of intimidation and harrasment. I also note that since I first gave this party notice that I would be filing a complaint, partially to see if that party displayed any real interest in validly raising the complaints they made regarding me on the "Hypocrisy" charges above, that party has completely disappeared and had not a single edit. Frankly, that surprised me rather a lot, but it does seem to me to be possibly a tacit acknowledgement of wrongdoing. I would like to see this user receive some sort of penalty for the clear and I think egregious attempts at intimidation and harrasment, but also would like to see the editor be allowed to contribute productively elsewhere as well. Is there anyway to level a block as it were "pro-rated" to include the time the editor has voluntarily removed him/herself? If such is possible, I would think that such would be the most appropriate penalty. Also, I have no objections to keeping the "Hypocrisy" thread intact, as its presence, and the subsequent ability to point toward it, I think helps insure that such actions not happen again. Thank you for your attention in this rather odd matter. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Given that the last post to that thread was about 10 days ago and you are still here, I'd say if there was an intent to intimidate you, it didn't really work too well did it? While noting that there is clear [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] from multiple parties on that talkpage, I don't see much reason for admin action against specific editors at this time. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and it appears the behavior you are objecting to has ended at this point. On a side note, I protected the article because it appears the underlying edit war is still happening. Perhaps it is time for the parties who have taken an interest in this article to look into [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]].--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Please review the [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]], particularly the bit where it says that 'The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment'. {{userlinks|Cleo123}} has not edited Wikipedia for just over a week. In various places, by various editors, it has been sugggested to all of you involved in your little teapot tempest at [[Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity]] to calm down, have a [[WP:TEA|cup of tea]], and relax. Cleo123 has apparently been willing to disengage for a while, despite you trying to goad her into filing some sort of complaint about you. Please follow her lead. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::(moving comment to chronological position, having been caught in apparent edit conflict) Mediation was actually tried before. Cleo actually told the major proponent for the non-inclusion of Bob Dylan, [[User:Bus stop]], on his talk page, to not accept mediation when I and others had filed for mediation, and it was thus rejected. Whether that party would be any more willing to accept mediation since he has directly asked elsewhere what the "tendious" editing is he has been accused of is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=134352714&oldid=134351917 here], that party's actions seem to have been more limited. And my apologies for my earlier comments regarding your recent protection of the page. I hadn't looked at the page's recent activity to see the current dispute. I hope that the newly created discussion on where to include people who have converted to Christianity and subsequently to something else will resolve the existing dispute, but think that protection might be a good idea again in any event. My apologies again. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] did not link to the entirety of that exchange, which was largely a joke, and unrelated to the subject at hand. Here is the link to the exchange in its entirety: |
|||
'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rogue_admin_blocks_me_for_2RR''' |
|||
It was just a joke. The joke is that no such word as ''"tendious"'' exists in the English language. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Defamatory personal attack by [[User:RodentofDeath]] == |
|||
Latest homepage revision[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RodentofDeath&oldid=134536369] by {{user|RodentofDeath}} is a defamatory personal attack on <nowiki>[I guess I should delete this]</nowiki>. This one could plausibly cause trouble for her where she lives. |
|||
This is going pretty far — I really hope it isn't dismissed as another chapter in their ongoing POV conflict on articles relating to the Philippines sex industry. |
|||
Only three NPA warnings on Rodent's talk page (including this one) since last block, but there have been a few uncivil comments in article talk pages. And I feel like this particular offense is special. / [[User:Edgarde|edgarde]] 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The homepage revision you linked to above does not name who he is talking about. No person, not already intimately connected to the situation, could possibly figure it out. Making the case that it's a personal attack against the specific person you named here, is impossible in that situation. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::This is ''at least'' harassment. We're given an approximate street address and identifying personal characteristics. I can also see easy ways a reader could identify the accused editor if they felt sufficiently concerned by the accusation to investigate. From what I understand, a possible associate of the accused editor was framed on rape or pedophilia charges under (what were eventually decided to be) false pretenses. / [[User:Edgarde|edgarde]] 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I've deleted the page as attack, as I can't see any useful purpose for it remaining, whether or not the subject is identifiable. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if a block is needed (partly as I don't have time to investigate, partly to allow at least another set of eyes to take a look). [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Prices and catalogs == |
|||
Some feedback is requested on [[Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)]], whether the list should include pricing information on individual video games, or whether these are considered trivia. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This is tricky. I believe this should be discussed w/in a policy or a MoS scope. However, i'd say we are an encyclopedia where we gather as much information as we can, BUT pricing? Ummm, prices change every once and then and if we are going to include them we must be able to update them and i don't think we can manage that if we are going to include all prices for all products in wikipedia. Leave that job to the marketing guys working for their companies. They have their own websites (which can be reached from here by clicking on external links) where they can list and update their prices. We don't represent them. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Another article that falls under the price guide issue: [[Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360]]. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Really annoying and bothering as an issue. But is this the right place to discuss this? What about the village pump or wikiprojects? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::*No, I don't ask people to ''discuss'' it here, I'm just notifying people here that we have a discussion on that talk page I mentioned. Please chime in there. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 08:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== When will South Philly stop harrassing me? == |
|||
I have to question when {{user|South Philly}} is going to stop trying to harrass me. I thought with the cessation of Evrik's attempts to appoint himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards, South Philly's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alai/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=113571141 abusive] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:South_Philly&diff=prev&oldid=116015449 messages] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Evrik&diff=prev&oldid=116016501 would] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=113364010 cease], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=134552475 but] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920&diff=prev&oldid=134552678 apparently] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na&diff=prev&oldid=134552774 not]. Actually, that last one was an attack on [[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|Kathryn NicDhàna]] as well, who supported the removal of Evrik as coordinator and really was utterly non-confrontational throughout. South Philly is utterly loyal to Evrik, to the point of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik|nominating an certified RfC against him for deletion]] last week claiming that the five pages of evidence was just spurious and should be deleted. If South Philly can combine defending Evrik and attacking me, all the better; thus he signed an [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Evrik#Outside_view_by_Stonewall_Revisited|outside statement]] on the RfC in which it was claimed the LGBT community, and more specifically, me and Jeffpw, were deliberately targetting Evrik, written by someone who we strongly believe is a sockpuppet of a user banned for disrupting LGBT articles. South Philly has now nominated WikiProject Awards [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards (2nd nomination)|for deletion]], which, beyond being too ironic for words that his basis for doing so is "excessive bureaucracy", is simply an attempt, once again, to get at me - which is just bizarre given I don't really care and haven't posted there for weeks. However, it's kinda [[WP:POINT|POINTy]] because with the demise of Barnstar proposals, the WikiProject is more necessary than ever for help with new awards, be it design, or wording or whatever. |
|||
I find it unlikely that South Philly is going to give up his disruptive habits (which he also appears to be pursuing with [[User_talk:South_Philly|Radiant!]] as well, but I can't comment on that) or vendetta against me in the near future, and as my time on Wikipedia is very limited, restricted mainly to minor edits and comments, I thought I'd detail it here for the future reference of any admins who may wish to watch him. I am certainly getting very fed up with this snidely little comments appearing everywhere because South Philly didn't get his way that one time. [[User:DevAlt|DevAlt]] 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Just my opinion, which doesn't amount too much, but this all stems from the "necessary" WikiProject Awards. Anyone else see the irony in that? I was belittled at the MfD for calling the project disruptive and pointless. Not that any of this matters. Sorry if no one cares to hear my opinion. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The comments Ivo is referring to were not from me, btw. However, the "disruption" was caused by Evrik and South Philly, ended some time ago as far as WP:AWARDS is concerned, and have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the project itself. Your reply was not the most edifying either, though, Ivo. [[User:DevAlt|DevAlt]] 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Having had no interactions (afaik) with South Philly for months now, and having barely interacted with him even during the WP:Awards situation (where SP and Evrik were trying to run the thing, and got very angry when other editors came in and made it democratic) I was very surprised at his odd post on my talk page today (linked above), and his screeds that some "gay cabal" is out to get him. It seems he cannot let go of what happened at WP:AWARDS. I looked at his recent contribs, and it appears to me that, rather than working on the encyclopedia, he is taking up lots of people's time with [[WP:POINT]] activities and subtle or not-so-subtle jabs and attacks on other editors. I think he needs to get constructive or take a time out. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:#009">Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]]</b> [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't realize ANI was here to enlighten everyone. I was just pointing out that this all stemmed from the project. Sorry if you don't like that, that project has been nothing but a problem, but we are all entitled to our own opinions. Your response is, of course, your opinion too, and I didn't mean to imply that the comments were from you, just thought it was ironic that there is a report on ANI related to a project that I was told doesn't disrupt anything. I can't comment on the other stuff, for the record, however, I was one of the editors who came in and headed off evrik's attempts to declare himself coordinator. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are missing the point, IvoShandor. SouthPhilly is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dev920#Idjit insulting] people. That's the problem. [[User:Raystorm|Raystorm]] 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Oliver Dulić == |
|||
I'm fighting a sterile (and lame) edit war with {{vandal|24.151.129.28}} over the lead section of {{la|Oliver Dulić}}. I kindly tried to explain him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.151.129.28&diff=134526386&oldid=133801537] why his persistent addition that the man is "of Yugoslav descent" is both nonsensical (in American terms, it would be comparable to "a man of Christian descent" for someone from mixed-religion marriage) and inappropriate for the lead section, and already in the appropriate place in the article, but he just keeps on re-adding it. Since I don't want to break 3RR, and I'm in an edit dispute with him, can someone explain it to him in [[WP:BLOCK|more stern terms]] or semi-protect the article? Thanks. [[User:Duja|Duja]]<span style="font-size:70%;">[[User talk:Duja|►]]</span> |
|||
:Well, while I don't understand the specifics, I do understand that claiming a Serb is of Yugoslav descent is nonsense - it's like saying a Ukranian or Russian is of USSR descent. I've reverted, and will leave a clear message on the talk page to start communicating better on the talk page... [[WP:BLOCK|or else]]. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Canvassing of CfD by Mais Oui == |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_22#Category:Current_British_MPs|soon-to-close CfD]] for [[:Category:Current British MPs]] and its sub-categories has been the subject of partisan canvassing by [[User:Mais oui!]] at [[Talk:Scottish National Party#SNP-related_category_has_been_nominated_for_deletion]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scottish_National_Party&diff=133087223&oldid=130697940 this edit]). |
|||
The canvassing is both blatantly partisan and is directed at a targeted audience, thereby meeting two of the criteria for unacceptable votestacking set out at at [[WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing]]. It concludes with the sarcastic comment: |
|||
{{quote|''Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely [[euphemism]]...''}} |
|||
Several identifiably Scottish editors voters have since joined the CfD in explicit support of Mais Oui's position, altering the balance of votes. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Forgive me from commenting when I'm an identifiably Scottish voter myself, but so far as I can see there is nothing wrong with him contacting active members of a WikiProject with an interest in the discusion (the Scotland Project, in this case) and with taking the view that it is up to other related projects to sort themselves out. [[User:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">'''Blood Red Sandman'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Talk)</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Contribs)</font>]]</sup> 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Problem with unregistered user in the [[Any Dream Will Do (TV series)|Any Dream Will Do]] article == |
|||
An unregistered user persistently ignores reasoning and keeps reintroducing his changes to the criticism section, supposedly to remove bias but actually to add his own opinion. As the user won't register and the IP keeps changing (at least three different IP numbers are listed in the history) it's impossible to talk to this person and resolve the dispute. Constantly editing around won't do any good. I don't know how to solve this but I do feel that the edits that are being made aren't a merit to the article. How can this be resolved? A third opinion would also be appreciated on whether the edits made are actually useful. [[User:Little-quiqueg|Little-quiqueg]] 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: The page could be semi protected which will keep unregistered and newly register accounts at bay. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: This would be good. But who can do that? I already feel accomplished just getting a semi-decent article format (I'm actually copying what you did to get the indent...). It would be preferable if this other person finally got an account so we could discuss this properly. [[User:Little-quiqueg|Little-quiqueg]] 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The unregistered user keeps ignoring my attempt to open a discussion and keeps deleting information even though other editors have already said it's relevant and his comments arents. |
|||
*I've warned the IP editor about removing sourced material from the article.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, but now the user added completely biased information to the section to make it absurd. [[User:Little-quiqueg|Little-quiqueg]] 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Prism|AfD in limbo]] == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Prism|This AfD]] appears to be stuck in limbo - [[User:Princess Tiswas|<span style="color:#006400">Tiswas</span>]]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">([[User talk:Princess Tiswas|t]])</span></sup> 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*It appears that due to a technical error this was never listed on the main AfD page, which would explain the lack of participation in the AfD as well as the fact that no one noticed that it needed to be closed for over a month. It appears that someone is re-listing for a new debate. Comments on the original AfD should be incorporated in the new one, and/or the people who previously commented should be notified so they can do so again. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It looks like it wasn't formatted correctly or listed in the logs. I tagged it with an afd2, and listed it. Makes sense to me to start the 5 days now, unless someone wants to make a "speedy" solution. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The article has now been speedied by [[User:^demon]] under [[WP:CSD#G11|CSD G11]]. <i><b>[[User:WarpstarRider|Warpstar]]</b>[[User_talk:WarpstarRider|Rider]]</i> 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Giano_II]] ignoring [[Wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] == |
|||
By unilaterally redirecting [[Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet]] (which recently survived afd as a keep). Doc_Glasgow has done the same thing. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]]<small>[[User_talk:Kittybrewster| (talk)]]</small> 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Con doesn't trump V, and I note the only source is your personal website. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I support Giano's [[WP:BOLD|bold]] action. [[Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet]] as it stood was not remotely [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] and there was simply nothing to support a standalone article there. An AFD closed Keep is not the be all end all that signifies an article should stay in a static state forever. All of these Arbuthnot articles that don't contain a distinct, [[WP:RS|sourced]] claim of notability per [[WP:BIO]] ''should'' be redirected. They can always be restored as standalone articles if [[WP:V|verifiable sources]] are found. Of course this is all a content issue and I don't see any case for admin action against Giano for being bold.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Redirection and merger can be implemented as editorial decisions outside the deletion process. Issues can be discussed on the talk of the articles in question. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Despite repeated requests on this page to desist from [[WP:COI]] edits to articles on members of [[:Category:Arbuthnot family|his own family]] (see e.g. discussion above at [[#Vendetta]]), [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Arbuthnot&diff=prev&oldid=134578094 done it again], shortly after the expiry of a previous 48-hour block or the same problem. This is now clearly a form of disruptive editing, so I have imposed a fresh block, this time for 7 days. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**I am sorry to say that I am troubled by this block. I share the extreme concerns that have been expressed by many editors about the sourcing and reliability of some of the Arbuthnot articles and by Kittybrewster's handling of the controversies that have arisen surrounding them. However, his only substantive edit today was to correct a questioned date of birth while citing the [[Dictionary of National Biography]], and I can't see that as warranting a block. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*** He didn't simply correct a date, he removed the "notability" tag. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****I did miss that. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***The ongoing pattern of baiting and bullying that Kittybrewster has been subjected to is sad to see. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*****The ongoing pattern is more of a two way street, if anything. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****While the edit in question wasn't a particularly good one (removing notability tag and then adding an inexplicable "reference" in the form of <nowiki><ref>DNB</ref></nowiki>... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), I think a 7 day block for that is a bit draconian. {{user|Kittybrewster}} has not made particularly helpful edits to these articles, but I just don't see this as blockable for that amount of time.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*****There ''was'' a citation of the Dictionary of National Biography already present at the bottom of the article. "DNB" is a common abbreviation for that. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
******Ah, I completely missed that it was supposed to be an abbreviation for that. Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I like to see references a bit clearer. The way it was done it was not clear.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Brad; this particular action did not warrant a week's block. I do understand that it's cumulative, and I do understand the frustration with this editor's inability to understand why he cannot edit articles about himself and his family. Blocks, however, are intended to stop disruption; I frankly don't think that Kittybrewster's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant a one week block at this point, given how it is limited to one narrowly defined set of articles. Granted, it's pretty hard to follow the conversations on KB's talk page, since he keeps blanking it. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*I asked {{user|BrownHairedGirl}} to pop back over here to discuss the block. IMO, it should be refactored to something more along the lines of 24 hours if a block is going to be left on the account.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, Isotope23, for the note that this discussion was continuing. I will explain my reasons, but if there is a consensus for refactoring or lifting the block, that's fine by me: I won't object to any change which has consensus here. |
|||
My reasoning was that this [[WP:COI|COI]] editing is not something new, and that it has continued for a long time: KB refuses to acknowledge the existence of a COI, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly criticised both here at WP:ANI and on countless talk pages and AfDs. The product of all this COI editing has been a huge swathe of articles which are primarily dependant on sources owned by Kittybrewster himself (his website and a book to which he owns copyright), and efforts to delete or merge them in accordance with [[WP:N]], [[WP:RS]] etc are hotly contested by Kittybrewster. |
|||
Debates over these articles have caused tempters to be raised on both sides, and Kittybewster's continued COI edits are only stoking the flames of a tense situation. After a previous block (which he did not contest), KB returned and set about COI editing straight away; that seems like to me to be clear indication that far from trying to help a calm resolution of the situation, he is happy to stoke the tensions. At this point, I think it's time to make it clear that such determined and persistent COI editing is unacceptable, so a further block was justified ... and 7 days seeems like the next logical increment after the previous 48-hour block. |
|||
AS above, if there is consensus here to lift or refactor the block, that's fine by me. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I actually did quite a bit of tidying this afternoon (for that is what it was) I made 4 baronets all non-notable with virtually zero information other than their wifes' and childrens' names and some trivial information not demonstrating notability (one was a JP, another a Master of Fox Hounds - all very commendable/enjoyable but hardly distinguished) into a redirect, and made the page known as [[Arbuthnot]] in to a redirect to [[:Category: Arbuthnot family]] which is plain common sense. |
|||
:This is the way forward with the Arbuthnot problem, tidy and sort. I have also discovered that some pages lead to the wider and more extended Arbuthnot family, some of these are not by the same author but that is neither here nor there as (despite his beliefs to the contrary) this problem is not about Kittybrewster and his friends personally but about the notability and often referencing of the Arbuthnot pages. Many of which he has not been the sole editor. We just need to apply some common sense and deal with this matter efficiently in a detached fashion - this is about the worth and standing of the encyclopedia nothing else. So far during this unseemly debacle I have been seen people being accused of supporting terrorist organizations, republicanism, "treating the British ascendency with disdain" and "opposing personal and political reasons", and of course David Lauder's latest accusation yesterday of a "vendetta". This is ludicrous and has to stop. |
|||
:When by chance trawling Wikipedia for a stub to improve (as I often do) I initially came across the Arbuthnot pages I desperately tried to help Kittybrewster, but the more I researched and sourced the more errors I can across - I advised I tried to help, (God knows where I found the patience) on wiki and off - eventually I ran out of patience and told him why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKittybrewster&diff=130054565&oldid=130053415]. Normally when I am a little abrupt with people I think afterwards - that was a little harsh. In this case I stand by every word. These people are not notable, the titles they hold may well be, so the title can have a page. Notable holders of that title can have a page. Non-notable holders of baronetcies do not need a page - especially when there is nothing to write about. At the end f the day the project is what is important, individual editors may have their problems (which of us do not?) but Wikipedia is not therapy. Regarding Kittybrewster's latest block - I could not care less about it. It makes no difference to the encyclopdia how long it lasts. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This is absurd. This is a content dispute, with a user with a clear conflict of interests. The accusations are ridiculous and wild. I wrote an arbuthnot article, and the only one I recall redirecting I did so after no substantive arguments were offered against redirection on the talk page discussion. As for ignoring consensus on an AfD - check the afd on the article I redirected, there was 'no consensus'. Anyone who knows the fraught history between myself and Giano knows that we are the least likely two wikipedians to be in a conspiracy together. Yet, here we agree - could we possibly be right?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Can I add my [[faggot (wood)|bungle of twigs]] to this bonfire? |
|||
*Redirecting non-notable Arbuthnots to an overarching article that ''is'' notable makes perfect sense. |
|||
*There is no vendetta, hounding, bullying or baiting of Kittybrewster, at least in so far as people like Giano are making a good-faith effort to deal with the many non-notable Arbuthnot articles (although there has been some of that in Kittybrewster's other interaction with other Wikipedians). |
|||
*In my opinion, Kittybrewster's most recent edit did not deserve a 7 day block - he added a reference to the [[DNB]]! If someone disputes his assertion (by deleting the "notability" tag) that the article is notable, take it to AFD. I would unblock immediately. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Oh please just leave him where he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKittybrewster&diff=134678288&oldid=134677404] unable to edit! [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Re: the title of this section, I don't think Giano was ignoring consensus at all he was following it as the majority of people seem in favour of not having articles about every Baronet just because they're a Baronet. I don't think it was necessary to block Kittybrewster for adding the DNB reference-if someone has a DNB article they are notable enough for an article here- I think a block would only be necessary if he started creating more family tree articles only sourced to that book. [[User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel|Gustav von Humpelschmumpel]] 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Gustav, if KB thought that there was was extra information which could be added to the article, he could and should have followed the advice at [[WP:COI]], and simply added a note to the talk page requesting that the information be added. And the most important point is that he should ''not''' have unilaterally removed the {{tl|notability}} tag from an article where there was a COI; in this case, I think that notability probably has been established, but that decision should not be made by an editor with a COI. |
|||
:::However, when checking the validity of the reference, I found that most of the article was a blatant copyvio of the subject's DNB entry at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/613 -- see [[Talk:Thomas Arbuthnot#Copyright_violation_from_DNB]]. The offending material was added by [[User:Frendraught]], not by Kittybrewster. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think Giano acted properly. The block on Kittybrewster may be excessive but he doesn't appear to accept that there's any problem with his editing despite many complaints in different venues. Does anyone have a [[cluestick]]? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 08:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::*The problem with Kitybrewster is that he does not accept anything he is told by anyone. He fails to appreciate that this is intended to be a serious project. He seems to have limited interests in the project other than attempting to turn it a record of his own family history. I have been saying now for some weeks that a panel of three of four highly reputable admins need be set up to review all his pages with delegated powers to delete or amend without further consultation or debate. They could check all sources and claims and email known editors who are experts in certain fields to verify claims - this would eliminate the need for the confrontational and often inaccurate claims and arguments taking place over each AFD. I would go as far as to suggest that Mackensen (who has a good working knowledge of the peerage and the subject, and a respected Arbcom member, be appointed chairman. I will go further and suggest that Kittybrewster is banned from editing all Arbuthbot and related pages until the panel has finished its work, after that any edits he makes thereafter to the pages have to be through an independent intermediary who screens for POV and conflict of interest. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Good luck in finding your committee! But the second part (a community sanction preventing [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] from editing Arbuthnot articles directly) sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Presuambly we can impose such a sanction without bothering ArbCom? Power to the people, and all that. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm going to unblock Kittybrewster as I think it is pretty clearly consensus that 1 week was excessive. At this point if someone wants to pursue [[WP:CN|a community solution]] feel free to do so.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Returned [[Labrador Retriever]] vandal == |
|||
{{userlinks|7raptor7}} / {{userlinks|Silverlabrador}} has come back once again to add incorrect information to article {{article|Labrador Retriever}}. On May 22, they sent me an e-mail via Wikipedia containing fluff on how I am ruining Wikipedia and threatening to "monitor" me and then report me to some unnamed authority. |
|||
I had filed a complaint on the COI board in March, which can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Labrador_Retriever__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D here]. "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, as was I believe one or more of his IP addresses 65.73.71.*. For a time, the article itself was protected to keep them from editting. '''''[[User:Sarranduin|<font color="#FF007F">Sarrandúin</font>]]''' <sup>[ [[User Talk:Sarranduin|<font color="#7171C6">Talk</font>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Sarranduin|<font color="FF0000">Contribs</font>]] ]</sup>'' 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It looks like you reverted the article and that is the end of it for now. My suggestion is to monitor the article and if these sorts of edits continue from IPs post here again if it is 1 IP or request semi-protection if it is multiple IPs. Since that IP only made the change once and you reverted it, I think a block is premature at this point. If it continues and becomes disruptive, I'd be happy to revisit the issue.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have just reverted again- their IP address changes, but like I said, it's almost always a 65.73.71.*. I did add a mis-info warning template this time to their latest address. I've gone through the history and made note of the various addresses they've used on the Lab article (there were also edits to the talk page that I didn't bother with). I made this section between the last two May 30 edits. '''''[[User:Sarranduin|<font color="#FF007F">Sarrandúin</font>]]''' <sup>[ [[User Talk:Sarranduin|<font color="#7171C6">Talk</font>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Sarranduin|<font color="FF0000">Contribs</font>]] ]</sup>'' 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::*May 30- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.124 65.73.71.124] |
|||
:::*May 30- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.113 65.73.71.113] |
|||
:::*Feb 2-3- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.87 65.73.71.87] |
|||
:::*Dec 3, Jan 6- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.41 65.73.71.41] |
|||
:::*Jan 6- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.19 65.73.71.19] |
|||
:::*Jan 5- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.70.182 65.73.70.182] |
|||
:::*Jan 5- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.116 65.73.71.116] |
|||
:::*Jan 5- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.33 65.73.71.33] |
|||
:::*Jan 4- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.47 65.73.71.47] |
|||
:::*Jan 4- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.49 65.73.71.49] |
|||
:::*Jan 4- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.123 65.73.71.123] |
|||
:::*Jan 1- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.97 65.73.71.97] |
|||
:::*Dec 30- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.70.146 65.73.70.146] |
|||
:::*Dec 29- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.95 65.73.71.95] |
|||
:::*Dec 3- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.118 65.73.71.118] |
|||
:::*Dec 3- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.73.71.107 65.73.71.107] |
|||
*I semi-protected the page from IP edits.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Two accounts apparently working in concert to get articles deleted == |
|||
I've just come across two relatively new accounts that appear to be working in concert to get articles deleted. {{userlinks|Betterone}} went through a bunch of articles on April 29th and deleted substantial content from them. Today {{userlinks|Notsomuch}} went around most of those same articles adding speedy and prod tags - in some cases adding implausible claims about being unable to find mention of the subject with Google. I have removed the tags and reverted the deletions. I'm not sure if there is much more useful to be done, but thought it couldn't hurt to make others aware. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Wow... good catch. I blocked both accounts indefinitely. There is no way that one individual came along and edited out content and then a month later another individual came along and speedy delete nominated ''the exact same articles''. This is disruption pure and simple... [[Scooby-Doo|and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!]]--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
That's a very specific set of articles and there is a common link between then - a highly distruptive editor who ran a very impressive sounding but minor and NN agency and in the course of the AFD around the agency ran one of the most distruptive sockshows I've ever seen - I'll not mention the name because it's nothing more than a hunch of mine at this stage and because she got the foundation to remove all mention of her. However, I'd suggest that a few editors add those pages to their watchlists, if it's the person i'm thinking of - this could run and run. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmm, I think I know what you are talking about. I'll add them to my watchlist.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Long-term problematic IP == |
|||
{{resolved|Blocked for a month.}} |
|||
{{vandal|67.87.69.5}}: I wasn't aware it was possible to have this long a contribution list which consists almost entirely of vandalism (mostly falsely listing games for [[Virtual Console]], in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tattoo_Assassins&diff=prev&oldid=133323214 one] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tattoo_Assassins&diff=prev&oldid=132005626 case] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tattoo_Assassins&diff=prev&oldid=119370194 five] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tattoo_Assassins&diff=prev&oldid=111341956 different] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tattoo_Assassins&diff=prev&oldid=109667126 times]) and not be indef-blocked. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Er, [[WP:AIV]] might be the place to go to here? For a nice, long block in case of more vandalism. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Unbelievably, I think nifboy may have a point. This user has been categorically been adding false information to Wikipedia for at least 5 or 6 months now. this type of vandalism is far worse than the "johnny is gay" vandalism because it makes Wikipedia untrue and brings it into disrepute. I suggest a ''very'' long block from any admin. Granted, IP's can change, but this is clearly a preventative block. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Are ''all'' the edits false? I wouldn't know, as I'm not playing video games. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::It would appear, from my quick research, that at least most are. At very best, they're based on [[WP:CRYSTAL]] information, but more likely, it's fraudulent. For example, in my quick perusal, I found this user add Bloodstorm to the list of Wii games [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_games&diff=prev&oldid=132008363] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BloodStorm&diff=prev&oldid=132009410], but there is no mention of this on the list standard list: [http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/list_b.html]. This is just one of many examples. This is very destructive. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::OK, blocked for a month as a vandalism-only IP. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Curiously, I did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=133531414 report it] on AIV but it was removed without action because it had been more than a day since his last edit. So I came here instead. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:200.198.98.67]] == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
Would it be possible to get some sort of longer term block on this address? It appears to be the home addrss of a puppet master who has continually added hoax/nonsense about himself to WP. Please see warnings at [[User talk:200.198.98.67]], [[User talk:Lauroroger]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauro Roger]]. Help blocking the usernames and/or protecting the AFD article would be appreciated. Thanks. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:And now [[User:Heighallen]] has done it again, removing the AFD warnings. Would somebody please take a look at this? [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I blocked {{user|Heighallen}} for AFD disruption... On further reflection I closed the AFD and speedy deleted the article as page creation vandalism. We don't need to coddle self-promoters that fabricate sources.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Bill Tegner|Bill Tegner]] and [[User:Millbanks|Millbanks]] == |
|||
In initally came upon [[User:Bill Tegner|Bill Tegner]] when I found him altering other people's comments on talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_American&diff=prev&oldid=114497779], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_American&diff=prev&oldid=114592449]. After a series of warning, he eventually stopped. |
|||
From that point, he started adding his own POV to articles such as: |
|||
Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the [[Ancient Order of Hibernians]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Order_of_Hibernians&diff=prev&oldid=114036761] |
|||
Pushing his personal POV in the Peter O'Toole article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_O%27Toole&diff=prev&oldid=113637429] |
|||
Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the Daniel Day-Lewis article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Day-Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=113570231] |
|||
Starting a thread on the talk page of "Plastic Paddy" about people he personally deems non-plastic and goes on to call me a plastic paddy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plastic_Paddy&diff=prev&oldid=114921555]. This, after he had already made a rude remark about my being Irish [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Tegner&diff=prev&oldid=114658650] |
|||
After creating a new account, [[User:Millbanks|Millbanks]] (which he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millbanks&diff=prev&oldid=129538302 admitted to me]), he continued to troll. On May 10, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_words_for_British&diff=prev&oldid=129959601 he stated]: ''"Look, it's easy. Call the English English, the Welsh Welsh, and the Scots Scots. OK?"'' but then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglo-Celtic&diff=prev&oldid=132178307 10 days later] he says: ''"Even the word British causes problems there, with ill-educated people writing to the press objecting to Scots and Welsh being called "British"."'' Those two sentences so directly contradict each other that it is obvious he is doing nothing but trolling. |
|||
A look through his edits under both names will show that the majority of his edits are article talk pages. His only article edits are minor grammatical changes or introducing his own POV (like calling Daniel Day-Lewis a "plastic paddy"). When I first confronted him, he simply abandoned the original account and started anew under a new name. If someone else could explain to him that Wikipedia article talk pages aren't message forums it might get through to him...but frankly I am a little short of good faith for this user and I think he is intentially screwing around. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have also witnessed this guys edits - in my opinion he is a pure troll, he does all his work on talk pages and drags up old arguments for the sake of an argument.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Oh dear. It is easier to call the English, English, etc., and that's my preference, and in most cases theirs too. But technically they, the Scots and Welsh are British, and that is a matter of FACT. [[User:Millbanks|Millbanks]] 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
That's not fair. I think my problem is that I make points that you are uncomfortable with. Look, if you use the phrase "any scolar" about being Irish, do you really expect me to take that seriously? |
|||
My recent article edits include the Anglican viewpoint on the Blessed Virgin; the relationship of Pope Pius VI with the Anglican Church; and the religion of Modern Celts. None of those are at all frivolous. [[User:Millbanks|Millbanks]] 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Ben-w]] == |
|||
{{archive top}} |
|||
This matter is already as heated as it can be. With Ben unblocked and warned, let's all just try and remain cool - like Isotope wisely pointed out, we have several rough days ahead of us... [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#009900">P<font color="#00AA00">h<font color="#00BB00">a<font color="#00CC00">e<font color="#00DD00">d</font>r</font>i</font>e</font>l</b>]] - 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have blocked {{userlinks|Ben-w}} for a month per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=134622963&oldid=134620359] on my talk page after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABen-w&diff=134620950&oldid=101322422 this] warning. If Phaedriel or someone wants to unblock him then fine, right now we don't need angry people with insufficient self-control. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:(comments refactored by me) Methinks one month is excessive, and comes across as a temper block. This is not good. Besides, I'm not sure his self-control is any worse than Guy's (i.e., telling him to "fuck off"). He did nothing but question a bad unblock (albeit uncivilly, but so did Guy). It's a very bad idea to block a user for NPA after just engaging in one yourself against the same user. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ben-w was being a dick and stirring up trouble, but I can't agree with this block. It should be reduced or removed. JzG I think you were fine, up until blocking him. It doesn't look good to block someone for being rude to you, when it looks like a two-way street. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Incivility countered by incivility does nothing good for this project. Blocking somebody with your only warning involved giving them the option to "fuck off" does not seem appropriate. I am not condoning anybodys behavior here however, I have seen people do much much more in the way of acting uncivil with no consequences. Even if a block was warranted, it was perhaps an 8 hours cool down block but not a month. [[User:Chrislk02|-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)]] 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::At the risk of upping the ante, I'm not sure Guy couldn't use his own block in this situation. The judgement you give, ought to be held back onto you. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::(edit conflict) The "stirring up trouble" Friday was referring to was likely stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhaedriel&diff=134628096&oldid=134609160 this], and I believe the length of the ban was to reflect the fact that it might take a while for the dispute Mr. Merkey was talking about on Phaedriel talk to be resolved. My instinct is that 8 hours would be a little short to prevent disruption of that reason, but I could be wrong. [[User:Smmurphy|Smmurphy]]<sup>([[User talk:Smmurphy|Talk]])</sup> 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Jesus Guy, a month seems pretty harsh, too harsh IMO. 74 Hours would have been more than enough to be honest.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As Guy said "If Phaedriel or someone wants to unblock him then fine..." I've unblocked him. Time for everyone to remember [[WP:COOL]].--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== [[Monster Pig]] == |
|||
Would an administrator please semi-protect this page for 30-days to stop vandalism of the current event article. [[User:PianoKeys|PianoKeys]] 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This page is now on afd, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Big deal, anybody can stick a +tag on an article, it is the vandalism that is the problem, not the afd +tag. [[User:PianoKeys|PianoKeys]] 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Anonymous edits to [[Kamikaze]] == |
|||
An anonymous editor has been reverted sourced content in this article. Each edit is from a different IP in Japan (and the IP is used only once for this edit). The sentence taken out refers to conscript Koreans serving as Kamizazes in World War II. Requests to discuss this deletion (first on edit summaries, and most recently at [[Talk:Kamikaze#Korean_Kamikaze_pilots_.28part_2.29]]) are being ignored. Questions: |
|||
*Is there anything else that can be done? |
|||
*Will continued reversions of these unexplained deletions of sourced content be considered a content dispute, edit war, or 3-revert violation? |
|||
[[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, they're not doing it anymore, so I would think it has stopped. --[[User:AnonGuy|əˈnon]][[User talk:AnonGuy|gahy]] [[Special:Contributions/AnonGuy|♫Look What I've Done!♫]] 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It's been a slow-moving sequence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=132233640] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=132233640] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=132712235] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=132859786] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=133345844] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=133828140] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=133927871] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=134324615] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=134565753&oldid=134422128] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=134642032&oldid=134576790] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=134565753] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=134642032] but they'll be back. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:And it continues: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=134749648&oldid=134655762][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=134763010&oldid=134762349][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze&diff=prev&oldid=134766653]; repeated requests to discuss are being ignored. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I've put a three-day semi on it, maybe that will discourage them. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Indefinite block of [[User:Bijanse]] == |
|||
{{user|Netsnipe}} has blocked {{user|Bijanse}} indefinitely, leaving the following explanation: |
|||
:"You have now been blocked from editing '''en'''.wikipedia.org due to your persistently disruptive edits including inserting poorly written English into articles and repeatly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Aguilera_discography&diff=prev&oldid=132969793 breaking links]. If you wish to contribute to the Wikipedia, please do so using your native language at [http://pl.wikipedia.org/ '''pl'''.wikipedia.org]." |
|||
Bijanse has one earlier block of twenty-four hours. I've left Netsnipe a message, asking him to lift the block, but I thought that I'd better mention it here too. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Talk</font>]]) 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse block'''. I can see few if any useful edits, but several page blankings and insertions of [[word salad]]. Not being able to spell in English isn't bad ''per se'', but trying to edit the English language Wikipedia in spite of it is. Support unblock once the user reacts to talk messages and indicates he wants to try to understand how we work here. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''General Comment''' If you don't have a firm grasp of another language, you shouldn't be messing around on that languages Wikipedia. For example, I have a Latin account; I registered it to make a single edit to an article (to add an image from Commons), but made damn sure to explain that I couldn't actually speak the language.[http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cadaver_animatum&diff=prev&oldid=250127] If you can't speak English well, keep your contributions here to a minimum. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Sandstein. "Blocks are preventative, not punitive" goes both ways-it may also mean a block purely for prevention of harm is acceptable, whether or not the person blocked was acting in bad faith. In this case, the block ''is'' preventing harmful edits, whether the editor who was blocked intends them to be so or not. If that editor were to post a clear unblock request stating that he's willing to refrain from making such edits until he learns some more, I'd support unblocking him in a second, but right now I just don't see any ''actually'' constructive contributions, regardless of intent. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* I don't know, none of the 3 or 4 edits on the 1st page of contribs were that bad (or even reverted for that matter). I don't think we should be blocking good faith (non-vandal) editors quite so fast...[[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I find it worying, to put it mildly, that most of those responding have such a poor grasp of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|our blocking policy]]. An indefinite block just isn't warranted here — and we don't block people for poor English (if we did, we'd have about twenty or so editors left standing); a block of forty-eight hours would have been fine. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Talk</font>]]) 09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I totally agree. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== JB196 == |
|||
His latest sockdrawers are open now the following pages are unprotected - [[Tommy Dreamer]], [[Rob Zicari]], [[Janet Romano]] and [[Xtreme Pro Wrestling]]. Admins required to play whack a mole please. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{vandal|Toryugate}} is the first one. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Killed it—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="gold">竜龍</font>]]) 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Based on previous experience, there will be plenty more where that one came from. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also has targeted [[Extreme Associates]] in the past. I have all five on my watchlist. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Another one: {{vandal|Moneyindabankkk}} --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ryulong say *splat* :-) --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{vandal|Yougotthefling}} --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{vandal|Ruckus Tower}} --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{vandal|Ferryut}}. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{vandal|Fraction Dynamic}} --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== December 20 under attack (vandalism) == |
|||
[[December 20]] is under attack by two IP vandals. Is the page referenced somewhere or otherwise suddenly increased in notability? Requesting an sprot on the article for an hour; I'll go hand out warnings for repeated vandalism to the two IP's, and we'll see how it shakes out. <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Jouster|Jouster]]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">[[User Talk:Jouster|<span style="color:white">whisper</span>]]</span>) 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* It's just two IP vandals, tag-teaming. Blocked both (they've had way too much fun). Sprot'd for an hour, just in case ... - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[Salute|o7]], thank you. <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Jouster|Jouster]]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">[[User Talk:Jouster|<span style="color:white">whisper</span>]]</span>) 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Would this be considered retaliation? == |
|||
{{resolved|1=[[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
My watchlist notified me of a [[Talk:Bippu|talk discussion]] on an article I created called [[Bippu]]. However, upon [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bippu_vs_VIP_Style|seeing another link]], i'm getting the feeling that the proposed redirect is nothing more than a retaliation over a vadalism tag I gave to [[User:Willirennen]] a while back ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bippu&diff=129877484&oldid=129766804 He "Updated" someone elses edits which didn't match the article title]]). While I just decided to wash myself of the spat and move on, it seems Willirennen wants to punish me for tagging him a vandal. Before I accuse him of adopting retaliation tactics, can anyone advise if it seems like it or not? I have much better things to do than argue over a past wound. --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:No sign of a retaliation. His action is totally legit though he missed the point that when proposing a merger there should be 2 articles. He just meant a redirect! "VIP style" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VIP_style&action=history hasn't existed before]. You just remove the merge tag as [[VIP style]] is a redirect page and forget about the retaliation allegation. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Alright, just wanted a clarification. Thanks. --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Requesting user block == |
|||
{{resolved|1=[[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
Requesting a block on [[User:Nikolai vulinovich|Nikolai vulinovich]] ([[User talk:Nikolai vulinovich|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Nikolai vulinovich|contribs]]) as, while username is not unacceptable per se, users contributions suggest it is actually someone else making personal attacks against Mr. Vulinovich (including the deleted page [[Youse a bitch]] and the hopefully soon to be deleted [[Nikolai vulinovich]]). [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Indef as a vandalism-only account. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Wrestler pages vandalism == |
|||
Several new Users have been hitting various professional wrestler articles making ill-advised edits, then leaving, coming back as new users and doing the same thing. For example, see {{article|Booker Huffman}}, just one of many. In the last day, it's been hit by [[User:216.20.76.217]], [[User:Toryugate]], [[User:Moneyindabankkk]], [[User:Yougotthefling]], [[User:Ruckus Tower]], [[User:Ferryut]] and [[User:Hi Fi Dorado]]. And now Hi Fi Dorado is using the edit summary ''Sorry, the reason I took so long in between the last set was I was busy calling in sick to work tomorrow so I can have some more fun with these articles tomorrow.''. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That's the latest [[User:JB196|JB196]] sockfarm, already mentioned above. Admins are playing whack a mole on each account. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Burntsauce and edit summaries == |
|||
{{user|Burntsauce}} has been asked on three separate occasions by three seperate users to start using edit summaries as his edits are either adding <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> tags to articles, prodding an article, tagging the article for speedy deletion or AfDing an article. As he uses no tags for these and edits large varieties or articles at a time it's impossible to know what he is doing to articles without going through each and every edit (as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070529165351&limit=100&target=Burntsauce here]). There would be no problem if he was actually editing articles but as he seems to only add tags to articles while not contributing to any article it makes it a necessity he uses edit summaries. Could an admin please request, or more forcibly, get him to begin using edit summaries? He has ignored and deleted every request on his talk page to begin using edit summaries. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think we can force him to use edit summaries. If he doesn't want to, then let him be. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>[[User:Bibliomaniac15/How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?|An age old question...]]</small> 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It is when the edits are deletion requests, part of their policy requires an edit summary so its known the article has been listed for deletion (eith afd, prod or speedy). –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Notification that one has proposed an article for deletion is a courtesy, not a requirement. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::While I would agree that drive-by cleanup tagging without edit summary is a rude and unhelpful thing to do, drive-by ''deletion nomination'' without edit summary crosses the line into disruptive behaviour. |
|||
:::Think about it–suppose that one editor has an article watchlisted. This editor assumes that an edit by another etablished editor (Burntsauce, in this cause) is probably reasonable, or at least non-vandalism. (Figure it was only a eleven characters, and [[WP:AGF]].) The article disappears five days later, because the edit was actually to add a PROD tag. |
|||
:::Burntsauce has been here for three months. Either he learns to use edit summaries for major edits (edits that dramatically alter an article's content, ''or'' edits which may result in an article's deletion) or he loses his editing privileges. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::We can't ''force'' him to do so, but indeed it is pretty rude and unhelpful to drive-by slap a cleanup tag without making an effort to explain ''why'' you feel it deserves that cleanup tag, through edit summaries or the talk page. [[User:Krimpet|Krimpet]] ([[User talk:Krimpet|talk]]) 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Pretty much agree with the above. It makes him a jerk in these instances, but nothing we can do. -<u>[[User:AKMask|<font color="000000">M</font>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:AKMask|<font color="000000">ask?</font>]]</sup></small></u> 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You can notify him of this thread. Maybe that would change his habits. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have asked Burntsauce to provide descriptive edit summaries when he nominates articles for deletion in the future. Please notify me if he should fail to do so in the future; I am prepared to take any necessary enforcement action. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that it's improper to nominate articles for XfD or PROD without any notification in the edit summary. If the editor has been pointed to the deletion policy, asked to comply, yet doess not change his behavior then it becomes an issue for enforcrment. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 08:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Platanogenius and Sockpuppets == |
|||
* {{Vandal|Fabre08}} a sockpuppet of {{Vandal|Platanogenius }} Persistant vandal who has been blocked on previous occassions has come back with personal vendetta's, racism and utilized sockpuppets in order bypass a block. Platanogenius was blocked 2 days ago and Fabre08 shows up on the same article making the same edits with unreferenced sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=134709152&oldid=134707143] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=next&oldid=134709152],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=next&oldid=134624712] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=next&oldid=134709517], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=next&oldid=134710007] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=134625724&oldid=134624897] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=next&oldid=134624712] . Please block user. [[User:YoSoyGuapo|YoSoyGuapo]] 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*: checkuser initiated for IP socks as well of 70.177.181.129. and 24.44.231.189 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Platanogenius] [[User:YoSoyGuapo|YoSoyGuapo]] 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Please can we yank this guy's User Talk page access and extend his block by a few weeks? Since being blocked he is making personal attacks against multiple people (including myself) on his User Talk page. The attacks include homophobia and allegations of paedophilia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.88.229.139&diff=prev&oldid=1225053954 1]), ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.88.229.139&diff=prev&oldid=1225160610 2]). Before being blocked from article space he was trolling on multiple subjects dishing out both transphobia and islamophobia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner&diff=prev&oldid=1218005138 3]), ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebrahim_Raisi&diff=prev&oldid=1224745137 4]). The IP seems to be fairly stable and has not been used to make any constructive edits recently. It might be worth revdelling some of the edits although, insofar as they refer to me, I don't really care that much. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Sockpuppet infested AFD discussion == |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Kvwiki1234 == |
|||
I was reading the past couple days of AFD discussions and came across [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd nom)]]. It's been nominated before by [[WP:SPA|single-purpose accounts]] and this was apparently another SPA nomination. And the process itself was filled with sockpuppetry, including a great many editors editing from [[WP:NOP|open proxies]] that have since been blocked. Since the discussion itself was unproductive and filled with bad-faith sockpuppets, I have [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] closed it. If a good-faith user wants to reopen the discussion, I strongly suggest careful attention from administrators and perhaps even a requirement that any contributor to the AFD have a certain minimum number of edits. For what it's worth, I have no involvement at all with the article itself and have never edited it. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt></b></font>]] 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:3RR]] as a tool == |
|||
{{user| Kvwiki1234}} [[WP:CIV]] problems on a CT. |
|||
;Recent events: |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: No Block)]] |
|||
Talk page edits:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Naama_Levy&diff=prev&oldid=1225181387] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Naama_Levy&diff=prev&oldid=1225208234] |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result:self-reverted)]] |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: Page protected)]] |
|||
Warnings between the edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Naama_Levy&diff=prev&oldid=1225190192] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvwiki1234&diff=prev&oldid=1225190522] |
|||
# '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE]]''' |
|||
# '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: 72 hours)]]''' |
|||
Not suggesting a block. It’s a difficulty area. But perhaps someone above my paygrade could suggest the editor take it down a few octaves. And perhaps avoid such articles for a while. <small>Particularly since those of us who are danglers cringe at the word eunuch.</small> [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I apologize if my use of the word eunuch was misconstrued. I meant it purely to describe the cowardly notion that a 19 year old girl who was a peace activist and rape victim who only held a ceremonial non-combatant position in the IDF to complete some university credits is even being considered an IDF soldier and a legitimate captured enemy soldier of war. |
|||
I should explain that I edit and usually agree with [[User:Smee|Smee]] in the interest of full disclosure to those who don't know. Because of that I've held off posting here to see if anyone more neutral noticed this situation. Now it's reached a point where the fact that [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] and [[User:Justanother|Justanother]] are out to harass [[User:Smee|Smee]] by calling almost every edit which contradicts someone else's a "revert" and posting it on the [[WP:3RR]] page. |
|||
:Yes, I am appalled the discussion is even being had. It angers and triggers me. |
|||
:I accept your suggestion that I take it down a few octaves in good faith. Thank you. I will avoid such articles in the future. |
|||
:I am otherwise a productive and contributing extended confirmed editor to wikipedia with over '''[[User:Kvwiki1234|7000]]''' constructive edits with a particular focus on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis|tennis wikiproject]]. |
|||
:I accept your feedback and will avoid politically charged commentary here. |
|||
:Thank you, |
|||
:[[User:Kvwiki1234|Kvwiki1234]] ([[User talk:Kvwiki1234|talk]]) 01:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for agreeing to step back, [[User:Kvwiki1234|Kvwiki1234]]. Just to be very clear, though: ''any'' more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]] ([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think that Kvwiki1234 should be banned or blocked, but I'd encourage you to reflect some of your reasoning for why your uncivil behavior was justified, as well as reconsider the insults you use in the future. |
|||
:::Your language is pretty problematic for people of all genders, not just the danglers. It has some pretty sexist and ableist undertones implying that only able-bodied men with sex organs can be brave. I'd also encourage you to reflect on your argument that you have 7000 edits. Does that mean because I have 500000+ edits, I can say even more ableist, sexist things out of frustration because I've made a lot of edits? (Personally, I don't think it does). [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was in no way meant as a gender based slur. I meant it as something approximating extreme cowardice. However I accept your point and see how my language was problematic. I was overcome by anger when I made those edits. Therefore I was temporarily not of sound mind. I apologize, it won't happen again. |
|||
::::<br/> |
|||
::::Regarding 7000 edits, I only pointed that to show that I am not some random vandalism troll and I value contributing positively to wikipedia. I take pride in being an [[Wikipedia:Service_awards#Experienced_Editor_(or_Grognard_Mirabilaire)|experienced]] extended confirmed editor and my past contributions have been constructive and well received and open for all to examine. It does not excuse what I said in anger, it was simply to show that I am not a random vandalism troll. |
|||
::::<br/> |
|||
::::My language in anger may have been problematic, I accept, and I fully understand and respect wikipedia's policies around gender based bigotry and our commitment to inclusivity. Yet there is an open discussion on wikipedia whether a 19 year old non-combatant girl rape victim was a legitimate enemy soldier captured in war? Not getting into a political debate regarding this, but it is food for thought for wikipedia going forward. |
|||
::::<br/> |
|||
::::Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I mean that sincerely and in good faith. |
|||
::::<br/> |
|||
::::Thank you, |
|||
::::[[User:Kvwiki1234|Kvwiki1234]] ([[User talk:Kvwiki1234|talk]]) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you for your warning. I will avoid topics that anger and trigger me in my personal life here on wikipedia in the future. As I mentioned before, my main areas of interest in wikipedia are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis|tennis]], other sports and sometimes Asian history, not politically sensitive current events. |
|||
:::Just for my own understanding, what does 'block' mean in this context? I will be blocked fom editing that particular page, or blocked from contributing to wikipedia entirely? I hope it never gets to that point, I am simply asking for my own knowledge. [[User:Kvwiki1234|Kvwiki1234]] ([[User talk:Kvwiki1234|talk]]) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:BLOCKDISRUPT]] [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Kvwiki1234}}, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Understood. Thank you. [[User:Kvwiki1234|Kvwiki1234]] ([[User talk:Kvwiki1234|talk]]) 02:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Second Skin]] violating topic ban and other issues == |
|||
The incidents in bold are especially egregious because they include the same situation: |
|||
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_of_God&diff=134514549&oldid=134456551] and 5. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_of_God&diff=134515367&oldid=134514549] are one edit apart and both [[User:Justanother|Justanother]] and [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] have called it a [[WP:BITE]] as well. |
|||
When one considers the fact that [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_mis.html Spacecraft] is the plural for spacecraft, just like [[moose]] is both singular and plural. Fixing mistakes is not [[WP:BITE|biting either]]. [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 06:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*{{user links|Second Skin}} |
|||
:A full rationale has been provided to Smee. It's a run-of-the-mill reverting warring block, escalated to 72 hours because of past behaviour. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Being hounded by an administrator]] |
|||
In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. {{ping|Doug Weller}} talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witch_house_(genre)&diff=prev&oldid=1223913279][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witch_house_(genre)&diff=prev&oldid=1223913419][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Lake_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1224686567][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horrorcore&diff=prev&oldid=1224686719][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horrorcore&diff=prev&oldid=1224686905][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Lake_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1224691825][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Lake_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1224693214][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Lake_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1224693323][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Lake_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1224694357] |
|||
== correct to blank talkpage?/copyvio == |
|||
User also has a history of flagrantly ignoring communications and warnings from other users and admins and directives from admins and using edit summaries to have discussions despite being told by {{u|Drmies}} to cease doing so, and ignored suggestions from other admins such as {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}} (these include arguably legitimate blanking of own talk page but reflect ignorance of the messages): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=684467704][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=696727270][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=702216489][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=702393526 "fuck off" to Drmies][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=733949495 "lol go away"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=740317982][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=791765509][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=870909842][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=877065753][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=923744480 "fuck off"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=944676922][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=998008504 "fuck off"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1169865489 "fuck off"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1181282958 "fuck off"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1181284461][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1181285403][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1182800100] |
|||
an IP editor seems intent on blank [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyranid_Hive_Fleets&diff=134754977&oldid=134741518 this] section of a talkpage as he claims it "breaks rules/ is a legal threat" - as far as I see, no rules are broken and indeed, if there is a copyvio then editors need to be aware of it. just need a quick second view. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Currently engaged in a silly dispute over whether [[Aztec, New Mexico]], apparently legally classified as a city, should be called a town. Refuses to see that inserting user's own opinion on this is OR, cites other Wikipedia articles as sources for it being called a town. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aztec,_New_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1224902824][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aztec,_New_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1225003568 (alters citation to US census describing it as a city)][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Second_Skin&diff=prev&oldid=1225201926 "empty threats"][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aztec,_New_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1225202296] |
|||
:He appears to be intent on policing that page for some reason, despite the fact it has no real demonstrable legal threat or copyvio. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:However, based on his edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Library_gaming_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29&diff=prev&oldid=134743236 this] page, I'd bet dollars to donuts it's [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] back from his self-imposed exile - considering he appears to have a focus on correct naming, and is reinserted very subtle edits that [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] edit warred over before. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on '''music articles'''. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different. |
|||
:: he's currently banned - checkuser maybe? --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What? |
|||
:'''Never told Drmies to fuck off'''.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway |
|||
:Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time [[User:Second Skin|Second Skin]] ([[User talk:Second Skin|talk]]) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Second Skin}} {{article|Witch house (genre)}}: 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into [[WP:COMPETENCE]] if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as [[Getter Love|this one]] and [[TTDTE|others]] since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. [[User:Second Skin|Second Skin]] ([[User talk:Second Skin|talk]]) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you are unable to understand that {{tq|Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres}} requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page?}} - Short answer is '''No'''. Here is {{Diff|User talk:Second Skin|prev|1182847897|the diff}} where it explicity states: ''If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it''. What made you think that [[Witch house (genre)]] and [[Horrorcore]] were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|"So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?"}} No, you cannot. If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making ''<u>any</u>'' edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here. Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here. {{pb}} Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here. First off, you are not allowed to tell <u>anyone</u> to "fuck off" here, admin or IP. Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months. I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and [[WP:IDHT|your inability to address the issue]] so complete. The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded. But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion. Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I did so, since I need the experience - though it's a pretty thin case, I think I'm right. Too coincidental for my likes. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for [[WP:CIV]], even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Courtesy pinging everyone involved in the ANI that resulted in a TBAN other than those already pinged: {{u|TheDragonFire300}} {{u|Viriditas}} {{u|GhostOfDanGurney}} {{u|Acroterion}} (omitting Tazmin because I believe they don't wish notices about admin-related things) {{u|Black Kite}} {{u|Objective3000}} {{u|Eyesnore}} {{u|Hammersoft}} {{u|Lourdes}} {{u|Cullen328}} {{u|Ravenswing}} {{u|WaltCip}} {{u|Deepfriedokra}} {{u|Bishonen}} {{u|Siroxo}} {{u|ARoseWolf}} {{u|GiantSnowman}} {{u|Uncle G}} {{u|Nil Einne}} {{u|Beyond My Ken}} {{u|Ad Orientem}} {{u|Snow Rise}} {{u|Equilibrial}} [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== How long is too long? == |
|||
:{{u|Second Skin}}, it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{resolved|1=Joxerman blocked. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
:Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands {{gender:Second Skin|his|her|their}} topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, [[User:TheDragonFire300]]. ([[User:TheDragonFire300/talk|Contact me]] | [[Special:Contributions/TheDragonFire300|Contributions]]). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As Cullen already said, [User:Second Skin]], it's simple. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Concur. @[[User:Second Skin|Second Skin]] Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I concur with all stated here. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::As do I. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== 172.59.210.96 disruptive editing == |
|||
* {{Vandal|Joxerman}} recently vandalized [[Atlantic Records]], and when I went to look at his talk page, I noticed that he had [[User_talk:Joxerman|well, numerous last warnings]] from about 20 days ago. The Vadalism report page doesn't really specify a "reasonable" time period in between vandalism attacks to get it listed there, so i'm kinda wondering what is the acceptable time frame?[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**Hmmmm... I never seen a vandal only account getting warned again numerous times. Usually for most, if they continue to vandalise after their fourth and final warning given to them, they will be blocked indefinitely. There isn't any specific time frame I guess. It really depends. [[User:Terence|Terence]] 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***I count at least 3 "last warnings", then the guy stops, and continues again with a good edit, then a [[:Image:White Nerdy YOU SUCK cropped.jpg|copycat vandalism]] that is causing problems at [[Atlantic Records]]. Surely one of the last warnings counts as the final warning? --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
He was blocked before this discussion started! Often it's not worth an admins time to paste blocked messages on these troll's accounts so it's worth looking at the block log. Thanks/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**Now I know.....--[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Stumbled across this IP at [[WP:RSP]], where they pointlessly [[Special:Diff/1225214589|added]] and [[Special:Diff/1225214589|removed]] the word "vandalism." Per their [[User talk:172.59.210.96|talk page]], they've been involved in multiple edit wars and generally questionable behavior for a number of days, since they started editing on May 16 - most recently, they were in an edit war at [[Abby Lee Miller]] (the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abby_Lee_Miller&action=history page history] of which indicates they may be the same editor as [[User talk:174.206.160.217|this blocked IP]], who was also edit warring). Said talk page displays numerous warnings for this behavior. |
|||
::::Warnings are not relevant if the account is only used for trolling/vandalism as the block log statement and the user's contributions indicate. We usually block vandalism-only accounts for an indefinite period of time. If you see our policy page regarding blocks, which is [[WP:BLOCK]], you can see under the section titled '''Duration of blocks''' it states the following: ''blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration''. I should also point out that indefinite is not equivalent to infinite, users can always appeal their indefinite blocks and there have been many cases where user's who used accounts solely for vandalism have promised to stop in order to have their accounts unblocked.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In the last several hours, they started to disruptively edit [[Operation Enduring Freedom]], once again [[Special:Diff/1225210635|adding]] and removing their own vandalism. With such edit summaries as "''Sleepy joe''," "''THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH MY EDIT, PLEASE STOP''," "''what do you think? Idiot''," "''FIX IT YOURSELF''," and... [[Special:Diff/1225210397|whatever this is]], I think there's a pretty clear case that this user is [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== possible hack attack in the future == |
|||
:I've blocked them for a month. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]] ([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
More of of it. I hate to bring it up but someone should look here and possibly consider an expedited ISP report to Yahoo. I looked at the ISP page and it was very backlogged. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, appreciate the quick response. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=423655&mid=423655&tof=1&frt=2 |
|||
:::I also did an old-fashioned selective deletion to clear out the one edit summary. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 03:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]: Is that why one IPv6's recent revision now claims it added +62,626 bytes, which is the size of the page? Perhaps a not-so-old-fashioned revdel'ing of the summaries would have been easier. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C|talk]]) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ordinarily yes, but in this case it wouldn't have entirely fixed what was making that edit summary so disruptive. Though now that you mention it I'll apply revdel to a few of the revisions there now. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Tommygunn7886: [[WP:NOTHERE]] edit warring == |
|||
[[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: I'd post this under "nothing to see here" - someone on a talkboard making a lot of big talk - so what? --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Good title. No its ok. At least there's a pointer to it. Thanks. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Tommygunn7886 has been doing some edit warring over at [[eye color]] that I would like to bring to your attention. |
|||
::: Jeff, I suggest you collect this stuff at [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Yahoos]] or some such, there is something to see there, but not much, and not at this moment requiring urgent intervention. You don't want it to get lost in the noise, I think. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Archive it in your personal space Jeff. Fredrick is probably correct though, it looks like typical trolling. I somehow doubt this person is even half as clever as they think they are...--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 13:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225176448 20:27 May 22 2024]: TommyGunn7886 removes content, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225176807 restored] by Adakiko at 20:29. |
|||
== Disrupting editing and personal attacks by Rert2 == |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tommygunn7886 23:32 May 22 2024]: Tommygunn7886 removes content a second time, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225199148 partially restored] by myself at 23:39. |
|||
[[User:Rert2|Rert2]] is a single purpose account (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rert2 contributions]) he disrupts discussions at the [[Talk:Audio_mastering]] by attacking me personally. He continues to place an external link to an Amazon.com book, written by a mastering engineer on the subject of mastering. (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=133598295][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134238000][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134388489][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134435674] disregarding the fact that there is a template at the talk page that urges all editors to discuss any proposed external links or additions to the present article. In the past, such type of links have been dismissed as inappropriate, per WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Links normally to be avoided]. First of all, his personal attacks have been unwarranted and geared to divert attention (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134240941][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jrod2&diff=prev&oldid=134243092][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jrod2&diff=prev&oldid=134244151] He claims here that I call myself a "spammer" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134390171][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audio_mastering&diff=prev&oldid=134435215] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VinylJoe&diff=prev&oldid=134438419] and he had been warned 4 times to stop (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rert2&diff=prev&oldid=134237789][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rert2&diff=prev&oldid=134387976][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rert2&diff=prev&oldid=134431571][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rert2&diff=prev&oldid=134442160]) In addition, another user who goes under "[[User:VinylJoe|VinylJoe]]" seems to be in connection or in agreement with rert2 and without further discussions. (See [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VinylJoe contributions]]. This raises the possibility that [[User:Rert2|Rert2]] maybe using sock puppetry to get a greater consensus for the inclusion of said inappropriate external link. I hope you can help stop this disrupting and bad faith user. Thank you. [[User:Jrod2|Jrod2]] 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:First, I have looked through all the links that you provided shows that disruptive editing by Rert2. but I think that he might have made numerous sockpuppets to disrupt the wikipedia. [[User:Daniel5127|<font color="Green">'''Daniel'''</font>]] [[User Talk:Daniel5127|<font color="Green">'''5127'''</font>]] 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Despatched. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions"><sup>'''{C}'''</sup></font>]] 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Tommygunn7886 then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&action=history deleted] this content from the article two more times. |
|||
== Sockpuppet needing attention == |
|||
Attempts to explain to this individual that they are wrong have lead me to suspect that they may have [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issues. They do not seem to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886#May_2024 capable of understanding that they are wrong] when another editor attempts to explain this to them, and this has been my experience as well. At [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_color#Tommygunn7886's_removal_of_content the article's talk page], they refuse to engage in discussion about the references and instead make outlandush allegations of transphobia and personal attack. |
|||
{{Userlinks|Trolldor}} is restoring content that has been deleted, originally created by {{userlinks|Eternal dragon}}. This includes creating amusing redirects like [[Psycho bitch]] to [[Paris Hilton]], etc. I smell [[WP:SOCK]]s. Could someone please block? [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]]<sup>[[User talk:Flyguy649|talk]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs]]</sub> 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Despatched. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions"><sup>'''{C}'''</sup></font>]] 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Tommygunn7886's edit summaries are also nonsensical. They accuse me and the references of using transphobic language, yet there is nothing transphobic or trans-related in either. All references added are peer reviewed and published in high quality journals, and have nothing whatever to do with trans people. - [[User:A Rainbow Footing It|A Rainbow Footing It]] ([[User talk:A Rainbow Footing It|talk]]) 04:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== JB196 sock == |
|||
:The other administrator ruled in my favor and also removed the content from the thread. This user, A Rainbow Footing It is harassing me over edits they are making which are transphobic. The edits in question are purporting that there are physical differences between gender identities, which as stated before is transphobic. |
|||
{{User|Ferocious Driver}} whack-a-mole. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This user is not an administrator but has made numerous threats on my talk page threatening to ban my account if I keep up the "edit war"(that the same user is also partaking in, even after an admin ruled in my favor). |
|||
:This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Tommygunn7886}}, when you make an extremely grave accusation like {{tpq|This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll}}, you are ''required'' to provide convincing evidence, which you have not done. So, provide the persuasive evidence now, or you at very high risk of being blocked for unsubstantiated [[WP:PA|personal attacks]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I will do so, but I will not be fast as I am still new to this platform. I apologize for making such a claim, this user has been harassing me so I looked at their profile. Please allow me a little time to find out how to link it properly. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Tommygunn7886}} Make sure you have [ subscribe ]ed to the thread for further notifications as not everyone will ping you. "Harassing" is also something that you need to provide evidence for. You may wish to read [[WP:HARASS]]. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Here is a link to the talk page where the user created a talk section sith my personal name, rather than about the content. I find this to be harassment. |
|||
:::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_color |
|||
:::::Here is a link to my personal talk page where the user posted two separate threats to have me banned for edit warring(despite also taking part in it themselves), I deleted the initial one but kept the one they sent later. It is notice 3rr. |
|||
:::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886 [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm afraid [[Talk:Eye color#Tommygunn7886's removal of content]] looks pretty bad for you from what I can see. A lot of unsupported accusations of singling out, harassment, transphobia because of reference to biological sex, etc. I was going to point out the 3RR issue as well. I don't think a legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice is harassment by the definition at [[WP:HARASS]]. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It was not one sided it was back and forth. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 06:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{tq|legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice}} means the notice was possibly one-sided. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1 |
|||
:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1 |
|||
:::First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::What are you saying is improperly cited about that material? A Rainbow Footing It is presumably not the source of the information. It's a lot of information about dating preferences that all seems to be from legitimate studies and analyses. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wow. I won't say more, but wow. I thought wikipedia was more enlightened than this. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Tommygunn7886}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225226171 removed] cited material about differences in eye color between men and women. I don't think a scientific study referring to biological sexes is transphobic. We report the sources, not interpret them. Again, Wikipedia is based on sources, not our opinions. If you were to remove every reference to physical differences between men and women on Wikipedia you'd be making many thousands of edits to remove properly sourced material. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The idea that there are biolgical differences between men and women is itself transphobic and false. Gender and sexual identity are not biological. Maybe if the article stated something like "those who identify as female and those who identify as male", but even this is tricky as the study itself was presumably done with those who were simply assigned male and female at birth. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You have a ton of articles on biology you'd need to strip of any reference to differences between sexes. Don't think it is going to work out well for you. We can fine tune wording to align with what the sources actually say, if necessary. This notice board is not for content disputes though, only behavioral issues. This is a non-starter in my view. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There are no differences between sexes. A man can have a vagina and a woman can have a penis. Men can get pregnant. Men can have very high estrogen and low testosterone, women can have ver low estrogen and very high testosterone. Gender and sexual identity are social constructs that have no basis in biology, they are simply an identity. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Again, you'd better start with [[Man]] and [[Woman]] if you want to pursue this. Wouldn't be the first person to make this assertion. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|A Rainbow Footing It}} Could you provide convenience links to everything (e.g. the edit summaries) you are referring to? I'll do this: |
|||
:*{{User links|Tommygunn7886}} |
|||
:*{{User links|A Rainbow Footing It}} |
|||
:[[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225226162 03:54, 23 May 2024]: {{Tq|Gender and sexual identity do not determine physical traits. This transphobia does not belong on a wikipedia article. I hope admins will agree against transphobic language.}} |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225209458 01:02, 23 May 2024]: {{Tq|Study is based on outdated notions of gender and identity and does not belong on a wikipedia page. This is offensive to those who are transgender.}} |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225209452 01:02, 23 May 2024]:{{tq|Again, it is problematic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity, as the terminology presented is based on western heteronomative ideas of identity that do not correlate to one's individual identity}} |
|||
::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225209435 01:02, 23 May 2024]: {{tq| Using control F, there are no mentions of any populations other than Spanish populations in this particular study. It is also highly probelmatic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity}} |
|||
::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225199148 23:39 22 May 2024]:{{Tq|Partially restored content without Spanish data points. Contrary to what was claimed by TommyGunn, Martinez-Cadenas et al. 2013 and 2016 both use previously published studies from across Europe, which show the same effect. Added quote to Martinez-Cadenas citation and secondary source (Pilli-Berti 2021), which mentions studies published afterwards which observed a similar effect.}} |
|||
::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/A_Rainbow_Footing_It 03:27, 23 May 2024]: {{tq|Restored reliably sourced content. As explained at talk page, both Martinez-Cadenas 2013 and 2016 describe multiple studies from across Europe and Auatralia, which corroborate their findings. Additional studies performed afterwards also replicated an eye color gender asymmetry. Tommygunn needs to give a sensible explanation at the talk page for these edits, and stop edit warring."}} |
|||
::[[User:A Rainbow Footing It|A Rainbow Footing It]] ([[User talk:A Rainbow Footing It|talk]]) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== A Rainbow Footing It === |
|||
*{{user|FortworthFan}} and the accounts created in the log are also socks. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Both blocked. '''[[User:Riana|Riana]]''' [[User talk:Riana|<font color="green">⁂</font>]] 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=FortworthFan these ones] still need hitting. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oops, got distracted. Gone. '''[[User:Riana|Riana]]''' [[User talk:Riana|<font color="green">⁂</font>]] 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve. |
|||
== Giano blocked == |
|||
This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Admin|Hemlock Martinis}} has blocked {{user|Giano II}} for 'incivility'. I have requested he explain his action here, so that it might be reviewed. '''Please everyone stay cool. We can do this in good order'''.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Tommygunn7886}}, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes so I do not know what you are talking about. Where is your evidence? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I disagree with the block, I can't see anything derserving one in Giano's contribs, yes he's strong with words, but he hasn't been incivil. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|an admin ruled in my favor}} |
|||
:I don't see any good justification for this block. We're allowed to say someone's edits are bad, if that's what we think. How else would a collaborative ''editing'' project work? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a lie. An admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225179080 partially restored] one of your edits after having been misled by your edit summary, but did not make the blanket removal of content that you have been doing, which Adakiko and I have tried to restore in full. Earlier you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886#May_2024 accused] that admin of "following you around" for calling out your dishonest behavior. |
|||
:I also disagree with this block and invite an explanation. Given some of the things I've seen written the last few days, the term I would use is "proportionate," and even then he's hardly the worst offender. The Arbuthnot articles ''are'' a mess. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As usual, this editor is failing [[WP:GOODFAITH]] with their endless stream of outrageous allegations. [[User:A Rainbow Footing It|A Rainbow Footing It]] ([[User talk:A Rainbow Footing It|talk]]) 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Adakiko did not try to restore your edit later on, first they just stated that I needed to provide an edit summary. After I provided an edit summary, the other admin ruled in my favor and undid the deletion by Adakiko. Adakiko has not changed the page since, only you have. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=prev&oldid=1225235122 restored the blanking] of seemingly properly cited scientific material. If you wish to check whether the first source used the term "gender" or "sex" we can look into that. You should not remove material that refers to biological sexes on the ground that it is transphobic. We go by sources, not our own interpretations. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::If this is a thread about behavior and not content moderation, why did you perform content moderation? [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 05:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not an admin, and I restored cited material which had been blanked because I noticed it. This board is for behavioral issues not content, so what we discuss here should focus on behaviors and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as relate to behavior. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{u|Tommygunn7886}}, I have asked you twice for evidence to back up your extraordinary accusations, and instead of providing evidence, you say silly things like {{tpq|the other admin ruled in my favor}} even though you have already been informed that adminststrators do not adjudicate content disputes. If any adminstrator expressed an opinion about a content dispute, they are speaking as an ordinary editor, with no more power than any other editor in that context. So again, I must insist that you provide the evidence in your very next edit, or I will block you for grave and unsubstantiated personal attacks. That is a power that I actually do have as an administrator. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I apologize, I am simply in too many chats to keep track of this. I provided evidence of the claim to the other user who I assumed was the admin. [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1 |
|||
::::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1 |
|||
::::::::First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::If A Rainbow Footing It is misrepresenting what the sources say, that is a behavior problem. If the sources are not [[WP:RS]] that is a content dispute. If the sources are not [[WP:DUE]] that is a content dispute. If the article is not [[WP:NPOV]] that is a content dispute. You can bring all that up on the relevant talk page. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Tommygunn7886}} I almost have to call [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=1225238469&oldid=1225237569 this] trolling or [[WP:CIR]]. You are making it say the opposite of what you seem to want it to say. And again, beware of 3RR. I believe you have already violated 3RR perhaps multiple times. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This has gone on far too long. Tommygunn7886 has failed to provide convincing evidence for their extremely grave accusations, and has provided an exceptionally flimsy explanation. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have not looked much at the editor's editing but from what they're saying here, it seems fair to give them a ctop alert for gensex. Perhaps if they come back and get into edit wars over these issues without properly discussing on the talk page or are otherwise disruptive in the area, a gensex topic ban is one option if it's felt an indef is too harsh. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'd agree. I'm certainly not heartened by Tommygunn's repeated waving of "An admin agreed with me once so that means I'm right with everything" as a free hall pass for every one of their flights of fancy going forth. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64|2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64]] == |
|||
This IP has been 'creating' a fair amount of human name pages by inserting a new page inside of existing pages by similar names. The pages are all good, to be clear – the only issue is that they are going in the completely wrong place. They have been asked to use drafts many times, but given that their address is so variable I really have absolutely no idea that they've even seen those messages. I don't want to see them gone, their work is useful, but it is currently creating extra work for others. Perhaps a block with a pointer to a detailed explanation of what they should be doing instead, and an unblock after they simply confirm they understand, would be able to get their attention. They've been temporarily blocked before for this exact thing but the block message was less than useful so they just kept doing what they've been doing after it expired. [[User:Tollens|Tollens]] ([[User talk:Tollens|talk]]) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
OK, I'm giving the blocking admin 30 min to explain himself here. Let's not rush to condemn him until he does. If he's not explained by then, we unblock. Agreed?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, if they keep bouncing around to different IPs, it seems they're also unlikely to notice that one has been blocked. I wonder if they are at least within a blockable range that wouldn't clobber a bunch of other, unrelated, users. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*While Giano's comments were perhaps a bit over the top, realistically this block isn't going to have any positive effect here (though I understand why Hemlock Martinis enacted it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not gone down this road before (i.e. civility blocks on Giano) and seen this be ineffective? IMO, we don't block someone for stating an opinion no matter how blunt it is.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Socks - Millat Ahmad == |
|||
: I think Giano's comments were unfortunate, but I think it highly unproductive for the project to block Giano. I will unblock him if someone doesn't do so first. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Err, the proper time and place for a legitimate explanation was when the block was made, on Giano's talk page. I've no objections to an unblock sometime soon, unless more information turns up which would make it justified. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:(multiple e/c) I find no justification of any nature for this block and am inclined to reverse it summarily, but will join in allowing the blocking administrator an opportunity to be heard. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, make it 10 min. I'm fine with an unblock though.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I was just about to unblock five (?) minutes ago, but was thwarted by the instruction "Please discuss the block with the blocking administrator before unblocking." Giano has at times concisely expressed irritation with others' edits; he dispensed with polite circumlocutions but also in the edits I've seen did not lack civility; writing in this way on this matter is his, anybody else's right; and for good reason, as Friday says. So, Moreschi went ahead and unblocked, and good for Moreschi. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser&diff=next&oldid=26817056 Here] you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? [[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with the block. Referring to another as a "menace" to the project is highly inappropriate. Further, when Hemlock Martinis approached him to cool him down (see [[User_talk:Giano_II#Civility]]) Giano attacked him, with comments such as "I wish to proceed with something more useful than time-wasting and facetious debate with you". Giano has repeatedly been blocked in the past for civility concerns. While additional blocks for civility may not produce corrective results in Giano, it must be done anyways; we don't ''stop'' blocking people just because blocking them doesn't work and thus give them a free pass to be uncivil to whomever they like whenever they like. The block was clearly warranted. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I've taken a look, and will block the accounts, based on their talk page admission that they are connected to the film they're writing about, and their creation of a second account to evade scrutiny. Noting that {{noping|MillatAhmad15}} has not logged in here, and so is not registered - we can't take action against that account. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: Unblocked. I've seen a few silly blocks in my time here. That one took the biscuit. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Hate speech / personal attack by Yyg850c == |
|||
*:: OK, a few min of discussion would have been nice - but would certainly have arrived at he same consensus. '''Endorse unblock.'''--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{atop|Yyg850c has been indefinitely blocked for making personal attacks towards other editors. --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 02:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
*::: Just great. Giano gets a free pass to be as uncivil as he likes. Perhaps I should make a bunch of uncivil remarks, get blocked, and keep doing it so I can keep making uncivil remarks. Afterall, blocking isn't effective. I'm sure glad we don't apply this "logic" to how we treat vandals. "Oh gosh. Blocking that vandal didn't work; they came back and vandalized. Better let them continue vandalizing!" <cough>. Unblocking was also highly premature, in the least. We only just STARTED this thread 10 minutes ago and the blocking admin hasn't even had time to explain himself. Good grief! Why even just start this thread?????? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Just noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_chair&diff=prev&oldid=1215229397 this comment] by [[User:Yyg850c|Yyg850c]] ([[User talk:Yyg850c|talk]]) at [[Talk:History of the chair]]: "Here's a quote from the Wiki page to enrich your '''underdeveloped black supremacist prefrontal cortex'''" (bold emphasis mine). How this escaped attention, I have no idea, but that can't be okay. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Firstly, Giano was not being especially uncivil, and if he was being blunt, I can understand why. Blocks are not there as punishment, nor are they there to prove a point. Sysops are not automata, and nor is Giano. We cannot expect perfection, especially under trying circumstances. Basically, he's right. Cleaning up COI/POV messes is a strain: I know, I've been there myself. Went to ArbCom over it. It's hard. Giano was not being evil, and even so, clemency is the virtue of the great. Durin, I have great respect for you, but just for once I think here you're wrong. How would this block really improve anything? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Blocked indefinitely. We don't tolerate that sort of garbage here. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: Giano's a well-known, extremely producitive and highly-valued, slightly fragile user. The purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the project. What purpose did this block serve in that context? Sysops are not meant to act as mindless automata, yet your comment seems to suggest that, somewhat. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
*::::: The block serves to draw a line in the sand, to say "this behavior is not acceptable". Hemlock was a messenger to that effect, and tried to calm Giano down. Instead, Giano flew off the handle. The block was appropriate. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::You are not looking at the context. I have every sympathy for the situation Giano is in, and under such stress minor lapses can be forgiven. Nor were the comments for which he was warned for uncivil in the slightest. Blunt yes, uncivil no. His reaction may have been, but that can be forgiven. Giano is not a robot, and this Arbuthnot mess has caused everyone grief. An RfC will probably help. Irrational blocks will not. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::And Hemlock Martinis is hung out to dry. Good grief. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::An administrator is responsible for the blocks that he makes. Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::No, this is not the lynch mob. I have no intention of condemning Hemlock Martinis at all. Everyone should just calm down, walk away, and forget about it. One bad block is not the end of the world. We all do that, sometimes. Not a calamity. Not even worthy of making a fuss. |
|||
== Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri == |
|||
*::::::::All I would say is that calling content "a mess" is commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is what you are meant to do, and the circumstances were not taken into account. Giano is basically right. Kittybrewster's articles are problematic, to say the least. We do not block people for calling a spade a spade, whether or not they're Giano. This is not a free pass, just undoing an unjustified block. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::If you believe Hemlock blocked Giano for calling something a mess, you haven't read the discussion. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Not to condemn the blocking admin, by the way. It's just that under strain and stress even the best of us can be forgiven for losing his rag, and Giano has been putting in a lot of worthwhile and complicated work recently. Nor, in my opinion, was he especially incivil given the circumstances and the strain of recent wikidramas. Re Durin, blocking Giano for (dubious and limited) incivility, when this has been proven not to work, just to prove the point, will not help anyone. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Where can I pick up my free pass? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
An RfC on the whole Kittybrester fiasco might be in order.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That is a very good idea.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Kashmiri]] has alleged without any proof that my account is a sock-puppet and is concerned about my lack of efforts (where I am uninvolved) in an ongoing edit war over at [[Talk:Tamil genocide]]. |
|||
As per Mackensen, ''Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly''. In such circumstances, a thread should be started before the block, not after. I have no comment if the block or the unblock were rightful. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
For full disclosure, I did have another account a few years back, but I stopped using that account years ago since it had identifying information on it. I have also emailed checkusers at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org to bring my old unused account to their notice. This is all completely allowed as per [[WP:Clean Start]]. |
|||
Here we are ''again''. This block was clearly unjustified. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] has indeed (perhaps unwittingly) created a mess that needs to be (and is being) dealt with. I have every faith that the wiki process will clean the "mess" up in due course, but this kind self-interested and poorly-sourced family history is indeed a "menace" to us as an encyclopedia. From Giano's talk page, it would seem that he was blocked for asking [[User:Hemlock Martinis|] to cease prolonging a "time-wasting and facetious debate". I am not sure how facetious it was, but it was certainly time-wasting. If I may caricature their exchange: "Don't be uncivil"; "I'm not being uncivil"; "Yes you are"; "No I'm not"; "I'm an admin and you are blocked. Goodnight Vienna." |
|||
At the bottom of the discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_genocide&oldid=1225342953#reverts_by_Kashmiri], [[User:kashmiri]] has been implying that I am engaging in sock-puppetry and has complained that I am displaying no collaborative efforts (even though I am completely uninvolved in the discussion). I was patrolling the pages (as part of my watchlist) and decided to warn both the editors involved in edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&oldid=1225338445], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dowrylauds&oldid=1225338480]) and requested temporary protection for the concerned page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1225339119]. |
|||
An unnecessary block, now unblocked; let us all learn and move on. Remember: blocking an established editor for perceived incivility is unlikely to help. Posting on a board, such as [[WP:ANI]] and gaining some consensus for action is more likely to produce a worthwhile result. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I was a Wikipedia editor for a long time before retiring and starting a new account. As such, I was very much involved in recent changes patrol and decided to continue doing so when I started this new account. |
|||
==User TDC== |
|||
This user has taken it upon himself to provoke an edit war. In the past he wanted some information deleted, then stopped discussing thereby implicitly accepting another version. Now, three months later returns to [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] and without discussion redeletes the material. I asked him to first discuss and explain his incorrect edit summaries. He refuses, reverts and claims I have to disprove his POV, which BTW I did in Februari and he never responded to. Evidently this will lead to something unfortunate. Could some uninvolved administratot look at the edit history and talk page both at [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] and [[command responsibility]] and determine whether his actions are appropriate.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I am deeply baffled by the allegations being levied against me here (without any iota of proof) and believe this is completely against Wikipedia policies. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I think a sample of the talk page would more than demonstrate that my edits are legitimate, well reasoned and that the only response I have gotten from some of the more tenacious editors are personal attacks on me. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You still stand by the edit summary that the WaPo did not mention the MCA? Clearly this user has now officially adopted the technique of edit warring instead of motivating his erroneous arguments. Have you actually read the sources before massively deleting them? As an aside, please point to where I addressed you in an uncivil manner.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]], you registered this account 8 days ago and immediately went on to issue warnings to various editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.127.147.92&diff=prev&oldid=1224177719][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.40.201.217&diff=prev&oldid=1224180244][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espenthordsen&diff=prev&oldid=1224186730][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:117.228.210.44&diff=prev&oldid=1224826496][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.17.129.102&diff=prev&oldid=1224298297][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravensfire&diff=prev&oldid=1224821637][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thehamid&diff=prev&oldid=1224842654][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.9.107.79&diff=prev&oldid=1224991945] and many more – including warnings to long-standing editors like {{u|Ravensfire}}, {{u|Espenthordsen}} or myself; proposing an article for deletion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IGUANA_Computing&diff=prev&oldid=1224022895], and closing a discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_management&diff=prev&oldid=1225013360] (even though your account is not {{tq|in good standing}} as it's not even extended confirmed). All in just 300 edits. It doesn't look like a very ''clean'' start to me, and my advice to you is to slow down and stop challenging everyone here. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==SPA sockpuppet used to launch personal attacks== |
|||
::{{ping|Kashmiri}} I was a wikipedia editor for a long time before changing my account to hide my identity. All the warnings issued by me are completely valid and almost all reports filed by me so far have been actioned on (including the most recent page protection request on the page you are edit-warring on). I have also shared details of my previous account with the checkusers. However, I don't like your personal attacks against me when I simply warned you about a Wikipedia policy you were violating. You straight up jumped to implying I am a sock-puppet (especially with your veiled comments like "Let's see..."). |
|||
[[User:heatedissuepuppet]] an admitted sockpuppet [[SPA]] account is once again involved in trivial editwarring and personal attacks. The editor has already been blocked once. When he was unblocked he said his only purpose was to expose my COI. Even after I revealed my identity, he continues his trivial editwarring first on [[Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)]] and then on [[Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolis_%28English_magazine_in_Japan%29&diff=134677656&oldid=133746648] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolis_%28English_magazine_in_Japan%29&diff=next&oldid=134770974]. After I added sources within a few minutes [[User:124.86.155.202]] who appears to be heatedissuepuppet's sock/meatpuppet deleted more information from the Metropolis page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolis_%28English_magazine_in_Japan%29&diff=134775051&oldid=134771898]. The editor then placed the following personal attack on his user page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heatedissuepuppet&diff=134799302&oldid=132663778]. |
|||
::You also chose to report my current account as a sock-puppet at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110]] after I shared with you about my previous account and opened this complaint against you (where I even mentioned that I have shared details about my past account with checkusers). (You have not even notified me about that report, and I just found it from your edit history). |
|||
::I can't figure out why you are acting in such bad faith against me. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] There's no obligation to notify accounts about SPI, and I don't routinely do it. As I wrote: your start here is quite concerning, it's as far from collaborative editing as possible. You just go around and drop warnings on various users' pages (it's secondary here whether they are justified or not). At [[Talk:Tamil genocide]], you made zero effort to engage in the discussion, present arguments in support or against the proposal. You just played a cop – much like in other articles. Now, being so unhelpful, and with such a suspicious editing pattern (see my SPI, which I reaffirm), do you ''really'' expect hugs and love here? |
|||
:::[[WP:CLEANSTART]] says: {{tq| It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will '''follow community norms of behavior'''.}} I'm not at all sure that's the case here. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: Regarding your claim that [[Tamil genocide]] was "on your watchlist", I wonder how it got there when you never edited in this area – and at the same time when several new accounts became active on that article. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I highlight my concern with your veiled personal attacks again: "do you really expect hugs and love here?". Is this seriously the kind of tone that "experienced editors" use these days? I have replied to the SPI report as well. My previous account was in good standing and this new account was only started to disassociate my real-life identity. I didn't realize patrolling recent changes and countering vandalism is now frowned upon at Wikipedia. |
|||
::::Also, I don't really have to explain myself, but it got on my watchlist because I participated in a Requested Move discussion just a few sections above at [[Talk:Tamil genocide#Requested move 12 May 2024]]. I was only warning you as I noticed you were on your 3rd revert and that the topic was considered a contentious topic. Didn't realize issuing a simple warning to you would waste so much of my time here or I would have never done so. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not seeing you're using any RCP tols, and [[WP:RCP|Recent changes patrol]] doesn't include Talk pages anyway, even as you were coming to talk pages. It all gets muddier. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have used [[WP:Twinkle]] to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I also want to clear up the issue of issuing warnings to long standing editors. For Ravensfire, if you look just below the warning, you'll see a friendly discussion of the issue at hand where both of us agreed it was just to avoid any future issues. |
|||
:::::::In the case of Espenthordsen, it was due to a file they uploaded which missed a copyright tag altogether. |
|||
:::::::Both warnings are advisory in nature and my warning to you was similar in nature (hoping to stop you from violating policies and getting yourself blocked). |
|||
:::::::You simply decided that qualifies me as a sockpuppet? All my edits so far have been in good standing and I've not acted hostile to you in anyway. Yet, you have only been hostile to me so far and didn't bother to assume good faith, going so far as mocking me and challenging everything I've said. |
|||
:::::::Honestly, all this makes me rethink my decision to even start my Wikipedia account. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Look, people come here to build an encyclopaedia; develop content, sometimes argue about it in order to work out a consensus version. Yes sometimes formal warnings are necessary. However, you did not try to build anything: you just waded into a lengthy discussion with an the [[:Template:uw-3rr]] usertalk (!) warning followed by two[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&diff=prev&oldid=1225338445][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dowrylauds&diff=prev&oldid=1225338480] warnings to discussion participants. This was not only unnecessary but outright rude. At the same time, given that yours is not the first newly created account that went straight to discussing Tamil genocide in the last few days, a CU request (not: decision!) was a perfectly valid move. My concerns were also shared by another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leed110&diff=prev&oldid=1225347902]. |
|||
::::::::With your every 15th or so edit to-date being a formal notice or warning, your demand of assuming good faith seems somewhat misplaced. |
|||
::::::::I'll repeat myself: you're welcome to build an encyclopaedia (providing your CU check comes out clean). But if you as a new, non-admin account only intend to police others, close discussions and, generally, go to contentious places, don't be surprised about a backlash. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Further, I'll repeat what I just posted on the talk page: |
|||
:::::::::just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard). |
|||
:::::::::You seem to think I'm rooting against your page change but honestly I've no opinion of it (and will now stay far away from it since it's clear there is something way bigger than normal Wikipedia going out here). |
|||
:::::::::I've also decided that I'll just quit Wikipedia and you can all be happy and maybe even throw a party over it? Sick of all of this nonsense. I don't have time for this. And I don't appreciate anyone who has time to scrutinize every single one of my edits. Maybe if you spent that time actually building Wikipedia (like you just said). [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::@[[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] Glad that yours is not. <small>(Link to some company profile removed)</small> — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Uhh, isn't this [[WP:Outing|Outing]]? [[User:1AmNobody24|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;background-color: #4D4DFF;color: white">Nobody</span>]] ([[User talk:1AmNobody24|<span style="color: #4D4DFF">talk</span>]]) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Yes. Do we need to wait for an admin to delete it or can a regular editor do so? [[User:BoldGnome|BoldGnome]] ([[User talk:BoldGnome|talk]]) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Ironically, my username was simply chosen by a random username generator. But this behaviour scares me greatly. It seems like kashmiri is now actively trying to find out my real identity. I am now genuinely worried about this, and hope admins take notice. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Note''' I've closed a complaint concerning Kashmiri at AN3 (not from Goldenarrow9) to keep the discussion in one place. There is no prejudice to any outcome from this discussion here. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If you're going to activate a 'clean start', it is really unwise in my opinion to go straight into a contentious topic like Tamil genocide. This is actually clearly covered in the clean start policy, [[Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics]]. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have not been involved in the actual edit war (or the discussion thereof). My only participation was in a move discussion where I wrote 1 single line opposing the move. Here, my only participation was issuing warnings to both the editors and requesting a temp page protection (which was granted) in view of the edit war. My issue here is strictly related to the personal attacks being made against me which have somehow continued unchecked even on this noticeboard. |
|||
:::Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here. In any case, I have mostly been spending my time here patrolling recent changes and didn't really participate much in any heated discussions. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here.}} |
|||
::::That is incorrect. The entire point of CLEANSTART is to break away from the previous editing areas, which is important if protecting your identity matters. Otherwise, people are easily going to put 2+2 together and you're right back where you started. I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move away from those areas. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider that. I have mostly spent time doing RCP (and yes, this was something I was previously involved in as well). I don't target specific pages or projects but occasionally participate in some random discussions. Until this issue started, there was no indication on my account that I even had a previous account. Now, I will have to re-consider if I even should spend time on Wikipedia at all. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] they are unrelated this report is about personal attack while the that report is about edit warring.[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Agreed. My only relation to that edit-war is issuing a warning and requesting page protection as an uninvolved editor. Replies to my warning started this altogether separate issue here. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..'''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, SPI doesn't work that way, and like the AN3 report, it's there for anyone to see who looks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Note to Closing admin.Please take a look at this 3RR report''' [[WP:AN3#User:Kashmiri_reported_by_User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards_(Result:_Declined,_at_ANI,_article_fully_protected_)|3RR Report here as admin did not want it to be at two noticeboards]].[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 22:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* On a unrelated note, [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]], how did you come across [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao]]? [[User:Jeraxmoira|Jeraxmoira🐉]] ([[User talk:Jeraxmoira|talk]]) 05:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This editor has a vendetta against me and any article I write on. Other editors who contested the user's unblock [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive245#Unblock_of_User:Heatedissuepuppet] noted that this editor is not using the account to protect himself from attack, but using it ''to attack''. This is an inappropriate use of a sockpuppet and would like to ask for a block, a warning, or at the very least that the user use his main account to make the edits. |
|||
*:On some wikiproject dashboard/list. [[User:Goldenarrow9|Goldenarrow9]] ([[User talk:Goldenarrow9|talk]]) 07:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I am much more concerned with the behavior of {{user|Dowrylauds}} at that article, who is the editor who is most clearly edit-warring here. They have made 3 "large" reverts and 3 comments on the talk page excoriating other editors for making similar reverts, with no constructive participation. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The editor will try to deflect the issue by pointing out my COI, but if you check my history you will see that I have been editing within policy to remove poorly sourced negative information about my company that he has added on numerous occassions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolis_%28English_magazine_in_Japan%29&diff=prev&oldid=127911031] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolis_%28English_magazine_in_Japan%29&diff=prev&oldid=127907434], and to add sources where requested. Where I am mentioned in other articles, I have put my sources to uninvolved editors using RFC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Baker_%28prisoner_in_Japan%29#Request_for_comments]. -- [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] <small>[[User_talk:Sparkzilla|talk!]]</small> 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[ |
== [[Chilufya Tayali]] == |
||
A few issues at Chilufya Tayali, among them the addition of unsourced and promotional content, likely conflict of interest, and an editor who claims to be corresponding with the subject, who as of last month was reported to be missing and wanted by Interpol. See the discussion here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClementSyuulu#May_2024]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Cydevil keeps reverting the template at [[Template: History of Manchuria]] despite agreement from the three parties involved to rename the title to the "History of Northeast China": |
|||
:From the comments made by {{user|ClementSyuulu}} on their talk page, this seems to me more like [[WP:OR]] rather than [[WP:COI]]. FYI, there are noticeboards for both [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard|original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflicts of interest]]. It might be more appropriate taking this to one of those noticeboards. [[User:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black_GB|<span style="color:orange">c</span>]]</sup> 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
''The three parties - Whlee[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=130055739&oldid=130054680], Wiki pokemon and I - currently involved in this discussion (or debate, if you will) are already trying to work out a solution. I have repeatedly made my rounds on the discussion page explaining the reasons behind my edits. In fact, we have been getting rather close towards a general sense of consensus with what looks like Whlee supporting a "History of Northeast China" template (minor problems notwithstanding) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=130055739&oldid=130054680].'' |
|||
::This report is fine for this noticeboard, so I wouldn't worry about it. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The template was locked for well over half a month before I requested that it be reopened on the grounds that consensus was reached (see above). Cydevil38 made no attempts to join in on the discussion and continues to unilaterally change the status quo. He dismisses my points, saying that it "wasted his time" and was deemed (by him) to be "pointless": |
|||
:::Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure. [[User:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black GB|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black_GB|<span style="color:orange">c</span>]]</sup> 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AFD == |
|||
''I did participate in the discussion, though I didn't waste my time responding to every one of your objections that I deemed pointless. '' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGoguryeo&diff=134819628&oldid=134819454] |
|||
{{atop|Question answered and I also added a couple of notes to the AfD itself. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Am I allowed to modify an opening statement in an AFD discussion that I opened? I have been reverted twice by an editor who insists that I make a new comment who then tags me as a commenter in what may be a bad-faith assumption of me trying to rig a consensus. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>''Presumably [[special:diff/1225400560|here]].''</small> No, you are not allowed, since that wasn't what was replied to. Any additions or modifications need to be accounted for, with a diff or a new comment. HTH. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. [[User:Local Variable|Local Variable]] ([[User talk:Local Variable|talk]]) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Personally I'd probably just ask the editor to revert and definitely make sure to personally notify them (i.e. via their talk page) if I ever did anything like that. But I also don't think reverting an editor's change to their own comment counts the same when it comes to editing another editor's comment. Especially if the change was made a significant time after the comment was made, had already been replied to, and the change wasn't fixing a simple typo or some other clearcut error. The point of not modifying someone's comment is IMO primarily because we don't want to modify someone's signed comments. But reverting a change isn't really modifying someone's signed comment, it's reverting someone's modification to the older version. The editor had already decided to post it. It's similar to the way removing someone's comment wholesale or hatting it isn't generally as big a deal than modifying it. And a closer example, if an editor wholesale removes a comment of their which had received replies rather than just striking it, it's hardly uncommon to just revert this removal and ask the editor to strike it instead. And for archived discussions even that might be controversial. It's not putting words into an editor's mouth to revert to something they willingly said at one time even if they later changed their mind. (If the editor's account was compromised that might be a different matter.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== PicturePerfect666 == |
|||
He continues to resort to non sequiturs, saying how most NPOV support ''his'' viewpoint (but provides no proof/back up): |
|||
{{atop|Sorry, but as this dispute relates to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to [[WP:ARBECR]] and non-extendedconfirmed editors may not participate. Since the filer does not meet the requirements, this complaint cannot proceed. {{pb}} If any extendedconfirmed editors have their own reasons to file a complaint, the appropriate place is [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
I would like to ask for a topicblock on PicturePerfect666, both on all Eurovision articles and on any other topic that relates to either Israel or Palestine. They are being a disruptive editor in the [[Eurovision 2024]] article, through bludgeoning multiple talk topics, disruptive editing, unnecessarily policing the talk page, ignoring consensus, breaching NPOV, deleting sections they personally disagree with, refusing to lose an argument, and malicious editing of the article in order to leave hidden instructions to warn editors to not make particular changes that they disapprove of. |
|||
''Most of the cited sources refer to Manchuria as, well, Manchuria. And I've already made my point and it still stands - you cannot selectively apply NPOV sources for one POV while denying its application for the other.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=134817387&oldid=134815303] (Note that Manchuria and NE China are the same thing, and the object of the entire discussion was to rename the title to "History of Northeast China") |
|||
==== Bludgeoning the talk page ==== |
|||
We have given him well over a week to raise his objections/concerns, but he made no attempts to raise objections. He continues to unilaterally revert the template to his liking, at the same time, removing additional information agreed by other parties (e.g. Donghu) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=134817468&oldid=134808971] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=134781060&oldid=134711399] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Hope_someone_can_add_Donghu]. [[User:Assault11|Assault11]] 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Warnings - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224309958] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1184413238] |
|||
Example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&oldid=1225314857#Israel_campaign_for_votes The Israel Campaign for Votes talk section] |
|||
I would like to inform the administrators that there was a delicate consensus on the "History of Manchuria" template at the [[Goguryeo]] article, and creation of this template, which is based on no reliable source, was made to prevent constant revert warring.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo#Next_straw_poll:_navigational_templates] Assault11 being one of the few digressors continues to dispute this consensus by furthering his POV. I have raised my objections in the talk page, and I saw progressing discussion made mosstly by Assault11 and Wikipokemon as repetitive and rather pointless to the relevant issues at hand, that the common English word for Manchuria is Manchuria, not Northeast China or Dongbei. Even most of the cited sources that Wikipokemon used are entries on Manchuria. Also, what Whlee likely expressed his consensus was to the creation of another template, [[Template:History of Northeast China]], which was created by Wikipokemon. [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Also, I would like to point out that compromises were already made to [[Template:History of Manchuria]] itself to cater to Assault11's claims.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Manchuria&diff=126500071&oldid=126434178] [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, nevermind about Whlee not having had a consensus. He actually did, which I didn't remember until now. I've engaged in discussions with him in his talk page, and I have addressed his concerns. Please see his talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whlee#History_of_Manchuria_template] And mine.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cydevil38#History_of_Manchuria_template] [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Here there are 44 comments, and PP666 made 16 of them, over 35% of the comments in this section, double the amount of comments of anyone else involved. They continually changed what they thought was deemed wrong with this proposal, from "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1224001907 speculation and cruft]", to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1224023037 unreliable source]", to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1224054589 what is the relevance]", to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1224312636 the Eurovision rules weren't even broken]", to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1225300844 lets wait for further discussion]", in order, when each of the previous reasonings were found to be incorrect. When examining that talk topic for consensus, there are 7 votes for inclusion, and only 1 against (PP666). When this was addressed, PP666 said "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&diff=prev&oldid=1225302063 This is not counting votes]", and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225309534 immediately opened a request for comment] about this exact discussion, presumably in the effort to delay anyone acting on the newly-established consensus. '''This disruption has been working''', because despite consensus and the fact this was suggested a week ago, it is still not included in the article. |
|||
== Block on [[User:Thewinchester]] == |
|||
They have now seem to be not gaining the intended response in their newly opened RFC either, and have started bludgeoning the people replying to them there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225325293] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225332023] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225333736] |
|||
I am very concerned about the basis of the block of Thewinchester, who is one of the most active editors on the Australian wikiprojects and active in vandal-fighting, checking of company articles for verifiability and the like. |
|||
In PicturePerfects666's two RFCs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&oldid=1225397951#Request_for_comments:_controversies_in_lede one which they asked an admin to open], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision%20Song%20Contest%202024&oldid=1225397951#Request_for_comments:_votes_received_and_how_by_Israel and the other they opened themselves]), so far every person who has replied to either of them has disagreed with PicturePerfect666's position, again. Multiple people replied to the RFC acknowledging that this was just a repeat of a recent already-settled discussion and not necessary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225360708] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225341955] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225310509]. |
|||
On reading [[WP:BLOCK]] I see that "persistent gross incivility or gross harassment" is the standard required to achieve a block, and under "When blocking may not be used", cool-down blocks are explicitly listed. In the case of this user, who was guilty of posting one incivil talk page post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=134823644&oldid=134793159], no warning of any kind was issued and the block itself appears not to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Personally I would have gone for an agf-2 warning. |
|||
Doing a rough count (doing some ctrl+f tallying), currently on the talk page there are 276 comments, and PicturePerfect666 has made 78 of them. '''Over a ''quarter'' of ALL talk page comments are made by them'''. They are dominating every single topic they are involved with and they refuse to back down on anything, even when there is a large consensus against them. |
|||
Could someone who is not involved please review this block? [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==== Disruptive editing and incivility ==== |
|||
Warnings: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&oldid=1224333277#Eurovision][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1223475649] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1224784703] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1184483641]. Individual problems below often included their own pushback and warnings specific to the issue. |
|||
[[User:Thewinchester]] has been block by [[User:WJBscribe]] with the reason ''I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit'' this is in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]]. the unblock request was denied by [[User:Riana]] citing gross incivility, yet the language used by Thewindchester while heated is not the most offensive language used in discussion on [[User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson]]. Further more there was no request for Thewindchester to reconsider/withdraw or appologise for the comments neither was any warning given prior to the block. This incident needs to be looked at by an uninvolved party. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*The 'Oh, for fuck's sake' on Jeffrey's talk page is written by Jeffrey himself. '''[[User:Riana|Riana]]''' [[User talk:Riana|<font color="green">⁂</font>]] 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, that's clearly inappropriate, I fully endorse the block there, I really can't see a reason to complain about it, we can block for obvious incivility which in this case, that's what there was. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
In the last few days, PP666 has: |
|||
* Thewinchester acted like a dick, and when he got slapped for it he started bitching about it. All he needs to do is recognise that he was out of line and apologise, and I'm sure he'll be unblocked, but the comment was indeed way out of line. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
** I'd say this comment is also uncivil also a similar comment was left on Thewinchester talk page. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Incited an edit war by repeatedly removing a section that describes the multiple Palestinian symbols displayed on stage at Eurovision [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224488163], despite multiple editors asking them not to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224496650] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224488085]. |
|||
:Further to what I said just then after looking at WJB's talk page, I really cannot understand why you two are making such a big deal of this, the block was clearly appropriate, it was reviewed by a neutral admin who agreed with the block and to be honest - it was a clear personal attack which an established user should know better not to do. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* When told they were edit warring, they started personally attacking the user that pointed it out to them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224492499] - see edit description (''"Reply to bad arguments, point scoring and attempted gotcha moments by a user with unclean hands."'') |
|||
* Got 48 hour site blocked for further personal attacks made during the edit war AN/I brought against them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1224504409], as well as edit warring. |
|||
* Attempted to escape that block via wikilawyering [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PicturePerfect666&diff=prev&oldid=1224512030] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225035330 Opened a dispute resolution request that included 24 people], including a [[Special:Contributions/The Satanator|probable sock-puppet account]] listed as the first person involved. The sock has 3 edits in total - the first was to request someone restart PP666's edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224885214] (the edit war that happened 2 days before they signed up), the second was to "retire" the account exactly 1 minute later (5 minutes after signing up)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Satanator&oldid=1224885316], but they came out of "retirement" to post their third edit: literally posting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute%20resolution%20noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225061878 "I agree with PicturePerfect666"] on PP666's dispute resolution request. They have no other edits. Also note the similar username motifs. |
|||
* PP666 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=1224394698&oldid=1224394303&diffonly=1 added wikicomments in the article source], demanding that adding anything critical of Israel to the lead was against consensus and not allowed (despite knowing that was not true). They did not remove this message when this was pointed out to them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224426146] |
|||
* Moved the section that outlines the Israeli participation controversy further down the page to "alphabetise" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224177041] |
|||
* Moved large sections of the Israeli participation controversy into a lower traffic article without consulting the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1223649857] |
|||
* Removed large amount of detail about the Israeli inclusion protests without consulting the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1223120536] |
|||
* Repeatedly removed an image of protest against Israel's inclusion happening in Barcelona because, as per the edit summary "we all know what a protest looks like" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224156641]. Also justifying removing this image again later using the reasoning "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224002095] (despite other sections having images at the time), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224002179] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224002240] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1223742357 Removing a one-sentence reference] to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&oldid=1225397951#Do_we_need_%22the_inclusion_of_Israel%22_paragraph_on_the_top_page?]). Asked to revert, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1223784664], but didn't. |
|||
* When an admin removed some comments (full disclosure: my comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224560856]) from the talk page because of the extended-confirmed protection, PP666 took it upon themselves to use this as justification to police everyone else in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224958813] |
|||
* This led to PP666 opening a spurious AN/I, which was promptly shut down[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1225118685#User:Yoyo360_Ignoring_of_page_restriction_after_warning_by_admin]. One admin said ''"No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them"''. During that AN/I, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1225010993 admins asked them to revert the policing comments], something PP666 pretended to comply with, but instead just wikicommented out instead[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225009089]. The policing comments are still in the talk page code without any clarification that they are inaccurate and unwarranted. They refused to actually delete them when I pointed this out to them[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1225118685], quoting [[WP:TPO]] as the reasoning, which is completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and does not suggest wikicommenting at all. |
|||
Since my comments got deleted and I had the contentious topic explainer posted on my page, I have stopped interacting on this article's talk page (apart from one extended-protected change request), but I have still been observing what's been happening from the side-lines, and I think that PicturePerfect666's behaviour is massively disruptive and unhelpful, and they show no sign of self reflection or acknowledging a behavioural problem. This list was initially even longer but I decided to trim it down. There's no way of having a meaningful discussion or improving the article while they are involved. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::To clarify. My block was not a "cool down block", though I advised the blocked user to use the opportunity to step back and cool down. His comments to Jeffrey were outrageous and unacceptable. He is clearly aware of our polices in this area and chose to trample across them. He response to the block has to been to quibble the reasons for it. He has made no undertaking to apologise or to moderate his conduct. I have made it clear on my talkpage that I would unblock if he were willing to apologise to Jeffrey and showed signs of having calmed and be more likely to behave appropriately in future. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:{{diff2|1224312592}} might be an interesting diff regarding bludgeoning. <sub>[[User:Dialmayo|<span style="color:#0101ba;">Dial</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Dialmayo|<span style="color:#AD3184;">mayo</span>]]</sup> 11:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:This largely factual incorrect. For example I only started one RfC and only did so after dispute resolution was declined after being advised to try routes that are different. |
|||
:the matters complained about are already administratively dealt with as a block on me and another were rendered and have passed. |
|||
:I’d like the reported to be boomeranged for this waste of time as this is already dealt with previously. They are also in my opinion on a campaign targeting me as they dislike the position I take compared to them. |
|||
:if they have content disputes fine but this is targeting and bullying through gaming the system. An example was when an admin asked they and everyone else to not comment on my talk page and they carried on regardless. |
|||
:this is the most nothing burger feet stamping laundry list complaint I’ve ever seen from someone doing so here because they dislike the processes of Wikipedia and can’t stand that contentious topics are going to need more input and have more people with different views than they like. |
|||
:yes this reply is personal but I’m sick to death of the attitude of this user that they get to try and push an opposing voice on a contentious topic off because they can’t get their own way they should be trouted and warned they can’t go forum shopping on things already dealt with. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Lines like this “one which they asked an admin to open” |
|||
::Show how absurd and bad faith assuming this complaint is. I never asked any administrator to open anything I would therefor like that to be taken as prima facia evidence of bad faith and this nonsense closed with appropriate action taken against the filer. Accusations like that cannot be allowed as they damage the whole process and nature of Wikipedia. |
|||
::I am pinging the admin being accused of being my patsy {{ping|Ivanvector}} [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 13:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1225112264 when that fell through], and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the ''second'' RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your ''badgering of people'' trying to contribute to those RFCs. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. [[User:PicturePerfect666|PicturePerfect666]] ([[User talk:PicturePerfect666|talk]]) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, for the sake of stopping a derailment - if you insist, the phrase "asked for" could be improved. You may not have directly ''asked'' for it, but it was made to placate your concerns about the article, because your dispute resolution request didn't go ahead. Again: I have no concern about them whatsoever. I have no problems with the first RFC being open, this has nothing to do with this AN/I, and whether you "asked" for it or not makes no difference. I am making no claims about Ivanvector's behaviour and everything I have seen from them has been neutral, fair and in good-faith. The fact that you are trying to redirect this AN/I away from yourself and imply that I am actually attacking a third party is astonishing. This is a complete derailment, and I am surprised that this detail, out of everything in the original post, is the one you are fighting. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|I am bad at Wikipeding}} |
|||
::Uh, your diff is broken, [[User:Dialmayo|Dialmayo]], it doesn't have the revision IDs and is just going to the main page. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Looking at the reply in the edit history, I think [[User:Dialmayo|Dialmayo]] intended to link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1224312592 this diff] - please correct me if I'm mistaken though [[User:Bugghost|<span style="border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;padding:2px 3px;background:#ff7048;color:#fff">'''BugGhost'''</span>]][[User talk:Bugghost|<span style="border:1px solid #ff7048;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:2px;color:#000">🎤</span>]] 11:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I fixed the diff seconds before you wrote that after you wrote that haha, yeah that's what I meant to link to, I forgot how the diff template worked <sub>[[User:Dialmayo|<span style="color:#0101ba;">Dial</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Dialmayo|<span style="color:#AD3184;">mayo</span>]]</sup> 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Hab}} |
|||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Bot control == |
|||
:::'''I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewinchester&diff=134825471&oldid=134733081] [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Why is a bot allowed to control what is posted to drv [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=1225438376] . [[User:Duffbeerforme|duffbeerforme]] ([[User talk:Duffbeerforme|talk]]) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Can someone please explain to me why [[Template talk:Coord]] comments by [[User:Pigsonthewing]] are acceptable conduct from a user with a past history with Arbcom and revert parole (I suggest checking contribs too) but Thewinchester with no warnings and a good history is treated so much differently? [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Duffbeerforme|Duffbeerforme]], because the report was malformed. You have to add it outside of and after the hidden comment syntax (<nowiki><!-- --></nowiki>). You placed it inside of the hidden comment. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The bot is not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=1225438828 trying to prevent discussion]. You filed the report incorrectly, but it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May_24&diff=next&oldid=1225438828 fixed] by @[[User:Whpq|Whpq]]. Please AGF and don't edit war with software. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Countscarter == |
|||
:As I asked on my talkpage, diffs? <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Userlinks|Countscarter}} |
|||
:: This in response to a simple (and fair) question: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ACoord&diff=132782904&oldid=132780702], and almost every second edit on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070529134256&target=Pigsonthewing] (just look at those summaries, for a starter) [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Persistent addition of unsourced information in movie articles, such as: {{diff2|1225541452}}{{diff2|1225340098}}{{diff2|1225199283}}, etc. User was blocked earlier in April for the same issue following [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User talk:Countscarter|an ANI discussion]], yet continued with 0 communication. [[WP:COMMUNICATE|Communication is required]], and I hope they will respond here. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User:John celona == |
|||
:{{an3|b|indef}} '''([[WP:PB|partial]], article space)''': [[User talk:Countscarter#Indefinite partial block from the main article space]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please refer to [[Special:Contributions/John celona]] for the past 24 hours. I would appreciate someone who has not had recent involvement in the BLP-related discussions giving me a reality check on whether this user appears to be providing sincere, if extreme, feedback or if he is trolling a sensitive deletion debate. Please note that I am not asking for a block or anything; I just need to recalibrate my meter on some things. Thanks. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:44, 25 May 2024
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) |
|
Jonharojjashi, part 2
Jonharojjashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.
Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.
These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2] [3], but they were mostly fruitless.
Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699
- Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
- Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
- At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [7] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.
Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122
- As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [8] [9] [10] [11]
- After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [12]
- Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
- When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15] [16]
Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan
- Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
- Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17] [18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [19] [20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
- Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22] [23].
Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330
- Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
- Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [26], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [27]
- And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [28], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [29]
- Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [30] [31]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [32]
- Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11
Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.
Closing remark
In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.
There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord
. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.- Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
- Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
- HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
- Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?
- 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
- The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
- more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
- Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Editing issues of Jonharojjashi
I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-
- The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.
- Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-
- I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.
- Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them
see how funny he posted this on my talk page
and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption. - Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-
- Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.
- I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind
Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
My god, can they make it less obvious?
- Both Jonharojjashi [51] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [52] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
- Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [53] [54]
- Like Jonharojjashi [55], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [56] [57]
- Both Jonharojjashi [58] and Malik-Al-Hind [59] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.
Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.
Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.
Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.
Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68] [69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab
Sudsahab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Both Jonharojjashi [71] [72] and indeffed user Sudsahab [73] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
- Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74] [75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.
- I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- A user Based Kashmiri is selecting articles for deletion that do not appear to have any issues. It seems that he simply dislikes these articles, which is why he is deleting them. Surprisingly, another user, Rawn, has voted for deletion on every article this user has selected for deletion.
- [1][2][3][4] DeepstoneV (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
पापा जी
पापा जी (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
पापा जी is a "brand new user", yet they are already aware of WP:SYNTH [77] and WP:NPOV [78]. Their first edit was restoring info in an article by Shakib ul hassan [79], does this edit summary seem like that of a new user to you? using "rv" in their very first edit summary. They then immediately went to support the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab conquest of Kaikan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh. Not even remotely close to the traditional journey of a new user, good thing they're trying to hide it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
A remark about closing
@HistoryofIran, please stop non-archiving this thread. You have been warned about this previously. The administrators do not appear to be interested in this report. It's time to close and move on. I have removed the no-archive. BoldGnome (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BoldGnome: That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this [80] [81]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to Section 19 of Discord Community Guidelines, they may not be allowed to create accounts that would evade platform-level sanctions, if the server or the user is banned. Discord is very closely regulating the use of servers. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see, a big problem is that the key evidence of meatpuppetry coordinated over Discord is something that we can't actually see. You say you sent the evidence to Arbcom and they advised you to come here. It would be helpful if an Arb who has seen the evidence could post here and tell us whether it is compelling. Until then, as an admin and SPI regular I'm not really comfortable taking action based on information that I don't have. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this constant DNAU-adding is essentially WP:FORUMSHOPPING ("raising essentially the same issue ... on one [noticeboard] repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"). HistoryofIran made a "closing remark" a month ago; they seem to think they have the authority to decide what is worth having at ANI, but as far as I can see, they don't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I never stated that I have any form of authority. It's disappointing to see a veteran user act like this. I hope you're glad that you got to take that dig at me. Who cares about the Discord meatpuppets right? Let them run amok. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Discord meatputppets will be easily detected upon reporting with sufficient evidence to Discord employees. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- First time I've been called a "veteran", so thanks for that, I guess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- That was what you got out of my response...? HistoryofIran (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how forum shopping works. The issue is not being raised "repetitively". And quite frankly, HistoryofIran has a very good track record when it comes to ANI reports. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know that they have a good track record. I was the one who first notified them about how to use DNAU. I did not think that they would use it to keep their own agitations at ANI indefinitely. Yes, the issue is not being raised "repetitively" in fact, but in spirit it has the same effect, as the same thread, without resolution, is constantly being prohibited from archiving. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- You did not introduce me to DNAU, that was another user. Calling my reports (the vast majority which leads to the reported user being blocked/banned) for my "own agitations" is frankly at WP:ASPERSIONS territory, do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know that they have a good track record. I was the one who first notified them about how to use DNAU. I did not think that they would use it to keep their own agitations at ANI indefinitely. Yes, the issue is not being raised "repetitively" in fact, but in spirit it has the same effect, as the same thread, without resolution, is constantly being prohibited from archiving. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- DNAU? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a template that stops a thread from auto-archiving [82]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I never stated that I have any form of authority. It's disappointing to see a veteran user act like this. I hope you're glad that you got to take that dig at me. Who cares about the Discord meatpuppets right? Let them run amok. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Community responses to this long report
- It seems pretty obvious that something untoward is going on here. I'm not really certain what the propriety is of joining the Reddit in question and observing the behavior in detail and how it may correlate with on-WP action. Probably not necessary, and hard to do without outing-related issues. It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional. That they're frequently collaborating with sock- and meat-puppets to do it is probably only of incidental interest, especially since the puppets are routinely blocked anyway without AN/I needing to be involved. I'm not sure if this just calls for a topic-ban (perhaps a time-limited but non-trivial one), or if further action is needed, like listing various of the crap sources at WP:RSNP so there is less future question about editors trying to rely on them in our material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Bravehm
Bravehm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [83]), likely a sock [84], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.
- At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [85], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
- After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [86] [87]
- Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [88]
- Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [89] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
- Same here [90]
- And here [91]
- And here [92]
- And here [93]
- And here [94]
--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see [5] Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [95]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [96]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[97] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's a valid point buried in this. If a modern translator/editor of period manuscript material is injecting their own interpretation about what the original material probably really meant, then that translator/editor is a primary source for that editorial judgement/claim/change (it's their own personal opinion), and while they may be within RS definitions as a subject-matter expert, their view needs to be attributed to them as a modern scholar, not masqueraded as a statement of the original historical manuscript writer. This sort of thing comes up pretty frequently with regard to modern scholarly intepretation of ancient writings, and more often than not other scholars can also be cited in support of and sometimes against such a modern analytical intepretation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[97] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see [5] Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
- According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
- According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
- According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.
- I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [98] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @HistoryofIran: [99], [100]
- They are not removal but restoration.
- I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [101]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- "More unsourced" not "unsourced"
- I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".
- And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [102] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226)", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
- ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh", Wikipedia, 2024-05-18, retrieved 2024-05-18
- ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226)", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
- ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughal conquest of Baglana", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
- ^ Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur (1921)."Memoirs Of Zehir-Ed-Din Muhammed Babur. Volume 1.". Oxford University Press. Pages 44, 243, 279."
Request for closure
Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [103]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.
- User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [104]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.
- This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [105]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I second the request for closure and have removed the non-archive from this report as well. BoldGnome (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.
- This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough [106]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that this is a complex report, and it involves a topic area that most administrators and veteran editors know little about. In addition to the language barrier, most of us lack the necessary cultural context on Central and South Asia topics. That makes it hard to evaluate sources and figure out who is right. Another issue with editors from these parts of the world is that there's a ton of POV pushing and sockpuppetry on all sides. In my SPI work, I see articles in WP:ARBIPA topic areas where multiple sock/UPE farms are fighting and reporting each other as sockpuppets. The way ISPs in this region hand out IP addresses makes it very difficult for Checkuser to produce useful results. SPI is also incredibly backed up, so unfortunately these cases can linger for a while without more volunteers.
- If you want your reports to be more actionable, I can make a few suggestions. Focusing on user conduct issues like incivility, ownership, personal attacks and edit warring are more likely to get results, because the evidence for them is usually pretty clear. A lot of this report looks like content disputes, and we can't really determine who is POV pushing. It might also be better to use WP:AE; the format there is better for demonstrating problems concisely without participants arguing amongst themselves. One other suggestion is to open discussions about the more common sources at places like WP:RSN. As an example, I don't read The Times of India or Telesur and can't evaluate their reliability the same way I can with something I do read. But they've been discussed at RSN, so now we have WP:TOI and WP:TELESUR to tell editors and admins how to handle them. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks The Wordsmith, will keep that mind. It also doesn't help that Bravehm is blatantly lying, this is perhaps the clearest example I can show; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm [107], restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove more sourced info (-1189 bytes) [108], having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. This is manipulative. I then revert them again [109], only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to go the talk page [110]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, they just violated WP:3RR, so I guess this thread won't needed anymore. Bravehm will be back after their block though, as have all the previous (indeffed) users trying to do the same in that article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Boldgnome's and The Wordsmith's advice is pretty good, actually. And it can sometimes be better to close a drawn-out report that is proving too "TL;DR" to attract input and action, and open a new one later that concisely presents the evidence, from most egregious down to supporting-but-not-itself-actionable. It's also not helpful to just keep repeating "is being disruptive" over and over again. If the actions in question were not allegedly disruptive, then they wouldn't be at AN/I in the first place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.
See here. [111][112] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Italics mine, bold in original.WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- 'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No I have not
indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago
. I clearly and unambiguously stated thatI have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues.
Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No I have not
- Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- 'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
horse horse i love my station
|
---|
|
- This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:
- "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
- "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
- "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas
- Oh and here's a bonus:
- "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"
- Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:
- Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting:
Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy.
And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting:
- I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)my comments are not not needed.
- @Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[113]
- 4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[114]
- AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[115]
- 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[116]
- 4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.
This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[117] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjiii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology◈ 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something
- ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks. I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks. I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump
- Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.
- I see it this way:
- There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
- He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
- Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.
- So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would also support a topic ban from Did You Know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support a t-ban from DYK per Valereee. BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor Lightburst. ——Serial Number 54129 18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- That question is easy to answer: DYK posts
9-188-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- That question is easy to answer: DYK posts
- Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and
their own behavior
wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- It was a general remark not based on any single editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and
- Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that
I can't read this as something that's not transphobic
. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.
- What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - ZLEA T\C 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways, Andy opened this. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrī TALK 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose both I don't see any new issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.
- Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- He. Brought. This. Here. If
you thinkit wasn't worth bringing here, it's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- (Note the comment above was only
He. Brought. This. Here.
when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)
It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria.
What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- (Note the comment above was only
- He. Brought. This. Here. If
- Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because no one is obligated to satisfy you. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- For reference sake see BLP incivility warning that was given. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am
not bloody-minded enoughlacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) - Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."
- The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.
- TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose indef. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? Rjjiii (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. wound theology◈ 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia.He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil.I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive.Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)- @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors
I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't make a statement about a topic-ban from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with User:Valereee. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. wound theology◈ 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: to make everybody happy, I support a three months block from DYK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose indef. I thought long and hard about this. Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose sanctions as shooting the messenger, though Andy would be well advised to tone it down. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Just Step Sideways ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose both. There's certainly nothing like cause for an indef here. I could see a T-ban happening if AtG continues this level of DYK-related invective and we end up back here again with the same approach still in evidence. But some of AtG's concerns are valid, and this is not TonePolicePedia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom
I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.
I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.
I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.
It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording:
"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided"
being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said
lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all
. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they saida "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive
. It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)- I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion. Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit. And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here. It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND and just follow that route. Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him. He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors. But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he is pushing the right idea or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project. This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards. Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm. The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. SnowRise let's rap 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The RFC is now open at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. All are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- This solves the procedural issue at DYK, but the second overlapping issue, which relates to user conduct, is still open. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND
Elinruby is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([118]), warnings ([119]), and a block ([120]).
- Accusations of another editor
whitewashing mass murder
: [121] - Accusing me of inserting
fake news
and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [122] - Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag
if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia
is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [123] - Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [124]
- When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page
out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours
and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about havingtriggered
other editors: [125]
Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Elinruby#Block. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
apparently gloating about having triggered other editors
: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text isQ
[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A
[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO
[line break]Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO
. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.By way of context fordifferent editor did heavily maul the article
, there is an RSN discussion (permanent link) about the use of unreliable sources in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)- Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- OP put the "triggered" in quotes, and that's where the word occurs in the diff cited. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- From User talk:Elinruby (permalink):
The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.
I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [126][127] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[128][129] Or specific. Or that they didn't show the receipts. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.
I think that Pbritti misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example:
- current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
- current diff 146: Discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
- current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself
Then the complaint itself:
Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [130] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points.
Accusing me of inserting fake news: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI. removing reliably sourced material: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes. spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present: Uh...no. see next bullet point. the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons": Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[131][132][133] The same week, Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere:By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia! Saying they don't need to engage in discussion: Misinterpretation ofI don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement. suggesting that I'm racist: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content:If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice CBC News investigation that determined a link: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag. When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going... apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you a list of Q and As: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits.This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
copied by Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinged note, no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @Elinruby notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per El_C,
I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified.
What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)- I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with Springee that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the Jordan Peterson page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections.
- As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound WP:NPOV failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at WP:RS/N and you can see how that turned out here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page:
as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI
. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page:
- Per El_C,
Requesting TPA revocation and block extension
Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page:
- When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they replied with
I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills
- They falsely claim
The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI
, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having left an edit summary that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning - They claimed a hostile notice they added to their talk page
mentions no names
–despite pinging me with@Pbritti: please see section below
immediately after adding it. - The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and this reply
I am not keen on the project allowing further ROPE for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging El C as original blocking admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: The diff for
left an edit summary
is linking to a 2008 revision. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- @2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C: Thanks, I must've deleted a digit. Fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I do not see anything there that requires revoking TPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose because I'm not even convinced that the original block was good. Particularly the
triggered
accusation seems difficult for me to read in good faith: it's very difficult for me to imagine any good faith editor reading that as a reference to trauma triggers. And upon reading them closely none of the others seem to be anything but curt. I agree Elinruby has not responded great to the block, but like, it seems very kafkaesque to me to block someone because of their behavior in response to a block that shouldn't have happened. Loki (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- There appears to be an unusual obsession with analyzing that single word instead of reflecting on the totality of Elinruby's behavior. They weren't blocked over one word. They were blocked for repeated BATTLEGROUND behavior. Additionally, if an editor engages in misconduct following a block, that's still misconduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Friend, if you are watching this thread so closely that you are responding to new comments within five minutes, may I suggest it's not (just) Elinruby that's guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Loki (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's a button you can click when you open a discussion that allows you to 'subscribe' to the discussion. This allows a notification to appear when someone replies even if they don't ping you. It spares one from having to add cluttered noticeboards to a watchlist and enables rapid response. Please review what constitutes BATTLEGROUND behavior, as prompt response is not one such action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I subscribe to discussions regularly. In fact, I subscribed to this discussion right after I first commented, like I normally do when I comment in a discussion. I assure you it does not explain that quick of a response, and it definitely doesn't explain either your bad faith readings of Elinruby's posts nor coming back to the well with more alleged evidence of wrongdoing that nobody else has taken you up on. Loki (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's a button you can click when you open a discussion that allows you to 'subscribe' to the discussion. This allows a notification to appear when someone replies even if they don't ping you. It spares one from having to add cluttered noticeboards to a watchlist and enables rapid response. Please review what constitutes BATTLEGROUND behavior, as prompt response is not one such action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Friend, if you are watching this thread so closely that you are responding to new comments within five minutes, may I suggest it's not (just) Elinruby that's guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Loki (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- There appears to be an unusual obsession with analyzing that single word instead of reflecting on the totality of Elinruby's behavior. They weren't blocked over one word. They were blocked for repeated BATTLEGROUND behavior. Additionally, if an editor engages in misconduct following a block, that's still misconduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [134],[135], [136]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying
,removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists
. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
- Far more important, however, are the following:
- "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.
- "the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([137]) as well as [138].
- However, since I am blackballed from the Elephant article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.
- (https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant). Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([139]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) No it wasn't, stop making false claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588 —Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is okay too: Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147. —Alalch E. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588 —Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write
Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals.
EEng 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)- That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "
Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads).
" (page 121). CodeTalker (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)- Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. EEng 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "
- What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write
- Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing even faintly "unintelligible" about the material regarding parasite load and predation. I have no degree in zoology, but I have no trouble of any kind understanding all of it. If someone thinks the wording can be improved anyway, then go improve it. But do not delete properly sourced material just because you personally don't like exactly how it was worded. Our "job" is improving content not suppressing it. If any editor has comprehension problems either because this is not their first language or because they lack any background in subjects to which such a sentence pertains, then they should go work on other content that is more within their language-skills sphere, not engage in protracted fights with other editors who actually know the subject well. There sometimes can be an issue of the inverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect, with persons highly steeped in a subject assuming that their understanding of complex material relating to the topic will automatically be understood by people who lack their educational/professional background, but this does not appear to be such a case, since the material is not complicated at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm very disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine):
Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
- What in the world prompts such an accusation here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing
I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, LocomotiveEngine. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
- @LocomotiveEngine: A bit of further advice: When nominating such claptrap for deletion, address each of the sources in the order in which they appear in the article and outline why they are either insufficient to support notability (typically for lacking independence from the subject), or not good enough to be used as sources at all. This will help AfD particpants evaluate the material as it stands and evaluate the article as a whole as to whether it it does (or might) pass notability, e.g. because some of the sources cited don't have such failures, or because other and better sources in the interim have been found (or, conversely, none are findable and the article should not be retained). It fairly often turns out that a total-crap article is on a subject that is actually (perhaps marginally) notable and the page simply needs to be rewritten and re-cited, not deleted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, LocomotiveEngine. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
User: Hopefull Innformer
- Hopefull Innformer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks onTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.
I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying
The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it
, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)- I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is it possible to close this out in some way? They said they had wanted the opinion of "moderators", but they've since continued to contribute on Talk: Yasuke while not even responding to any of this, or responding on their own talk page. Plus they've stopped accusing people on Talk: Yasuke of deception, so I don't even see that there's a point to this any longer. X0n10ox (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's assuming bad faith, but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over this comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the aspersions which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term.
- "is people from twitter, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just people who don't care for integrity or accuracy"
- "I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever inaccurate narrative you want to push"
- "I don't think Theozilla is being sincere here let's focus"
- The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. X0n10ox (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy this as actionable at all. First off, the notion that "[came here] from Twitter" is a dogwhistle for "leftist" is absurd when Twitter/X has been completely overrun by right-wingers in the wake of Musk's takeover in October 2022, his explicit promotion of ring-wing notions, and his undoing of virtually all content moderation against false news, conspiracy theories, violent rhetoric, bigotry, anti-democratic actvism, and other noise (a change which overwhelmingly disprotionately boosts the ability of right- not left-wing voices to promote their viewpoints via that platform). Second, there is no policy against raising concerns that incoming participants in a hot topic may have arrived there via social-media attention/promotion; we would not have WP:MEAT if we were not permitted to do so, though one generally expects there to be some evidence, short of WP:OUTING, that something like this is actually happening. In this case, we already know for a fact that there was a bunch of related controvery on X/Twitter. Next, being a Twitter/X user (supposed or known) is not a political or other even-vaguely-possibly-relevant "affiliation", under any sensible interpretation of that word. I also use Facebook, and YouTube, and OpenOffice, and Notepad++, and PDF24, and Duolingo, and FamilySearch.org, and drive a Mazda, and use a zillion other services and products, but that does not make me "affiliated" with them, much less consititute a socio-political affiliation of any kind within the meaning of our policy. Even if a political affiliation were at issue, it is only problematic to bring one up in an ad hominem manner; we do in fact have actual and demonstrable problems with right- and left-wing activists trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotional platform at a large number of articles, and it is not forbidden to try to address this. But there's no evidence here of this even being an issue in this case in the first place. Moving on, questioning another editor's accuracy is something we do routinely; it's downright necessary to the work we're doing here. Questioning "integrity" is much more a grey area, since that term has multiple indistinct meanings, from academic integrity (i.e. properly interpreting, representing, and citing the source material) to personal integrity more along the lines of meaning 'honorableness', and it's easy for someone to walk away with the most negative possible interetation of what was meant (but that's still largely on the interpreter not the writer; cf. the distinction between inference and implication, a frequent confusion but an actual confusion nontheless). "I understand it is upsetting to you when ..." is inappropriate faux-mindreading, but not a transgression someone would be sanctioned strongly for, unless there were proof of it being a habitually uncivil approach of trying to put thoughts in people's heads and words in their mouths. Wondering whether someone's prior comment was "sincere" or something else (sarcasm, a joke, a PoV-pushing attempt, etc.) is also not some kind of actionable fault. Poorly phrased, perhaps. Furthermore, X0n10ox is drawing improper connections between disconnected statements, and engaging in a consenquent correlation vs. causation error; to wit, Hopefull_Innformer was critical of those who allegedly "don't care for integrity or accuracy" at a variety of articles on topics that attract new-editor attention from offsite, and likened this to similar attention at this specific article, which H_I believes has been driven by Twitter/X in this particular case. That does not equate to a claim that all Twitter/X users lack integrity or accuracy. (As a side matter, "don't care for" has multiple colloquial meanings, and here might mean "don't like/want", "don't seem to care enough about", or "are not interested in caretaking", and the second and third of these are reasonable concerns while only the first is bogus "mindreading". In closing: "being critical and snarky" (what's happened here), "assuming bad faith" (it's not actually clear that happened here at all), and "engaging in a personal attack" (which didn't happen here) are not synonymous. "Someone offended me or made me unhappy" does not equal "I was personally attacked". As I said in another thread on this page, WP is not TonePolicingPedia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
180.75.233.40
Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. -Lemonaka 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Malaysia is not a Chinese country, the official language is Malay written in both Latin and Jawi script. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok next time I will put the summary, btw I already put the statement in the caption. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- And you should have tried discussing with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”.
- Hence only Latin and Jawi are recognized nationwide, Chinese and Tamil are not recognized under Malaysian constitution and law. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @180.75.233.40: Are you the same person as the IP discussed in #Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles ~2 months ago? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. CMD (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @180.75.233.40@Chipmunkdavis I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb and @El_C, who may want to deal with this case? -Lemonaka 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of User:180.75.233.40, but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. Deb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour -Lemonaka 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise.
- Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour -Lemonaka 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of User:180.75.233.40, but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. Deb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Enough of that. I've re-blocked the IP for continued edit warring and incivility.-- Ponyobons mots 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Behavior-related block aside, the anon seems to have a valid underlying point. Malay in Latin-based Rumi script is the official language, and Malay in Arabic-derived Jawi-script has at least official recognition as an aspect "of the national language", while we don't seem to have reliable sources for Chinese and Tamil having any such status. Someone mentioned "legislation" without citing any, and if such legislation doesn't confer at least a Jawi-level quasi-officialness on them, then they shouldn't be used in WP articles about this country (per MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:LEADLANG, etc.), except where specially contextually pertinent for some reason, e.g. a subject pertaining particularly to the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them.
My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I reverted a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an arbitration notice against me.
Fast forward to present day, I've reverted another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. Threatening to have me blocked unless I restore their edits.
I don't know if this is behavior is allowed on Wikipedia or not but it's certainly immoral. Ecrusized (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- For context, the full November AE report. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted ScottishFinnishRadish to say
an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here
- That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting a 1RR concern from a different editor without responding to it, and then today a concern from me about the removal of a disputed tag.
- Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- "an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here"
- "That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting"
- You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was talking to you on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- "This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them." Pot, meet kettle. That is pretty much how I would describe construing a note as a block threat and escalating it immediately to ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago
(permanent link): I must admit my confusion about this link from BilledMammal (and therefore also about the forumshopping charge leveled against Ecrusized's behavior). The link isn't to a concern about BilledMammal brought to Arbitration Enforcement; it links to an Arbitration Enforcement request that BilledMammal submitted about a different user, Dylanvt.Without commenting one way or another on Ecrusized's behavior and whether boomeranging applies, the concern about some of BilledMammal's edits verging on (or becoming) battlegrounding seems unfortunately plausible. BilledMammal has been previously sanctioned for abuse of process also in this topic area that the admin called using boardsfor taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing
. In April and May, BilledMammal was advised about unproductively bludgeoning discussions ([140] [141]) and received an Arbitration Enforcement block for edit-warring in the Israel–Palestine topic area. At a minimum, I would hope that the present thread reminds BilledMammal to exercise restraint when contributing in contentious topic areas. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and personal commentary towards other editors, we're firmly in topic ban territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's about it. I probably should have explained that earlier. I left this open so community discussion could continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I find posting on an editor's user talk about edits that occurred a week beforehand, with an edit warring notice, to be problematic and it is not unsupportive of the OP's claim that BM has gone trolling through their edit history the moment they've come into some sort of conflict. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
That indeed seems problematic.But you should use trawling rather than trolling to express such purported WP:HOUNDING. Thanks. El_C 12:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- @El C thanks for the correction. TarnishedPathtalk 12:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which would y'all rather have:
- Editors complain about 1RR vios right away each and every time they happen
- Editors never complain about 1RR vios
- Editors let 1RRs slide for a while until they get to be too many, and then bring all the recent ones up at once to show it's not a one-time thing
- I prefer # 3. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to WP:AE, which is what I hoped would happen when I proposed the gentlemen's agreement here. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out:
- Key background: on 13 May, Ecrusized filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Galamore, reporting 1RR violations by another editor, with diffs going back to 19 April (which requires "trawling" through others' contribs)
- Here are Ecrusized's edits to Israel-Hamas war
- On May 14 they made a bunch of edits to that article, crossing 1RR
- Among those May 14 edits is this edit, which they self-reverted with edit summary "This probably puts me in 1RR" (true), only to reinstate that same edit a few hours later at 16:43. Their first revert was on 15:49 13 May, which is why they waited until 16:53 14 May to reinstate it. Unfortunately, despite the rather obvious gaming involved in waiting 25hrs to make a revert, because of other intervening reverts, that 16:53 14 May edit was still a 1RR violation.
- The 14 May edits included adding inline tags and a hidden HTML comment telling other editors not to change content, while also removing an inline tag placed by others (while discussion was still ongoing on the talk page, the most recent talk page message was made only 16 minutes prior)
- Ecrusized made no edits to the article between 14 May and 20 May
- On 20 May, they once again removed another editor's disputed tag, while discussion was still ongoing, with the most-recent comment was made only 2 minutes prior and Ecrusized made a comment 2 minutes later, and they restored their hidden comment that had been removed by others
- On 20 May, BM posted a message on Ecrusized's talk page asking them to self-revert the removal of the disputed tag. No block threat, no incivility, just a please self-revert request.
- Ecrusized's response was to post this message on BM's user talk page, and blank BM's post on their own user talk page, 10 minutes later
- Then BM posted a second message bringing up the 1RR violations on 14 May. It was a request to self-revert. There was no block threat, no threat to escalate.
- Ecrusized's response was to call BM a "wiki warrior", and to accuse BM of "threatening to have me blocked", which never happened. Here is that whole discussion, which took place over the course of 18 minutes, 10:50-11:08
- At 11:17, Ecrusized opened this ANI
- Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while at the same time complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like "virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias" ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year.
- I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that BM's behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I can see how someone who didn't look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this bill of particulars out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
virtually inexperienced editors
andheavy Israeli bias
is strong wording that I don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn'tlook at this history
(that is to say, a different user's behavioral history)and think that BM's behavior is problematic
; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that @Levivich. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath, "a week old" is not very old at all. Some of us do have lives, and problematic patterns sometimes take a while to become evident; sometimes the decision to let something slide has to be rethought because the behavior worsens. If this had been about an incident from many months ago, I could see the concern (though evidence, when it fits a pattern, is often relevant for years, even if a newer incident is expected as the cause of the report). But "it happened more than 6 days ago so it has magically become unactionable" is not a WP principle. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable reference work, not engaging with concerns by CoptEgypt136
CoptEgypt136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am concerned that CoptEgypt136 is repeatedly inserting content that is either supported by unreliable sources or else entirely original research. I encountered their editing while reviewing the new pages Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta and Our Lady of Maulawin; in both cases, after I identified serious reliability issues with their cited sources, they responded only by removing tags (Special:Diff/1224816435, Special:Diff/1224816381) and otherwise declining to engage. Upon looking to start a discussion on their user talk page, I saw that they have previously deleted but otherwise ignored multiple warnings from Veverve and Pbritti (Special:Diff/1165819612, Special:Diff/1179393452, and additional warnings from Pbritti before then), and that they have yet to actually make a single communicative edit to a Talk page (other than deleting comments or adding WikiProject flags). At this point, unless they decide to finally engage with the community, I think that a CIR block may be needed. It's debatable as to whether I am WP:INVOLVED here, as my only interaction has been to tag articles for AfD as part of NPP, which is an admin-adjacent task, but I figured it would be best to err on the side of caution and request independent review rather than proceeding to a block. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to make a snap judgement regarding this most recent set of concerns regarding CoptEgypt136, but I have spent a long time reverting/correcting errors and OR inserted by them. If they have been continuing to do this, I am inclined to support a CIR block that forces them to engage with these issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've been pretty sure that CoptEgypt136 is the latest sock incarnation of Mark Imanuel Granados. I had gotten tired of playing whack-a-mole with his socks both here and over on wikicommons. I had also hoped that maybe he could focus on editing according to policy as opposed to creating socks to keep pushing his edits that had been reverted. I would support a block, but I also do not anticipate this to solve the problem as he will likely just create another sock. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User: A.Viki Wiki7
A.Viki Wiki7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is disruptively editing numerous pages, inserting unsourced, often nonsensical or unencyclopedic content, excessive Wikilinks (e.g., to numbers in pages), and what appears to be the unsourced addition of LLM-generated content. Their focus appears to be on islands, mainly the islands of Greenland. User's disruptive behavior has been brought up on their talk page numerous times, including with warning templates, since 12 May by three different editors (myself included). User has acknowledged the warnings, but continues to edit disruptively. The repeated acknowledgement then ignoring of warnings leads me to believe this user is not editing in good faith.
Disruptive edits include:
- Uummannaarsuk here
- Clavering Island here and here
- Disko Island here and here
- Lynn Island here
- Queen Louise Island here
- Chagatai Khanate here
- Tasiusaq Island here
- Sermitsiaq Island here
- United States Virgin Islands here
nf utvol (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this might be a WP:CIR issue.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. nf utvol (talk) nf utvol (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then this might be a Wikipedia:NOTHERE and/or a troll.
- I think they might be a troll because on there userpage, they claim they a #1 of the list of Wikipedians by articles created. Even though they are not even on that list.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. nf utvol (talk) nf utvol (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
User continues to make unsourced, nonsense edits to uninhabited islands off Greenland. The continued behavior after all the friendly advice, warnings, and now an ANI leads me to believe this is just strangely targeted vandalism. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm A.Wiki Wiki 7. I wish all Wikipedians a good and lucky day. I'm afraid of vandalizing Wikipedia. My edits present the knowledge and skills I have acquired. Thank you. Happy editing! A.Viki Wiki7 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- p-blocked from article space. Not sure it shouldn't have been full, but as long as they don't become disruptive elsewhere, maybe that's sufficient. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
UPDATE: Looks like this user has created a sockpuppet account User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08. This user thanked me for an edit where I removed a number of A.Viki Wiki7's comments from my own talk page, account was created immediately after A.Viki Wiki7 was banned, and has a language pattern on strangely similar to the banned user, and is making the same kind of nonsense edits. nf utvol (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, there are many accounts starting with those 2 words followed by a number, multiple blocked: Special:ListUsers. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's an xwiki sockfest dating back at least to December. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah this is a little out of control. User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08 is now pinging admin talk pages asking why they got blocked...pretty cut and dry admission of sockpuppetry if you ask me. nf utvol (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty sure there are more, there's overlap through UZ Wiki history (first article the 08 sock edited there) for names like A.Sherzod _ and multiple combinations of A. (short for Abduvaitov?), Sherzod, Wiki, Viki (short for Vikipediya, Uzbek for Wikipedia) and some number or other.
- There's also this account which is globally locked and was blocked along with some related accounts at UZ Wiki: Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi (unless Sherzod is some sort of meme, it seems like there's a connection: diff).
- Hopefully a checkuser finds most of the relevant ones. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone has any additional accounts with evidence of being part of this sock set, please add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. CUs will be looking there in due time and that's also the place anyone else will be looking in the future to help keep track of this set. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Merzostin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Djong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Junk (ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi. There is an ongoing edit war on the articles I've linked above, primarily between Merzostin and Obsidian Soul. Both editors have warned each other, yet continued with the reverts. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. (I didn't post at WP:ANEW because I wasn't sure whether I could, as I'm not directly involved in this, sorry if I should have posted there) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not just those two articles. He also removed a large portion of sourced content on K'un-lun po. I have already tried talking to him. His removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation" and "disruptive editing" motivated by nationalism in complete disregard to sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ANEW is indeed the right place for reports of edit warring violations, even filed as an uninvolved party. Although short of highly contentious topics, I don't believe action is typically taken until 3RR is broken, which Merzostin seems to have done on Junk (ship). GabberFlasted (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This editors have made a lot of reverts based on nothing literally, he didn't check the arguments neither did he check the sources, his reverts is definitely disruptive motivated by nationalism or bias towards other ethnicity.
- Anyhow this users adhered to a certain biased agenda, as his edits contained double standard, for example he said that Chinese sources are not reliable and should be removed from Junk (ship), that they might exaggerate the size of ships but at the same on the Djong, he provided the same "unreliable" Chinese sources as fact on Djong page because the Chinese apparently describe a large ships of the Southeast asian from 3rd century, i guess they are reliable now and they didn't exaggerate this size of the ship.
- he did this a lot, which showed his real intention in downplaying one ethnicity over the other. Merzostin (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not Indonesian.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- who said that you are? "downplaying one ethnicity over the other" you don't have to be of that ethnicity of the main article to downplay other ethnicity. While i am Indonesian and i hate misinformation and disinformation in general, especially regarding my own country and culture. Merzostin (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I said WP:PRIMARY sources including direct quotes from Chinese historical texts (many of them legendary, like your texts from pre-Han China) are not reliable, can not be taken literally, and need to be filtered through a reliable secondary source. That is not "downplaying" anything. Mentioning that the terms "junk"/"junco"/"juanga", etc. originally applied to Southeast Asian ships per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing quotes from medieval travelers who are describing Southeast Asian (not Chinese) ships again, per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing irrelevant sections on legendary naval battles in ancient China that did not involve junks, is not "downplaying" anything. Expanding and clarifying foreign and Chinese maritime trade from the Han to the Ming dynasty, is not "downplaying" anything. Correcting the actual characteristics that define a Chinese junk (and how it differs from the Southeast Asian ships) per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- who said that you are? "downplaying one ethnicity over the other" you don't have to be of that ethnicity of the main article to downplay other ethnicity. While i am Indonesian and i hate misinformation and disinformation in general, especially regarding my own country and culture. Merzostin (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not Indonesian.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I fully protected this page by way of RfPP (diff) while unaware of this thread. But Merzostin, your approach suffers from excess WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you need to tone down. Above, Obsidian Soul made cogent points regarding the reliability and veracity of certain sources, expressed in a matter-of-fact tone. If you disagree, you need to likewise tone it accordingly. That is to say, in good faith; in a dispassionate and scholarly and civil manner. This, then, is a formal warning that if you choose to continue engaging the content dispute/s, you need to fulfil that. No more personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS about underlying ethnocentrism
(diff), and so on. Otherwise, you risk sanctions that, in one way or another, may remove you from the page/s in question. El_C 09:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Yoyo360 Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin
User:Yoyo360 is not adhering to page restrictions after having been warned by an administrator.
Warning by administrator
Edits in violation
Intention to ignore and violate the restrictions
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd need a clarification to determine whether this is at all actionable. It seems that after being cautioned Yoyo360 did not, in fact, edit in article space and, instead, edited at article talk. Is the 500 edit restriction relevant to participation at article talk or is it only relevant to article space edits? Tagging @Acroterion: as the admin who issued the warning in question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I re-read the original caution from Acroterion and it answered my question. Maybe a very short-duration block just as a way of them understanding that their edit history on FR-Wikipedia isn't relevant to these sanctions? The diffs presented don't seem particularly disruptive so I don't think a major action is necessary at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the topic is under an extendedconfirmed restriction then non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk page. This is not quite that but it's in the spirit IMO. No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I re-read the original caution from Acroterion and it answered my question. Maybe a very short-duration block just as a way of them understanding that their edit history on FR-Wikipedia isn't relevant to these sanctions? The diffs presented don't seem particularly disruptive so I don't think a major action is necessary at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am sensing coded language here that somehow Am I prohibited from editing in a way which is not prohibited by others? what on earth do you mean by "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them" It seems that there is a failure by the people to stop going after me as I and admin asked for a group of people to not comment on my talk page and that was ignored. This seems to be a way of going PP666 stop doing what are normal editing practices. Are you accusing me of harassment? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The wording of the warning is clear and I do not get the oblique comments above about what was said regarding "stop bothering them".PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the wording of the notice was not optimal. Acroterion has already been pinged, but I'll remind everyone here that, per WP:ARBECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. I interpret the two edits you linked to as making an edit request, although they did not use the template to request it but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; WP:IAR applies. Other admins reviewing might disagree with my interpretation, I'm just going to leave it at that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please see this revert from an admin which this report is a follow up from [145]
- Can this edit then be looked into as to if it was correct as it seems to have caused confusion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a tempest in a teapot, I just reminded an editor that the talkpage is under editing restrictions. They are free to make appropriate edit requests, but not to generally opine. Since this is a confusing area for restrictions, there's no reason to be draconian unless there's significant problematic behavior, we just need to remind people. Wikipedia isn't a court or a bureaucracy. PP666, I don't see anything that merits more than what was done, different language WPs handle things differently, and it takes some getting used to. This isn't about you. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as my edits are being discussed I will chime in and say that I do find this a bit confusing. My edits (the deleted ones highlighted above) were intended to be edit requests, so with the above taken into account I'm now not sure why they were deleted. I won't kick up a fuss about those specific edits because the issue they refer to was resolved, but clarification on what is/what isn't allowed would be useful in this area. For instance: PP666 is currently policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus' based on this deletion, but it's hard to tell where "edit requesting" and "consensus making" draws a line. If edit requests are allowed but opining isn't, then it sounds like I would be allowed to suggest an edit, but just not publically agree with someone else who suggests an edit? Is that correct? I just want to know what's expected here because there seems to be several different interpretations here BugGhost🎤 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that the Arbitration Committee did not sufficiently clarify in their decision regarding edit requests, and so in the limited instances where I do enforce the sanction (because I think it's very badly overused) I interpret their decision as allowing any talk page comment which suggests an improvement to the article, but disallowing general discussion and conversations with other editors, though I usually let those slide as well as long as they're not disruptive. Many other admins will interpret this as meaning that only properly formatted edit requests using the {{edit extended-protected}} template may be considered and will remove any other edit; I feel that's bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Still others will indiscriminately remove any edit by a non-EC editor, which is clearly wrong but it still happens. In shorter words: Arbcom left too much space for interpretation, and so it depends on which admins see your edit. If you are proposing an improvement to the article then you should be fine, but some admins have harder asses. I believe it to be unfair, but that's what we've been given. If you think an admin is removing comments inappropriately, you can ask for a review at WP:AARV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as my edits are being discussed I will chime in and say that I do find this a bit confusing. My edits (the deleted ones highlighted above) were intended to be edit requests, so with the above taken into account I'm now not sure why they were deleted. I won't kick up a fuss about those specific edits because the issue they refer to was resolved, but clarification on what is/what isn't allowed would be useful in this area. For instance: PP666 is currently policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus' based on this deletion, but it's hard to tell where "edit requesting" and "consensus making" draws a line. If edit requests are allowed but opining isn't, then it sounds like I would be allowed to suggest an edit, but just not publically agree with someone else who suggests an edit? Is that correct? I just want to know what's expected here because there seems to be several different interpretations here BugGhost🎤 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a tempest in a teapot, I just reminded an editor that the talkpage is under editing restrictions. They are free to make appropriate edit requests, but not to generally opine. Since this is a confusing area for restrictions, there's no reason to be draconian unless there's significant problematic behavior, we just need to remind people. Wikipedia isn't a court or a bureaucracy. PP666, I don't see anything that merits more than what was done, different language WPs handle things differently, and it takes some getting used to. This isn't about you. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the wording of the notice was not optimal. Acroterion has already been pinged, but I'll remind everyone here that, per WP:ARBECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. I interpret the two edits you linked to as making an edit request, although they did not use the template to request it but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; WP:IAR applies. Other admins reviewing might disagree with my interpretation, I'm just going to leave it at that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much in agreement with Ivanvector. It's a question of drawing a line between chat and specific suggestions for article improvement (sans editorializing), and it's sometimes hard to discern where that is. For this kind of thing, I would prefer a fairly format edit proposal, rather than an extended commentary, since that tends to lead to trouble. I really meant to remind everyone in general to maintain decorum. Bugghost has 120 edits, which is a little scanty for contentious areas, so I just want them to think carefully before commenting in areas where restrictions exist, however fuzzily defined. As I've noted before, the Eurovision contest is a strange place to see restrictions like that, so editors may need more guidance than would be the case than if it were plainly within a contentious topic. . Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks to both of you for more clarification on the topic. I won't be going to AARV because I understand that the scenario is nuanced and I think Acroterion is being reasonable. As a side request, if someone possibly reply to this comment to refer to this discussion or a summary of it? At the moment I think it is misrepresenting what you two are saying. I did it myself but realised that me doing that would ironically probably actually be against the rules that we're talking about, so decided to self-revert it for my own peace of mind. BugGhost🎤 19:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please with draw your comments of ‘policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus'’ as that is unhelpful to this discussion. I could say the same about people trying push me off the page for having an opposing viewpoint (I’m not it’s an example of what I could say). That though is not helpful. Perhaps take the invective out and we’ll all get along better. Yes this is contentious but don’t let it eat you. I don’t think inflammatory language helps anyone.
- As has been said the Arbcom decision is ambitious let’s focus on that and not go after each others throats with barbs and alike. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure "policing" is the correct term here, and it's not invective. You are taking the interpretation of the rules and attempting to enforce it on the public, which is the definition of "policing". I don't feel like squabbling over terms or causing a derailment. This AN/I doesn't strictly involve me, so I'll be going now. BugGhost🎤 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- You may consider it correct but it is inflammatory and unhelpful to furthering the positive moving on by all. If you do not wish to withdraw it then I will know the colour of the person I am talking to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Demanding apologies for every minor infraction does not seem to me to be in the interest of "furthering the positive". You may be interested in reading the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PP666, appointing yourself as moderator of that that talkpage and posting your interpretation of policy/consensus on what restrictions imply is a bad idea. We're trying to do this with a light touch. Please revert your notes on who can and cannot post. You are not an uninvolved party. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is done but the irony of your comments is not lost on me. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, this wasn't done. The posts weren't reverted, they were simply wikicommented out and your instructions still sit uncorrected and visible to other editors of the talkpage, just slightly obscured. Commenting-out is not the same as deleting and I don't think it should be used in this way. BugGhost🎤 10:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is done but the irony of your comments is not lost on me. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PP666, appointing yourself as moderator of that that talkpage and posting your interpretation of policy/consensus on what restrictions imply is a bad idea. We're trying to do this with a light touch. Please revert your notes on who can and cannot post. You are not an uninvolved party. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Demanding apologies for every minor infraction does not seem to me to be in the interest of "furthering the positive". You may be interested in reading the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- You may consider it correct but it is inflammatory and unhelpful to furthering the positive moving on by all. If you do not wish to withdraw it then I will know the colour of the person I am talking to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure "policing" is the correct term here, and it's not invective. You are taking the interpretation of the rules and attempting to enforce it on the public, which is the definition of "policing". I don't feel like squabbling over terms or causing a derailment. This AN/I doesn't strictly involve me, so I'll be going now. BugGhost🎤 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much in agreement with Ivanvector. It's a question of drawing a line between chat and specific suggestions for article improvement (sans editorializing), and it's sometimes hard to discern where that is. For this kind of thing, I would prefer a fairly format edit proposal, rather than an extended commentary, since that tends to lead to trouble. I really meant to remind everyone in general to maintain decorum. Bugghost has 120 edits, which is a little scanty for contentious areas, so I just want them to think carefully before commenting in areas where restrictions exist, however fuzzily defined. As I've noted before, the Eurovision contest is a strange place to see restrictions like that, so editors may need more guidance than would be the case than if it were plainly within a contentious topic. . Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Having read the guidelines on talk pages the guidelines frown upon deletion. I don’t think a strike through is a good idea as the comments themself are still visible. I did though remove them from being viewable. This way content is not deleted as the guideline frowns upon that and the inflaming content is not viewable. The relevant section is WP:TPO of WP:TALK. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- For wider context, this is part of a longer set of contentious discussions where there are claims of consensus and there have been quite ugly comments on a lot of sides this user included. Would you like me to provide diffs relating to that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Restricting participation in talks due to edit number is absolutely ridiculous, especially in regards to the fact that, if we were to discard sections launched by contributors with less than 500 edits, we would discard all edit requests from these editors. And they may be pertinent. Also discarding an opinion based on a number is ridiculous. As for my wiki:fr edit number, I mostly bring it up because I am actually more experimented on wiki than my count edit here lets know and I feel infantilized by PP666. I just try to collaborate here because the corresponding project in French isn't active and I like to have opinions from other editors. Block me if you think that is necessary and that my actions are disruptive but I think, once again, that blocking edits on a talk page is ridiculous and counter effective. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's ridiculous and stupid, but that is the rule. Anyway, you are now extendedconfirmed, so this thread is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your leniency. And with my apologies if my behaviour was incorrect. Maybe I don't have the subtleties of wiki:en yet. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's more a matter of giving you the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation. I don't think your behavior is a matter of concern, it's more a general concern that the talkpage discussions remain within boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your leniency. And with my apologies if my behaviour was incorrect. Maybe I don't have the subtleties of wiki:en yet. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's ridiculous and stupid, but that is the rule. Anyway, you are now extendedconfirmed, so this thread is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Restricting participation in talks due to edit number is absolutely ridiculous, especially in regards to the fact that, if we were to discard sections launched by contributors with less than 500 edits, we would discard all edit requests from these editors. And they may be pertinent. Also discarding an opinion based on a number is ridiculous. As for my wiki:fr edit number, I mostly bring it up because I am actually more experimented on wiki than my count edit here lets know and I feel infantilized by PP666. I just try to collaborate here because the corresponding project in French isn't active and I like to have opinions from other editors. Block me if you think that is necessary and that my actions are disruptive but I think, once again, that blocking edits on a talk page is ridiculous and counter effective. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- For wider context, this is part of a longer set of contentious discussions where there are claims of consensus and there have been quite ugly comments on a lot of sides this user included. Would you like me to provide diffs relating to that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just to double check, you're using WP:TPO, the section titled "Editing others' comments", as the reasoning for not being able to remove your own comments? BugGhost🎤 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- This seems futile now and I am disengaging. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Related question
Can I get an admin opinion on this question/request by a new user on the talk page Talk:Eurovision_Song Contest 2024#Revert neededPicturePerfect666 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be anything in the disputed content that warrants mandatory removal (i.e. WP:BLP violations), and otherwise edit warring is forbidden, including edit warring over whether or not certain content should or should not be visible while being discussed on the talk page. In other words there is no particular policy or guideline compelling keeping it in nor keeping it out, the important thing is to discuss. Your suggestion to take it to dispute resolution is a good one, but say what your issues are with the content itself, don't just argue about keeping or not keeping it in the meantime. If someone else has restored the content after you removed it, let them, and keep discussing. There's no rush. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noted and thank you for the suggestion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, so much for that idea. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I’m off to the teahouse now see what they say. Also thank you for the close in the discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, so much for that idea. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noted and thank you for the suggestion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
User: NKing1313
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can something please be done with this editor?[146] He keeps making changes to actress Allison McAtee article without any sources to back up his changes. Twice now he's reverted info I've added which is sourced[147][148] claiming it to be misinformation. I don't want to end up violating the three-revert rule.
He's been doing this for sometime now. I've warned him and another editor warned him a couple months ago. But he's obviously ignoring them. I've looked at his editing history and the account was made in 2018 and the only edits he's ever made were changing or removing dates on that article. So this may be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Kcj5062 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a partial block from the article (or all of mainspace - it would be equivalent in this case) until the editor (who, as far as I can tell, is at least as likely to be a "she" as a "he") explains things on the article talk page. I'll start a section for them to do so in a moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely (partial): User talk:NKing1313#Indefinite partial block. El_C 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
A user, named GamerHashaam has been conducting a series of disruptive edits on the Third Balochistan conflict. He, with no sources or talk page interaction, changed the results of the conflict to “Baluchi victory”. [1] When I reverted it and told him to take it to the talk page, he threw what seemed to be a tantrum, calling me a “bootlicker” and a “faujeet” (a merge of Fauj, which means army, and “pajeet”, which is a racist term for Indians.). [2].
I have constantly attempted to make him use the talk page for a civilised conversation as seen from my edit summaries, and issued him warnings on his talk page, but it doesn’t seem to make him act any more civil. Even accusing me of being an asset of the Pakistani military, accusing me of spreading “bullshit” and accusing me of being a captain in the Pakistani army. [3]
I tried to keep an open mind, but he simply wants to engage in insults and bad rhetoric. I eventually found out that the result I was reverting to (Pakistani victory) had no basis, so I had reverted it to the “ceasefire” result it always had before, I even apologised to him and said I hoped that this would be a fair compromise. But to no avail, he constantly puts it as a “Baluchi victory” despite no sources, and even has the audacity to tell me to use the talk page, when he has been editing the result without the consultation of the talk page, and only eventually using it to insult me.
What’s even more suspicious, is that an IP created the same exact edit to the result parameter he did, only 9 minutes before. I’m not sure if this was merely an accident, but I’d just thought to mention it anyway.[4]
This isn’t the only page, he edited the casualties on the 2024 Azad Kashmir demonstrations and simply stated “per local sources”, with no citations and links. And even when it was reverted, he simply re-inserted it back. [5]
In summary, I have attempted to rectify the issue, even apologising to him for my mistake.[6]
I urge the administrators to take action against GamerHashaam, he has been disruptively editing and extremely insulting and uncivil. His disruptive editing is still on the Third Balochistan conflict page, as I do not want to continue an edit war. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize to you of any ill behavior but I thought that you were promoting the narrative by the state as a military handle of ISPR but I recognize that claim is bogus without evidence so I apologize for that. I changed it to a Baluch Victory with some more edits such as changing baluchis to baluchs as baluchis is used by only punjabi people in pakistan as they tend to use a "i" with "s" to pronounce plural of ethnic groups or peoples.
- I changed it to a baluch victory as I clearly defined that the demands of the Baluch had been accepted by the government as even in the article original state it mentions that yahya sued for negotiations and reverted the one unit scheme aswell gave a general amnesty not to mention releasing all captured insurgents. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly defined without a source. 48JCL (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297949740_The_resurgence_of_baluch_ethnicity_and_nationalism_in_Baluchistan?enrichId=rgreq-7b34a998ca96ef754c3352b1de0972d1-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Nzk0OTc0MDtBUzo1MzY5NTQ1Nzc5NzMyNTRAMTUwNTAzMTM1NTgzMg%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
- This is one source I citate for the research, Its from Multan Zakariya University. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RESEARCHGATE ResearchGate is not reliable according to Wikipedia. 48JCL (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- He (VirtualVagabond) continued to make the claim that the rebels wanted Independence or sucession from Pakistan and provided no sources or citations for such claims and as per the demands, we have of the rebels , nearly all were fullfilled. thus I saw it to edit it into a baluch victory from a ceasefire or pakistani victory. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The military dictator General Yahya Khan sued for a cease-fire with the Pararis. In spite of their recognition of a cease-fire, the Pararis were persuaded a revitalization of hostilities with Islamabad was only a matter of time. The Pararis upheld their guerrilla forces unharmed and enlarged their reach, powers and numbers after the 1969 cease-fire. In certain areas, they were capable to run a virtual parallel government. General Yahya Khan broke up of One Unit on July 1, 1970 and Baluchistan for the first time became a full-fledged province. But no attempt was done to take the internal administration of the province in line with those of other provinces. The general elections were held under the Legal Frame Work Order in December 1970 for the first time in the history of Pakistan and the result of the 1970 elections unleashed a whole set of new and contradictory forces into the political agenda.
- here's the text
- We need to verify it in a journal
- ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). GamerHashaam (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it was a ceasefire, which I had inserted. On the other hand, nothing says about a full-fledged Balochi victory.
- It doesn’t matter about your claims about ResearchGate doing “fact checking” or whatever. Wikipedia policy deems it as unreliable, through and through. It even states that it does not do fact checking on WP:RESEARCHGATE, and states it as a “self-published source.” VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- yes a self published source although we can find a factual journal on a other site for it.
- Second I didn't say it was a full-fledged baloch victory rather a simple baloch victory due to there demands being accepted for which we can find other sources in the article other then me as listed below:
- Third Balochistan conflict#Insurgency
- Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare from 1963 to 1969 by creating their own insurgent bases. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders and lifting of One Unit Scheme. The insurgents bombed railway tracks and ambushed convoys and raided on military camps.
- Third Balochistan conflict#Military response
- This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire granting general amnesty to the separatists as well as freeing the separatists. In 1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy, which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km2 coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.
- Also I humbly require you to use proper pronoun for the balochs not balochi as balochi is the language not the people. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GamerHashaam: Please stop WP:SHOUTING. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was not shouting rather just highlighting the important text in the passages GamerHashaam (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking about your response, not the quotes, we can read it just fine without the bold. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright GamerHashaam (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking about your response, not the quotes, we can read it just fine without the bold. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was not shouting rather just highlighting the important text in the passages GamerHashaam (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- What even is a “simple victory”? Your claims don’t make any sense. Wikipedia policy doesn’t accept that.
- What is this other factual source? You didn’t send a link or citation, nor any other source, but regurgitated what the unreliable source said.
- Please, let’s take this to the talk page of the conflict. Let the administrators here do their job easier. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not how Wikipedia policy on a military victory works. Again, please take this to the talk page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright take it to the talk page , add some sources and context please I request for it to be a ceasefire or pakistani victory. I have to go now but I will Inshallah Review it in 12 hours and provide a reply. Allah Hafiz GamerHashaam (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not how Wikipedia policy on a military victory works. Again, please take this to the talk page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GamerHashaam: Please stop WP:SHOUTING. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also Its baloch not balochi , Please fix the pronoun GamerHashaam (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly defined without a source. 48JCL (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just to ask, does anybody know when an admin will come to make a decision? It seems that the reports before and after this one have mostly been solved or at least have been looked over. But not for this, I understand it might take some time but I’ve heard that ANIs get archived if there’s no activity for three days. Hence my curiosity. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Wikipedia. Today I've been on my toes all day from the user in question who keeps reverting my edits pertaining to Sikkim, ostensibly due to my source, the book "Sons of Sikkim" by Jigme N. Kazi, being self-published.
When i took to Talk:Sikkimese monarchy referendum to explain that the source used fell within Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources, being written from an established Sikkimese writer, as well as give the sources that the author himself used in the book, one of which is already cited in the article on its own long before I ever made any edits to it, I have yet been met with zero response to this section on the talk page, despite said user being active in that time and continually removing my edits, which I keep going back and undoing, which is very frustrating for me, and frankly my patience is wearing thin to having to keep an eye on these pages while my requests for dialogue are continually ignored.
Furthermore, I have reason to believe this user is not acting in good faith with these edits and is instead trying to push a viewpoint in favor of the Indian nationalist interpretation of the events in Sikkim in the first half of the 1970s.
- Only edits I made with this source concerning these events have been challenged, I used the same book to add information to articles of Sikkimese monarchs going back to the mid-17th century. I find it suspicious that only information pertaining to these 1970s events was removed, while nothing else that I wrote using this book as a source were removed.
- On the Sikkimese monarchy referendum page, information not posted by me and not sourced from the book I used was also removed at the same time as my edits, primarily China and Pakistan's statements of opposition to the 1975 annexation of Sikkim. If the issue was me or my source, why would these passages that I didn't write and that are not sourced from the book I used be an issue?
- As something of a smoking gun, on Talk:Sikkim, this user makes the statement "This kind of royalist nonsense can be found through the journalistic writings on Sikkim.", showing a very clear bias against the Sikkimese monarchy, and by extension in favor of their deposition by India, and then implying that the Sikkimese king could not have had support as he was from an ethnic minority in the country, which not only goes against what the multiple sources cited by my own have said, but also has an undercurrent of ethnic prejudice, ended by giving a single line from a paper on JSTOR to back up this idea (despite just a few sentences before implying journalistic writings were "royalist nonsense").
I think that it is abundantly clear that this user is not interested in critiquing my writing or my source and is instead only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom.
Edit: (as a final note, I apologize if this is not the right place to open this discussion. I've never really had to do something like this before and have never looked into doing this sort of thing so in a way I'm flying blind.)
Crazy Boris (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems excessive to bring this to ANI over this dispute and to allege a lack of good faith, especially since you don't seem to have established consensus for either the reliability of your source or the changes you want to make. Unless I'm missing something, you're the only contributor to Talk:1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum#On "Sons of Sikkim" as a source. In other words, treat this like a content dispute and use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Which frankly could be just waiting, you posted this 3 hours after your comment on the talk page. Also as a reminder, a source of limited reliability, like a SPS might be could be acceptable for something relatively uncontentious but not for something more contentious. Likewise someone could be a subject matter expert on 17th century monarchs but not some political controversy in the 1970s even if it relates to monarchs. Finally it's perfectly ordinary to notice some changes, and when deciding whether they are good or bad, to notice the article has other problems and so correct both these. Remember also that an SPS cannot be used for anything relating to living persons. This is unlikely to come up for 17th century monarchs, but could be an issue for some 1970s controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Three hours? Probably not even three days. Maybe three weeks... Wikipedia is not a chatroom, so waiting a few days for a response is expected. Where is the proof that this represents
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems
? This is also a topic falling under WP:ARBIND, which makes this premature submission even more problematic. El_C 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Apologies, it is my first time ever in a situation like this (or even seeing such a situation), so I admittedly don't really know how this works. I just think it's very obvious (particularly illustrated by my second and third bullet points) this person is going after my edits purely to wipe any information disagreeing with their own perspective off the issue, and it should be dealt with, I'm not sure what the proper channel for that is, and this is just the closest thing I could think of. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Three hours? Probably not even three days. Maybe three weeks... Wikipedia is not a chatroom, so waiting a few days for a response is expected. Where is the proof that this represents
- Comment Given your comment that "
only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom
", it clearly seems to me that you are the one being problematic here. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- I may have worded that poorly (I hate to pull the autism card, but I can be pretty awful at speaking), what I mean is that this person is removing information pertaining to the events in question that do not follow the Indian nationalist narrative that the annexation was totally willing and peaceful, which, as far as I'm aware, according to primary sources cited by the author of the book I used as my own source, is untrue, it's not unlike when Chinese nationalists argue that Tibet willingly joined China without any objections. Edits downplaying or denying aggressive Chinese actions in that situation would not be tolerated, very rightly so, and so the same logic should apply here. This person is very clearly and openly biased on this topic, and as illustrated by my second bullet point, is not interested so much in the validity of my source as in enforcing the Indian government's narrative, that is in itself infinitely more "problematic" than anything I have done. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem for the article. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You do not have to explain why diverging viewpoints might be a problem, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the problem is relatively well known. Nonetheless, assertions of edits that overtly promote a particular POV should come with a lot of diffs as evidence, which was not done here. However instead of finding diffs and trying to figure out something on AN/I, it would be advisable to continue discussion (in good faith) and then follow further WP:DR where needed. CMD (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I may have worded that poorly (I hate to pull the autism card, but I can be pretty awful at speaking), what I mean is that this person is removing information pertaining to the events in question that do not follow the Indian nationalist narrative that the annexation was totally willing and peaceful, which, as far as I'm aware, according to primary sources cited by the author of the book I used as my own source, is untrue, it's not unlike when Chinese nationalists argue that Tibet willingly joined China without any objections. Edits downplaying or denying aggressive Chinese actions in that situation would not be tolerated, very rightly so, and so the same logic should apply here. This person is very clearly and openly biased on this topic, and as illustrated by my second bullet point, is not interested so much in the validity of my source as in enforcing the Indian government's narrative, that is in itself infinitely more "problematic" than anything I have done. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem for the article. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- My comment on "journalistic nonsense" was directed at an article published in The New York Times in 1981, regarding the former queen of Sikkim who happened to be American. I countered it using a peer-reviewed journal article published by the University of California Press, who says that India, rather than being "bent on annexation", was in fact protecting the king from 1950 to 1973. So, this gives you an idea of the level of divergence found in what we normally regard as reliable sources.
- If we bring into this mix a non-reliable WP:SPS, and start claiming that it should trump everything else, it is not going to fly. I have had a brief look at the book. It is certainly pro-royal, polemical book, throwing around conspiracy theories everywhere. But the high level of understanding as in the journal article I mentioned is nowhere to be found. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Still, The NYT is the most prestigious of the 4 American papers of record listed in Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, so
journalistic nonsense
seems a bit much. El_C 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) - Perhaps, you should consider the possiblity that you may be incorrect, instead of parroting whatever apologetics you've been fed by the anti-Chogyal disinformation campaign. It's laughable you'd call Sons of Sikkim "polemical" and "conspiratorial", when it is very well-sourced itself as previously established (which makes the claim of it "throwing around" conspiracies downright insulting, conspiracy theories don't exactly tend to be backed up by much of anything), and your counter is an article that is so blatantly one-sided it may as well have been written by Indira Gandhi herself as Indian soldiers had their guns raised at the palace guards in Gangtok. I'd wager the ex-Gyalmo interviewed by the NYT probably knew more about the situation in Sikkim than the pseudointellectual propagandist you're toting as if he were Moses bringing down the ten commandments, seeing as she, you know, was there for everything and saw it happen. (and very convenient you don't aknowledge my second point where you removed text that wasn't even put there by me or cited in Sons of Sikkim that showed other countries expressing negative reactions to the annexation, I can't see that as anything other than an intentional obfuscation) You have a single article from a university journal, which, let's be frank isn't necessarily authoritative, any bozo with a degree can get published in one of those by packing an essay with jargon that reaffirms the journal's own biases, it's hardly much better than self-publishing, I have a whole book that backs itself up with dozens of primary and secondary sources. Self-published or not, it's more rigorous and objective than anything I have seen otherwise in my 12 years learning everything I can about Sikkim. You yourself said that journals are supposedly full of quote "royalist nonsense", if it's so widespread, is it not worth at least considering you may be in the wrong and approaching it with an open mind? When everyone agrees Copernicus was right, the man who still believes in geocentrism may want to reconsider his position instead of stubbornly refusing to listen to any opposing viewpoint.
- You show a clear bias on this topic as I outlined in my three bullet points (to which I would like to add the fact you removed "disputed" from "disputed referendum" on the main Sikkim page, when the very fact we're having this conversation shows it is in dispute, and frankly, I could have been a lot more forward and called it a "rigged referendum" but I wanted to be charitable and fair), that, in my opinion, make it glaringly obvious that you don't care about the truth at all, and just want to promote the official narrative in a nationalist fervor. There is no place for that sort of thing frankly anywhere, let alone on what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational website. Truth is apolitical, and this blatant attempt to stifle anything that doesn't fall in line with a certain perspective is no better than if I were to ransack articles pertaining to the annexations of Tibet or Hawaii to try and whitewash those events to support my own biases (for the record, this is just an example, I'm not really interested in opening up those cans of worms). I stay away from certain articles that I feel I may have too much of a personal bias on specifically to avoid causing trouble and letting my own feelings override objective fact, I suggest you learn to do the same. I'm just here to share things I learn with the world, not to try and reshape reality to fit what I want it to be instead of what it is.
- I really don't want to deal with this, I hate that I've ended up causing a problem, and I hate having to argue, especially when it feels like people are not willing to listen, I'm under a lot of stress as it is, so I won't be making any changes to any articles to reinstate my edits or debate further, I want to be done with this, and I will leave it up to the Wikipedia community and leadership to decide how to end this situation once and for all. Whether they take your side, mine, neither, or a little of both, I won't protest, but I will close by asking people to really think and consider everything that's been discussed before coming to a conclusion. I've made my case, it's up to people higher up than me to decide now, and I will accept their judgment. I really do feel terrible for having caused this, and I will be leaving Wikipedia after this so as to not cause any trouble in the future, I don't want to be responsible for any more stress or conflict for myself or others. Crazy Boris (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Still, The NYT is the most prestigious of the 4 American papers of record listed in Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, so
- The length of this comment is excessive. Please condense. We're all volunteers here. You are asking a lot of others when being so un-concise. El_C 15:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- condensed comment: I believe you're being stubborn and unwilling to engage due to your own biases, which I believe there is good evidence for, when really we're both probably near the same level when it comes to how authoritative our chosen sources may appear to the other. You should be more open to the possibility you may be mistaken instead of being so dismissive of everything I say. I will no longer take part in this debate and leave it up to whoever decides these things to make the call, I want to wash my hands of this whole sorry situation. I feel ashamed for having caused this, and will take my leave from editing Wikipedia because I don't want to risk being the cause of anything similar in the future, I'm a very conflict-averse person and the last 24 hours have been incredibly stressful for me.
- Noted, I've added a shortened version to the end of the previous comment Crazy Boris (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- RE:
which I believe there is good evidence for
— yet not a single piece of evidence in either the full or condensed comment! Also, please don't adjust the order of comments. El_C 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Please don't modify or remove comments that have been replied to! El_C 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that Crazy Boris has chosen to vanish themself. – robertsky (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't modify or remove comments that have been replied to! El_C 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- RE:
New editor, mass changes in article descriptions, what could go wrong?
ByzantineHistory435 (talk · contribs), changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" in dozens of article descriptions without discussion or edit summaries. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh joy, it had been far too long since someone decided to mess with the delicate status quo there... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've mass reverted most of the problematic edits and issued a Final Warning. This is a new editor, so I am not inclined to block them for now. Hopefully they will take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Ad Orientem. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
IP 2409:4070:4403...
2409:4070:4403:4E16:0:0:2366:30B1 is a one-purpose vandalism IP causing disruptive edits such as changing and adding false years in film-related articles. Carlinal (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Carlinal, I see you reverted their edits to Disney.com. Since they'd already had a level 4/final warning recently for vandalism, the quickest remedy is to report them to WP:AIV. (I've done that now.) Your Twinkle dropdown menu (the ARV option) makes it simple to do. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Consistent vandalism by User:UsernameTalk
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
UsernameTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE. They have been observed vandalizing multiple pages on WP Pakistan. For instance, it is unreasonable for someone with constructive intentions to change the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) from Nawaz Sharif to Abid Sher Ali. Are they here just to have fun and waste others' time? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- SheriffIsInTown, SPI filed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I alerted Dmytrootamanenko (talk · contribs) on their talk page about WP:RUSUKR on 7 May as they are not extended confirmed and I gave them a final warning on 12 May as they continued to make edits about the Ukraine war. Despite this, they continued to make edits about the war. For example on 19 May they made a series of edits on Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas such as this. As another example, they created the article Volodymyrivka (Subottsi rural hromada) which references the war. They have not responded on their talk page. Mellk (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a requirement to use the GS/ALERT template to make a user formally aware of such general sanctions? My understanding is mostly from Arbcom sanctions where the appropriate templates are generally required. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, neither Olenivka prison massacre nor Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas appear on the WP:RUSUKR list of page level sanctions from what I could see. I guess my question would be whether this user is doing anything disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line,
During the Russo-Ukrainian War a local volunteer Viktor Yarmoshevych died, a memorial plaque was opened in his honor.
into a page then I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- From my understanding, the template looks to be a relatively recent addition. It was sufficient to simply notify without any sort of template, but I am not sure if this has changed. Perhaps an admin who is familiar with this area can say for sure. I do not think there is any exception for non-extended confirmed editors to edit such pages since it is broadly construed. Regarding disruptive edits, they made this edit which is disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line,
- Also, neither Olenivka prison massacre nor Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas appear on the WP:RUSUKR list of page level sanctions from what I could see. I guess my question would be whether this user is doing anything disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that they have still not acknowledged anything or even responded while continuing to make edits is not a good sign that they will stop making edits in the topic area. If we do not want to enforce GS, then why have it in the first place? Mellk (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Siya johnson3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Siya johnson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated addition of spam links to online shop:
- diff 1
- diff 2
- diff 3
WP:NOTHERE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Siya johnson3 as a spam only account. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Need advice for courtesy on problematic user
An editor who has recently been unblocked for ARBPIA after a month and who has been flagged for WP:CIR has resumed making the same WP:CIR violations and inserting poorly-written content into certain articles, the most terrible of which is this [149] on Timeline of Isfahan. I have just bluntly warned the user, but given that they have had a record on ANI, can a third case be filed directly against them? Withholding full name of offender until I get clarification on this. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why not if their edits outwardly demonstrate lack of competence. The Kip (contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, can I rename this section or do I have to file a separate section for this? Borgenland (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Might as well just rename the section, since this section doesn't serve a purpose otherwise, and everyone can tell by the diff who the user is that you have in mind anyway, so this pseudo-secrecy is pointless. However, the diff provided above shows this user, Baratiiman, correct and otherwise improving their own earlier claim that 60 Baha'i women were "persecuted" (somewhere unspecified), with a revision that agrees with the cited source that it was 10 women, and in Iran. (While it would have been nice if Baratiiman had gotten the information correct in the first edit instead of the second, no one is perfect. Baratiiman should also have replaced the PoV-laden "persecuted" with the "prosecuted" used by the original source, or rather as translated from the orignal source which is not in English; "prosecuted" and "persecuted" are radically different things despite the spelling similarity. And Baratiiman had no reason to write "Iranian Islamic state government" when "Iranian government" or even just "Iran" will do. But ANI is not a venue for punishing people for insufficiently beautiful prose.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
PS: Borgenland, on multiple pages I see you inserting broken link code in the form
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/...]]
That's the format for internal wikilinks like[[Mongolia]]
. The format for full-URL links is[https://en.wikipedia.org/...]
with single square-bracketing. So, I'm not sure you're in a position to make "competence"-related criticisms. If anything is to be actionable here, you need to demonstrate an actual pattern of policy failures on the part of Baratiiman, not vague claims of "incompetence". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)PPS: this is also a bit concerning, being aggressive and menacing:
If I catch you making such WP:CIR edits again I'm afraid I will have to file an ANI against you for a third time.
It's not Borgenland's or anyone else's job to try to "catch" people doing things they don't like and make threats to gin up WP:DRAMAboard trouble as a punitive measure to try to get what they want. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- I appreciate pointing out that I have problems in coding. But it does not absolve them from the fact that the user I am referring to has had a edit history of incoherent editing, misinterpreting and exaggerating statements and has not once made any response or commitment to improve their behavior. This was also raised by other editors in a previous archived report involving them last month. Borgenland (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Might as well just rename the section, since this section doesn't serve a purpose otherwise, and everyone can tell by the diff who the user is that you have in mind anyway, so this pseudo-secrecy is pointless. However, the diff provided above shows this user, Baratiiman, correct and otherwise improving their own earlier claim that 60 Baha'i women were "persecuted" (somewhere unspecified), with a revision that agrees with the cited source that it was 10 women, and in Iran. (While it would have been nice if Baratiiman had gotten the information correct in the first edit instead of the second, no one is perfect. Baratiiman should also have replaced the PoV-laden "persecuted" with the "prosecuted" used by the original source, or rather as translated from the orignal source which is not in English; "prosecuted" and "persecuted" are radically different things despite the spelling similarity. And Baratiiman had no reason to write "Iranian Islamic state government" when "Iranian government" or even just "Iran" will do. But ANI is not a venue for punishing people for insufficiently beautiful prose.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, can I rename this section or do I have to file a separate section for this? Borgenland (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Mass AfDs despite warnings to gain experience
SpacedFarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since creating this account on November 30, 2023, 54% of their edits have been to Wikispace[150]. These edits have consisted of mass-nominating articles to AfD at a rate that would make TenPoundHammer jealous. They appear specifically to want to delete articles about sports broadcasting. Of their edits to mainspace, most of those are either AfD notices or merges.
On their usertalk, the user has been repeatedly told, either directly or implicitly, to gain more editing experience by established users such as @Legoktm:,[151] @Vossanova:,[152] @John B123:,[153] and @Liz:.[154] Additionally they appear, based on the comment by John B123 linked above, to not understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration.
This issue is compounded by several factors which all combine to make this actionable, in my opinion.
Firstly, copy/paste rationales. The user started the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndyCar Series on NBC discussion with a rationale saying "Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans"
; however the article in question is not a list, nor is it even a NASCAR article! How can we trust that this user is doing WP:BEFORE checks when they are making it so painfully obvious that they don't even bother to read articles they nominate? We also have a strikingly similar rationales for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on CBC commentators that similarly show a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side.
Secondly, on that same IndyCar on NBC AfD, they refactored their rationale after I called them on the NASCAR error, without striking that part of their comment, and ignored my request to do so.
Thirdly, they appear to have found a WP:TAGTEAM partner in Conyo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). editor interaction history shows several recent instances where Conyo replies within hours, if not minutes of SF starting a new AfD, and indeed AfD Stats shows these being delete !votes overwhelmingly so[155][156].and then we have this this talk page comment.
"It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list."
.
Lastly, SF was warned for incivility by Liz on their talk page on May 13 and has been brought to ANI late last month[157] for similar incivility. Since the warning by Liz was more recent than the diffs I have, I won't post them unless asked so as not to risk double jeopardy.
In one rare instance where Conyo !voted keep in an SF AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes who came out of retirement, SF shows a lack of knowledge or desire to fix articles rather than go for the deletion option, "But I think that list needs fixing....Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD."
.[158] For an editor spending the vast majority of their time at AfD, this is a huge problem that needs addressing. That the majority of their AfDs result in deletion should not distract from these core issues that lead me to conclude that SpacedFarmer is not fit to edit in deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- My main concern about all of these nominations is the overall incivility and bludgeoning attitude of Spaced; I've voted on one nom only specifically because of Spaced's overall harassment and that all of their noms do not have unique rationales or just misabuse drops of WP: links. I'd like to hear what they say, but they really need to improve their overall attitude in editing, because as-is, they are refusing to compromise, much less apologize for the personal attacks they have been giving out towards those who disagree with them. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- If I may absolve myself of some of the accusations, I tend to lurk around AfD like everyday. One of the AfD's I decided to nominate this year was in my primary scope of editing: List of NHL Western Conference finals broadcasters. So, my interest in deleting articles that this user nominates is similar to mine. However, the premise that I notice his articles for deletion are a WP:TAGTEAM is inherently false. I'll admit I did indeed copy-paste some of my rationale within his hour of nominating. That being said, I performed a WP:BEFORE search on all of these articles. I would not just !vote into the void knowing my rationale is not backed without due diligence. Hence, I wanted to tell him to slow down as users like him tend to get placed into ANI and told formally to slow down or else. Also, in case it wasn't noticed, I do have the ability to change my !vote if proper sourcing is given.
- I will also accept any formal warning from any admins if they deem my conduct to be misbehaving. Conyo14 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Before this gets any more lost in the shuffle, I'll say that I'm satisfied by this explanation that there's nothing nefarious going on as far as this aspect is concerned and have struck that part of my post. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree this editor may need some patience (I think it is good practice to not make mass deletions your sole contribution to Wikipedia), I dislike the onesidedness of these accusations. Mass nominations at a rate no one can keep up with are of course a problem, but so is dumping piles and piles of listcruft into article space.
- Their current record is around 91% deletion success rate - https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=SpacedFarmer. That puts them above average for nominations.
- Honestly, if people want these articles to be not deleted, they should consider looking for encyclopaedic coverage to meet WP:NLIST. I agree with the vast majority of this user's nominations. There's a huge backlog of terrible articles that ought to be banished, especially those relating to sports. Lugnuts created over 93000 articles in their lifetime before someone put a stop to it. There's no limit to the rate at which people can vomit terrible articles into mainspace, and so reporting someone to ANI for nominating quickly (unless accuracy is exceptionally poor) is also not against the rules. On the question of copypaste rationales, while this can indicate bad behaviour, it can also indicate that a very persistent fan has blasted (and even, shocked gasp, copy pasted) dozens of very similar articles into existence.BrigadierG (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? BrigadierG (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Press releases are not automatic disqualifiers for a source and Spaced has been told this and refused the advice on what a reliable source is. They're expecting to paint a wide brush like Dan said to get these articles deleted by obfuscating their rationales or bludgeoning with so many WPs an average voter wouldn't question them, when most who do read the sources do. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- A source being reliable is not the same thing as indicating notability. Press releases do not contribute to an indication of notability because by and large they are primary sources that are published without editorial oversight, although they may be suitable to verify basic facts that are unlikely to be contested. WP:ANTECEDENT - being verifiable and notable are both necessary conditions for an article to exist, but on their own are not sufficient. A notable subject that can't be verified doesn't get an article, and neither does a verifiable one that isn't notable. The standard for notability requires being noted by a secondary source - hence the existence of WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH.BrigadierG (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? BrigadierG (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- While this guy could use a little work, he seems to be correct much more often than not. Wikipedia is filled to the brim with useless lists. I'd say all he needs to do is take a little more time to make sure he is AFDing stuff with a correct reason and to remember to not get into pissing matches in AfD. This, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the level of sanctions being needed. Jtrainor (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I take back the nice things I said about this guy. I gave him a little friendly advice and for some reason he decided to revert my post (fine, it's his talk page), and then caution me for a personal attack (what?) on my own talk page and then revert it. This guy needs an attitude adjustment. Jtrainor (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do. He is totally wrong when he accuse me of showing
"a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side"
as they have been checked through before making the nominations. - Anything Conyo14 involve in my nomination is unexpected and incidental.
- I don't see what is wrong with copy/paste rationale as they all have everything in common, low quality garbage that plaque Wikipedia which needs to be put out of its misery, I checked through them before via WP:BEFORE and nothing, so I just put on my black hoodie, get out my big sickle and execute the decision. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps those YouTube parasites at bay but then they won't touch those lists with a 10ft bargepole.
- I have done my attempt of
"a little work"
but after discussion, they got pissed down the wall. Also, there is nothing to write about anymore. - As he had pointed out, one or so was done in error as I have just being back from work, unaware I was tired. I only had just woken up when I got that message and logged off soon, so I couldn't get back to him. I nominated these are I cannot see them passing notability guidelines.
- This guy now can relax as I am going to slow this AfD down for the summer given most of the easy nominations have been done and many others is less likely for this time being, as time is needed to look the sources through. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Calling someone a "fanboy", saying they are "[spiting]" you and that they have a "hateboner" is not the way I'd reply to an ANI report about myself if I had just been warned twice in the last month over incivility. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your standard of discourse here is a bit troubling. There are reasonable standards of behaviour expected of all editors everywhere on Wikipedia, as you have already been made aware. Phrases like "hatebonering" and "pissed down the wall" don't seem appropriate to me, neither does describing another editor as a "fanboy" and I'm not sure whether "YouTube parasites" is meant to refer to something on that site or YouTubers/viewers editing on Wikipedia. It is not difficult to be civil in online discourse, and failing to do so here could result in your editing privileges being withdrawn.
- On the subject of your AfDs, I have no strong opinion either way. They do seem broadly correct, if a little too frequent. But your interactions with other editors leave a lot to be desired. Adam Black t • c 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- > This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do
- This is disappointingly dismissive behaviour. BrigadierG (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- So rather than improving the quality of list articles which always appreciate new sources, you decide to denigrate editors as "fanboy...YouTube parasites", cast yourself as the Wikipedian version of the Grim Reaper who has no designs on improving anything and only removing through bludgeoning, make a blanket statement that these list articles are 'low quality garbage' and dismiss everything you've done as 'work' and 'easy nominations'?
- I can't assume any further good faith with you, Spaced, and I am highly doubtful that you performed most BEFORE as intended. You are to assume good faith of all editors, not just select ones. I know working with others can be frustrating, but you need to talk out things rather than dismissing them out of hand because they were part of the YTTP or whatever Roblox/Discord friend group you think is an affront to your deletion spree. Your attacks on others are uncalled for, and your civility needs some serious work. I do see a point to some of the deletions (which long needed to be prose rather than long lists), but the way you're going about it is not in the normal manner of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You also need to put down the WP:STICK and walk away - a WP:BOOMERANG can fly both ways. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm allowed to state my views properly and from experience and have understood how AfD works at its best for years, along with these mass noms. They are poorly done and Spaced's continued insistence on being rude and brusque will not lead to a long editing career if they continue as-is, nor taking my comment as an immediate PA. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You also need to put down the WP:STICK and walk away - a WP:BOOMERANG can fly both ways. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Dismissing everything you've nominated, which include some articles such as List of MLS Cup broadcasters that are well-written, extensively researched ~300 reference articles – as
low quality garbage
, and that you're the grim reaper who needs toexecute
such articles, while describing any who don't support such actions as "parasites" – because there's nothing to write about??? Wow... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- I think for Spaced, it is important to realize that while some nominations have been clearly flawed, the use of how sources are analyzed can get exhausting (and frustrating when editors confuse reliable and notable) when doing mass nominations as he's been doing. So, I think at this time, perhaps they should stop commenting or nominating for now. Let the current AfD's run their course. Conyo14 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- SpacedFarmer, while I have agreed with most of your nominations (if not the entire rationale), a few have made me question how much of a WP:BEFORE you have been doing on them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find numerous sources showing that List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports was notable, and several others I found to have sufficient sources present fairly quickly. I am wondering what exactly does your BEFORE entail?
- Part of the issue for some editors here is the lack of bundling (as seen with the recent nominations of the Monday Night Football results articles and a handful of other nominations), leading to more spread out and lesser attended discussions for articles that are similar to each other. Perhaps bundling 3-4 similar articles (but no more) in each discussion would help with determining a broader consensus on some of these articles, along with slowing down of the overall number of nominations. Copy and pasting rationales which don't make any sense (such as the NASCAR mention in unrelated articles) doesn't help the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It entails a check through each one of the source first then a search via Google. Having done the first, I don't see it surprising that they would be nominated. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not surprised to see this here though I had hoped it would never come to this. I agree that the behavior of User:SpacedFarmer at AFD has not been good. The copy and paste rationale on his requests shows that a BEFORE is not being done, but the replies are far worse as evidenced by the users own comments above. I think a very short ban could be useful here, but I would hope that this thread alone would be enough to change some of the behavior. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe a rate limit of 1–2 AfD noms every day? Although I expect that's much more difficult to enforce than a technical partial block from creating pages with prefix
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*
. Agree that the response by the reported user above in this thread is distinctly unimpressive. Folly Mox (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- I had planned to slow my AfD noms to 1–2 every day. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
A 91% success rate at AFD says a LOT. Looking at the list, most of those articles/lists look like (compound criteria) list articles that are so overspecialized that nobody is going to be looking for such a list. But their wording that they used in this thread (and apparently elsewhere) particularly when referring to other editors and their motives is pretty terrible. Looks like a newish editor who got very active in "hot areas" pretty quickly. Maybe has yet to learn that what's considered normal discourse on most on-line forums is far over-the-top at Wikipedia. Suggest realizing and learning the latter more quickly and maybe slowing down on AFD work until they learn that. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- A 91% success rate at AfD says nothing (or even NOTHING). It easy to achieve a far better rate than that without performing any WP:BEFORE. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious how to do so, but there seem to be some people who don't realise it, so, in the spirit of WP:BEANS, I won't reveal anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
There seem to be 3 separate issues with SpacedFarmer's editing. As a relatively new user their understanding of WP policies and guidelines is limited. Whilst this is to be expected with newer users, the problem here is they take no notice when things are explained to them. For example they were warned that copying within WP requires attribution[159], yet still continued to copy and paste between articles without attribution. Secondly, their attitude towards other editors who disagree, as witnessed in this thread, is unacceptable. Lastly, given the sheer number of articles sent to AfD of which, as mentioned above, some are clearly notable, it would seem a diligent WP:BEFORE is not being carried out and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability.
I'm sure SpacedFarmer could be a useful editor if they take note of what's been said in this thread and modify their behaviour appropriately. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time with the understanding that should this behaviour continue more severe action is likely. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"...and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability."
I think this is the key takeaway from your post, John. Based on their behaviour in here, I am unfortunately suspicious now that SpacedFarmer's primary motivation for editing is to delete this certain type of article, other opinions be damned. This apparent refusal to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with editors having many different opinions will only see them taken here more if they do decide to do other things.- I'd like to see them at least address the civility concerns that have been brought up since their initial response. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Harassment
I have been the subject of reversions and harassing comments from Bloom6132. He has reverted two of my articles because he objects to the use of the title "Biography" in my articles. I asked him to show me in the MOS anything that prohibits that usage and he has failed to do so. In his latest response to me, he has threatened to revert any other articles I edit if I continue to use "Biography". I have no objection to him changing that in any articles, but I object to him reverting entire edits because of it. I don't know why Wikipedia allows editors the power to do this, but that is another story. I want Bloom6132 to stop reverting me.
This is part of the communication from my user talk page
I've never edited an article called "John Carroll" (I'm assuming you're referring to this one). Frankly, I'm not surprised to see there are others who want to revert your problematic edits (which you mistakenly believe to be "improvements"). I'm certainly not going to be lectured about "taking the lazy route" or how I should spend my time usefully by someone who (1) can't give me the correct article title of the page I was editing; or (2) thinks that copyedits like "The Redemptorists then sent as a missionary to Vieux Fort …" are an improvement – they're evidently not. And so what if it is just my opinion that we shouldn't be using "Biography" as a section heading? I've brought 34 articles to good article status (18 of which are biographies, with 4 of them on Catholic bishops). None of those biographies use the heading "Biography". What quality content contributions have you been making lately that use "Biography" as a heading? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not going to waste my time debating you. If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it. I don't appreciate your condescending remarks either. I also don't care what awards you have gotten. I love Wikipedia, but editors like you make it less pleasant sometimes. Rogermx (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "I am going to continue doing it" – and I'll continue reverting you. Regarding "condescending remarks", don't throw stones when you're living in a glass house. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) And I will file a harassment complaint against you. Suggest you review Wikipedia:Harassment Rogermx (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 18:30 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You really should take the content dispute to the article TALK in question. I would also recommend linking to the correct article and proofing your comments. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Rogermx, your signature is not functional. Clicking it does not lead either to your user page or your user talk page. Please fix it. On to other matters. You are not being harassed. When another editor disagrees with your edits, that does not constitute harassment. As to the dispute, a Wikipedia article about a person is a biography. Every aspect of such an article is part of the biography. When you create a section header called "Biography", that implies that the content in other sections is not part of the biography. In my opinion, that is incorrect and misleading. When you write
If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it
, I am telling you that is a very bad attitude. Policies and guidelines are not all-inclusive and cannot specifically forbid every single bad practice. Look at Good articles and Featured articles that are biographies, and model your section headers on what is commonplace in those articles. Adopt a collaborative attitude and do not edit disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Cullen summed it up perfectly. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't need your lecture about attitude. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2007 and have over 50,000 edits. What gives this guy a veto over what i do in multiple articles? What gives him the right to threaten to revert my articles in the future because he disagrees about the use of a single word?
- I use the biography heading because it is an article, first and foremost. There are sections for bibliography, see also, references that have no biographical information. Secondly, by creating a biography title, it gives a reader a cleaner view of the article contents when they look at it immediately. If this makes the Wikipedia bureaucrats happy, I will stop use the biography title in future articles.
- As for editing disruptively, I am not the one who reverting all the edits in article instead of simply changing the one that he does not like. If you bother to read my statement, I told him that he is free to change anything in the article that he does not like. I do not revert articles over typos, spelling mistakes and edits that I don't agree with. I read this stuff on Wikipedia about being bold, but it is just nonsense.
- It also very difficult to be collaborative with someone who doesn't treat you with respect. I thought that was another requirement of Wikipedia policy, but maybe that is bullshit too. Rogermx (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- References are the resources that are about the person and their biographical details (otherwise, why would they be listed?) SeeAlso are other WP articles related to this person. Cullen328 is right...the whole article is their biography, otherwise it is content that does not belong on that page. The alernative is that all body-sections are subsections of Biography. So why is that container section needed rather than making the secions of the biography more prominent? But again again, this is all a content issue not an administrative or behavior issue except to the extent that editors are expected to discuss with each other and get input from others as relevant on the various talkpages, remembering that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rogermx Your edit count doesn't exempt you from requirements of civility and/or collaborative editing; and, respectfully, I suggest a focus on quality of contributions over quantity could be helpful. Your proposed structure is well out of step from the standard structure of biographies on virtually every other biographical page. Local Variable (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mention the edit count in response to a previous comment about my supposed bad attitude. The reason I put in this complaint was because of the incivility of Bloom6132 and his threats to revert my articles. I have already acceded to the request about using not biography. Suggest you look at any of my edited articles before you lecture me about quantity over quality.
- The point is that I want to be treated with respect by this editor and not have to listen to him threaten to revert articles that he could easily edit himself to his own satisfaction. Obviously, it was a waste of time to make this complaint. Rogermx (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it clearly was. Next time, listen to people instead of accusing them of harassment and incivility. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Rogermx, your signature is not functional. Clicking it does not lead either to your user page or your user talk page. Please fix it. On to other matters. You are not being harassed. When another editor disagrees with your edits, that does not constitute harassment. As to the dispute, a Wikipedia article about a person is a biography. Every aspect of such an article is part of the biography. When you create a section header called "Biography", that implies that the content in other sections is not part of the biography. In my opinion, that is incorrect and misleading. When you write
Personal attacks and original research from Itisme3248
Itisme3248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Itisme3248 has been making personal attacks at the meat talk-page. The user was blocked for personal attacks WP:PA and repeatedly inserting WP:OR] in August 2023 [160], [161], so since their last block they have not taken on any advice they were given.
Examples of personal attacks [162] "Vegan editors like Psychologist Guy, who promote a vegan perspective, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same" and this edit accusing another editor of adding lies [163] which the user was warned about [164].
If you read over my posts on the talk-page I have not accused anyone of being biased nor I am bullying new editors. I said this user was not acting in good-faith because it's obvious they were not. They have repeatedly argued on the talk-page that the systematic reviews cited on the meat Wikipedia article do not account for BMI or smoking. I cited several of these reviews (they all account for these) and this user doesn't reply to that, then they went on a rant about something else. All I see from this user on the talk-page is a long list of spam, personal attacks and WP:OR.
There is a repeated pattern of disruption here involving original research and personal attacks. They disrupted the Ancient Greek cuisine article. They disrupted the Race (human categorization) article and now this type of behaviour has spilled out onto the meat article and talk-page.
I do not see how this user is improving the project. If you read their talk-page they have already been given plenty of warnings about adding original research and making personal attacks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You've accused multiple people of bias simply for citing better and more relevant studies. Not only do you first personally attack them that they are biased, but you also accuse them of rule-breaking when they point out your bias and dishonesty after you personally attacked them first. To hide this, you even deleted my comment that exposed the truth about your behavior. You were the first to accuse me and others of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Itisme3248, please provide evidence that uninvolved editors and adminstrators can evaluate. This is not an argument between you and the OP. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the attack text from the Talk:Meat comment but otherwise left the comment in place. That whole subsections almost needs closed because more time is spent talking about the editors than the material. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- An example from the meat talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisme3248 (talk • contribs) 20:41 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Itisme3248, please provide evidence that uninvolved editors and adminstrators can evaluate. This is not an argument between you and the OP. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [165]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You even have accused people of being conspiracy theorists, further demonstrating your tendency to discredit others by questioning their motives. ::::::::::Itisme3248 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [165]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- That comment was left a month ago on a completely different article. The drive-by IP was claiming that the entire medical community is wrong and that all medical organizations are unreliable. That is a conspiracy theory. No, it's not a personal attack to call someone's nonsense a conspiracy theory. We have established here that you are disruptive, you have not provided any evidence I have personally attacked you, so now you are going through my editing history a month ago to try and dig up anything unrelated to this that you think looks bad for me. Can an admin just block Itisme3248 before their disruption goes any further? I am tired of this now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you ignoring and misinterpreting what I said? I stated that the systematic reviews cited in the meat Wikipedia article repeatedly fail to account for BMI or smoking on the talk page. However, I also mentioned many other important confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, race, country, exercise, macronutrients, and more. Additionally, I emphasized that the total mortality rate is the most important factor, which is being ignored on this Wikipedia page. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are making false claims without any evidence [166]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Itisme3248's personal attack was removed but now they have just re-added it to their talk-page [167]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are making false claims without any evidence [166]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am probably WP:INVOLVED in the 'discussion' (for want of a better word) at Talk:Meat, but in my opinion Itisme3248 is creating a lot of noise, and behaving in an uncollegiate manner, and their wall-of-text-bludgeoning is making productive discussion very difficult. Looking a bit more closely at their editing history makes me more concerned - they seem to make a habit of wading into potentially contentious areas and demanding that their additions, which are often based on their own interpretation of primary sources, be allowed to stand. See, for example, this discussion at Pederasty in ancient Greece. Or this one at Race (human categorization). I don't doubt that they are sincerely trying to improve articles, but by 'improve' I mean 'make them reflect what they know to be The Truth', and they do not seem willing to adapt to our way of doing things. I personally believe that we're in time-sink territory here. Girth Summit (blether) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- A timesink with a dash of WP:RGW, methinks. This comment is fairly indicative of their apparent mindset. You cannot form a consensus with someone who above all actively wants to believe that you are wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, this sounds like either a pblock from the article, or tban from dietary articles in general, will be necessary to avoid it being a complete timesink. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- A timesink with a dash of WP:RGW, methinks. This comment is fairly indicative of their apparent mindset. You cannot form a consensus with someone who above all actively wants to believe that you are wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Trolling and harassment by 50.88.229.139
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
50.88.229.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please can we yank this guy's User Talk page access and extend his block by a few weeks? Since being blocked he is making personal attacks against multiple people (including myself) on his User Talk page. The attacks include homophobia and allegations of paedophilia (1), (2). Before being blocked from article space he was trolling on multiple subjects dishing out both transphobia and islamophobia (3), (4). The IP seems to be fairly stable and has not been used to make any constructive edits recently. It might be worth revdelling some of the edits although, insofar as they refer to me, I don't really care that much. DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Kvwiki1234
Kvwiki1234 (talk · contribs) WP:CIV problems on a CT.
Warnings between the edits: [170] [171]
Not suggesting a block. It’s a difficulty area. But perhaps someone above my paygrade could suggest the editor take it down a few octaves. And perhaps avoid such articles for a while. Particularly since those of us who are danglers cringe at the word eunuch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize if my use of the word eunuch was misconstrued. I meant it purely to describe the cowardly notion that a 19 year old girl who was a peace activist and rape victim who only held a ceremonial non-combatant position in the IDF to complete some university credits is even being considered an IDF soldier and a legitimate captured enemy soldier of war.
- Yes, I am appalled the discussion is even being had. It angers and triggers me.
- I accept your suggestion that I take it down a few octaves in good faith. Thank you. I will avoid such articles in the future.
- I am otherwise a productive and contributing extended confirmed editor to wikipedia with over 7000 constructive edits with a particular focus on the tennis wikiproject.
- I accept your feedback and will avoid politically charged commentary here.
- Thank you,
- Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing to step back, Kvwiki1234. Just to be very clear, though: any more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that Kvwiki1234 should be banned or blocked, but I'd encourage you to reflect some of your reasoning for why your uncivil behavior was justified, as well as reconsider the insults you use in the future.
- Your language is pretty problematic for people of all genders, not just the danglers. It has some pretty sexist and ableist undertones implying that only able-bodied men with sex organs can be brave. I'd also encourage you to reflect on your argument that you have 7000 edits. Does that mean because I have 500000+ edits, I can say even more ableist, sexist things out of frustration because I've made a lot of edits? (Personally, I don't think it does). Mason (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was in no way meant as a gender based slur. I meant it as something approximating extreme cowardice. However I accept your point and see how my language was problematic. I was overcome by anger when I made those edits. Therefore I was temporarily not of sound mind. I apologize, it won't happen again.
- Regarding 7000 edits, I only pointed that to show that I am not some random vandalism troll and I value contributing positively to wikipedia. I take pride in being an experienced extended confirmed editor and my past contributions have been constructive and well received and open for all to examine. It does not excuse what I said in anger, it was simply to show that I am not a random vandalism troll.
- My language in anger may have been problematic, I accept, and I fully understand and respect wikipedia's policies around gender based bigotry and our commitment to inclusivity. Yet there is an open discussion on wikipedia whether a 19 year old non-combatant girl rape victim was a legitimate enemy soldier captured in war? Not getting into a political debate regarding this, but it is food for thought for wikipedia going forward.
- Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I mean that sincerely and in good faith.
- Thank you,
- Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warning. I will avoid topics that anger and trigger me in my personal life here on wikipedia in the future. As I mentioned before, my main areas of interest in wikipedia are tennis, other sports and sometimes Asian history, not politically sensitive current events.
- Just for my own understanding, what does 'block' mean in this context? I will be blocked fom editing that particular page, or blocked from contributing to wikipedia entirely? I hope it never gets to that point, I am simply asking for my own knowledge. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLOCKDISRUPT Mason (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kvwiki1234, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kvwiki1234, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLOCKDISRUPT Mason (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing to step back, Kvwiki1234. Just to be very clear, though: any more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Second Skin violating topic ban and other issues
- Second Skin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Being hounded by an administrator
In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. @Doug Weller: talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. [172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180]
User also has a history of flagrantly ignoring communications and warnings from other users and admins and directives from admins and using edit summaries to have discussions despite being told by Drmies to cease doing so, and ignored suggestions from other admins such as NinjaRobotPirate (these include arguably legitimate blanking of own talk page but reflect ignorance of the messages): [181][182][183]"fuck off" to Drmies"lol go away"[184][185][186][187]"fuck off"[188]"fuck off""fuck off""fuck off"[189][190][191]
Currently engaged in a silly dispute over whether Aztec, New Mexico, apparently legally classified as a city, should be called a town. Refuses to see that inserting user's own opinion on this is OR, cites other Wikipedia articles as sources for it being called a town. [192](alters citation to US census describing it as a city)"empty threats"[193]
Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on music articles. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different.
- Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What?
- Never told Drmies to fuck off.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway
- Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time Second Skin (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Second Skin: Witch house (genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into WP:COMPETENCE if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are unable to understand that
Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres
requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page?
- Short answer is No. Here is the diff where it explicity states: If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. What made you think that Witch house (genre) and Horrorcore were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised? Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are unable to understand that
- So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Second Skin: Witch house (genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into WP:COMPETENCE if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?"
No, you cannot. If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making any edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here. Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here. Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here. First off, you are not allowed to tell anyone to "fuck off" here, admin or IP. Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months. I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and your inability to address the issue so complete. The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded. But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion. Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. SnowRise let's rap 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for WP:CIV, even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. SnowRise let's rap 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy pinging everyone involved in the ANI that resulted in a TBAN other than those already pinged: TheDragonFire300 Viriditas GhostOfDanGurney Acroterion (omitting Tazmin because I believe they don't wish notices about admin-related things) Black Kite Objective3000 Eyesnore Hammersoft Lourdes Cullen328 Ravenswing WaltCip Deepfriedokra Bishonen Siroxo ARoseWolf GiantSnowman Uncle G Nil Einne Beyond My Ken Ad Orientem Snow Rise Equilibrial —DIYeditor (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Second Skin, it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands his topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- As Cullen already said, [User:Second Skin]], it's simple. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Concur. @Second Skin Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with all stated here. --ARoseWolf 16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- As do I. Ravenswing 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
172.59.210.96 disruptive editing
Stumbled across this IP at WP:RSP, where they pointlessly added and removed the word "vandalism." Per their talk page, they've been involved in multiple edit wars and generally questionable behavior for a number of days, since they started editing on May 16 - most recently, they were in an edit war at Abby Lee Miller (the page history of which indicates they may be the same editor as this blocked IP, who was also edit warring). Said talk page displays numerous warnings for this behavior.
In the last several hours, they started to disruptively edit Operation Enduring Freedom, once again adding and removing their own vandalism. With such edit summaries as "Sleepy joe," "THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH MY EDIT, PLEASE STOP," "what do you think? Idiot," "FIX IT YOURSELF," and... whatever this is, I think there's a pretty clear case that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Kip (contribs) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked them for a month. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate the quick response. The Kip (contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also did an old-fashioned selective deletion to clear out the one edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Is that why one IPv6's recent revision now claims it added +62,626 bytes, which is the size of the page? Perhaps a not-so-old-fashioned revdel'ing of the summaries would have been easier. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ordinarily yes, but in this case it wouldn't have entirely fixed what was making that edit summary so disruptive. Though now that you mention it I'll apply revdel to a few of the revisions there now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Is that why one IPv6's recent revision now claims it added +62,626 bytes, which is the size of the page? Perhaps a not-so-old-fashioned revdel'ing of the summaries would have been easier. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also did an old-fashioned selective deletion to clear out the one edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate the quick response. The Kip (contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Tommygunn7886: WP:NOTHERE edit warring
Tommygunn7886 has been doing some edit warring over at eye color that I would like to bring to your attention.
- 20:27 May 22 2024: TommyGunn7886 removes content, restored by Adakiko at 20:29.
- 23:32 May 22 2024: Tommygunn7886 removes content a second time, partially restored by myself at 23:39.
- Tommygunn7886 then deleted this content from the article two more times.
Attempts to explain to this individual that they are wrong have lead me to suspect that they may have WP:COMPETENCE issues. They do not seem to be capable of understanding that they are wrong when another editor attempts to explain this to them, and this has been my experience as well. At the article's talk page, they refuse to engage in discussion about the references and instead make outlandush allegations of transphobia and personal attack.
Tommygunn7886's edit summaries are also nonsensical. They accuse me and the references of using transphobic language, yet there is nothing transphobic or trans-related in either. All references added are peer reviewed and published in high quality journals, and have nothing whatever to do with trans people. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The other administrator ruled in my favor and also removed the content from the thread. This user, A Rainbow Footing It is harassing me over edits they are making which are transphobic. The edits in question are purporting that there are physical differences between gender identities, which as stated before is transphobic.
- This user is not an administrator but has made numerous threats on my talk page threatening to ban my account if I keep up the "edit war"(that the same user is also partaking in, even after an admin ruled in my favor).
- This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886, when you make an extremely grave accusation like
This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll
, you are required to provide convincing evidence, which you have not done. So, provide the persuasive evidence now, or you at very high risk of being blocked for unsubstantiated personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- I will do so, but I will not be fast as I am still new to this platform. I apologize for making such a claim, this user has been harassing me so I looked at their profile. Please allow me a little time to find out how to link it properly. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Tommygunn7886: Make sure you have [ subscribe ]ed to the thread for further notifications as not everyone will ping you. "Harassing" is also something that you need to provide evidence for. You may wish to read WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the talk page where the user created a talk section sith my personal name, rather than about the content. I find this to be harassment.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_color
- Here is a link to my personal talk page where the user posted two separate threats to have me banned for edit warring(despite also taking part in it themselves), I deleted the initial one but kept the one they sent later. It is notice 3rr.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886 Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Talk:Eye color#Tommygunn7886's removal of content looks pretty bad for you from what I can see. A lot of unsupported accusations of singling out, harassment, transphobia because of reference to biological sex, etc. I was going to point out the 3RR issue as well. I don't think a legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice is harassment by the definition at WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was not one sided it was back and forth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice
means the notice was possibly one-sided. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was not one sided it was back and forth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Talk:Eye color#Tommygunn7886's removal of content looks pretty bad for you from what I can see. A lot of unsupported accusations of singling out, harassment, transphobia because of reference to biological sex, etc. I was going to point out the 3RR issue as well. I don't think a legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice is harassment by the definition at WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Tommygunn7886: Make sure you have [ subscribe ]ed to the thread for further notifications as not everyone will ping you. "Harassing" is also something that you need to provide evidence for. You may wish to read WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1
- First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- What are you saying is improperly cited about that material? A Rainbow Footing It is presumably not the source of the information. It's a lot of information about dating preferences that all seems to be from legitimate studies and analyses. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wow. I won't say more, but wow. I thought wikipedia was more enlightened than this. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- What are you saying is improperly cited about that material? A Rainbow Footing It is presumably not the source of the information. It's a lot of information about dating preferences that all seems to be from legitimate studies and analyses. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I will do so, but I will not be fast as I am still new to this platform. I apologize for making such a claim, this user has been harassing me so I looked at their profile. Please allow me a little time to find out how to link it properly. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Tommygunn7886: You removed cited material about differences in eye color between men and women. I don't think a scientific study referring to biological sexes is transphobic. We report the sources, not interpret them. Again, Wikipedia is based on sources, not our opinions. If you were to remove every reference to physical differences between men and women on Wikipedia you'd be making many thousands of edits to remove properly sourced material. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that there are biolgical differences between men and women is itself transphobic and false. Gender and sexual identity are not biological. Maybe if the article stated something like "those who identify as female and those who identify as male", but even this is tricky as the study itself was presumably done with those who were simply assigned male and female at birth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have a ton of articles on biology you'd need to strip of any reference to differences between sexes. Don't think it is going to work out well for you. We can fine tune wording to align with what the sources actually say, if necessary. This notice board is not for content disputes though, only behavioral issues. This is a non-starter in my view. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are no differences between sexes. A man can have a vagina and a woman can have a penis. Men can get pregnant. Men can have very high estrogen and low testosterone, women can have ver low estrogen and very high testosterone. Gender and sexual identity are social constructs that have no basis in biology, they are simply an identity. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, you'd better start with Man and Woman if you want to pursue this. Wouldn't be the first person to make this assertion. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are no differences between sexes. A man can have a vagina and a woman can have a penis. Men can get pregnant. Men can have very high estrogen and low testosterone, women can have ver low estrogen and very high testosterone. Gender and sexual identity are social constructs that have no basis in biology, they are simply an identity. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have a ton of articles on biology you'd need to strip of any reference to differences between sexes. Don't think it is going to work out well for you. We can fine tune wording to align with what the sources actually say, if necessary. This notice board is not for content disputes though, only behavioral issues. This is a non-starter in my view. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that there are biolgical differences between men and women is itself transphobic and false. Gender and sexual identity are not biological. Maybe if the article stated something like "those who identify as female and those who identify as male", but even this is tricky as the study itself was presumably done with those who were simply assigned male and female at birth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886, when you make an extremely grave accusation like
- @A Rainbow Footing It: Could you provide convenience links to everything (e.g. the edit summaries) you are referring to? I'll do this:
- Tommygunn7886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A Rainbow Footing It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- 03:54, 23 May 2024:
Gender and sexual identity do not determine physical traits. This transphobia does not belong on a wikipedia article. I hope admins will agree against transphobic language.
- 01:02, 23 May 2024:
Study is based on outdated notions of gender and identity and does not belong on a wikipedia page. This is offensive to those who are transgender.
- 01:02, 23 May 2024:
Again, it is problematic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity, as the terminology presented is based on western heteronomative ideas of identity that do not correlate to one's individual identity
- 01:02, 23 May 2024:
Using control F, there are no mentions of any populations other than Spanish populations in this particular study. It is also highly probelmatic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity
- 23:39 22 May 2024:
Partially restored content without Spanish data points. Contrary to what was claimed by TommyGunn, Martinez-Cadenas et al. 2013 and 2016 both use previously published studies from across Europe, which show the same effect. Added quote to Martinez-Cadenas citation and secondary source (Pilli-Berti 2021), which mentions studies published afterwards which observed a similar effect.
- 03:27, 23 May 2024:
Restored reliably sourced content. As explained at talk page, both Martinez-Cadenas 2013 and 2016 describe multiple studies from across Europe and Auatralia, which corroborate their findings. Additional studies performed afterwards also replicated an eye color gender asymmetry. Tommygunn needs to give a sensible explanation at the talk page for these edits, and stop edit warring."
- 03:54, 23 May 2024:
- A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
A Rainbow Footing It
This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve.
This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes so I do not know what you are talking about. Where is your evidence? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
an admin ruled in my favor
- This is a lie. An admin partially restored one of your edits after having been misled by your edit summary, but did not make the blanket removal of content that you have been doing, which Adakiko and I have tried to restore in full. Earlier you accused that admin of "following you around" for calling out your dishonest behavior.
- As usual, this editor is failing WP:GOODFAITH with their endless stream of outrageous allegations. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Adakiko did not try to restore your edit later on, first they just stated that I needed to provide an edit summary. After I provided an edit summary, the other admin ruled in my favor and undid the deletion by Adakiko. Adakiko has not changed the page since, only you have. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've restored the blanking of seemingly properly cited scientific material. If you wish to check whether the first source used the term "gender" or "sex" we can look into that. You should not remove material that refers to biological sexes on the ground that it is transphobic. We go by sources, not our own interpretations. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If this is a thread about behavior and not content moderation, why did you perform content moderation? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and I restored cited material which had been blanked because I noticed it. This board is for behavioral issues not content, so what we discuss here should focus on behaviors and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as relate to behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886, I have asked you twice for evidence to back up your extraordinary accusations, and instead of providing evidence, you say silly things like
the other admin ruled in my favor
even though you have already been informed that adminststrators do not adjudicate content disputes. If any adminstrator expressed an opinion about a content dispute, they are speaking as an ordinary editor, with no more power than any other editor in that context. So again, I must insist that you provide the evidence in your very next edit, or I will block you for grave and unsubstantiated personal attacks. That is a power that I actually do have as an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- I apologize, I am simply in too many chats to keep track of this. I provided evidence of the claim to the other user who I assumed was the admin. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1
- First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If A Rainbow Footing It is misrepresenting what the sources say, that is a behavior problem. If the sources are not WP:RS that is a content dispute. If the sources are not WP:DUE that is a content dispute. If the article is not WP:NPOV that is a content dispute. You can bring all that up on the relevant talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886, I have asked you twice for evidence to back up your extraordinary accusations, and instead of providing evidence, you say silly things like
- I'm not an admin, and I restored cited material which had been blanked because I noticed it. This board is for behavioral issues not content, so what we discuss here should focus on behaviors and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as relate to behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If this is a thread about behavior and not content moderation, why did you perform content moderation? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've restored the blanking of seemingly properly cited scientific material. If you wish to check whether the first source used the term "gender" or "sex" we can look into that. You should not remove material that refers to biological sexes on the ground that it is transphobic. We go by sources, not our own interpretations. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Adakiko did not try to restore your edit later on, first they just stated that I needed to provide an edit summary. After I provided an edit summary, the other admin ruled in my favor and undid the deletion by Adakiko. Adakiko has not changed the page since, only you have. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommygunn7886 I almost have to call this trolling or WP:CIR. You are making it say the opposite of what you seem to want it to say. And again, beware of 3RR. I believe you have already violated 3RR perhaps multiple times. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- This has gone on far too long. Tommygunn7886 has failed to provide convincing evidence for their extremely grave accusations, and has provided an exceptionally flimsy explanation. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and failure to assume good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not looked much at the editor's editing but from what they're saying here, it seems fair to give them a ctop alert for gensex. Perhaps if they come back and get into edit wars over these issues without properly discussing on the talk page or are otherwise disruptive in the area, a gensex topic ban is one option if it's felt an indef is too harsh. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree. I'm certainly not heartened by Tommygunn's repeated waving of "An admin agreed with me once so that means I'm right with everything" as a free hall pass for every one of their flights of fancy going forth. Ravenswing 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not looked much at the editor's editing but from what they're saying here, it seems fair to give them a ctop alert for gensex. Perhaps if they come back and get into edit wars over these issues without properly discussing on the talk page or are otherwise disruptive in the area, a gensex topic ban is one option if it's felt an indef is too harsh. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- This has gone on far too long. Tommygunn7886 has failed to provide convincing evidence for their extremely grave accusations, and has provided an exceptionally flimsy explanation. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and failure to assume good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by 2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64
This IP has been 'creating' a fair amount of human name pages by inserting a new page inside of existing pages by similar names. The pages are all good, to be clear – the only issue is that they are going in the completely wrong place. They have been asked to use drafts many times, but given that their address is so variable I really have absolutely no idea that they've even seen those messages. I don't want to see them gone, their work is useful, but it is currently creating extra work for others. Perhaps a block with a pointer to a detailed explanation of what they should be doing instead, and an unblock after they simply confirm they understand, would be able to get their attention. They've been temporarily blocked before for this exact thing but the block message was less than useful so they just kept doing what they've been doing after it expired. Tollens (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, if they keep bouncing around to different IPs, it seems they're also unlikely to notice that one has been blocked. I wonder if they are at least within a blockable range that wouldn't clobber a bunch of other, unrelated, users. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Socks - Millat Ahmad
Here you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? AntanO 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've taken a look, and will block the accounts, based on their talk page admission that they are connected to the film they're writing about, and their creation of a second account to evade scrutiny. Noting that MillatAhmad15 has not logged in here, and so is not registered - we can't take action against that account. Girth Summit (blether) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hate speech / personal attack by Yyg850c
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just noticed this comment by Yyg850c (talk) at Talk:History of the chair: "Here's a quote from the Wiki page to enrich your underdeveloped black supremacist prefrontal cortex" (bold emphasis mine). How this escaped attention, I have no idea, but that can't be okay. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. We don't tolerate that sort of garbage here. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri
User:Kashmiri has alleged without any proof that my account is a sock-puppet and is concerned about my lack of efforts (where I am uninvolved) in an ongoing edit war over at Talk:Tamil genocide.
For full disclosure, I did have another account a few years back, but I stopped using that account years ago since it had identifying information on it. I have also emailed checkusers at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org to bring my old unused account to their notice. This is all completely allowed as per WP:Clean Start.
At the bottom of the discussion at [194], User:kashmiri has been implying that I am engaging in sock-puppetry and has complained that I am displaying no collaborative efforts (even though I am completely uninvolved in the discussion). I was patrolling the pages (as part of my watchlist) and decided to warn both the editors involved in edit-warring ([195], [196]) and requested temporary protection for the concerned page at [197].
I was a Wikipedia editor for a long time before retiring and starting a new account. As such, I was very much involved in recent changes patrol and decided to continue doing so when I started this new account.
I am deeply baffled by the allegations being levied against me here (without any iota of proof) and believe this is completely against Wikipedia policies. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldenarrow9, you registered this account 8 days ago and immediately went on to issue warnings to various editors[198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205] and many more – including warnings to long-standing editors like Ravensfire, Espenthordsen or myself; proposing an article for deletion[206], and closing a discussion[207] (even though your account is not
in good standing
as it's not even extended confirmed). All in just 300 edits. It doesn't look like a very clean start to me, and my advice to you is to slow down and stop challenging everyone here. — kashmīrī TALK 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- @Kashmiri: I was a wikipedia editor for a long time before changing my account to hide my identity. All the warnings issued by me are completely valid and almost all reports filed by me so far have been actioned on (including the most recent page protection request on the page you are edit-warring on). I have also shared details of my previous account with the checkusers. However, I don't like your personal attacks against me when I simply warned you about a Wikipedia policy you were violating. You straight up jumped to implying I am a sock-puppet (especially with your veiled comments like "Let's see...").
- You also chose to report my current account as a sock-puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110 after I shared with you about my previous account and opened this complaint against you (where I even mentioned that I have shared details about my past account with checkusers). (You have not even notified me about that report, and I just found it from your edit history).
- I can't figure out why you are acting in such bad faith against me. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldenarrow9 There's no obligation to notify accounts about SPI, and I don't routinely do it. As I wrote: your start here is quite concerning, it's as far from collaborative editing as possible. You just go around and drop warnings on various users' pages (it's secondary here whether they are justified or not). At Talk:Tamil genocide, you made zero effort to engage in the discussion, present arguments in support or against the proposal. You just played a cop – much like in other articles. Now, being so unhelpful, and with such a suspicious editing pattern (see my SPI, which I reaffirm), do you really expect hugs and love here?
- WP:CLEANSTART says:
It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior.
I'm not at all sure that's the case here. — kashmīrī TALK 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) - Regarding your claim that Tamil genocide was "on your watchlist", I wonder how it got there when you never edited in this area – and at the same time when several new accounts became active on that article. — kashmīrī TALK 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I highlight my concern with your veiled personal attacks again: "do you really expect hugs and love here?". Is this seriously the kind of tone that "experienced editors" use these days? I have replied to the SPI report as well. My previous account was in good standing and this new account was only started to disassociate my real-life identity. I didn't realize patrolling recent changes and countering vandalism is now frowned upon at Wikipedia.
- Also, I don't really have to explain myself, but it got on my watchlist because I participated in a Requested Move discussion just a few sections above at Talk:Tamil genocide#Requested move 12 May 2024. I was only warning you as I noticed you were on your 3rd revert and that the topic was considered a contentious topic. Didn't realize issuing a simple warning to you would waste so much of my time here or I would have never done so. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing you're using any RCP tols, and Recent changes patrol doesn't include Talk pages anyway, even as you were coming to talk pages. It all gets muddier. — kashmīrī TALK 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have used WP:Twinkle to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also want to clear up the issue of issuing warnings to long standing editors. For Ravensfire, if you look just below the warning, you'll see a friendly discussion of the issue at hand where both of us agreed it was just to avoid any future issues.
- In the case of Espenthordsen, it was due to a file they uploaded which missed a copyright tag altogether.
- Both warnings are advisory in nature and my warning to you was similar in nature (hoping to stop you from violating policies and getting yourself blocked).
- You simply decided that qualifies me as a sockpuppet? All my edits so far have been in good standing and I've not acted hostile to you in anyway. Yet, you have only been hostile to me so far and didn't bother to assume good faith, going so far as mocking me and challenging everything I've said.
- Honestly, all this makes me rethink my decision to even start my Wikipedia account. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Look, people come here to build an encyclopaedia; develop content, sometimes argue about it in order to work out a consensus version. Yes sometimes formal warnings are necessary. However, you did not try to build anything: you just waded into a lengthy discussion with an the Template:uw-3rr usertalk (!) warning followed by two[208][209] warnings to discussion participants. This was not only unnecessary but outright rude. At the same time, given that yours is not the first newly created account that went straight to discussing Tamil genocide in the last few days, a CU request (not: decision!) was a perfectly valid move. My concerns were also shared by another editor[210].
- With your every 15th or so edit to-date being a formal notice or warning, your demand of assuming good faith seems somewhat misplaced.
- I'll repeat myself: you're welcome to build an encyclopaedia (providing your CU check comes out clean). But if you as a new, non-admin account only intend to police others, close discussions and, generally, go to contentious places, don't be surprised about a backlash. — kashmīrī TALK 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Further, I'll repeat what I just posted on the talk page:
- just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard).
- You seem to think I'm rooting against your page change but honestly I've no opinion of it (and will now stay far away from it since it's clear there is something way bigger than normal Wikipedia going out here).
- I've also decided that I'll just quit Wikipedia and you can all be happy and maybe even throw a party over it? Sick of all of this nonsense. I don't have time for this. And I don't appreciate anyone who has time to scrutinize every single one of my edits. Maybe if you spent that time actually building Wikipedia (like you just said). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldenarrow9 Glad that yours is not. (Link to some company profile removed) — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uhh, isn't this Outing? Nobody (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Do we need to wait for an admin to delete it or can a regular editor do so? BoldGnome (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ironically, my username was simply chosen by a random username generator. But this behaviour scares me greatly. It seems like kashmiri is now actively trying to find out my real identity. I am now genuinely worried about this, and hope admins take notice. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Do we need to wait for an admin to delete it or can a regular editor do so? BoldGnome (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uhh, isn't this Outing? Nobody (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldenarrow9 Glad that yours is not. (Link to some company profile removed) — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have used WP:Twinkle to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing you're using any RCP tols, and Recent changes patrol doesn't include Talk pages anyway, even as you were coming to talk pages. It all gets muddier. — kashmīrī TALK 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note I've closed a complaint concerning Kashmiri at AN3 (not from Goldenarrow9) to keep the discussion in one place. There is no prejudice to any outcome from this discussion here. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you're going to activate a 'clean start', it is really unwise in my opinion to go straight into a contentious topic like Tamil genocide. This is actually clearly covered in the clean start policy, Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not been involved in the actual edit war (or the discussion thereof). My only participation was in a move discussion where I wrote 1 single line opposing the move. Here, my only participation was issuing warnings to both the editors and requesting a temp page protection (which was granted) in view of the edit war. My issue here is strictly related to the personal attacks being made against me which have somehow continued unchecked even on this noticeboard.
- Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here. In any case, I have mostly been spending my time here patrolling recent changes and didn't really participate much in any heated discussions. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here.
- That is incorrect. The entire point of CLEANSTART is to break away from the previous editing areas, which is important if protecting your identity matters. Otherwise, people are easily going to put 2+2 together and you're right back where you started. I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move away from those areas. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider that. I have mostly spent time doing RCP (and yes, this was something I was previously involved in as well). I don't target specific pages or projects but occasionally participate in some random discussions. Until this issue started, there was no indication on my account that I even had a previous account. Now, I will have to re-consider if I even should spend time on Wikipedia at all. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you're going to activate a 'clean start', it is really unwise in my opinion to go straight into a contentious topic like Tamil genocide. This is actually clearly covered in the clean start policy, Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Acroterion they are unrelated this report is about personal attack while the that report is about edit warring.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. My only relation to that edit-war is issuing a warning and requesting page protection as an uninvolved editor. Replies to my warning started this altogether separate issue here. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, SPI doesn't work that way, and like the AN3 report, it's there for anyone to see who looks. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note to Closing admin.Please take a look at this 3RR report 3RR Report here as admin did not want it to be at two noticeboards.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- On a unrelated note, Goldenarrow9, how did you come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- On some wikiproject dashboard/list. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am much more concerned with the behavior of Dowrylauds (talk · contribs) at that article, who is the editor who is most clearly edit-warring here. They have made 3 "large" reverts and 3 comments on the talk page excoriating other editors for making similar reverts, with no constructive participation. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
A few issues at Chilufya Tayali, among them the addition of unsourced and promotional content, likely conflict of interest, and an editor who claims to be corresponding with the subject, who as of last month was reported to be missing and wanted by Interpol. See the discussion here [211]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- From the comments made by ClementSyuulu (talk · contribs) on their talk page, this seems to me more like WP:OR rather than WP:COI. FYI, there are noticeboards for both original research and conflicts of interest. It might be more appropriate taking this to one of those noticeboards. Adam Black t • c 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- This report is fine for this noticeboard, so I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure. Adam Black t • c 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- This report is fine for this noticeboard, so I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
AFD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am I allowed to modify an opening statement in an AFD discussion that I opened? I have been reverted twice by an editor who insists that I make a new comment who then tags me as a commenter in what may be a bad-faith assumption of me trying to rig a consensus. Borgenland (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Presumably here. No, you are not allowed, since that wasn't what was replied to. Any additions or modifications need to be accounted for, with a diff or a new comment. HTH. El_C 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Borgenland Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. Local Variable (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I'd probably just ask the editor to revert and definitely make sure to personally notify them (i.e. via their talk page) if I ever did anything like that. But I also don't think reverting an editor's change to their own comment counts the same when it comes to editing another editor's comment. Especially if the change was made a significant time after the comment was made, had already been replied to, and the change wasn't fixing a simple typo or some other clearcut error. The point of not modifying someone's comment is IMO primarily because we don't want to modify someone's signed comments. But reverting a change isn't really modifying someone's signed comment, it's reverting someone's modification to the older version. The editor had already decided to post it. It's similar to the way removing someone's comment wholesale or hatting it isn't generally as big a deal than modifying it. And a closer example, if an editor wholesale removes a comment of their which had received replies rather than just striking it, it's hardly uncommon to just revert this removal and ask the editor to strike it instead. And for archived discussions even that might be controversial. It's not putting words into an editor's mouth to revert to something they willingly said at one time even if they later changed their mind. (If the editor's account was compromised that might be a different matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Borgenland Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. Local Variable (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
PicturePerfect666
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to ask for a topicblock on PicturePerfect666, both on all Eurovision articles and on any other topic that relates to either Israel or Palestine. They are being a disruptive editor in the Eurovision 2024 article, through bludgeoning multiple talk topics, disruptive editing, unnecessarily policing the talk page, ignoring consensus, breaching NPOV, deleting sections they personally disagree with, refusing to lose an argument, and malicious editing of the article in order to leave hidden instructions to warn editors to not make particular changes that they disapprove of.
Bludgeoning the talk page
Example: The Israel Campaign for Votes talk section
Here there are 44 comments, and PP666 made 16 of them, over 35% of the comments in this section, double the amount of comments of anyone else involved. They continually changed what they thought was deemed wrong with this proposal, from "speculation and cruft", to "unreliable source", to "what is the relevance", to "the Eurovision rules weren't even broken", to "lets wait for further discussion", in order, when each of the previous reasonings were found to be incorrect. When examining that talk topic for consensus, there are 7 votes for inclusion, and only 1 against (PP666). When this was addressed, PP666 said "This is not counting votes", and immediately opened a request for comment about this exact discussion, presumably in the effort to delay anyone acting on the newly-established consensus. This disruption has been working, because despite consensus and the fact this was suggested a week ago, it is still not included in the article.
They have now seem to be not gaining the intended response in their newly opened RFC either, and have started bludgeoning the people replying to them there [214] [215] [216]
In PicturePerfects666's two RFCs (one which they asked an admin to open, and the other they opened themselves), so far every person who has replied to either of them has disagreed with PicturePerfect666's position, again. Multiple people replied to the RFC acknowledging that this was just a repeat of a recent already-settled discussion and not necessary [217] [218] [219].
Doing a rough count (doing some ctrl+f tallying), currently on the talk page there are 276 comments, and PicturePerfect666 has made 78 of them. Over a quarter of ALL talk page comments are made by them. They are dominating every single topic they are involved with and they refuse to back down on anything, even when there is a large consensus against them.
Disruptive editing and incivility
Warnings: [220][221] [222] [223]. Individual problems below often included their own pushback and warnings specific to the issue.
In the last few days, PP666 has:
- Incited an edit war by repeatedly removing a section that describes the multiple Palestinian symbols displayed on stage at Eurovision [224], despite multiple editors asking them not to [225] [226].
- When told they were edit warring, they started personally attacking the user that pointed it out to them [227] - see edit description ("Reply to bad arguments, point scoring and attempted gotcha moments by a user with unclean hands.")
- Got 48 hour site blocked for further personal attacks made during the edit war AN/I brought against them [228], as well as edit warring.
- Attempted to escape that block via wikilawyering [229]
- Opened a dispute resolution request that included 24 people, including a probable sock-puppet account listed as the first person involved. The sock has 3 edits in total - the first was to request someone restart PP666's edit war [230] (the edit war that happened 2 days before they signed up), the second was to "retire" the account exactly 1 minute later (5 minutes after signing up)[231], but they came out of "retirement" to post their third edit: literally posting "I agree with PicturePerfect666" on PP666's dispute resolution request. They have no other edits. Also note the similar username motifs.
- PP666 added wikicomments in the article source, demanding that adding anything critical of Israel to the lead was against consensus and not allowed (despite knowing that was not true). They did not remove this message when this was pointed out to them. [232]
- Moved the section that outlines the Israeli participation controversy further down the page to "alphabetise" [233]
- Moved large sections of the Israeli participation controversy into a lower traffic article without consulting the talk page [234]
- Removed large amount of detail about the Israeli inclusion protests without consulting the talk page [235]
- Repeatedly removed an image of protest against Israel's inclusion happening in Barcelona because, as per the edit summary "we all know what a protest looks like" [236]. Also justifying removing this image again later using the reasoning "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" [237] (despite other sections having images at the time), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later [238] [239]
- Removing a one-sentence reference to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see [240]). Asked to revert, [241], but didn't.
- When an admin removed some comments (full disclosure: my comments[242]) from the talk page because of the extended-confirmed protection, PP666 took it upon themselves to use this as justification to police everyone else in the talk page [243]
- This led to PP666 opening a spurious AN/I, which was promptly shut down[244]. One admin said "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them". During that AN/I, admins asked them to revert the policing comments, something PP666 pretended to comply with, but instead just wikicommented out instead[245]. The policing comments are still in the talk page code without any clarification that they are inaccurate and unwarranted. They refused to actually delete them when I pointed this out to them[246], quoting WP:TPO as the reasoning, which is completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and does not suggest wikicommenting at all.
Since my comments got deleted and I had the contentious topic explainer posted on my page, I have stopped interacting on this article's talk page (apart from one extended-protected change request), but I have still been observing what's been happening from the side-lines, and I think that PicturePerfect666's behaviour is massively disruptive and unhelpful, and they show no sign of self reflection or acknowledging a behavioural problem. This list was initially even longer but I decided to trim it down. There's no way of having a meaningful discussion or improving the article while they are involved. BugGhost🎤 11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- [247] might be an interesting diff regarding bludgeoning. Dialmayo 11:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- This largely factual incorrect. For example I only started one RfC and only did so after dispute resolution was declined after being advised to try routes that are different.
- the matters complained about are already administratively dealt with as a block on me and another were rendered and have passed.
- I’d like the reported to be boomeranged for this waste of time as this is already dealt with previously. They are also in my opinion on a campaign targeting me as they dislike the position I take compared to them.
- if they have content disputes fine but this is targeting and bullying through gaming the system. An example was when an admin asked they and everyone else to not comment on my talk page and they carried on regardless.
- this is the most nothing burger feet stamping laundry list complaint I’ve ever seen from someone doing so here because they dislike the processes of Wikipedia and can’t stand that contentious topics are going to need more input and have more people with different views than they like.
- yes this reply is personal but I’m sick to death of the attitude of this user that they get to try and push an opposing voice on a contentious topic off because they can’t get their own way they should be trouted and warned they can’t go forum shopping on things already dealt with. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lines like this “one which they asked an admin to open”
- Show how absurd and bad faith assuming this complaint is. I never asked any administrator to open anything I would therefor like that to be taken as prima facia evidence of bad faith and this nonsense closed with appropriate action taken against the filer. Accusations like that cannot be allowed as they damage the whole process and nature of Wikipedia.
- I am pinging the admin being accused of being my patsy @Ivanvector: PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and when that fell through, and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the second RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your badgering of people trying to contribute to those RFCs. BugGhost🎤 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, for the sake of stopping a derailment - if you insist, the phrase "asked for" could be improved. You may not have directly asked for it, but it was made to placate your concerns about the article, because your dispute resolution request didn't go ahead. Again: I have no concern about them whatsoever. I have no problems with the first RFC being open, this has nothing to do with this AN/I, and whether you "asked" for it or not makes no difference. I am making no claims about Ivanvector's behaviour and everything I have seen from them has been neutral, fair and in good-faith. The fact that you are trying to redirect this AN/I away from yourself and imply that I am actually attacking a third party is astonishing. This is a complete derailment, and I am surprised that this detail, out of everything in the original post, is the one you are fighting. BugGhost🎤 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and when that fell through, and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the second RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your badgering of people trying to contribute to those RFCs. BugGhost🎤 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I am bad at Wikipeding |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Bot control
Why is a bot allowed to control what is posted to drv [248] . duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Duffbeerforme, because the report was malformed. You have to add it outside of and after the hidden comment syntax (<!-- -->). You placed it inside of the hidden comment. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The bot is not trying to prevent discussion. You filed the report incorrectly, but it was fixed by @Whpq. Please AGF and don't edit war with software. Star Mississippi 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Countscarter
Countscarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent addition of unsourced information in movie articles, such as: [249][250][251], etc. User was blocked earlier in April for the same issue following an ANI discussion, yet continued with 0 communication. Communication is required, and I hope they will respond here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely (partial, article space): User talk:Countscarter#Indefinite partial block from the main article space. El_C 05:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)