EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?: This would probably survive AfD |
Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 760: | Line 760: | ||
::: {{re|Jack Sebastian}} I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a [[WP:SPI]] at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
::: {{re|Jack Sebastian}} I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a [[WP:SPI]] at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at [[Talk:DC Extended Universe]], and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
::: In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at [[Talk:DC Extended Universe]], and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{u|Popfox3}} - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I ''literally'' will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits ''and'' an SPI comes back as unrelated. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|Darkknight2149}} I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely ''convinced'' that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way. |
|||
::::Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments ''en toto'' and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves. |
|||
::::I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Rajbongshi people]] == |
== [[Rajbongshi people]] == |
Revision as of 20:39, 8 February 2020
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templates
- 95.145.158.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 95.144.128.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See especially [1][2][3][4]. Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary [5] and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. [6] They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, [7] misusing talk pages, [8] adding poorly written synthesis to an article, [9] and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Insertcleverphrasehere
Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs)
Hi. I'm seeking some clarification here. As you may know, I create a lot of articles, all of which meet the notability requirements. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years or so. However, this user has started to tag all the ones I've created in the last hour or so, via WP:NPP. I've had a discussion with them, but we clearly disagree about this. I find this not to be helpful to see red dots pop up every few minutes with page patrol tags, etc, on these articles, and quite frankly, a time-sink in dealing with this, Any help here would be grateful. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts has been creating single source stubs (they meet the SNG but we require multiple sources for verifiability). I noted that as an autopatrolled user their articles should not have major issues like this, as they can't expect NPP to be checking over their articles.
- I asked them to please add at least two independent references that either demonstrate the GNG or else demonstrate meeting the SNG (each currently has only a single source that shows meeting an SNG criteria). I added the {{more references}} tag to several articles that I saw come through the feed as a group (7 or 8 of them were visible amongst the most recent 20 or so).
- Lugnuts reverted the tag without explanation and without adding additional references. I re-added the tag in places where I could not easily find a second source (I actually added sources to most of them). As for the others, Lugnust has reverted the tag repeatedly without fixing the issue. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, looking at the logs, it is clearly not true that all your articles meet notability criteria. Guy (help!) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is - these all meet WP:NOLY. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, well, that depends how you interpret ‘presumed notable’ (many consider this wording to indicate that the SNG does not create notability, but merely indicates a rule of thumb of what is likely to pass GNG). I actually can’t find sources for a lot of these people to meet the GNG, but anyway I haven’t even asked for that! (I’m aware that a lot of these competitors competed decades ago and there are almost certainly offline sources to meet the GNG). But a bare minimum of at least two independent sources that verify meeting the SNG is required for verifiability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORTS:
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them
. Based on that, if someone has done a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE search and has not found that sort of coverage, then the articles are fair game for AfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- Creffett, Given the time period of these subjects (competed decades ago), I would expect a thorough WP:BEFORE search to include scouring newspaper archives and/or magazines. Since I don't have access to those and have not done that, I personally don't think AfD was appropriate in these cases, and it really wasn't part of the issue here. If the people in question had competed in the 2010s for example, and I was unable to find sources online, then I might consider AfD in spite of meeting the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, oh, sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the articles should be sent to AfD, just adding a third-party interpretation of the relevant rule. Tagging the articles as needing sources seems like a reasonable middle ground to me. creffett (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Creffett, Given the time period of these subjects (competed decades ago), I would expect a thorough WP:BEFORE search to include scouring newspaper archives and/or magazines. Since I don't have access to those and have not done that, I personally don't think AfD was appropriate in these cases, and it really wasn't part of the issue here. If the people in question had competed in the 2010s for example, and I was unable to find sources online, then I might consider AfD in spite of meeting the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORTS:
- Lugnuts, well, that depends how you interpret ‘presumed notable’ (many consider this wording to indicate that the SNG does not create notability, but merely indicates a rule of thumb of what is likely to pass GNG). I actually can’t find sources for a lot of these people to meet the GNG, but anyway I haven’t even asked for that! (I’m aware that a lot of these competitors competed decades ago and there are almost certainly offline sources to meet the GNG). But a bare minimum of at least two independent sources that verify meeting the SNG is required for verifiability. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is - these all meet WP:NOLY. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no minimum requirement of sources. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Generally expected does not equate to MUST, as in must have two (or x) sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, Autopatrolled editors should NOT be trying to quibble about how badly they are allowed to source their articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once, so I'll ask you again - please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (The ping is added automatically as part of reply link, apologies). If an editor is routinely violating 'generally expected' core principles of the notability guidelines they probably shouldnt be autopatrolled. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once, so I'll ask you again - please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, See WP:GNG. No, not all your articles are notable subjects, because some have been deleted.
- Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive. In this case, many of them are based on a single results listing. NOLY is a subject-specific guideline and does not replace the project-wide consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory so subjects must have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.
- This is what Sander v Ginkel was doing that precipitated his ban. Don't do it. Guy (help!) 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some deletions? What, one or two from years ago? We're talking about creations in the last hour or two - let's not create any red-herrings here. "Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive" is it? Please can you show me the policy and or diffs of where this was agreed on WP? Sander was adding tons of into BLPs that had no sourcing. I'm not doing that. Again, anothe red-herring. Please stay on topic about NPP, not someone else's contributions. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Guy has made this very WP:POINTY AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's pointy. I would expect that you know coming here means conduct of all involved is looked at. You've asked for scrutiny of your article creation. From the bit I looked at I found nothing wrong. Guy found something else and decided to use a community process to see what others think. That feels like everything working as it should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Guy has made this very WP:POINTY AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some deletions? What, one or two from years ago? We're talking about creations in the last hour or two - let's not create any red-herrings here. "Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive" is it? Please can you show me the policy and or diffs of where this was agreed on WP? Sander was adding tons of into BLPs that had no sourcing. I'm not doing that. Again, anothe red-herring. Please stay on topic about NPP, not someone else's contributions. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, Autopatrolled editors should NOT be trying to quibble about how badly they are allowed to source their articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no minimum requirement of sources. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Generally expected does not equate to MUST, as in must have two (or x) sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding notability, doesn't, e.g., Lino Elias have BLP issues? Specifically (without having performed research, but taking Insertclever at their word that they are "unable to find decent sources", it only indicates that they are notable for participating in one Olympic game (implicating WP:BLP1E) and do not appear well-known (implicating WP:NPF). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Well, yes and no. I wouldn't take something like this to AfD as due to the time period
(1960s)(edit: sorry; 1990s, but still pre-internet) there are likely offline sources not available through google (perhaps newspaper directories could yield more?). Id personally be happy with two independent sources demonstrating meeting an SNG criteria, at least when it comes to older historical topics/subjects (though other patrollers might be more strict, and I've seen articles deleted at AfD on these grounds). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Well, yes and no. I wouldn't take something like this to AfD as due to the time period
- Comment I'm not really seeing anything sanctionable here, as this is fundamentally just a disagreement about whether an autopatrolled editor is expected to comply with GNG on every article or whether they can lean on SNGs alone, which is a gray area policy-wise. That is possibly a discussion worth having, but I don't think that AN/I is the right forum for it. As an added note, I would advise ICPH to wait more than a few hours before tagging articles. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, With regards to these articles, hours would have added nothing, as Lugnuts has been clear from the start that there was no intention of adding additional sourcing. I'm personally of the mind that tagging after 10 min or so can be valuable if you send a message to the user as well, explaining why you added the tag (they are more likely to be online and ready to fix issues than they are a couple hours later). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Rosguill. I'm not asking for sactions, just clarification. If CleverPhrase wants to drive-by tagging, then fine, it'll just leave dozens of articles with a big tag on the page that will remain on the article for ever. Which is what happens with most tagging I see. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I sent you messages regarding what needed to be fixed. Please don't misrepresent me with "drive-by tagging". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)While I agree that Lugnut's stubs should be better sourced, I'm not sure I see the need to tag them all. A single sentence stub clearly is in need of more citations. Thus adding a tag is...stating the obvious, and contributing to an enormous tag backlog. WP:DRIVEBY tagging isn't very useful. By that same token, a single sentence stub isn't very useful either. The moral here: quality is more important than quantity. But I don't see anything actionable. Lugnuts should be careful to make sure their stubs meet policy, but I can't imagine us removing the autopatrolled tag. And ICPH wasn't misusing NPP either, though their tagging should remain...sensible. But I fault the users less than policy: this issue seems to have emerged out a gap in notability policy, one that should be adjudicated with a formal village pump policy decision, not at ANI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate to tag an article with Template:Refimprove that has one reference clearly demonstrating that it meets an SNG and supporting the facts contained in the article? What a great content discussion. I really would like to have it too as I have strong opinions about it (spoiler: I think one reference can be OK, but there are a lot of howevers attached to that). If this discussion happens (and I hope it does) I hope someone will let me know. But let's look at conduct. What this forum actually can address. Is ICPH doing anything wrong with tagging these articles with ref improve? I would emphatically say no. They are not stalking Lugnuts contributions - they are looking at this kind of article as a set and Lugnuts keeps creating new ones that qualify. Perhaps this could be avoided if ICPH used Twinkle or manual edits to place the tag rather than page curation so Lugnuts doesn't get repeated notifications. 10 minutes is a reasonable time to wait, especially for an editor who is creating 2-4 articles within 10 minute timeframes. As for Lugnuts, I am not thrilled with an editor saying "I am knowingingly creating articles no one will ever improve". I have been creating stubs of my own for Caldecott books. But I'm also working on taking Caldecott books to GA so while they might be stubs now, I would hope to improve them someday to at least GA level. For Lugnuts creation seems to be the end of their desired involvement with the articles. If hundreds of Olympians merely have 2 sentence stubs written about them forever well so be it. That doesn't thrill me at all - especially because unlike my books these are BLPs to which we owe a much higher standard of care and consideration. However, in the end, I don't think there's anything sanctionable there really either. If I thought their SNG creation inappropriate it might make sense to take away autopatrol. But I would be opposed in this instance to revoking Lugnuts autopatrol. So as someone who considers himself both a new page patroller and content creator here I see nothing really wrong with either editor's actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{Refimprove}} and related templates are for unsourced statements. If there are no unsourced statements, those templates should not be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, Perhaps {{BLP sources}} or {{One source}} would be more appropriate in some circumstances, but 'more references' is the most appropriate tag in many cases. Especially where one source is used but that source is inadequate (due to not being a high quality source or just being a stat listing). The wording on the tag does apply to the articles that I added it to in this case, even if the template documentation doesn't consider microstubs when giving advice where to use it and where not to. We don't have a "Microstub with one flimsy source" tag, but I will make do with what we do have. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{Refimprove}} and related templates are for unsourced statements. If there are no unsourced statements, those templates should not be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's not beat around the bush here: these articles are awful. They are database scrapes created not to impart information to the reader but because they nominally meet some low, low, low "notability" guideline. I have never been a fan of creating tons of tiny one-sentence microstubs that send the reader flipping madly from one page to another in search of tiny dregs of information. Don't get hung up with the idea that "meets my crappy SNG"="Automatically entitled to a shrine". These aren't biographies; they are event listings or match scorecards that contain no biographical information beyond a name and a DOB, and even those are sometimes incomplete. A better way to present this information is to merge it into lists like "Foobleckistan at the 1957 Olympics", or "List of San Blortinese Tiddlywinks players". Reyk YO! 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reyk here. An encyclopedia should not be made up of one sentence entries. Reyk suggests some merges, I would also suggest lists. As Barkeep has stated I am not sure there is any sanctionable activity here but I would hope Lugnuts would endeavor to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Just because something is technically not prohibited by guideline or policy it does not mean it is best practice. Regarding Insertcleverphrasehere I think they have done nothing wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think folks have a good point here: there is no doubt that Lugnuts is a prolific content creator. 70,000 pages is truly something. But of those...Lugnuts has a mere 9 FA/GA. Quantity yes, quality...not so sure. Lugnuts, if you're reading: I would challenge you to change how you're thinking about content creation, and try to create some truly "epic" pages. More GA's, more FA's, more pages that show that you really are one of our best content creators. Even if every article you made started as a C class, that would be an enormous improvement over stubs. You certainly don't have to, but its a challenge I hope you'll take on :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reyk here. An encyclopedia should not be made up of one sentence entries. Reyk suggests some merges, I would also suggest lists. As Barkeep has stated I am not sure there is any sanctionable activity here but I would hope Lugnuts would endeavor to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Just because something is technically not prohibited by guideline or policy it does not mean it is best practice. Regarding Insertcleverphrasehere I think they have done nothing wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mass creating stubs is spam. I know not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, but I think it is (and has always been) one of the biggest drains on resources and one of the biggest impediments to the project actually growing. It's just noise, it gets in the way of everything. It kills the article-to-editor ratio. It encourages other spammers. It makes the encyclopedia overly large and unwieldy. It spreads our resources thin. I would prohibit single-source stubs if I were King of Wikipedia. Levivich 05:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the conflict, but I don't think there's any wrongdoing here by anyone, from the creation to the AfD. I also don't think one sentence stubs are a problem as long as the topic is notable. What we need to have is a discussion as to whether WP:NOLY should still grant presumed notability to all individual Olympians. I, for one, would strongly prefer changing it to any individual medalist or sportsperson who passed WP:GNG as a result of their participation, though this could wreck some of our potentially notable historic/non-English speaking articles. I think we can assume any medalist will receive some coverage. Any person medaling in a team sport should look to that sport's SNG or to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will strive to be a bit more diplomatic than Reyk and Levivich here, but I agree with their underlying point. Microstubs were great in Wikipedia's earliest years but after 19 years and six million articles, we need a greater emphasis on quality rather than quantity. In my opinion, it is a really bad practice for editors with the autopatrolled flag to crank out large numbers of microstubs with a single reference. New articles created by trusted users ought to summarize multiple references to reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. That results in an encyclopedia that we can all be proud of. Who can be proud of junk? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think I agree with that. Well, I mean, I agree that we should be doing our best to find sources and avoid microstubs. However, in many cases even microstubs are better than nothing. This is one of the latest articles I created: Bello Monte station. It has two templates, two lines of text on my screen, and one reference. (I could have added more references, and I will do that if someone tags the article, but they will likely be in Spanish anyway). I am sure some users would say it is a microstub. However, two weeks ago there was no information whatsoever on the English Wikipedia on this metro station in a city with several million population - and now there is, location, date of opening, basic history (no photo, but if someone takes one it is trivial to add). Is this really a disgrace to Wikipedia to have this information? If someone has access to specialized sources (which do exist), they are by all means welcome to improve the article, and I will help whatever I can. One can discuss whether having a separate article is the best way to present this information - may be all such articles should go to the list, and only made separate when there is more to say about individual stations. This could be an interesting discussion, and I am sure there will be two sides arguing opposite points. But I can not agree with the notion that I in any way damaged Wikipedia by spending my time to find this information and by creating the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think the key difference is that Bello Monte station is clearly notable - a very quick search and a check of the Spanish-language Wikipedia article shows that it would pass any AfD (there are photos there you could probably incorporate as well.) The problem with these stubs is there's really no way for us to improve them any further, and their notability is based on an unclear SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what a microstub is vs just a stub. The first sentence of WP:STUB is
"A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."
The nutshell saysAn article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub
. I'm not sure when creating stubs became dirty but Cullen is right that attitudes have shifted from the beginning of the project until now. I am not concerned by stubs. I don't think our policies or guidelines supports the idea of stubs being a bad thing - though if push came to shove consensus might support changing that. I am, however, concerned by permanent stubs. If an article is a stub (microstub?) now and there is little reasonable expectation that someone will come along and fix that, well yes I am concerned about that. And I'm very concerned when those permastubs are BLPs. A likely PERMASTUB BLP is true in this case and I hope Lugnuts takes concerns about that on board. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)- Barkeep49, To clarify what I have been referring to as 'microstubs'; these are stubs that have only the bare minimum required to provide barely enough context to identify the subject and what they might be notable for, and expound into no more detail about the person or the person's life. Basically; an infobox (sometimes missing), one or two lines of text, once or two sources (links without WP:SIGCOV and only there to demonstrate meeting the SNG and avoid BLPPROD). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what a microstub is vs just a stub. The first sentence of WP:STUB is
- I've started a discussion about WP:NOLY here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to echo Reyk, Cullen, et al., and perhaps also encourage anyone mass-creating these kinds of microstubs to take a page from my book and make lists from which can theoretically be spun out articles if enough information for a second sentence can be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree lists are far preferable to permastubs. Listifying stubs conserves resources all around, while preserving the content, which can always be spun out later to start-class articles by anyone who chooses to do so. For example, Bello Monte station could be merged with List of Caracas Metro stations (or Caracas Metro Line 5). Levivich 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at Inserts other recent editing, they've been showing battleground behaviour with several editors over various issues. There recently deleted text for seasons articles for many teams that appear to meet the WP:NSEASONS, and redirected the articles elsewhere. Mostly for the current seasons (where previous seasons exist), but also for historical seasons for major teams, such as Juventus F.C.. When they got challenged on that, they pushed to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Charlotte Independence season where they proceeded to argue with everyone that disagreed with them (which was everyone). When that failed, instead of admitting their error and misinterpretation of WP:NSEASONS they started a discussion elsewhere at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Clarification regarding NSEASONS. I'm not sure what's going on here, or the root cause - but something has clearly gone off the rails. Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Are there resource constraints for which you should not make stubs? Definitely no. Should you create stubs with an intent to improve them? Definitely yes. Is mass-creation of stubs helpful? Probably not. If you're converting redlinks to bluelinks, increasing coverage of important topics, by all means do create stubs. It is true that some topics have very limited information on them (unknown species, radical theories being some) even if they are worth being covered, I feel those subjects deserve to be a part of the Wikipedia definitely, their lack of coverage does not mean they do not deserve inclusion, so by all means, invoke WP:IAR and include them. What matters is that if they benefit the encyclopedia, subjective opinions about GNG vs. SNG, resources running out are all red herrings that have no basis. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- QEDK, Your advice is great for content creators, but saying that those are red herrings... they are red herrings upon which reviewers must make their decisions. And when people argue the other side, it results in reviewers getting burnt even when they were in the right (or at least within the ambiguous realm of the policy). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts has not listened to the many suggestions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Willbb234, Lugnuts isn't required to. Our policies allow them to keep creating stubs like that; our page reviewing guidelines then encourage reviewers to tag them for improvement. I'd like it if Lugnuts took time to find and add additional sources, but their not doing so isn't really an issue we need to be discussing here. GirthSummit (blether) 11:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts is a great editor ... however those articles really are poor!, I don't see how stubs like those help or give our readers any sort of useful knowledge ..... Personally I don't see a problem with Inserts tagging here. –Davey2010Talk 22:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Fullmetal2887 violating WP:NPOV
Edits by Fullmetal2887 related to the presidency of Donald Trump show a pattern spanning nearly three years of violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by clearly expressing editorial bias.
- United States Senate
- Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
- Fox News
- Donald J. Trump Foundation
- Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia
The most recent violation, made on 31 January 2020, deserves particular attention because it has widely discredited Wikipedia. It remained online for 1 hour 13 minutes before I undid it. That was long enough for screenshots to go viral on social media. After watching the hilarity ensue on Twitter, I called out Fullmetal2887 at his user Talk page. He did not respond. Two hours later, though, Fullmetal2887 did respond to my request for increased protection of the page he had violated, United States Senate. "I stand by my edit," he defiantly declared, "which was 100% factually correct." Subsequently, back at Fullmetal2887's user Talk page, administrator Fuzheado advised him: "Please stop adding opinionated and inaccurate information." Again, Fullmetal2887 did not respond.
The scandal has now spread from social media to news reports.
The latter outlet, incidentally, misinterpreted Wikipedia's edit history and credited Flyboyrob2112 for the "prank" instead of Fullmetal2887, who began it all before Flyboyrob2112 flew in to repeatedly restore Fullmetal2887's reverted content verbatim.
Fullmetal2887's defacement has also had a copycat effect that exposes Wikipedia to further disrepute. On 1 Feb 2020, first-time user Ethan Pond attacked Democracy, obviously inspired by Fullmetal2887. After reverting his edit, rollbacker Aoi informed Ethan Pond at his user Talk page that his contribution had been undone because it "did not appear constructive." Again following Fullmetal2887's example, Ethan Pond responded defiantly.
In view of Fullmetal2887's established pattern of violating WP:NPOV, I request that he be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. NedFausa (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE pertaining to this edit. If they wish to ameliorate that block with a milder restriction (such as a topic ban), they are welcome to draft an unblock request. But, indeed, having that edit for an hour on the mainspace is too damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. I, for one, am unwilling to take the risk of it happening again without some especially strong assurances. El_C 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Update: There was a third confirmed user to have added that vandalism to the article (all three were indeffed by me), so I have EC protected the page as an Arbitration enforcement action. As mentioned on AEL, will probably downgrade again to semi in week or two — again, please remind me if I forget. El_C 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bad block. @El C: A quick look at Fullmetal's contribs shows that your reason of WP:NOTHERE is false on its face. One bad edit does render an editor NOTHERE. If an otherwise productive editor has a problem with political articles, a TBAN from the community is a lot clearer than forcing an editor to agree to one as an unblock condition from an indef. And your citing concern over Wikipedia's reputation is, frankly, bullshit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, "bullshit," you say? Well, two admins have declined the unblock request so far. But, noted. El_C 15:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think the block was needed to prevent further damage as they seemed unrepentant about the nature of their edits. If they calm down some, I think they should be given an indefinite topic ban from American politics - from their statements and actions, they don't need to be editing in this area. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support indefinite community topic ban of Fullmetal2887 from all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. Weak support for an indefinite community topic ban from USA politics. Oppose the inaccurate block reason, weak support for the block until the community has enacted a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Good block. For completeness, my support for the block was stated at the Talk page of Fullmetal2887 with this edit [10] where I also agreed with rejecting the unblock request. El_C was justified in imposing an immediate block - Fullmetal2887 had a chance to rescind the edit and apologize for a temporary lack of judgment but did the opposite. Instead, the user said "I stand by my edit, which was 100% factually correct." [11] This was a clear indication that the user was not apologetic or contrite, and was prepared to repeat the disruptive, WP:NOTHERE actions again. Now that the user has admitted they are the person behind the Twitter account that bragged about the vandalism, it clearly violates WP:NOTHERE (self-interest, amusing outside parties, editorial dishonesty, lack of interest in working constructively). The user's actions are indefensible, and the admin blocking actions were most certainly justified. With time we can figure out what the right long-term remedies should be, but for now the individual should not be allowed to edit until more uninvolved admins can help evaluate the situation and suggest courses of action. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I opened this thread 1 day 7½ hours ago with a request that Fullmetal2887 be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages related to the presidency of Donald Trump. Subsequently, Fullmetal2887 was indefinitely blocked. Now that he has apologized, both here at his user Talk page and on Twitter, I ask administrators to please reconsider Fullmetal2887's unblock request and sanction him instead as I originally proposed. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have offered Fullmetal2887 a conditional unblock, exchanging the block for a topic ban from American politics plus a removal of that stupid "Drumpf" extension. For details, see here. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
It's always trains - British Rail Class 153 and editing against sources
user:Jwoch & (their IPs) seems to be a single issue account, intent on changing the manufacturer of British Rail Class 153 from one company to another, based on a claim of managing the project. This conflicts with the sourcing of the article.
This has been recorded several times in the past, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources. At that point they were indefed, but later unblocked.
Sadly, although it seems this user is here in good faith, they just don't seem to get it that all the sources disagree with them.
~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also a note that this Porterbrook data sheet doesn't appear to be on the internet - see a search for "site:porterbrook.co.uk class 153". Obviously not a requirement for sources to be online, but when your source contradicts every other source, the Sagan standard applies. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- 109.150.19.176 is the latest IP, and referred in his edit summaries to Porterbrook's website, as did user:Jwoch in recent comments on User talk:Redrose64, but on User talk:109.150.19.176 I have pointed out that there appears to be no such evidence on that website.--David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to get too bogged down in the details. As I read it, they were indefinitely blocked for poor sourcing, and now they are not only still maintaining the same behavior but logging out in order to do so. The first may be a competence issue, the latter is certainly evasion of scrutiny, and combined, that = immediate restoration of the earlier block—with no option for private appeals, no offence @JzG:! ——SN54129 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129, none taken. AGF is not a suicide pact. Guy (help!) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Porterbrook data sheet probably was on the internet at some point, prior to the current site design. See [12] on Archive.org. Unfortunately the data sheets themselves were not crawled. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- 153 Brochure.pdf —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Alex Noble, I unblocked on the basis of a promise to stick to sources. He seems not to get it, still. I have reblocked. Guy (help!) 22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I wish it was always trains. Then we would have only one topic where fans get worked up about things that most people regard as trivialities. I can understand when people get annoyed about Middle Eastern politics or Brexit or whether Donald Trump is a genius, but there are many other things, which are certainly not limited to trains, where nearly everyone just looks on incredulously when they become contentious issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- See User:EEng#EEng's_half-serious_list_of_topics_on_which_WP_should_just_drop_all_coverage_as_not_worth_the_drama. EEng 02:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Imagine if wrestling with trains became a thing. Arghh. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Beauty pageant contestants wrestling with trains. EEng 08:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I should just throw together a random controversial category generator out of those. "RuPaul's Catalan footy career." "Wrestlers who play video games." "Beauty pageant winners with disputed musical genres." "Anime about snooker on a train." creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Beauty pageant contestants wrestling with trains. EEng 08:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Imagine if wrestling with trains became a thing. Arghh. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- See User:EEng#EEng's_half-serious_list_of_topics_on_which_WP_should_just_drop_all_coverage_as_not_worth_the_drama. EEng 02:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
User:RelaxedSloth42
I am reporting User:RelaxedSloth42 for edit warring and impersonation. In this edit, he said Beyonce's soundtrack album The Lion King:The Gift is a studio album. I undid his edit and told him the album was released as a soundtrack album. He undid my revision in this edit and I reverted his revision in this edit. I told him I would report him if he reverts my edit again. He removed the message I left on his talk page and undid my edit before removing his initial entry.
He copied text from my userpage in this edit and proceeded to copying my entire talk page in this edit. I left this note on his talk page asking him to remove the text he copied from my userpage. He did not comply with my demands and removed my note from his talk page in this edit. He also left this note on my talk page, saying his user page "has quite a likeness to yours I'll admit". I don't know exactly what this user is trying to achieve by impersonating me. I'd have reported him for just edit warring but after he copied text from my userpage and talk page, I had to report him here. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Their addition of "It is important to note that, however similar this page may seem to others it is actually unique" doesnt make it any less creepy, either. Whether clueless or trolling, they're still making up stuff as their text lays claim to writing 4 GA's and 145 articles (and they appear to have only edited on two days, 5 May 2019 and February 2020). At the very least it all needs to be deleted. Curdle (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Talk page replaced with custom 4im warning. InvalidOS (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't noticed they were playing games with their talk page too. Thanks IOS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: No problem. InvalidOS (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't noticed they were playing games with their talk page too. Thanks IOS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- User page deleted and salted. If they convince another admin they're going to knock it off, the page can be unprotected without talking to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Versace1608:, remember you have to notify people if you report them here. I have just done so this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, I apologize for not leaving an ANI template on RelaxedSloth42's talk page; thanks for doing that. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 20:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Aek973
- Aek973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 185.17.129.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aek973 seems to think that there is some vast pro-Korean conspiracy on Wikipedia, and that all the evil admins are out to enforce Korean ideology and ban all the Russians (spoiler alert: there is no such conspiracy, and we deal equally with everyone who runs afoul of our policies, regardless of nationality). I ran into Aek at the Teahouse, where they claimed that some users were engaging in socking. I, and many others, tried to be of assistance. It was quite clear however that their accusations of sockpuppetry held no water: they tried to accuse folks of being the sock of User:Theroadislong, which is laughable. I tried to explain to them why it was unlikely that sockpuppetry was happening; i.e. that just because users agree with each other doesn't make them socks. Aek didn't like that, and shot back with this fiesty series of edits. They had already been warned about civility and not casting aspersions by User:Quisqalis [13]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Goguryeo, opened by Aek, gives me further strong nationalist vibes that expresses an interest to right great wrongs. Now, if someone thinks that they can talk this out with Aek, please do. But I gave it a try and it didn't work. Otherwise, take your pick: a block for casting aspersions, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW, civility...oh and if someone does block make sure to get the IP address I've linked at the top, as Aek seems to be using that as well as their account. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Recapitulation. So you're saying an editor here for < 1 week is exhibiting battleground behavior, is changing articles along their own POV, while accusing others of sockpuppetry, and has nommed an article for AfD, while talking an aggressive stance about their own rightness?-- Deepfriedokra 07:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a distortion. You should first look at the cause of the conflict. And a conversation at Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Not_ethical_behavior_of_Korean_users_How_can_I_act_if_he_ignores_this_warning? As well as the history of edits and Talk pages that are the cause of the conflict.Aek973 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to support my conclusion. It does not matter what the source of the conflict is. Please do not accuse those who disagree with you of sock puppetry, or claim a conspiracy among editors to promote an off wiki agenda, or otherwise direct comments at your perceptions of editors. Please discuss content and sourcing based on policy. Please understand that there are more experienced users who understand policies and guidelines better than you do. I would recommend taking a deep breath and heeding CaptainEek's advice. Please understand you are violating a core principal of this project, WP:CIVIL.-- Deepfriedokra 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Below I have already answered in detail about the situation and why there should be equal punishment if there are equal violations. If one side is punished, the other should be punished in the same way for similar actions. Unfortunately, this has not happened for 12 years and this is a huge problem. Aek973 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a distortion. You should first look at the cause of the conflict. And a conversation at Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Not_ethical_behavior_of_Korean_users_How_can_I_act_if_he_ignores_this_warning? As well as the history of edits and Talk pages that are the cause of the conflict.Aek973 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Aek973: Please clarify what administration you are referring to when you say, "But why does such an administration support it? Is that a question? Russophobia or money?". Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t need to provoke me for a formal violation of the rules and subsequent blocking me by manipulating the rules, as has already been done with other Russian and Chinese users, among whom are scientists who have faced the coordinated work of Korean users in upholding the ideals of state ideology in a number of Wikipedia articles.Aek973 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Aek973, We don't block people because of their nationality, we block folks who are being disruptive. Anyone who manipulates our rules or breaks them will find themselves in trouble. I don't know of what accounts you speak of, nor do I know how you know they were Russian or Chinese or scientists, but my guess is they were blocked for good reason. Of the account User:Gnomsovet, which you linked to earlier, they were blocked for sockpuppetry, which was identified using special CheckUser tools. I also have no clue which Korean users you're talking about, or who you think is trying to uphold some Korean ideology, or for that matter why you're so adamantly fighting against them.
- This really is your last warning: either you will be civil and cooperate with folks to improve the encyclopedia, and not cast aspersions of misdoing, or you will be shown the door. This isn't because of your nationality (which I have no clue what it is and I don't particularly care), its because you're being an obstacle to collaboration. Drop the stick, and be nice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t need to provoke me for a formal violation of the rules and subsequent blocking me by manipulating the rules, as has already been done with other Russian and Chinese users, among whom are scientists who have faced the coordinated work of Korean users in upholding the ideals of state ideology in a number of Wikipedia articles.Aek973 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- You are playing "I can not hear." I indicated a link about which specific users in question. He indicated in detail on the discussion pages and on the discussion link which specific problems are being discussed. You just ignore it. And say that the lock supposedly concerns everyone who manipulates - but why doesn’t it concern Korean users who have been doing this for 12 years. in the interests of the state ideology of their country. Why are they allowed to bring the situation to conflict and they are unpunished for their unethical behavior? In addition, judging by the discussion pages of the mentioned users, these are different people. Nevertheless they were told User_talk:Gnomsovet "Even assuming that you are two people, joining a dispute for the sole reason of supporting your acquaintance is meatpuppetry and is not permitted. Personal attacks of course are not permitted either. You'll appreciate that the admins have enforced "the execution of project rules" by blocking you. Huon (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)" Korean users are doing the same, but this remains without sanctions. Anyone can see the history of edits and posts of conflicting articles. See that articles are always and methodically blocked on a distorted version in favor of one point of view - the Korean State Ideology. Moreover, all attempts to present in the articles equally all three points of view are blocked. Articles are rolled back to pro-Korean distorted versions. Always blocked are users who just want to present the position of all three parties equally. Do not remove Korean. And just imagine equally Korean and Chinese and Russian. This is not correct even from an ethical point of view.Aek973 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Aek973, A few points I seek clarified: 12 years? Whos been doing this for 12 years? You? Please link me to the users in question. From what you have said so far and what I can see, you ire lies with three editors. Correct me if I'm wrong. You mention Koraskadi, Jungguk, and Theroadislong. Theroadislong is not at fault in any way here, he is an established veteran editor who has no personal stake and who I'm almost certain isn't Korean. Koraskadi and Jungguk may or may not be Korean, it doesn't really matter. I'm fairly sure they are separate people based on the nature of their accounts and timing of their account creation, and do not appear to be engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. They are two users who happen to agree on a subject. That is not illegal. However, being one person creating two accounts, or one person who solicits their IRL friend to join Wikipedia solely to engage in tag-team editing is illegal. But that does not seem to be the case here. What is the case here is that there was a content dispute. You made this major change to Balhae. It was not neutrally written, and thus was undone. You then engaged in discussion, which is a good thing, and exactly what should be done in such situations. But then, things went south and you started flinging wild accusations, not based in the evidence we demand on Wikipedia. Instead, you should have used, and could still use, dispute resolution. We have disputes everyday on Wikipedia, but we have processes to deal with them. I encourage you to follow those avenues to help solve issues. From a view on the content, I make a note: writings about the controversy around Balhae should probably go on Balhae controversies. But even then, your additions need to be written neutrally, which they did not seem to be. Not that I'm saying that the other folks in this dispute were neutral either. But they were at least civil about it, which is why you're here and they are not. Understand very clearly: you need to cooperate and be civil. These intractable disputes can be solved, it just takes a lot of time, effort, compromise, and research. If you don't think you can approach the topic neutrally, then edit something else. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have carried over and expanded upon my advice on user talk page. They've not edited since posting here.-- Deepfriedokra 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, See above replies, plus a new note on their talk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: They are using more policy based arguments in their discussions. So long as they do not resume the personal attacks and/or aspersions, I think we are OK. Any other admin who believes a more stringent response is in order can do so if they see fit. If problems resume, then that would necessitate a block. -- Deepfriedokra 02:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Aek973 edit warring
While refraining from personal attacks in so far as I've seen, Aek973 (talk · contribs) is now editwarring was on Balhae controversies, if anyone would care to sift this mess.-- Deepfriedokra 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, the edit warring seems to have stoppedd 10 hours ago. -- Deepfriedokra 19:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. me and aek973 have some disputes regarding the article in Balhae controversies, and I think it would be good for none of us to edit article until we come to agreement in talk page for project korea. Jungguk (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- the edit conflict is between
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae_controversies&oldid=939126221 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae_controversies&oldid=939149717 Jungguk (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- With a Diff template: diff=939126221 by CiaPan at 15:46, 4 February 2020, and oldid=939149717 by Jungguk at 18:53, 4 February 2020. --CiaPan (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Sylas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor keeps a heavily disruptive behaviour even after repeated warnings, with the only intention of adding POV-ish, unsourced or very poorly-sourced material to Catalan-related articles and going into personal attacks and edit warring when reverted. Behaviour includes:
- Persistently adding Google Translate links as sources (diff diff diff) as well as deliberately ignoring WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINRS by adding links to other wiki articles, either from this one or from other language projects ("deliberately" here means that they acknowledge themselves they are doing "circular" linking, yet keep doing it anyway, even disruptedly when warned not to do so: diff diff diff diff).
- Tendentious and disruptive editing (diff diff), coupled with edit warring by reverting either without edit summaries or with personal attacks (National Front of Catalonia, Mossos d'Esquadra, Spain or Front Nacional de Catalunya (2013), as examples). User also edited my own user page to call me "fascist" and "anti Catalan" (diff) and uses edit summaries to insult others (diff diff diff) as well as an apparent obsession with accusing everyone, everywhere, of "Catalanophobia" (diff, plus previous diffs).
- WP:THREAT here ("Como lo vuelvan a cambiar sea denunciado el autor por delitós de odio (Catalanofòbia) a l'as autoridades internacionals. Suficients dictadura aguantado este cuerpo").
Shows a battleground behaviour from the very beginning and seems to be here only to push a particular POV. Could be a situation of WP:NOTHERE; in such a case, it should be dealt with accordingly. Impru20talk 00:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to what @Impru20: has stated, making a strong case for WP:NOTHERE, there is the plausible case that Sylas is an alt-account of Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also makes the most of the occasion to drop similar tantrums diff. A possible case of projection.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support indef, vandalizing someone's userpage with "fascist Catalanophobe" [14] is already too far, not to mention the legal threat. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indef them now. The threat and accusation of racism are both things that regularly see their makers blocked on sight. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
I blocked per WP:NOTHERE - the user is here to Right Great Wrongs not to collaborate. Anyone can unblock if they think the user can be talked down from the Reichstag. Guy (help!) 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
History of WP:BLP violations at Mark Normand
- Mark Normand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Defamatory and sometimes graphic BLP violations at least since February 2019. Requesting rev/deletion going back that far. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea to protect the article indefinitely, either. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done What a goddamn mess. I've revdel-ed most of the offending revisions, if I've missed any, please pick up after me. I've semi-ed it for 2 weeks, feel free to up it. And lastly, do not post revdel requests to this noticeboard (please!) Going off for the night. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like you got all of it. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- This article has suffered vandalism bad enough to require revdel both in 2019 and 2020. Per QEDK's comment above, I've changed the protection length to indefinite. This comedian's work seems to get attention, not all of it good. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Can a sanctioned sock return freely?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BecomeFree is apparently the third account of a user who has been previously sanctioned for socking.[15] They seem to be under the impression that it's okay for them to return if they edit different articles from those they were editing when the sanctions were applied. Is this right? The user is making (what I see as) problematic edits to the Carnivore diet article. Alexbrn (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, no user can return if they are indefinite blocked on two accounts per policy otherwise everyone would be doing it. This user should be immediately blocked per policy rules. I was sympathetic at first because I thought he had two accounts and he said the other was due to a mistaken vanishing issue but it appears he was blocked on two accounts, and in total he is now on his third. He also said he would no longer edit controversial articles but is doing it again. He will not publicly disclose his other accounts so we cannot see what he was editing before. I suspect there is a long-case of disruption with this user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- This guy was using four accounts, he has been banned Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's User2083146168 (talk · contribs). Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, Now got an IP newly active at Carnivore diet and a fresh account at Monotrophic diet, making the same sorts of edits - likely socks? Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- BecomeFree has advertised his ban on about 10 Reddit boards, see my comment here at page protection. This is case of meat-puppetry. I think the article should be locked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
QuackGuru
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
So QuackGuru has made a lot of helpful contributions, and is especially good at supplying references. I support people who passionately and thoughtfully discuss content disputes, and several of our discussions have lead to improved content. But I see complaints from multiple editors on various pages about ownership, reverts that other editors found unwarranted, removal of problem/dispute tags without discussion on the talk page, and personally I feel like several of our discussions have been bogged down in wikilawyering, silly semantic arguments, difficulty appreciating the perspectives of other editors, promoting content other editors find to have an anti-smoking or anti-vaping POV, and a lot of just saying "no" to any argument for changing content, even in cases where several other editors agree. These behaviors seem to match some of those listed at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I'd like to work together more constructively, but I'm not sure how to do that, and I notice that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd bring it up here. It also seems interactions with QuackGuru have caused User:Mfernflower to quit working on this topic, which is a red flag that something is wrong with the local Wikipedia culture. The talk pages in question are Talk:Nicotine pouch, Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak, and Talk:2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Beland: I'd be very interested to see specific diffs of where QuackGuru was responsible for
wikilawyering [and] silly semantic arguments
. I took a look through the first of the pages you linked, Talk:Nicotine pouch, and I see a lot of instances where, if we assume QuackGuru is wrong on the substance, his behaviour could be called tendentious wilawyering, but it is outside my area of expertise, and assuming a reported editor is wrong on content, when no evidence of such has been presented, is against normal ANI procedure. (Heck, the last time I filed an ANI report, I did present a mountain of evidence that the reported editor was wrong on the substance, and it was still dismissed as a "content dispute".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)- I think you can be both wikilawyering and also happen to be defending the right content. But it's important to the culture of Wikipedia that the correct content is defended against objections by reasonable arguments that address the concerns raised, rather than a discussion that simply protects content, right or wrong, by exhausting anyone who raises a concern. That sort of frustration and burnout is why we lost an editor, and if objections are heard and discussed fairly, it raises confidence in the objectivity and stewardship of the project.
- To answer your question directly, at Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#NPOV_issues there's a silly argument that seems to be claiming that "some patients are telling their stories" is not supported by an article about teenage patients sharing stories, and that the claim that teenagers are telling their stories can't be combined (as a violation of WP:SYN) with another claim about people in general being hospitalized and testimonials being reported in the press. This is a distraction from the initial complaint, which is that the text in the article isn't neutral. The main defense of the disputed text is that it is referenced, and can't be generalized because it is not supported by sources, even though there were sources referenced in the body of the same article supporting the claim that patients of various ages (teenagers and otherwise) had shared hospitalization stories. It was frustrating to have to literally list out the ages from every case mentioned in the article; it seems no progress is made in the conversation until every spurious defense is directly contradicted in comments. I went along with idea that claims should be hyper-constrained to the words in the source, which made the article text much worse, and so then it was obvious it needed to be removed, and was.
- In Talk:2019–20_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Predicting_the_future_in_a_scary_way, we get into another silly argument about whether or not a claim is speculative. QuackGuru argues both that the claim is not making a prediction, and that the prediction has come true. It seems like I'm just getting whatever argument most strongly rebuts the previous comment, rather than a response that argues reasonable points and is trying to work toward a compromise that takes other editors' opinions into account.
- At one point in that section I tried to break out of this pattern and elicit consideration of the underlying objection. So then why would I raise an objection on the grounds that it's speculative? I asked, and the reply sounded very lawyerly: See WP:NOTCRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." That's for unverifiable speculation. Even if it were speculation, verifiable speculation is not against the rules. Your point is moot. It seems this has been interpreted as any speculation that can be found in what could be considered a reliable source (I'm thinking of you, New York Times) is appropriate for the encyclopedia, which is certainly not the case for medical claims. It does fit the pattern of making any logical argument that justifies keeping the current content unchanged, even if it's gratuitously mypoic and not particularly in service of good writing. -- Beland (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the place for a chat about your disagreement with another editor. Are there diffs showing problems that should be addressed by administrators? What noticeboard or wikiproject discussions have occurred? People have "silly" arguments every day at Wikipedia but even assuming that to be the case, something much stronger would be needed to warrant an ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that characterizing this as "my disagreement" is dismissive of the complaints from and the effects on other editors. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked from editing, but it does not like a good idea for behavior that causes other editors to quit the topic to go unaddressed. An assessment from someone not involved in a content dispute and suggestions for change would be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the place for a chat about your disagreement with another editor. Are there diffs showing problems that should be addressed by administrators? What noticeboard or wikiproject discussions have occurred? People have "silly" arguments every day at Wikipedia but even assuming that to be the case, something much stronger would be needed to warrant an ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hijiri88, seriously? It's what QG does. Far and away the most annoying of all editors-who-are-usually-right. Guy (help!) 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I looked through one of the talk pages linked by Beland, and I saw stuff that could theoretically be sanction-worthy if the editors he was arguing with aren't themselves POV-pushers, undisclosed paid editors, incompetent, etc.; I know we are supposed to assume that they are not, but they are not the ones with an ANI thread being opened on them, so the assumption is rather the other way, pending diffs to the contrary. Effectively dominating the talk page by posting there a bunch of times and consistently placing the burden on the other party might be a violation in theory, but we don't (or shouldn't) sanction editors for doing the right thing in the right circumstances just because it might be the wrong thing if done in the wrong circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- QG sometimes annoys people, but they're heart is in the right place and they don't mean to be annoying. They can be quite ingenuous, and in their own way, almost charming. The proper venue might be WP:DRN. I don't think it's OWN if they are correctly and factually supporting their edits in policy and with RS.-- Deepfriedokra 12:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, QG annoys people, not exclusively POV-pushers and undisclosed paid editors. Do please note that I'm by no means claiming all, or most, of the people he argues with fall into these categories. But I believe, as a personal opinion, that many of them do. The proportion of UPEs in any field is at the end of the day in the eye of the beholder — it's in the beholder's guesswork/individual judgment/experience — that's where the "undisclosed" comes in. QG is a positive for the encyclopedia, and I hope no civility cop decides he'd be even better if we squashed him a bit. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I always think twice before disagreeing with you, but I think we might have different views of what a "net positive" might mean. My idea of a "net positive" editor is one who doesn't have a long history of declaring that anything written in your own words has "failed verification". And my idea of encyclopedic content doesn't include breathless descriptions of trivial like "15-year-old Kegan Houck on September 30, 2019, felt dizzy and vomited after using his friend's vape during school at Owen Valley High School", and it certainly wouldn't repeat that level of detail – whole paragraphs that related the person's age, symptoms, treatment, the names of the medical facilities, and the short-term outcome, based on WP:PRIMARYNEWS – through (so far) 16 separate individuals. That's magazine content, not encyclopedia content, and QuackGuru has steadily resisted any effort, across multiple articles, to provide encyclopedic summaries, or even the principle of Wikipedia:Don't be evil ('cause every Wikipedia editor really wants punish these vapers by making Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak to be the top Google hit for their names for the rest of their lives, right?). This editor produces an enormous amount of friction in the community, and I regard continued participation to be a net negative – not a complete negative, but one whose benefits in resisting changes proposed by potential paid advocates has been swamped by the amount of time the rest of us spend explaining that there's a gap between plagiarism and failing verification, and that encyclopedias do not contain a list of every single hospitalized vaper who talked to a reporter for a newspaper you can read for free online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:
My idea of a "net positive" editor is one who doesn't have a long history of declaring that anything written in your own words has "failed verification".
is a quite extraordinary and outrageous accusation. I don't often edit e-cigs articles or the like, but I have a history of interacting with QG, and he has never once tagged anything I wrote in my own words as failing verification. You really should withdraw that personal attack post-haste. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- Hijiri 88, I do not say that he does this for absolutely everything anyone has written. But I do say that he does this far more often than the average editor, and that he has repeatedly perseverated in declaring that a given statement has "failed verification", even after multiple experienced editors have told him that it doesn't. I also say that he has done this on remarkably flimsy grounds such as using a word that both (a) isn't the exact word in the source but (b) is very widely accepted as being a synonym for that word. Consider, e.g., his insistence that a sentence failed WP:V because it said "young people" when the source said "youth". We have been dealing with complaints like that for years. If you have not followed the e-cig articles, or any of the multiple areas that QuackGuru has been banned or restricted from over the years – I don't think there's a single complete list anywhere, but the 2015 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles is especially relevant reading (don't overlook the pair of diffs in their findings of fact, which show QuackGuru claiming that the WP:DAILYMAIL is a fine source when its POV happened aligned with his, but that other POVs require academic review articles) – then it's possible that you are unaware of the problems.
- Which reminds me: User:Beland, you're in the wrong place. If you think QuackGuru is being disruptive, then you need to take this ArbCom resolution straight to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You are unlikely to get any help here at ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- On your advice, I have opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru. Thanks for the pointer; I hadn't seen that decision before. -- Beland (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- You said he has
declar[ed] that anything written in your own words has "failed verification"
. Conversely,that he has repeatedly perseverated in declaring that a given statement has "failed verification", even after multiple experienced editors have told him that it doesn't
is not what you said, and even if it were, it would still be a personal attack to claim that he has done this even once unless you present evidence. The only diff you provide is from five years ago, of him making a single revert and referring to a talk page section here, where he interacted with four editors, two of whom have as of now made more than 5,000 edits (i.e., could theoretically be called "experienced"), and of those two one was indeffed for sockpuppetry in 2018 -- not seeing how "multiple experienced editors" come into the mix. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- Have you really not seen QG do this? I have, and I don't even edit regularly in these areas! --JBL (talk)
- Hijiri88, dude, he does this all the time. Guy (help!) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hijiri 88, in English, "a long history of ____" does not mean "always does ____ every single time".
- And, yes, I could provide you some diffs, or you could put his name in the AN search box and spend 20 seconds finding many previous complaints. Or you could read the talk pages of any article where Quack's been active for a long while. Or you could read the ArbCom case. Or you could wonder exactly how it is that one editor could end up with separate editing restrictions on (from memory) religion, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and chiropractic, plus a "last chance" warning from ArbCom over exactly this kind of behavior. The diffs I gave you are all in the ArbCom case; I would not want you to be able to dismiss evidence of such behavior as just my own personal opinion that Quack has indeed caused disputes over things like whether youth actually means the same thing as young people (obligatory links to dictionary definitions: wikt:youth#Noun definition #3, definition #2 here, three definitions in two varieties of English there, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- This may illustrate the style of discussion some of my colleagues above refer to. I have had little personal interaction with QuackGuru, so cannot make any first-hand claims about how typical this is, but after reading the comments above, I feel it may illustrate the point. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I should clarify something for all of you who seem to be ganging up on me for whatever reason: I never said "QuackGuru never does X" or even "QuackGuru doesn't do X very often"; what I said was that if you are going to claim (on ANI) that QuackGuru does X very often, you need to present diffs or other evidence. (I also found myself dragged into a silly semantic argument wherein I had to defend the simple truism that he doesn't literally do it with every single time he sees a piece of text that is written in a Wikipedian's own words.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- This may illustrate the style of discussion some of my colleagues above refer to. I have had little personal interaction with QuackGuru, so cannot make any first-hand claims about how typical this is, but after reading the comments above, I feel it may illustrate the point. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:
- I looked through one of the talk pages linked by Beland, and I saw stuff that could theoretically be sanction-worthy if the editors he was arguing with aren't themselves POV-pushers, undisclosed paid editors, incompetent, etc.; I know we are supposed to assume that they are not, but they are not the ones with an ANI thread being opened on them, so the assumption is rather the other way, pending diffs to the contrary. Effectively dominating the talk page by posting there a bunch of times and consistently placing the burden on the other party might be a violation in theory, but we don't (or shouldn't) sanction editors for doing the right thing in the right circumstances just because it might be the wrong thing if done in the wrong circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- QG is generally established as a useful asset, laying down a heavy barrage on the sundry quacks, POV-pushers and icky vested interests that assault the Project. It's sometimes quite a lonely job, as few have had the stomach to address the issues with (for example) our e-cigarette pages. In recent years however, some of QG's artillery has been misdirected, in particular when crying "failed verification" and calling for lifting of exact wording out of sources in ways which range from unnecessary to actually misrepresenting the overall gist of the source. I am reminded in particular of some exchanges at Paleolithic diet, e.g.[16]. While it's probably still the case the overall QG helps the Project, I think the balance has been shifting and if it continues we are going to reach a tipping point. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- See Paleolithic diet: "As of 2016 there are limited data on the metabolic effects on humans eating a paleo diet, but the data are based on clinical trials that have been too small to have a statistical significance sufficient to allow the drawing of generalizations.[3][6][23][failed verification]" The first source is from 2015 and obviously fails verification. It can easily be fixed if others acknowledge there is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that's a different issue to the edit[17] which was in question in the discussion I linked to (and quite apart from anything else, copy-pasting text into Wikipedia with only superficial wording changes raises copyright issues). Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- A source from 2015 cannot possibly verify "As of 2016". There is a lot more problematic content. Stating "Maybe" is not helping. The edit[18] was a bit vague. The source said more than that. It can be improved. See the conclusion. There is a failed verification tag using the same source as the edit in question. Do you acknowledge the current wording fails verification? Would you like it fixed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that's a different issue to the edit[17] which was in question in the discussion I linked to (and quite apart from anything else, copy-pasting text into Wikipedia with only superficial wording changes raises copyright issues). Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- See Paleolithic diet: "As of 2016 there are limited data on the metabolic effects on humans eating a paleo diet, but the data are based on clinical trials that have been too small to have a statistical significance sufficient to allow the drawing of generalizations.[3][6][23][failed verification]" The first source is from 2015 and obviously fails verification. It can easily be fixed if others acknowledge there is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposed boomerang topic ban for Beland
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Beland was warned of the sanctions in December 2019.[19] Beland violated consensus by redirecting the article not once[20] but twice.[21] The deletion review was against the merge[22] Beland deleted content that the outbreak could be more pervasive twice.[23][24] Beland thinks it was a policy violation to include the content sourced to a recent review and is complaining at AN/I about this content. AN/I is not the place to argue over content. This warrants a topic ban for Beland for making an AN/I report against me over a disagreement about the content. Support a topic ban for e-cigs as proposer. QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- You didn’t even bother to identify what topic. Levivich 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a disruptive move on your part, QuackGuru. I suggest you withdraw it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is disruptive to report me here for a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, You may wish to read WP:POINT. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is disruptive to report me here for a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a deeply absurd proposal and the decision to make it is in perfect keeping with the problematic behavior Beland describes. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, gee, QuackGuru. Are you trying to make me sorry I called you a positive for the encyclopedia? This silly proposal of yours is certainly not an example of it. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC).
Propose to close and send them to WP:DRN
- Support as proposer Their highly articulated verbiage is wasted here. It is also misplaced. I recommend they apologize to each other for getting overheated and seek the usual remedies for a bloody content dispute.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support The previous section about a topic ban from is the kind of thing that causes chronic issues in these types of discussions. Two editors have a dispute on a talk page, which is complex because it has a content dispute angle and a conduct allegation. One of them hauls then other one to ANI essentially asking for a "third opinion" (which is another way of saying
An assessment from someone not involved in a content dispute and suggestions for change
. The other editor responds by asking for a topic ban. I predict this will devolve into the usual debates about whether Wikipedia should even have a civility policy. IMHO, these types of things should absolutely have to go through dispute resolution or mediation first before being considered here. People shouldn't be allowed to try to win debates by pulling in an administrator or trying to get people they disagree with reprimanded. ANI should be intractable or severe problems, not as a sort of super charged dispute resolution. Michepman (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the concern about people trying to win disputes by getting the other person disciplined, though there are some complications. In practice, bad behavior of this sort is almost always directed against people who the perpetrator disagrees with, so disallowing people who are in or who have experienced content disputes from filing complaints eliminates most legitimate complaints. It would be nice if objective administrators went on patrol looking for uncivil behavior, and admonished editors on the spot. I don't see that happening in most cases, though I have thought about doing it myself as a way to help close the civility gap on Wikipedia. Right now it seems some topics are alienating to anyone who doesn't have a tolerance for a lengthy, angry argument, just as a function of the personalities who lurk there. As for the problem of people filing disciplinary complaints as a bad-faith way of winning content disputes, I think the best way to deal with that is the way it is being dealt with: uninvolved, hopefully objective people look at the whole situation (not just the complaint) and determine whether the complaint is legitimate, spurious, and whether the complaintant has also misbehaved and deserves discipline. I knew when I opened this thread that my behavior would also be judged, and I think that gives people an incentive to avoid uncivil retaliation when confronted by problematic behavior. -- Beland (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, I don't have a problem with people filing complaints about people they happen to also have content related disputes with. My problem is more the use of WP:ANI, a board that is explicitly for
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems
being used to resolve more general disputes or to seek third opinions / guidance on managing debates between editors. The last time Quackguru was reported on WP:ANI was back in September of last year; if you haven't seen that discussion yet, you can read through it. As you can see, it was a master class in how a discussion on WP:ANI can drag on weeks, ranging haphazardly throughout a range of content and conduct disputes and exhausting the energy and patience of at least a dozen administrators and other editors, without coming anywhere near close to a productive resolution to any solution. That discussion was closed by Barkeep49 with what amounts to an admission of stalemate. I think that this discussion will go the same way, because I am seeing the signs of it in the above discussions (not just the retaliatory accusation against you but the way above discussions are ranging into a discussion on whether QG is correct about the content or whether the people he disagrees should be considered paid editors). I don't know if WP:DRN is the best approach (Hijiri88 makes some valid criticisms of that below) but the current system of using WP:ANI for this does not seem to be solving matters either. Michepman (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, I don't have a problem with people filing complaints about people they happen to also have content related disputes with. My problem is more the use of WP:ANI, a board that is explicitly for
- Procedural oppose No ANI closure should obligate anyone to use DRN until serious structural reforms are implemented that make DRN actually work. The most recent full archive contains two "successful" resolutions, one "failed", and 19 "procedural closes", and of the 19 roughly 13 are actually failed (I'm not sure how "parties refuse to participate" or "one party brought the dispute here in bad faith without using the talk page first" is not a failed dispute resolution) and the other six actually belonged on either ANI or SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- No dispute with QG is ever resolved until he gets what he wants or is forcibly removed. Just saying. Guy (help!) 10:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at one issue. User:Beland requests that an "update" tag not be removed as the that section ONLY has sources from September 2019.[28] Was tagged in this edit.[29] Than was quotes as evidence for arbcom action here. Seriously? If you have newer sources than add them. September is only a couple of months ago. This was seriously frivolous. Yes of course send them elsewere. No arbcom is not the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply to User:Deepfriedokra and others
If there is a content dispute, I am willing to mediate it at DRN. It would be helpful but not required for an administrator to be given a Sword of Damocles after the parties are notified (re-notified) of discretionary sanctions. Any party to the dispute can be warned once and then topic-banned if they do not comply with the rules of the mediation, and blocked for 24 hours for any breaches of civility. Are the parties willing to take part in mediated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let's ask @Beland and QuackGuru:. And a failed DRN should be required before bringing a contract dispute here. Haven't the patience of Robert.-- Deepfriedokra 09:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- We have a policy that covers contract disputes. Contract disputes are usually dealt with by lawyers, and Wikipedia administrators are quick to block in event of anything that appears to be a legal threat. (In one ugly dispute over intellectual property, I wrote that almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia, and anyone has the right to use United States courts and to warn of their right to use United States courts, but that no one has the privilege of editing Wikipedia at the same time as they are warning about the possible use of United States courts. The block came within 24 hours, and has been there for a few years.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply to User:Hijiri88 and others
I will encourage discussion of reforms to DRN at Village pump idea lab. However, many DRN cases were never suitable for content dispute resolution, and should not be considered to be failures of dispute resolution so much as either conduct disputes or good-faith confusion of some sort. I encourage discussion at the idea lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- But if DRN is already being treated as a go-to for disputes that are not about content but about user conduct (as one particularly editor repeatedly claimed was the problem here, for instance) then surely that rather supports my point that DRN doesn't work and/or is being abused by people who don't want to address user conduct even when it is at the root of this or that problem? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Then that would be a failed DRN . -- Deepfriedokra 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming there's a content dispute, I believe it's a behavior problem. One that causes more reliance on dispute resolution mechanisms than should be necessary, like getting third opinions and running RFCs. Those methods have been successful in overcoming obstructionism, but it's just exhausting to have to do that or have a long argument all the time. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Then that would be a failed DRN . -- Deepfriedokra 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
not very civil...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please let this user know it's not very polite to call someone "a prick". Let alone twice.
[[30]]
[[31]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:241C:A99D:28E1:5DA4 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to talk about uncivil, take a look at these edit summaries. – PeeJay 18:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we're dealing with an evading IP, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the /64 was just checkuser blocked, but who knows the mystical reasons behind that. El_C 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Uditanalin
User:Uditanalin is bludgeoning respondents to the MFD for a Wiki-space article he has created, resorting to personal attacks[32] and generally taking a recalcitrant and combative attitude towards established Wikipedia policy[33]. Suspect that this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT issue, as it has been explained to him repeatedly what WP:OR is and yet he believes that Wikipedia should change its policy and structure to accommodate what he believes to be ground-breaking research.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- He's claiming that he has no more to say there, and if that's true I don't think it requires any sanctions against him. Would be fine if someone wants to hat the tl;dr bludgeoning comments there, though, right now that MfD looks like a complete disaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- The MfD will quite obviously end in deletion, or I'm a banana, and I don't think that this editor is interested in anything else other than this research, so why not just let that person bludgeon away without any reply? I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, they are very insistently putting the deletion notice at the bottom of the article, but other than that they appear to have stopped commenting at the MfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Propose a Formal Site-Ban
Actually, Guy only indefinitely blocked Uditanalin. In view of their threat to create multiple sock accounts, I propose that we formalize a community site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I will note that at MFD I originally proposed to move their paper on eigenvectors and eigenvalues to draft space to give them time to publish it. There may be various reasons for the fact that they didn't take up that offer, but those include that perhaps it wouldn't pass academic peer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Carnivore diet
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Carnivore diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is seeing a lot of edit warring and possible sockpuppetry. Not sure whether page protection or user blocks is best here, but could someone please look into it? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I converted the semi-protection to ECP. Hopefully, that will resolve the problem. It looks like someone above said it's meat puppetry from Reddit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- LOL --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Cambial Yellowing
User:Cambial Yellowing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been some ongoing issues with this user and ongoing WP:TE at Douma chemical attack. Any warning or feedback regarding their behavior has been ignored or dismissed as "sanction gaming".
They have escalated the behavior a bit recently, with the accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space, [35]. They also recently advised a newer editor to ignore warnings, telling them that they "have done nothing wrong" after despite their recent WP:ASPERSIONS violation, [36], and sarcastically awarding @Berean Hunter: with a goat in article talk space after Berean bluelocked the article, [37].
I don't know if this level of disruption warrants sanctions, though from what I have seen the bar on sanctions for Syrian Civil war topic areas can be pretty low (they were notified of the subject-area sanctions, [38]). I am hopeful that a clear admonishment from the community and a warning will be adequate to get the disruption and habitual, casual accusations of malfeasance to stop.
Examples of TE:
Additional examples of accusations of sanction gaming by Cambial:
Notifications: [53], [54]. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I'd issue a partial block if I was able. Especially with this edit where he dismisses claims of tendentious editing as
absurd and not worthy of serious discussion
in his edit summary. InvalidOS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Partial blocked from that article. I note that El C blocked for edit warring a while back and might remember the user? Guy (help!) 14:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- This editor is attributing the actions of other editors to me, presumably in an effort to somehow bolster the lack of substance to their case. I have not "sarcastically awarded [anyone] a goat", nor do I know what that means. VQuakr also mischaracterises a talk page message as "advising a newer editor", though the editor in question has roughly 7 years editing experience to my ~9 months. This is not the first time editor VQuakr has attempted to use false reporting of actions as requiring sanction, as a tactic to try to keep editors they disagree with away from certain articles.
- The diffs provided as evidence of TE (and the edit summaries) speak for themselves; they were fully explained, linked to policy, and the majority were reversions to status quo. This editor has already brought some of these same diffs to the ANI as supposed "evidence" but again there was no violation of policy. In my view bringing these same diffs again months later suggests "admin shopping". My warning to the editor, the content of which was entirely fair, against abuse of talk page templates was prompted by an accusation and warning template about pretended 'edit warring', after I made a single edit; this was my first article edit in more than a week, and the first ever regarding the particular material involved. (An edit immediately following was to restore inadvertent wiping of an admin template).
- This ANI post is the latest in a string of ongoing behavioural problems with editor VQuakr. They refer above to "accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space", citing a diff of an edit which came after, and was a direct response to, their spurious accusation of canvassing , and similarly groundless accusation of tagbombing — in the article talk space. To enumerate fully the occasions on which this editor has mischaracterized actions to make them appear improper:
- [55] ("ownership" following the reversion of the addition of a source which, at the time, was considered unreliable by RSN, a fact which was linked to in the edit summary)
- [56] ("edit warring" following VQuakr continuing to add material from this same source without discussion)
- [57] ("edit warring" following a single edit, material on the U.N. website)
- [58] ("personal attack" following a comment on a source being considered unreliable in 'Perennial Sources')
- [59] ("canvassing" following a 'reply to' sent to the last editors to comment roughly one hour prior)
- [60] ("personal attack" following my pointing out that the previous accusation was not acceptable)
- Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper is the definition of WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Attributing one editor's actions to another is WP:GASLIGHTING. I have asked VQuakr to please stop this on more than one occasion:
- [61]
- [62]
- To their credit, VQuakr suggested I take this to ANI previously, but as I stated then, my understanding is that ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". Perhaps I should have done so: but at that point, VQuakr had not actually tried to obtain a sanction against me a second time using these mischaracterizations and spurious accusations. They are now doing exactly that, and I ask that admin pageblock VQuakr from my talk page (presumably they can still ping me on their own talk page (?) if they feel the need to contact me) and temporarily from the article under dispute.
- Regarding this block; the admin has not actually given their justification for it. My recent editing on the specific article has been sporadic, and always with direct reference to policy in edit summaries and/or notification in talk:
- [63] — [64]
- [65]
- [66]
- [67]
- [68]
- I assert that there is no justification for a block in the edits above.
Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually the goat was added by another user: FrankBierFarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Yes, JzG, I remember Cambial Yellowing's block, vaguely. I remember they were quite aggressive at the time, but I got the sense that they have since moderated their behaviour somewhat. But I still get the impression that they lack patience, especially in regards to edits that they consider to be fringe. That said, I am concerned with an opponent of theirs in a content dispute using ANI to remove them from the article (via an indefinite partial block). El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: I missed the last sentence before. I requested they receive an admonishment for their behavior (for which Cambial remains unapologetic), not a block from the article to "win" a dispute. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat. I should have phrased that better in my OP; I was not attempting to mislead. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: that is not what you said, though — phrasing aside. As for encouragement and so on — that is not good enough. You need to attach diffs when you make claims like that, especially for a correction. I also would have expected a semblance of an apology to Cambial Yellowing for the misattribution, but oh well. El_C 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: an indefinite block from the article is possibly too harsh. I would be inclined to give them another chance to self-correct their behaviour. I'm just concerned that concluding the report in this way effectively is deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat. El_C 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: since it appears everyone parsed my OP statement in a way differently than I intended, yes I apologize for being unclear in such a critical situation. It was a good faith mistake, but in such a stressful situation I don't think Cambial's accusations of gaslighting should be held against them. Diffs were indeed included in my OP (and my notifications included FrankBierFarmer), including the diff of the posting of the goat, but I see that that specific diff included the admin's response. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- El C, my problem is with behaviour not content. I am happy to adjust the thing if people reckon that should be done. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:
Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat
— again, diff? Please don't make me look for it. El_C 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- @El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: Please indicate which edit summaries you felt justified a block. I myself linked to the last 6 of mine above and genuinely don't follow. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: yes, the warning on FrankBierFarmer's for his casting aspersions was more recent, and it was much more concerning to me that you appeared to be egging him on regarding that (regardless of any plausible deniability you tried to establish for yourself). I mentioned the goat mostly because it was the only other source of feedback to which you possibly could have been referring. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:
- I unblocked - the entire history of the article is a clusterfuck so unilateral sanction seems unjust. I will fully protect it instead, as those involved all meet the ECP limit. Guy (help!) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: Aspersions is not a policy, but "an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks" policy. Thus your accusation was one of a breach of NPA.
- As you have just admitted, FrankBierFarmer was "musing" about the existence of paid advocates, given the "fustercluck" of POV that the article has become. "Musing" about something is not a personal attack, and your false "warning" is not justified or excused. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Derek Mackay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Afternoon. Can we see some action over at Derek Mackay's article. Has resigned today from his ministerial position amid variety of allegations. However many edits, and some edit summaries are likely BLP breaching. Small sample provided. Also a lot of IP activity for what is going to likely be an evolving story. Thanks[69][70][71][72] Koncorde (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Semi-protected. I'll have a look to see if anything needs rev-deleting. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have posed a pertinent question on the Talk page there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Leedsproject2019 has been moving and redirecting Leeds-related articles from mainspace to WikiProject space. See this, the article "List of people from Leeds" was in mainspace and I noticed that it got wiped and moved to WikiProject Leeds. CatcherStorm talk 15:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- The user did this in error and has agreed to stop doing it. I've fixed all of the moves and deleted anything that was left over in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Offensive language by user:Resujonoi
Offensive language used by User:Resujonoi in my talk page here. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, I have reported them to WP:AIV. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks LakesideMiners. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked them for PAs/harassment - I note that they blanked your
talkuser page earlier, and it's not the first time they've used foul language to berate someone. Just out of interest Fylindfotberserk, do you know what they were talking about with regard to the deletion of templates? They were obviously worked up about something, but I wasn't able to figure out what it was. GirthSummit (blether) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- @Girth Summit: Thanks for asking. That user was deleting ENGVAR and MOS:DATE templates in December, this one for example. So we were asking them to stop deleting those templates in our edit summaries and warnings. Now today, after I removed an irrelevant image from the Farrukhabad article, they started with their "why are you deleting templates" rant. It is likely that they do not know the difference between a maintenance template and an image. Possibly WP:CIR issue. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked them for PAs/harassment - I note that they blanked your
- Thanks LakesideMiners. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat
- SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Disrupting an RfC at Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers.
- Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information. [74] [75] [76]
- Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion, and obviously upset at me over my attempts to bring attention to policy on his talk page [77]
- Dislike of policies being brought up, assumption that the policies may not apply, ignoring discussion to date, and assuming burden is on those seeking removal [78]
- Moved a discussion [79], then assumes I'm making a bad faith accusation about him [80] after I restored my comment to the RfC. It took me a while to figure out what had happened, while he continued to assume I had commented about him. [81] [82]
- When faced with my clarifying that my comment wasn't about him:
I will leave it here; you are being deliberately obtuse, as you have been continually on the talk page. Your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive
[83]
- Dislike of sections of policies being linked in response to his requests for more detail about the policies, accusations of communication problems directed at me [84]
- More complaining about communication, while not understanding why multiple editors identified YouTube as a primary source [85]
- Accuses me of not liking the information in the primary sources [86]
- Moves the goalposts by coming up with potential sources [87]
- And back to wanting policies quoted [90]
- Accusing me of lying, misconstruing policies, and identifying policies in bad faith [91]
- Accusing me of
offered nothing but tendentious obstruction
and identifying policies in bad faith. [92]
I've done some quick refactoring of my comments [93], and am happy to do more.
I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- "I've done some quick refactoring of my comments...". How about refactoring these comments to read: "I'm being a jerk, ignore me. I apologise for wasting everyone's time." CassiantoTalk 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ronz has been disruptive and tendentious in the pre-RfC stage and since it has begun. He has thrown around plates of alphabetti spaghetti of policy/guideline names without actually seeming to understand what he is relying on. (The most obvious one is his first diff here "unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information": this is untrue, I am both aware of what the guidelines say, and they do not say to keep the information out of the article - all that I reverted is cited to reliable sources and acceptable within our policies). He has accused me of removing comments from an RfC (untrue, and I see he claims above he "restored" it to the RfC: also untrue - it was never in the RfC to begin with, which is why I moved it), edit warred on my talk page, accused me of "Projection and disruption" when I have asked him to quote the relevant part of the guidelines he is relying on, misconstrued my comments (more than once) and been dismissive and disingenuous when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him. His second point here ("Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion") is another untruth: I have not dismissed the policy at all - I have not dismissed any policy. The whole basis of these points are incredibly dubious. I have provided a stack of sources to counter his claims on the various talk page threads (dismissed by him as "is there even one good ref in that unlinked list? Guessing the answer is "no" otherwise it would be identified"). Stonewalling on talk pages is rarely helpful, and the !votes in the RfC do not support his position. If you want me to go through each of his points in order to refute the silliness, I'll happily do it, but it all seems such a waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. If anyone wants me for further comment/explanation, you'll have to ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reading the RfC it seems Ronz is primarily the one being stubborn and inflexible. SchroCat is giving as good as he gets, but that's the worst you can say of him. Reyk YO! 19:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - As an onlooker, I've got a feeling that there's going to be a WP:BOOMERANG effect going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Continuing:
- [94][95] - Apparently SchroCat doesn't realize that I'm arguing against undue weight, not against complete removal based upon the two of the seven sources that aren't irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone wondering whether Ronz's obsession with Grace VanderWaal is recent may like to examine a November 2016 discussion on my talk. A topic ban might be required to allow Ronz to focus elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have notified both editors of discretionary sanctions for edits related to biographies of living people. If disruption occurs on the talk page in question, any administrator may unilaterally impose restrictions that they believe will prevent further disruption. Beyond that, I don't see much else to be done here and now except remind the two not to bludgeon the process or personalize disputes. — Wug·a·po·des 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ronz's constant wikilawyering is disruptive to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for almost 14 years, and of all the editors I have ever met here, I feel that Ronz is the one whose contributions have most harmed Wikipedia and wasted other editors' time the most, usually by citing sections of policies and guidelines without understanding the spirit or meaning of those policies and guidelines, and then insisting on his/her interpretation of those policies and guidelines despite numerous other editors trying to explain them to him/her. This has been going on for years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Re editor Ronz's statement "Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information." True, but a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the policy previously cited as the rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in my opinion. The very name of the policy link should make it clear. Section 8.3.3 is part of "Role of Administrators". If material has been deleted by an admin, and an editor requests an admin restore it, then 8.3.3 is triggered. There's no policy stating that non-admins have the power to delete the material then cite 8.3.3 in preventing its restoration. That said, I could be just as wrong as I think editor Ronz is on that matter. In my time here on WP, I've engaged in the formal lawyerly side of the process about as rarely as I find gold nuggets in my Cracker Jacks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Role account?
Dominatricks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Does this edit mean that it was made by a role account? I have zero experience with role accounts. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would interpret it that way, yes. The wording's pretty unambiguous. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
A slightly tangential question I had about the account was whether their editing counted as a conflict of interest. The article isn't about an organisation they represent, but it is about an event they are organising (but as a government agency they aren't making any money out of it). It somehow strikes me as inappropriate, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Number 57 21:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- A conflict of interest doesn't have to involve money. Anyone editing an article about an event they are organising clearly has such a conflict. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Tired of reverting promotional and unsourced content by a COI account; in fact, Wikipedia's magic sensors won't allow me to revert the latest edit, thinking it's vandalism. See also the article talk page, which has another version of this. Asking for reversion to the last acceptable edit, and a block of the disruptive account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted and warned in my dif. Someone beat me to the partial block.-- Deepfriedokra 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Cluebat needed on Balija
Balija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protection and EW clueiron required. Ideally by someone with an inclination towards Indian caste issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- While you are at it, you can hit Andy Dingley with a "civility ban hammer". 2600:1003:B846:797D:A876:3B24:39A3:548F (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
IP is unnecessarily Removing my Contents with Perfect Reference in the article Balija
- 49.206.124.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An IP address of 49.206.124.217 is always removing my article in Balija page. eventhough i created it with Perfect Reference so Please Block him or take necessary action on him to prevent editwarring. Please consider this admins — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)]] comment added by Sathyanarayana naidu (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning
I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).
- "Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part.
- G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"
RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.
- Hmmmm.
- Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Horse Eye Jack
See: User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
User:Horse Eye Jack's focus is to purge several media sources from all articles, for not a WP:RS or even remotely close. (see here). According to Horse Eye Jack, an editor should not revert this purge, since [u]nless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. (see here). According to me, this is ridiculous. WP:CHALLENGE tells us, that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The content deleted by Jack was sourced. However, since this user doesn't believe in the reliability of the given sources, he deletes the sourced material again and again. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia, and it drains the fun of editing it.
At the edit-warring-noticeboard, someone advised: "if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues." This I am doing now. And I want to ask the administrators: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Its worth noting that when i interacted with Horse Eye Jack he repeatedly re-added content, claiming the burden was on me to justify removal. He then reverted the last hand full of things in my history example. Its worth noting that he did respect the eventual consensus from an RFC i submitted about the disputed template page, so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh yeah I remember that one, still can't believe that Who's Nailin' Paylin? gets almost 7,000 page views a month. Who the heck watches that sort of thing? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note that the source Jeff5102 is going out on a limb for is Middle East Media Research Institute, and they wanted to use it on a WP:BLP page. The relevant talk page discussion (which Jeff5102 abandoned back in January) can be found at Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben. I note that despite the talk page discussion being abandoned over a week ago I have not imposed my preferred edit on the page. Anyone can look at my editing history, the idea that my "focus is to purge several media sources from all articles” is simply untrue. My focus is on building an encyclopedia using high quality sources, my work speaks for itself [96][97]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- A link to all your contributions is hardly convincing, you will have to do far better than that. You obfuscate when given the chance, not going unnoticed, opening the question to whether you ever discuss any political matter in good faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you for the notification, Jeff. Before the AN/EW thread is archived, here is the perma-link to the thread that was opened. For now, the only thing I have to add beyond the thread contents is: when he had sided with a user whom I had reported on at AN/EW, and said user turned around to launch what is indisputably a sordid personal attack, HEJ had not only failed to condemn said user, but turned around to use WP:NPA as a battering ram against Zanhe's mildly worded criticism of HEJ's knowledge. Insidious double standards and WP:GAME to escape sanctions at AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm talking about your horrid record, not what any sanctions should be; neither has anyone else, so far. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- So I'm not an admin, and I believe that I am uninvolved, but can't stand the sight of back and forth argumentation. Isn't the onus on Jeff5102 to achieve consensus for the inclusion of disputed content? I very well may have misread the situation, but it seems to me that HEJ challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed. (Although, perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the policy definition of "disputed," in which case, I'm wrong). Surely reinstating the content from the source being challenged is not enough refute the initial challenge? The idea that the only alternative is to
give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia
strikes me as both a strawman and against the very principles of determining things through consensus building. Additionally, to quote WP:BLPRS,any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source
- it sounds like there is no consensus about MEMRI as an RS, meaning that it's inclusion is indeed unacceptable. Lastly, a minor point, but I was under the impression that WP:NOTTHEM was solely for use in unblock requests? I sincerely apologize if writing this comment was inappropriate of me, but I felt compelled to do so by what I read as a misuse of policy. If it was indeed inappropriate, I gladly retract it. Darthkayak (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. This is my problem indeed. Any right-wing editor can make a case that CNN fails WP:RS while presenting some Fox News-, Project Veritas- or Russia Today-references to prove that. Then, CNN is disputed, and since "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed," that is a free pass to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. I am all for building consensus. However, if an editor plays the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, and is not prepared to change his opinion towards the majority view, then things get very tiresome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- The user is indeed focused on removing the sources, even if it's accompanied with other RS. Such as at [98] and the numerous other edits (as brought up at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion). The users focus is purging sources and has less focus on material, as is seen in his/her rapid speed in which the user removes sources without regard to the article's content. --Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, CGTN... Who recently published a report entitled By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang[99]. As for the text vs material question if the material is sourced to multiple sources and only some of them are unreliable or of disputed reliability why in the world would I ever remove the material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff5102: Just to make my previous comment more clear, I'm agreeing with HEJ that removing solely MEMRI-sourced content is the appropriate course of action - as noted, there is no consensus as to its reliability, and I think it's on you, Jeff4102, to try and build such consensus before the content can be added. As for your CNN example, it is not comparable to MEMRI. Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the general reliability of CNN - it would take your hypothetical right-wing editor a lot more than some Fox News, Project Veritas, or Russia Today references to
remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia
. There is no such consensus on the reliability of MEMRI, and as such (if I'm understanding BLP correctly, which I might not be), editors have the duty to remove solely MEMRI-sourced content from BLPs, and likely from other contentious applications if they doubt its veracity. Darthkayak (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I've already expressed my opinion about Horse Eye Jack's behaviour at WP:AN3, and EvergreenFir suggested that it's more suitable for ANI than AN3. Since someone else has now started a complaint against him on a different issue, I'm just going to repeat here what I said before: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN (see archived thread), and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up (the Wikilawyering CaradhrasAiguo was talking about). -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- If anyone takes the time to read the RSN discussion Zanhe linked its a good one, my favorite part is this argument from Zanhe for why we should consider Chinese state media to have editorial independence and a reputation for fact checking "Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control).” Zanhe you’re mischaracterizing my argument (which was the uncontroversial "Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting."), I note that we were the only two editors who participated in the end of that discussion so yes technically neither of us got any support for our positions. Per our conversation on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack#Please stop removing sources you already know I object to your characterization of my argument on the RSN, why would you repeat it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Possible rangeblock?
There's ongoing trolling re the alleged whistleblower from BNSL addresses (an Indian mobile operator), often triggering Special:AbuseFilter/1008.
- 117.209.176.0/20
- 117.209.184.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 117.209.224.0/20
- 117.209.227.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 117.219.208.0/20
- 117.219.220.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 117.249.128.0/20
- 117.249.134.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 117.249.215.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 117.251.224.0/20
- 117.251.232.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
There may well be more, log entries for the abuse filter are suppressed. Is this worth rangeblocking, or should I just carry on playing whack-a-mole? Guy (help!) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Based on checkuser results, the vandal has access to the following ranges:
- 117.209.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- 117.219.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- 117.245.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- 117.249.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- 117.251.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- There is fairly high collateral damage. If we consider their activity significantly harmful, I suggest hardblocking all of the ranges for not more than a day or two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- DragonDancereturns420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consistent history of overall disruptive editing from vandalism in articles to a user page that even says they're "not here" and the use of a racial slur on a user talk page. The user should be indef'd for this unexcusable action. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indef'd. WP:AIV could have worked for a report on this user as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Richinstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Long term promotional account, with some copyright violations today. Appears to work in public relations for the university. Hasn't responded to messages re: copyright, advertising or COI. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was drafting a thread at ANI while the IP posted (that was fast!) This was brought to my attention by a report at WP:AIV by the IP. The IP warned the user regarding UPE and asked them to disclose any association (Special:PermaLink/939634821), all of which was subsequently removed without any reply (Special:Diff/939636212). Seeing the contributions, it is obvious that there is some connection between the subjects they edit and themselves, whether it is COI or UPE, I'm not sure about, and in such circumstances I'm not comfortable making a UPE-block, whereas other more experienced adminstrators could have made a call. So, it's probably better that this is discussed at a centralized venue. If you're replying about something I said and not the issue itself, consider pinging me as I'll be away working on a bot! Thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a really long term promotional editor. I say 'really' because this dates from six years ago, when the user may have been editing on behalf of a different institution [100]. And [101]. Thank you, QEDK. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, yes. I'm fairly new to the mop corps so I'd rather leave it up to the oldies, as I'm not that well-versed with UPE blocks, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not intending to belabor the obvious, nor directing that at you. Making it more transparent for subsequent readers. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, yes. I'm fairly new to the mop corps so I'd rather leave it up to the oldies, as I'm not that well-versed with UPE blocks, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a really long term promotional editor. I say 'really' because this dates from six years ago, when the user may have been editing on behalf of a different institution [100]. And [101]. Thank you, QEDK. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- The point of a block would be preventing further similar contributions if warnings don't help; it is currently not entirely clear if this is the case. The user has received their first warning about the topic today, after 10 years of registration. It is probably reasonable to use {{uw-paid1}}, and possibly even {{uw-paid2}} and {{uw-paid3}} before blocking the user. That said, I guess neither qedk nor me will hesitate to do just that if needed. I think we can close this thread; this is being dealt with. Thank you for noticing the issue, dealing with the promotional edits and filing a report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, none of this is true. Just trying to help edit pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richinstead (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You mean like this [102]? And this promotional text and copyright violation [103], or this [104]. Or this [105]? Or this [106]? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess both of you are correct – trying to help and making mistakes aren't mutually exclusive. I still think this can be closed now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- No problem with closing, and I appreciate your diplomacy, ToBeFree. My response has been based not only on the lengthy history of promotional edits--one can't simultaneously take credit for years of 'helpful' contributions and claim ignorance of the most basic premise of neutrality--but on the unwillingness to own years of unacceptable edits. Instead my report was referred to as 'fake news.' So no, I'm not inclined to offer slack. There's not a clear indication that they understand what's unacceptable about their edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess both of you are correct – trying to help and making mistakes aren't mutually exclusive. I still think this can be closed now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?
- Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Greetings, for "disclosure" I am a reader and rarely an IP editor of Wikipedia who knows my way around.
I noticed a section missing in the article Grsecurity and investigated the edit history to find it was originally removed on January 24 by a brand new user "Trollcleaner" who edit warred and was subsequently blocked. Another account "Vox araneae" then repeated this removal with a long edit summary, and this account has also only edited the article Grsecurity and its talk page. This account made similar edits to the page as long ago as June 2018 and was created on "17 June 2018 at 20:16" according to Special:ListUsers.
If the content removed is actually inappropriate to the article or not is up for debate, but the fact that more than one single purpose account is POV-pushing may warrant at least a block if not a sock investigation to see if there are any more accounts. Someone should take a look at this and possibly reinstate the removed content for now (including that removed in 2018, if appropriate in light of these odd editors). May even be worthwhile to do a minor rewrite, but that's neither here nor there right now.
Looking further into the page's edit history right now, there are actually more accounts that have done similar and only edited Grsecurity, including "Juniperridge", "Altheacynara", "Spender2001" (has also edited Address space layout randomization), and IP 188.235.237.93 (but just one edit).
Someone should also notify the user(s), according to AN policy at the top of this page, but as an IP who can't be bothered with wiki politics I'll leave that to someone else.
Please forgive any faux-pas in my posting, and thanks.
50.32.224.60 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Users notified:
- Trollcleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vox araneae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Juniperridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Altheacynara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Spender2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 188.235.237.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Article details: Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. The removed section and the associated edits contained false facts for several months, such as "Spengler lost the appeal" (that didn't happen until just recently) and "GPL2 with restrictions", that none of the so called contributors to that section bothered to fix or substantiate. There clearly is POV-pushing, but from those accounts that edited just that section or have suggested and/or attempted similar edits only, actually contributing nothing or misconceptions at best (which I had to fix) on the actual subject. I also resisted the attempts to remove the relevant technical content and tried to discuss changes. But time have shown that the removed section attracts too much people that just push their agenda, and that it doesn't belong to the article dedicated to software. I suggest all the genuinely interested contributors to start an article on OSS, Inc. and/or the "controversial" court case, and contribute there in accordance to the established Wikipedia standards.
- As for calling my account single purpose, I do confirm that it actually is. The purpose is to prevent slander and vandalism that keeps being done to the article about the software I actually use professionally and know well (unlike the many other so called contributors with multi-purpose accounts) for more than a decade.
- Vox Araneae (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but nothing in the article (regardless of which recent version) appears to me to do anything to establish that this 'set of patches for the Linux kernel' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Most of it reads like an advertisement, listing endless unexplained features. Rather than waste time trying to figure out who is right regarding this content dispute, it might be simpler to delete it entirely. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're missing the basic fact that many other articles on specific information security subjects lack third-party sources just as much, due to the very limited number of competent writers and therefore publications on these subjects out there. Besides, most of those "endless unexplained features" are, in fact, minor, have very limited scope and pretty much self-explanatory descriptions. All or most of that is rather obvious for a reader interested in systems security. And just like the great many articles e.g. about mathematics don't have a 101 math course as a part of every one of them, grsecurity article doesn't explain e.g. how chroot works, what scope/limitations/flaws it has as a security measure and how grsecurity chroot restrictions address/affect some of those. Not that it shouldn't reference any other articles or external sources, and not that those sources are non-existent (e.g. see this list: https://grsecurity.net/research - care to investigate and contribute links?). But of course none of the "concerned" anti-grsecurity people are interested in actually making the article better. They would rather have it trimmed down to a few description sentences and a "GRSECURITY BAD" section that retells Bruce Perens' opinion and alikes, preferentially (for them) taken out of context (as was attempted before, with Linus Torvalds' opinion (see this talk thread) and present them as facts for readers with less technical background and factual knowledge.
- Anyway, if you have any particular suggestions about which features need to be explained or folded into more concise descriptions and how, don't hesitate to make them. For example, with my recent edits I tried to make the PaX section more comprehensive and comprehensible for the reader, and the same could be done to the rest of the article, even though more information also needs to be added in the process.
- Vox Araneae (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- To expand on JzG's suggestions, any expansion of the article needs to start by telling the reader why this particular bit of software is of any significance. Has it been the subject of third-party reviews? Is it actually in widespread use? As it stood, the article told us a great deal about 'features', while doing nothing to establish that anyone really cared. Evidence for that comes from third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not passing mentions in technical papers, but in-depth coverage. The sort of coverage that justifies inclusion in an encyclopaedia. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of connection to the subject. As I said, I'm a grsecurity user, for more than a decade. Everything I ever got from the project (i.e. the patches themselves) I got for free, without undertaking obligations of any kind. I also contacted them on IRC and via email and always received free support, again, without undertaking obligations of any kind. However, I have a deep respect for the authors of grsecurity for their self-integrity and the work they have done and continue doing, as well as for that they did it for free for about 15 years. I believe such experience is common among the other long-term grsecurity users that didn't happen to rely on intermediary party (e.g. Hardened Gentoo) support only, and that it doesn't create a conflict of interest for me. I also don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia. However, I also think that it doesn't deserve to have its page being vandalized by the people promoting a hateful agenda. Yet since that's exactly what happened to the page in the past couple of years (and the past few months, btw), as I see it, and since no one else tried to prevent that at the time, I decided to do it myself and registered the account shortly afterwards.
- If the above circumstances are enough to create a conflict of interest according to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia standards, then I really wonder what kind of motivation a volunteering editor should have, not to be accused of COI.
- Vox Araneae (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- "I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Kingboyk's indefinite NOTHERE block of User:Trollcleaner. The others listed above may or may not have a COI. It would be beneficial to have an article on Grsecurity, though it would take some patience to produce a well-sourced core of material that would actually be informative. If the article were fully reviewed at AfD my guess is that it would be kept. The Register is interested in the GPL licensing court case and keeps reporting on it. The Register gets a pass from WP:RSPS ("The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..") I believe that LWN.net should be usable as a source for technical material. Pulling in long lists of features from the Grsecurity web site is not going to be useful. If the article is going to mention any court cases it should probably insist on using genuine third party reporting, not any court pleadings or any statements from the parties to the case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- "I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Pudeo
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made an unprovoked personal attack, accusing three editors of WP:Tag team editing. According to the essay, Wikipedia's definition of tag teaming is "a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." The only evidence Pudeo cites is that the editors have edited some of the same articles.
I requested here and here, and Objective3000 requested here, for Pudeo to show evidence of coordination or strike their comments. Pudeo refused, and instead doubled down.
I would like for an administrator to rectify this in accordance with the warning at the top of WP:AE: "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." Thank you. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- MrX I can't possibly see how there is a
personal attack
in the first link provided. Please quote/be more specific. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)- @Willbb234:
- "It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour[107]."
- "Based on the editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up."
- From WP:NPA"What is considered to be a personal attack?... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Lazily showing that editors edit some of the same article is not serious evidence. - MrX 🖋 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Willbb234:
- I wonder why does this need to be here and not in the AE thread you opened about SashiRolls (talk · contribs), who similarly has said that you tag-team and what that thread is about? In fact, I did provide some diffs in my AE comment. As I mentioned on my talkpage, there are 93 articles that you, O300 and Snoogans have edited within 10 minutes of each other according to the editor interaction tool (I still find that result incredible). Writing my own analysis that you tag-team is not a personal attack in an AE thread where your own behavior is being also evaluated as a filer. --Pudeo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Spam by Mdendr
About one and one half years ago User:Mdendr was warned about indiscriminately adding links to the site http://www.epistemeacademy.org with no attempt to integrate the addition to the structure of the article. Similar edits were made around 15 March 2019, although no warning was issued at that time. The behavior resumed today, for example, [108] and [109]. Editing links to this site seems the editor's primary activity in recent years. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The irrelevant linker is back
Following the expiry of the block due to this ANI thread, this same range is doing it again: [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. Pinging @Narky Blert, Samwalton9, Serial Number 54129, Boing! said Zebedee, RexxS, and Bbb23: from the previous discussion. ミラP 22:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I thought maybe they'd given up? I've seen only one example in the last month or so (1 day IP user, 5 edits, 3 reasonable-looking, 2 piles of rubbish reverted).
- See also Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Still mostly disruptive changes, very unlikely to be constructive. I've re-blocked the IPv6 /64 range for a little longer. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note. Experience suggests that it only or largely edits in sections titled "Tokusatsu". Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Three years is way too long. I've reduced the block to six months – even the stickiest addresses typically don't stay allocated to the same person for that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- This editor bounces between IPs like a Super Ball in a squash court. (A mate tried that once, with a black one. The ball shattered on impact, and he and his opponent spent the next few minutes cowering in the corners until the fragments came to rest.) I've seen addys in both the 1xx and 2xxx ranges; few used for more than a single day, and often stale when found. Long blocks risk collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Still mostly disruptive changes, very unlikely to be constructive. I've re-blocked the IPv6 /64 range for a little longer. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Alex-h
Edits by Alex-h show a repetitive pattern that violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and OR.
- First
- He wrote that
They have taken this decision on the request of some Iranian artists who have already boycotted the festival.
,but there is nothing in the source about two Italian directors in his first edit. In addition A source which was inserted after a while, says thatA group of prominent Iranian writers, poets, playwrights, and actors have asked two Italian stage directors to stay away from the Islamic Republic's official Fajr drama festival
. The source does not say the festival is boycotted. There is nothing about the effect of this request by Iranian actors on making a decision by Italian directors! - The Source says that
Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions.
but he just wrote thatAli Khamenei, said that under the school of thought of Khomeini people should fast like in Ramadhan.
- The source says that
"Several members of the victims' families have been forced to participate in interviews with the regime-linked media and stress on their allegiance to the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader," a foreign-based Persian website, Zeytoun, reported on January 23
, but he wrote thatIranian regime’s agents force families of victims of the downed Ukrainian airliner to have interviews on state TVs declaring their total support for the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Otherwise, the government won’t deliver them the bodies of their loved ones.
. It is the claim of Persian website, Zeytoun reported by Radio Farda, but he mentioned it as a fact not claim of Zeytoun. - The source says that
Some injured protesters, including those with painful wounds, did not seek hospital treatment for fear of arrest, Amnesty International (AI) reported
, but he wrote thatHuman Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, report that ‘’’many’’’ Iranian protesters wounded in November demonstrations, still cannot use hospital attention as they may get arrested.
the source doesn’t support “many”. - The source says that
Mohammad Maleki, died of a bullet wound he had received on January 25.
, he wrote thatTwo injured protesters, Mohammad Maleki, 23 and Amir Ojani, 43 years old, died in last days of January, of acute infection and respiratory problem.
There in nothing in the source about Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection.
- Second
While he was warned for using trash sources, but he repeated the behavior again and again, see that cotton, themediaexpress, ncr-iran, ca-news-forum. He uses unreliable sources for stating extraordinary claims which need extraordinary sources.
- Third
Most of the time, Radio farad was being used by the user (1], 2, 3, 4, 5)As user: Winged Blades of Godric explained here, Radio Farda is not an unbiased RS in these domains (with a controversial history), given that it is funded by a state which is hostile to Iran. He did not use it with attribution and I illustrated above he uses it for his OR and saying as fact while they are just the claim of Radio Farda. Thanks for attention!Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Jeanette Wilson page
I have recently discovered a Wikipedia page set up in my name. It is libelous and malicious and was the work of a group of individuals who call themselves the Good Thinking Society - they are trying to stop my UK and NZ tour. I have a screen shot of their facebook group post congratulating themselves on the creation of my page. Please can the page be taken down ASAP -
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Peace11111 Please withdraw your legal threat, or you will need to be blocked. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. While it is certainly your right to take legal action, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both simultaneously. I've already explained how you can address allegedly libelous content, which you seem to have done. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
IP 110.33.138.212
Hello, I have an issue with 110.33.138.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) arising from edits on 7 February to Alec Douglas-Home, which is a featured article. The IP began with an edit to main narrative which duplicates information that is already held in a footnote. I contend that the information is trivial and should not be in the narrative of a featured article, though it is perhaps worth mentioning in the footnote. I reverted the edit and emphasised the trivia aspect in my edit summary. The IP restored the statement and I reverted again with a request that they follow the terms of WP:BRD and raise the issue on the article talk page. I also pointed out the duplication aspect. The IP restored the statement again with what amounts to a personal attack.
I have no intention of going anywhere near WP:Edit warring. The IP has ignored my request for BRD and, given their attitude in the edit summaries, I doubt very much if discussion will achieve anything. I see in the person's contribution history that a similar attitude was displayed at 2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill when Nick-D twice had to revert and later inform the IP that personal opinions cannot be included in articles. The IP appears to favour indiscriminate information along the lines of "this was the only time that...." Examples of this approach can be seen at Geoffrey Palmer (politician), Walter Nash, 1960 Australian Labor Party leadership election, 1974 Australian federal election and, most recently, Bob Ellicott. This stuff tends to be added as single sentence paragraphs which are of course deprecated and, much more importantly, it is never sourced.
I have left the Douglas-Home article alone since the last restoration as I would prefer a consensus on the matter. If that should go against me, fine, but I would argue that the statement is duplication of WP:IINFO which reduces the quality of a featured article. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Chinese Wikipedia User "钉钉" Block request
Hello? My Name is "브릴란떼(Brillante)" I'm From Seoul, Rep. of Korea
- 钉钉 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user attempted to edit the "Yeouido" document several times, making photo disturbances close to vandalism, which prevented other users' free editing.
On the bus ride on 21st December, 2019, I took Yeouido directly with my smartphone and recently uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons and started using them in Yeouido documents. No, it was a biased way of returning to the past. I clearly told myself that it was a photo I took myself, but I continued to abuse it as if it was a clean picture.
We ask for the proper handling of this user and leave a link.
This is My Picture
Thank you. --브릴란떼 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- (Reply from a non-admin) Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that photos taken on a bus are automatically accepted, this seems to be a content dispute, about the relative merits of two photos. Which should be discussed on the article talk page. I suggest you start such a discussion, before an actual admin notices this thread and decides to block both of you for edit-warring. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just stumbled by accident on this vandalism that has lasted for almost 2 months. Someone'd better include such pages in their own watchlist.. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Incivility help
There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor @Darkknight2149: has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [116], [117], [118] [119] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"
- Popfox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [126], [127] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).
- @DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [128]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [129]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [130] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.
- Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.
- I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I can not untangle this, and it seems to be undergoing a lot of conflicting edits and original research. What I can request is that someone run a copyright violation check on this, because it seems to be an issue for large passages of the article. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Pankaj Koch at Talk:Rajbongshi people
Blatant threat of legal action by disruptive editor User:Pankaj koch here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that that is a blatant threat of legal action, but could well be interpreted as an attempt by someone without English as their first language to say that they will take action within Wikipedia, which is allowed without a block. I see that the user has been blocked for this by User:ToBeFree, but would personally not agree with that block without further clarification about what was meant here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)