Line 1,312: | Line 1,312: | ||
:Note, by "harassment campaign" I think he/she is referring to eleven different socks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeke1999/Archive] I've got blocked who were active at this page (all of whom also blanked the lede repeatedly and complained that CNN was "leftist"). [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
:Note, by "harassment campaign" I think he/she is referring to eleven different socks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeke1999/Archive] I've got blocked who were active at this page (all of whom also blanked the lede repeatedly and complained that CNN was "leftist"). [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
=== |
===[[WP:AE]]=== |
||
Please consider moving this proposal to [[WP:AE]]. LavaBaron, I believe you do misunderstand [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Gaffney&diff=731103089&oldid=731101869 this post] by Ocdgrammarian; it's a parody of the immediately preceding post by RunnyAmiga (note, not by LavaBaron, and no, RunnyAmiga is not an admin), not an actual suggestion of a dastardly conspiracy by Barack Obama. OCD is making a rhetorical point. I won't comment on your other points, as I prefer to remain uninvolved here. However, I have advice for you both: LavaBaron, I think your proposal would go better on [[WP:AE]]. You can refer to the discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and for biographies of living people there, compare my formal alerts on the user's page. And Ocdgrammarian, being unable to create diffs really hamstrings you in these kinds of discussions. I urge you to read the instructions in the [[WP:Simple diff and link guide|Simple diff and link guide]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC). |
Revision as of 14:16, 23 July 2016
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) |
|
E.M.Gregory's latest actions
A few days back, I started an AfD discussion for 2016 Ramadan attacks, which was created by E.M.Gregory. Since then, he has committed actions that wander into WP:BADGER territory and fail WP:AGF.
First off, he directly accuses an IP user of being a WP:SOCK account for Ianmacm without providing any evidence outside of the diffs (which don't indicate much of anything), and instead of taking the issue to WP:SPI where a professional could've verified his suspicions.
Second off, he puts an edit summary that assumes the people voting for the article's deletion are basing their arguments on the grounds of WP:IDL, even though these people (including me) have given legitimate-sounding reasoning based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
Third off, he makes it clear in his edit summary that he suspects Ferpalnum and has tagged the user as a WP:SPA, along with more sockpuppet suspicion, though Ferpalnum insists he is not based on when he opened his account.
Fourth off (and I find this one to be the most hilarious of them all), he sends me this message on my talk page, right after he explains why his article should be kept.
Now, it's honestly fair game either way if his article is kept or deleted, but E.M.Gregory's recent behavior is rather troublesome (not to mention irksome) and it needs to be addressed properly here in some way or form. Parsley Man (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the above seems to be fairly normal behaviour.That first comment was wrong, the sockpuppet accusation falls under PA and the comment he sent to you was uncivil. On contentious AfDs its fairly normal to note an editor with little or no prior editing experience andit's normal to ask the question about sockpuppets when you think its the case (although he should have taken it to SPI). He's free to have his opinion on why another editor is voting, if he thinks its because of WP:IDL that's his right and he can note it if he likes below their comment so long as he isn't being malicious about it. I don't know why he sent you the message, but, it doesn't seem to be a PA or anything malicious, just a bit sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Given the comment, I'm just going to point out that E.M.Gregory has been active here since 2014. Not sure if that constitutes a "little or no prior editing experience" editor to you, but just saying. Also, I'm not sure what exactly constitutes WP:PA, but given the fact that I was the one who created the AfD (on an article he created, mind you) and E.M.Gregory has a history of what Ianmacm mentions as "failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits", I'm pretty confident the message he sent to my talk page was a personal attack. Parsley Man (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you misunderstood. The editors with little or no prior experience on the AfD, not E.M.Gregory. The message he sent you was uncivil, the accusation of sockpuppetry is PA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. But his assumption that people are voting to delete his article for WP:IDL reasons is still a violation of WP:AGF. I for one won't hold it against him if the article is kept; I just find the material very sketchy and questionable. And everyone has been making sound arguments about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you misunderstood. The editors with little or no prior experience on the AfD, not E.M.Gregory. The message he sent you was uncivil, the accusation of sockpuppetry is PA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to start writing "disclosure; non-admin comment" for all of my comments at AN/I from now on because I've been confused for an administrator far too many times at this point. So, Disclosure; non-admin comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Doc9871, you're being kind: let me just add, Mr rnddude, that those very comments aren't very adminny. No, a person is not free to just post on-wiki whatever they think. That message wasn't sarcastic--it was assholish. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- What? Drmies where am I being an asshole, and Doc9871 I've had one user ask me to close their thread as an admin (on AN/I) and I've had one user ask me about a block. They were both very new though. I know anybody who's been here longer then a month would know that I'm not, but what about the complete newbies who just got here. But, whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, Drmies wasn't talking about you, Mr rnddude. He was talking about E.M.Gregory. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, the comment that I called sarcastic. Mea culpa, I misunderstood. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, Drmies wasn't talking about you, Mr rnddude. He was talking about E.M.Gregory. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- What? Drmies where am I being an asshole, and Doc9871 I've had one user ask me to close their thread as an admin (on AN/I) and I've had one user ask me about a block. They were both very new though. I know anybody who's been here longer then a month would know that I'm not, but what about the complete newbies who just got here. But, whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Doc9871, you're being kind: let me just add, Mr rnddude, that those very comments aren't very adminny. No, a person is not free to just post on-wiki whatever they think. That message wasn't sarcastic--it was assholish. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very annoyed about the sockpuppet allegation and would have let it ride if it had been a one-off. However, there is a pattern of failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits. The request on Parsley Man's talk page is outside the range of acceptable conduct for an AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though,
I'll review them now, see if I can see the relation or not.No, no I won't, since the accused has already commented about it, didn't see it was you Ian that was being accused. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)- With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did have a look, if I were to consider my personal experience with Ian and these comments my conclusion would be this. The first diff, not a similar speech pattern although conflated, Muslim and Islamism showed up a lot on the Islamist terrorist attacks talkpage... now I wonder why that is, it couldn't have anything to do with the people conflating Muslims with Islamist could it? (sarcasm of course). The second diff, there's nothing alike, Ian is in my experience civil even patient, casting aspersions is not his MO. The last diff, anybody, literally anybody, could have said that. On Wikipedia saying "Gone ahead and done away with that section as is..." is like saying "Hello, I am currently doing work" in the real world. The diffs substantiate the accusation of sockpuppetry as much as a broken egg substantiates a murder conviction. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though,
- Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Given the comment, I'm just going to point out that E.M.Gregory has been active here since 2014. Not sure if that constitutes a "little or no prior editing experience" editor to you, but just saying. Also, I'm not sure what exactly constitutes WP:PA, but given the fact that I was the one who created the AfD (on an article he created, mind you) and E.M.Gregory has a history of what Ianmacm mentions as "failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits", I'm pretty confident the message he sent to my talk page was a personal attack. Parsley Man (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- If one doesn't know what one is talking about one should perhaps not comment at length here. For once (stop the press) I am in total agreement with Only in death: unwarranted sock allegations are personal attacks (they violate AGF, for instance), and these were unwarranted. Thanks Only in death for stating what needed to be stated. This comment, "perhaps send a donation to a hospital in Medina, Tel Aviv, Dhaka, Orlando or Istanbul", that is so asinine that I'm a bit speechless, for once. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. I'm sorry, you may not be talking about me. But, seriously...were you? Or were you addressing Mr rnddude... I got confused by your comment there... Parsley Man (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- He's talking to me. Though for which part, I don't know. If it's sockpuppeting, then ok, if its the comment, I'm honestly not moved, it appeared and to me still appears sarcastic, rude but sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wish I could believe that the message he sent me was sarcastic, but given that he sent it literally five minutes after he explained why his article should be kept (check the time stamps if you're not convinced about that), plus the other actions he has committed in the AfD discussion, I have a strong degree of certainty that he was trying to force me to change my vote and/or guilt-trip me (in regard to his mention of the "hospital donations"). If the message was indeed sarcastic and nothing more, well, then he should've timed it better, because sending me that message soon after he explained his position in the AfD is a pretty questionable course of action... Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is the comment I'm talking about, the comment mentioned in the first section of the case. It's E.M. Gregory's comment. Mr rnddude, my disagreement with you is over your uninformed and hasty commentary on the socking thing, as if making sock accusations is simply a matter of free speech. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The matter of free speech? I said he should have taken it to SPI, the free speech was for his opinions on why the editor is voting (IDL). I do however apologize and strike my comment on socking, since I was still wrong, sorry am human. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wish I could believe that the message he sent me was sarcastic, but given that he sent it literally five minutes after he explained why his article should be kept (check the time stamps if you're not convinced about that), plus the other actions he has committed in the AfD discussion, I have a strong degree of certainty that he was trying to force me to change my vote and/or guilt-trip me (in regard to his mention of the "hospital donations"). If the message was indeed sarcastic and nothing more, well, then he should've timed it better, because sending me that message soon after he explained his position in the AfD is a pretty questionable course of action... Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- He's talking to me. Though for which part, I don't know. If it's sockpuppeting, then ok, if its the comment, I'm honestly not moved, it appeared and to me still appears sarcastic, rude but sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. I'm sorry, you may not be talking about me. But, seriously...were you? Or were you addressing Mr rnddude... I got confused by your comment there... Parsley Man (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Been sort of following the AFD and !voted early on... gotta say I'm unimpressed with EM Gregory's behavior so far and sorta glad I wasn't the one to initiate the AFD (though I was tempted). EM Gregory recently blanked their user talk page, but there seems to be an uptick in recent problematic behaviors in the past few month, including even a 1 month topic ban on Arab-Israel conflict. Pre-deletion talk page at this link. There seems to be a strong interest in Islamist terrorism, but judging by AFDs, ANIs, and the sanctions, I'm wondering if this strong interest is becoming disruptive or interfering with their ability to edit constructively as part of a team project. There are general sanctions for ISIL articles (WP:GS/ISIL) which the AFD in question is related to. IMHO, the current behavior alone warrants a warning. However, (1) this current behavior, (2) what appears to be an increase this problematic behavior recently, (3) the sanctions for the topic, and (4) the recent topic ban loosely related to the topic make me think admin intervention is reasonable. Someone with a better understanding of this user's past behaviors (like Ricky81682 who imposed the topic ban) might help here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the AfD...you're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you... I think? :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The prior topic ban was based on this close and was based on a combination of massively inappropriate BLP-violating comments on talk page (this and this kind of pointless, divisive, drive-by commentary) and a ridiculous BLP violation changing that a living person had ties to an organization that called on Turks to murder Armenians to stating that the person himself called on Turks to do such that (based on a Swedish-language source) as an "error" was enough for me to drop the topic ban. As of right now, I'm leaning towards making it permanent based on BATTLEGROUND nonsense like this. I'd give some leeway towards it being an AFD discussion but this is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the AfD...you're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Respond that I first met IP 70.27.162.84 and IamMacM here: [1] (top of page), and you will see how I took the IP for the alter-ego of a long-standing editor. I did not bring it to this board, merely to the talk page of the IP were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive Here: [2]. I had gone back to IP 70.27.162.84 's talk page to soften my comment by suggesting that the attack on me might have been not deliberate sock- or meat-puppetry, but a careless failure to log in. I did not leave such a remark because the response form Ian (not from the IP, only form Ian at that point) appeared to confirm that he was using the IP to make nasty attacks he had the good judgment not to do in his own name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you were really suspicious about the IP user, I will repeat myself, WP:SPI exists to investigate such suspicions. There was no need to make direct accusations against the parties involved. Parsley Man (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Respond Editor Ferpalnum weighed in at the AFD on 2016 Ramadan attacks with an intensity and aggressiveness that led me to look at his editing record, which showed that he had started editing only a few days before the AFD began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- "were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive" Why would this surprise you? you pinged them to the page, of course they're going to respond to the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Over the years I have been involved in many AfDs, and this is the first time that one has led to a sockpuppet allegation. As stated above, 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [3]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [4] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [5] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: . I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This edit was a sincere suggestion meant in good faith? If you sincerely believe that, I strongly suggest you consider reading about etiquette and tone in communication. To me and other folks here, it was an insincere, assholish thing to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think you could've worded the message way better than that if you were really trying to be sincere. It doesn't help that that was literally the first post you made right after you explained your vote to keep the 2016 Ramadan attacks article. "The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion"? With that timing, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were thinking your vote was all it took to justify keeping the article and that you were trying to force me to withdraw my nomination. Parsley Man (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: . I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I really would like an uninvolved admin to respond to this. Don't wanna see this archived without a proper conclusion, because I do think it needs to be addressed in some form... Parsley Man (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, EM's behavior has veered from merely annoying to now quite uncivil over the course of his career here, and it's making editing and discussion in the general topic area quite a laborious task. I was considering opening a case myself recently, but didn't notice this until now somehow. I'd be glad if someone could sort this out. ansh666 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't anyone going to address this? Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- To User:Parsley Man, in my opinion there is no action to be taken. And the issues have been addressed, in that this ANI proceeding happened, in which you criticized E.M. Gregory and you obtained support from others who also found fault. All of this is punishment delivered to E.M.G. I have been there in both roles: I have been pilloried here at ANI with people chiming in negatively and I experienced that as the punishment it was intended to be. And I have been here with a legitimate complaint or two or three and found that no one was taking any action when I felt it was darn sure that something should be done. Here there is nothing so darn sure. What you and others seem to focus on most as somehow horrible is that E.M.G. suggested at your Talk page you retract your AFD, just after they argued Keep in the article. That diff has been given three or more times above. I think that the kind of suggestion EMG made is perfectly reasonable and I believe I have done that. When I think the article should be kept, and when I think the AFD nominator can also see that the nomination was not justified (or at least the situation is not like they thought), and when nudging them on to do the right thing can get them to withdraw it. That would cut short the drama of AFD which in general a negative experience, and it would save other editors' time. Obviously you are sensitive and did not interpret EMG's suggestion as a polite nudge to go ahead and do the right thing. You find it foreign and interpret it to mean something it did not, in my opinion. EMG's suggestion to withdraw was followed by suggestion to make a donation, which is unusual, and I can see that you could wonder what was meant by that. Another here said they interpreted that as sarcasm. EMG has replied they earnestly meant it, and that is what I then believe. Assume some good faith here, and wouldn't EMG have gone on with sarcasm if they had meant the first to be sarcasm?
- I think this ANI proceeding should be closed. There certainly is no evidence adding up to requiring any negative action; at most one or two or more persons could be advised to be careful how they say things and/or be careful how they interpret things. But if no one who regularly closes things here wants to take it on (because it takes some effort to give a good summary and smooth things over where things should be smoothed), I think it is also okay to just let this fade away without a formal close. Parsley Man made their complaints, they were heard. --doncram 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bless you, Doncram. (I am not certain if this is appropriate, but when I heard about last evening's atrocity, I made a donation to a fund for victims. It relieves the horror better than getting irate on Wikipedia does.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Uh...since when did I start thinking the AfD I started was not justified, or that it wasn't turning out like what I had thought it would? I have absolutely no intention on withdrawing the AfD and will wait until a decision to delete or keep the article is made. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to vote because I'm far too involved, but I will say that this is not new (or even recent) behavior. Issues with Matthew C. Whitaker eventually (months later) revealed on the talk that the whole article was the result of EMG seeing plagiarism by the subject as "unprofessional behavior." In short, he didn't like the subject and wrote the article as a pseudo-biography to basically discredit the subject as much as possible by coatracked every single article he could find about the plagiarism cases into it while cherry-picking quotes to support said position. He also attempted to tie the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack to migrant crime by Muslims based on rumor alone, and then threw a quote from a Swedish white supremacist politician in to try to make into a bigger deal in the country than it really was. Reality indicated the perp was an Eritrean Christian, and several Swedish editors fixed the issues. I also seem to recall a conversation on a I-P topic talk where EMG fought to call a source neutral when it clearly was not, again because it supported his argument. In short, he edits articles with a goal in mind from the outset, coatracks sources to further that goal, and then can't understand why others don't see what he does when the sourlces often don't say what he thinks they do. He has clear biases, which is fine, except if one is going to write about every single Israeli who has ever been killed, such as Shooting of Danny Gonen, and then turn around and write articles on Islamic terrorism. In short, what is being brought up now as "escalation" is the same behavior we've had all along. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I stand behind my behavior in writing and and continuing to edit each of the 3 articles mentioned. As MSJapan's accusation that I had a personal grudge against Matthew C. Whitaker; it is quite simply false. I have had no contact with Whitaker, his institution or this case, which I read about in the news. I do regard plagiarism as "unprofessional behavior." My error, my first contact with MSJapan, was when, as a still very inexperienced editor leaning the WP lingo by cutting and pasting code from the edits of other editors, I somehow managed to mess up a comment made by MSJapan that I was merely attempting to copy some phrasing from. I apologized as soon as the mistake was called to my attention. She has been flinging accusations at me ever since, on the Whitaker page and on others. Once she brought my editing of Matthew Whitaker to this board; no sanctions were imposed. Her accusations about the IKEA stabbing attack are equally false. This was a stabbing by "Eritrean asylum seekers" my edits are there; I consistently described them as "Eritrean asylum seekers" precisely because that was all that was known about them at the time. You can read my edits. As far as I can tell, her claim that I was supporting a "white supremacist" is a badly garbled account of the fact that I added news reports about an uptick in support for the Christian Democrats (Sweden) and comments made by the deputy speaker of the Swedish parliament, Björn Söder in the wake of the Ikea stabbing attack in a section on "Impact". This was early in the refugee crisis, I was in and out of Sweden and other parts of the continent last summer, watching the migrant crisis develop with astonished fascination, and wrote and edited a number of articles on aspects of it (Hungarian border barrier). In the Ikea stabbing attack article, as with the 2016 Ramadan attacks that launched this discussion, feelings run high, different editors perceive these events very differently, tempers flare, and editors fling accusations. I trust that the closing editor here will read the personal attacks against me made at the 2016 Ramadan attacks AFD (some by editors commenting above,) the intemperate accusations flung by MSJapan on the talk page at Matthew G. Whitaker, and the talk page and edits at 2015 IKEA stabbing attack before rendering judgment. As I said, I am human and I do make mistakes, but MSJapan's description is highly colored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- sigh. I should perhaps mention that I have had cause to refute MSJapan for his tendency to misread, misinterpret or misunderstand WP policies, or, at least, to mis-cite them to win a debate or fling an accusation on talk pages and, especially, at AFD. For example, on that original Whitaker page she accused me of COI [7] I responded [8]. Today at an AFD for a "Murder of..." article, he wrote that "WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death" to which I responded [9]. I seem to recall that he has made similar assertions, and that I have called him on them, at 1 or 2 other AFD discussions in recent weeks; I cannot recall which discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A short defense of E.M.Gregory
For the past few months, unbeknownst to him, E.M.Gregory has been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet who turns up on whatever Middle East/Islamic terrorism-related article he happens to be working on and reverts or disruptively revises his work and abuses him on the talk page. The incident that sparked this very thread involved this sock (editing as an IP) wading in and inflaming tensions in the middle of a good faith dispute that E.M.Gregory was having with another editor. This resulted in E.M.Gregory losing his cool and accusing the other editor and others of being the sock.
E.M.Gregory is now fully aware of the sock's identity and hopefully won't go accusing other editors from now on. In addition, until fairly recently E.M.Gregory was hounded by a left-wing editor (who is not party to the discussion, so I won't name them) who nominated seemingly every other article E.M.Gregory created for ideological and personal reasons.
I won't defend E.M.Gregory's short fuse and constant accusations of bad faith, but he has created a lot of good, well-researched articles, particularly related to religion, which is a topic which is often sneered at by some in the Wikipedia community. Remember that it takes a lot more work to research and write a new article than it does to vote "Delete" in a deletion discussion. I am also certain that "not notable" is all too often a codeword for "not interesting" to the editor or to the Wikipedia demographic. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh. Who would've guessed that the IP editor was a sockpuppet, but E.M. just accused the wrong person of being the sockmaster. Well, color me surprised. Parsley Man (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, but E.M.Gregory should be careful before accusing other editors of being sockpuppets on their talk pages. This is not what talk pages are for. If a user suspects sockpuppeting with good reason, they should file a formal WP:SPI with the diffs involved. Otherwise, it is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the editor involved, and is a form of badgering the other user.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I second that. It also makes the user look bad and could damage credibility, I might add. Parsley Man (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, but E.M.Gregory should be careful before accusing other editors of being sockpuppets on their talk pages. This is not what talk pages are for. If a user suspects sockpuppeting with good reason, they should file a formal WP:SPI with the diffs involved. Otherwise, it is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the editor involved, and is a form of badgering the other user.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikihounding discussion
- Thank you, AnotherNewAccount. It is true that I have sometimes lost my cool, and also true that [[User:Parsley Man noticed this when it happens among thousands of edits because he follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, behavior for which he has been cautioned on his talk page by an editor with whom I an wholly unacquainted. [10]. Certainly, I do feel that I have been unduly harassed by editors who make little effort to be collegial. A particularly remarkable example of harassment was the nomination of 3 articles I was involved with for deletion by the editor who was the harassing me, for what I perceived as political reasons. One was an article that I had created 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, one was a SeaGlass Carousel (for speedy deletion), and the third was 2012 Paros (Greece) rape (an article I had happened on at AFD). At the AFD on the Route 60 ambush, Nom described the incident as having had "no lasting significance.' (Note that I wrote that article 12 years after the event; far more difficult than creating an article about a recent attack since sources disappear and become hard to find by searching (spellings of perps's name vary; keywords like "shooting" "Hamas" etc. are so common). Still after 12 years of stories in major international newspapers, the incident did seem to merit an article. My iVote to KEEP read: "*Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusation. Since when have I been hounding you? And really? The AfD nomination of 2016 Ramadan attacks was NOT for political reasons. Parsley Man (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you're not going to respond, then I'm just going to assume it's just an empty, unfounded accusation. On ANI, no less. Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Any editor who cares to, although I hardly see why a sane editor would, can compare your edits and mine. It's all on the record. You have been WP:HOUNDING me for well over a year, almost since the moment you began editing. Nearly every day, you follow me to a series of disparate pages just as you did today; [11], [12], [13], [14]. Sometimes, your edits are disruptive (I have complained about a fraction of these on your talk page.) Now you have dragged me to this page. Mostly, however, your HOUNDING edits are minute changes or improvements in an article I have just edited; they have the impact of making editing creepy and unpleasant; like being WP:STALKED. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I hate it. But you know that. We have fundamentally opposing perspectives on major issues, and I suppose that your purpose in WP:WIKIHOUNDING is to drive me off Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Taken straight from WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the examples you just provided, I don't see how my edits qualify as hounding.
- Yes, I do follow you around, and yes, I guess my first "hound-edits" have been aggressive (I forget now). But I can say for sure that I dropped that attitude now. Everything I've been doing right now (such as in those examples) has just been constructive edits, if anything, and not anything direct such as undoing your edits or recklessly challenging you in edit summaries or on talk pages. All the recent hashing-out between me and you has been happening on this ANI as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if my "constructive edits" imply something else to you, but if you feel there is some other implication, please specify, because I'm sure I didn't mean it.
- But long story short, my recent edits have been nothing hound-like of the sort. Unless I'm literally not supposed to edit on any articles you've edited, are editing right now, or will edit (if Sir Joseph's contribution below is anything to go), in which case there's going to be a problem for me, because that potentially means locking me out of a lot of articles that fall under the mass murder and terrorism categories, possibly others. In other words, a topic ban. And I'm not sure if that's justified... Parsley Man (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- This, [15] certainly seems like hounding to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority are in the same topic area, and current events articles (and associated discussions) mean quick edits from everyone. ansh666 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know tht it is tedious to look through that long list of articles, I have the advantage of remembering them, and knowing how widely they vary: minor poets, scholars influential within in narrow fields, neo-fascist news sites, and Captain Video and his Video Rangers (don't ask). It is a long list, but if you look closely you see that it is a diverse and improbable list to have come randomly or natrually to two editors. Abovce I linked to an editor on Paarsley's talk page who noticed the pattern months ago and warned him to stop dogging my steps. But even with the "shooter" and terror attack articles, many of the ones he followed me to were small incidents or older pages, with few or no other active editors. In other words, we migh randomly have both shown up shown up at July 2016 Dhaka attack, but what are the odds that any two editors, even with an interest in mass killing attacks, would both show up (Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi AND also both show up in 2016 at 2006 UNC SUV attack, Norma Lee Clark, 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack? I mean , Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine...
- To see how particular his pattern of following me to odd articles for no purpose is, however, please look at Tyler Anbinder, James Peddie (author), Rajan Menon, Kuruc.info, The New Rambler, Eric Peters (musician), Steven Lubet, Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney, Blakey Vermeule, Mary Heimann, Captain Video and His Video Rangers, and many more as arcane and random as Captain Video and His Video Rangers. I'll stop there, although it is only the tip or a remarkaple iceberg. He had been tireless in following me to article after article to little purpose, then drags me here when I finally lost my temper. This is not a coincidence of interests. It is a case of an editor, me, being followed by a fellow editor who dislikes my perspective on terrorism and my focus on mass shootings (which I think are often notable and ought to have pages) and is trying very hard to drive me off the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're being a little paranoid. Please read that WP:WIKIHOUNDING excerpt I posted earlier. Yes, I can admit we don't agree on some things, but I don't see how adding or removing some punctuation, and probably changing the format of the dates in citations in the cases of some articles, equates to an organized effort to force you off of Wikipedia. (If there's anything else I did, please let me know.) Parsley Man (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Re "If there's anything else I did, please let me know." – Maybe this ANI complaint? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, I meant during my edits. Parsley Man (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Re "If there's anything else I did, please let me know." – Maybe this ANI complaint? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're being a little paranoid. Please read that WP:WIKIHOUNDING excerpt I posted earlier. Yes, I can admit we don't agree on some things, but I don't see how adding or removing some punctuation, and probably changing the format of the dates in citations in the cases of some articles, equates to an organized effort to force you off of Wikipedia. (If there's anything else I did, please let me know.) Parsley Man (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority are in the same topic area, and current events articles (and associated discussions) mean quick edits from everyone. ansh666 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Concerns about Adam9007 declining speedy deletion nominations
I am concerned about Adam9007 (talk · contribs) continuing to patrol articles nominated for speedy deletion for not asserting importance (CSD#A7) without understanding the criteria. He is removing CSD#A7 tags from articles that have no reasonable assertion of importance:
- Shreyansh Jain SK
- Reuben Haines III
- James E. Wolfe
- Imitiaz najim where in the ensuing AFD , the editor quickly commented "Snow delete:" after declining speedy
Several Dozens of editors have tried discussing this with this patroller on his talk page:
- User_talk:Adam9007#Credible_assertion_in_speedy_deletions
- User_talk:Adam9007#Secrets_of_how_starting_your_own_business
- User_talk:Adam9007#CSD
- User_talk:Adam9007#Removing_CSD_deletion_tag_in_Imtiaz_najim
- ...
None of us appear to be making any progress in convincing him that his wholesale removal of CSD#A7 templates is not constructive so I'd like some additional comments here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags. Just because you don't, you think I'm being disruptive. You're not the first person to think that. I am seriously getting very close to quitting Wikipedia over this. I follow consensus to the best of my ability. I really hate being branded disruptive over it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Branded or not, there are dozens of folks in your talk page archive that have brought this to your attention and you refuse to get the point. It is now disruptive in my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Adam9007 James E. Wolfe and Shreyansh Jain SK are clear A7 deletions – they do not assert significance, plus they're unreferenced. When we talk about association with notability, we're not talking about someone's husband or wife unless that person is notable on their own. Reuben Haines III claims significance as a founder of the Franklin Institute but there's no reference to support that. Please explain your reasoning for removing those first two A7 tags. Katietalk 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. If working with such a person is a CCS (and i have had people agree with me on that), then being married to in addition to that most certainly is a CCS. References? Irrelevant for A7. Credible (plausible) claims are enough. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unreferenced is not a CSD criteria. It is a criteria for BLPprod, but if people are tagging articles for speedy deletion because they are unreferenced then at present it is OK to decline those CSDs. perhaps in some cases replacing with BLPprod or AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007 is one of the few editors I've come across that could inject a little more WP:IAR into their editing and little less absolute determination to follow policies and guidelines to the letter. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- A7 is purposefully a lower bar than notability, and Adam9007 does a lot of good work removing improper tags (e.g. this A7 tag removal that was later overwhelmingly kept at AfD), though like those who apply A7 overzeaously, can also remove them too frequently. The first and the last in the four should absolutely have been speedied as A7. The Wolfe article said he had been a hip-hop music pioneer in Tennessee, which is one of the most important US states for music, so without doing a Google search it could be seen as possibly above the A7 threshold, but a quick Google search of those claims shows that it's likely hyperbolic and non-credible. But the Haines article explicitly stated that he was a founder of two prominent Philadelphia institutions, both of which had articles, and is certainly above the A7 threshold. I don't see a need for sanctions beside a reminder to raise their A7 threshold a bit, check for the likeliness that A7-passing claims are hoaxes or otherwise exaggerated, and to use PROD more when declining A7s. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Patar knight nails it on the head, in my opinion. I have disagreed with Adam before, but I have also seen him properly saving several articles. Speedy deletion operates in a spectrum, and I think it's healthy to have a range of opinions on its application. That being said, I do hope Adam recognizes that he sometimes runs too close to the edge of the spectrum and accept some feedback.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I am in the middle of writing an essay in the hopes of avoiding discussions like these. Although it's not finished yet, shall I link to it here? Adam9007 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you know that CCS is an Wikipedia:Essays. Not a policy or a guideline. Ayub407talk 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but Toddst1 seems to be treating it as policy today. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Can you provide evidence that "There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags" Adam9007? I don't see any indication of this. At least one page that you removed the A7 from had no reliable sourcing on it. I am uncertain that you understand the criteria for WP:BIO. Early on it is mentioned that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" You cannot establish that notability without references. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but Toddst1 seems to be treating it as policy today. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
'Significance' doesn't mean one can claim anything about anything and have it withstand A7. :For the Wolfe article: a local musician, married to a notable musician with whom he provided support on recordings. Is that significant? No. On the Jain article: local politician, belongs to a party, has an unpublished book. Is that significant? No. And I'm not sure the Haines article isn't a hoax. Katietalk 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, it looks like the Haines article is legitimate. I'm going to see what I can do to tidy it up, add some sources and improve it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam, you removed the A7 tag from Shreyansh Jain SK and said there is a credible claim to significance. Can you please explain what the credible claim to significance is in that article? -- GB fan 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, it's worse than that. The text says he joined a political party. That's it. Don't millions of Americans join a party when they register a preference? --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Really?! WikiP does WP:NOT do articles about people that may have notability some day in the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Also you need to read WP:INVALIDBIO. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hate to pile on, as I feel that Adam is ultimately acting in good faith, and a net positive to the project...but yeah, he sets the bar way too low when it comes to "credible claim to significance". He gave me a hard time about deleting "Brain freeze challenge", an unsourced stub article about a segment a Youtuber does on Youtube, which asserted in its (short) body that it was created because said Youtuber asked his fanbase to make it. Not only an easy CSD choice, but an obvious WP:TNT choice. Two other Admin have speedy deleted it besides myself as well. If he wants to continue this sort of interpretation, I feel like he needs to start a discussion and get a consensus supporting it, because right now, he's the only person I've come across who draws the line so low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one of the links I was telling MarnetteD about. You'll see that a strong association with someone or something notable is considered a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Is that what you meant in your close? @Sergecross73 and NeilN: Good faith or not, this is nuts. It's creating unnecessary work for scads of editors who then have to PROD or AFD these articles, and he's even !voting delete on some of them. Unless he's willing to change his behavior, I think a topic ban is in order here. Katietalk 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- So it turns out Shreyansh Jain SK is a student. Seriously. --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, significance can be inherited, but use common sense. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what we really need is a consensus on what does not constitute a CCS. As far as I'm aware, there is none. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- More (edit conflict)s. As I suspected there is nothing at the discussion linked to about people "many or otherwise" agreeing with the removal of A7 tags. On top of that some of your removals do not meet the criteria set there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? They agreed with my ideas, not a specific tag removal(s). Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam, I'm pretty sure its rather evident there already is a consensus in place. Why do you think 3 separate admin deleted the article in my example, and yet only you opposed? Why do you think you have so much opposition in this discussion? You're setting the bar far lower than anyone else. Too low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why hasn't it been written into policy anywhere? Was there a discussion, and that's what was explicitly decided? Or is it that a certain number of people think it? If there's consensus, it should be documented. This is one of the things I've written about in my (unfinished) essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Adam9007: Don't bother writing an essay because we already have enough guidance on the subject. Your opinion is clearly out of step. The discussion you cite is a small sample size and not representative of the larger community. All you're succeeding in doing is making us use AfD to delete junk that you've prevented from going through CSD. Do you see how that's not constructive to the project? If anything, WP:A7 needs to be tweaked to clarify. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why hasn't it been written into policy anywhere? Was there a discussion, and that's what was explicitly decided? Or is it that a certain number of people think it? If there's consensus, it should be documented. This is one of the things I've written about in my (unfinished) essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- More (edit conflict)s. As I suspected there is nothing at the discussion linked to about people "many or otherwise" agreeing with the removal of A7 tags. On top of that some of your removals do not meet the criteria set there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what we really need is a consensus on what does not constitute a CCS. As far as I'm aware, there is none. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Is that what you meant in your close? @Sergecross73 and NeilN: Good faith or not, this is nuts. It's creating unnecessary work for scads of editors who then have to PROD or AFD these articles, and he's even !voting delete on some of them. Unless he's willing to change his behavior, I think a topic ban is in order here. Katietalk 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one of the links I was telling MarnetteD about. You'll see that a strong association with someone or something notable is considered a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I took a very brief look at some of Adam's removal of CSD tags. "Strong association" as stated in my close is a threshold far above what you've been applying, Adam. Merely being a member of something notable does not constitute a credible claim of significance. I think this is made clear using the example I provided in my close; receiving a notable award does not provide one a credible claim of significance, but creating a notable award might. "Strong association" is a largely undefined term and there is some degree of "I know it when I see it" there, but an obvious test anyone can use would be along the lines of "Could more than a dozen subjects claim this association?" If the answer is yes, then it's definitely not a strong association. (There may not be a strong association even if the answer is yes, though.) There must be something unique or unusually strong about the association that is not carried by the "average" person associated with the notable subject for the association alone to constitute a credible claim of significance. A president's daughter, yes. A president's third grade teacher, no. Or, as NeilN put it, common sense. ~ Rob13Talk 21:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- James E. Wolfe was another declined speedy by Adam, and this one is probably a good example of a "strong association" which had consensus to constitute a credible claim of significance. Both working with and being married to a notable singer is a "strong association". (Also, note that I'm not saying I agree with this interpretation of "credible claim of significance", just giving my neutral assessment of the discussion as closer.) ~ Rob13Talk 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also had some issues with his CSD decline. My only encounter with Adam9007 was at Majid M. Al Gethami Al Otaibi, where he declined the speedy with an edit summary "credibly asserts significance" I pointed out that AFC declined the version that was very similar to the version that was CSD tagged. Then he said significance was inherited because the individual is a professor at a notable university, which by extension makes the subject significant. I asked for a policy page explanation and all this user did was throw some policy numbers around without actually explaining how those policies apply to this page. The article didn't survive the AfD a month later. To me, the user uses a really liberal interpretation of the policies and when asked how it applies, he only cites policy numbers without explaining why it is applied. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007, you realize that thanks to your absurdly high A7 standards, Wikipedia has an article about a person who graduated Senior Secondary School last year, stating that he's a "Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker." --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people don't realise is that just because I remove a CSD tag, doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. I'm merely trying to preserve the deletion process's integrity. For example, what's the point in having PROD if just anything that's simply not likely to survive an AfD gets CSD'd? Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The integrity of the deletion process? Are you kidding? Katietalk 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see invalid CSDs all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because of your commitment to the integrity of the deletion process, I just had to BLPPROD that Jain article. How is that helpful to anyone? Obviously, there are A7s that need to be declined. I do it all the time. The problem is that your view of what should and shouldn't be declined is very ungood. Katietalk 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, you're lucky that the page didn't contain a link to the subject's blogspot page. Else Adam9007 might remove it. I speak from experience. Adam, you need to have more faith that admins will decline inappropriate speedies. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because of your commitment to the integrity of the deletion process, I just had to BLPPROD that Jain article. How is that helpful to anyone? Obviously, there are A7s that need to be declined. I do it all the time. The problem is that your view of what should and shouldn't be declined is very ungood. Katietalk 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see invalid CSDs all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The integrity of the deletion process? Are you kidding? Katietalk 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people don't realise is that just because I remove a CSD tag, doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. I'm merely trying to preserve the deletion process's integrity. For example, what's the point in having PROD if just anything that's simply not likely to survive an AfD gets CSD'd? Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's funny, I was just asked for help the other day on my talk page regarding A7. This is how I explained it. Perhaps it may be useful or helpful here as well. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I was pinged here, and although I can't remember the hinted-at previous discussions, I'm glad this topic has been bought up once again, as it's one of the core issues NPPers face on a daily basis. In my opinion CCS is a shady provision, and it often causes headaches. Having said that, it can be useful in particular cases; as in everything, common sense is oft underused, and that's why we've ended up here talking on harsh terms. I suggest Adam9007 voluntarily withdraws from assessing CSD candidates for a while, as he appears to have acted on good faith. He can then slowly come back to this task as the community sees fit. Some of his actions are obvious misjudgements, even though he appears to have acted out of an excessive penchant on technicalities which ought to be reviewed given their inherent dubiousness - in other words, CCS needs to be more clearly defined to avoid such situations. On the other hand, admins are sentient beings and as such can assess most dbs rationally and consistently accurately, incorporating pragmatic judgement other editors unfamiliar in this area might not possess. There will be editors who complain of excessive tagging, or quick tagging, and ironically there are editors who complain about not tagging or in this case inappropriate untagging. We've all been there once. What we all need to do is learn from this and improve our editing from the experience. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007 usually does good work in this area so how about this: If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat, and if the editor still disagrees, Adam reverts himself. --NeilN talk to me 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Confession: I have a confession to make. I believe my asperger's has got in the way of my judgement. I tend to take things too literally and expect (not just wish) others to see things from my point of view. I believe I have got too involved with this whole thing and a wikibreak is long overdue. I think this is certainly one of those cases. I'm sorry I've got everyone worked up; it wasn't intentional. Why, only the other night I dreamt I got blocked here! I hope that wasn't a premonition; but I realised then that maybe I'm taking this all too seriously. I'm taking some time off to clear my head and all that, and I hope return with a fresh perspective (this doesn't mean I don't stand by what I wrote in my essay; just I'm taking even that too literally). Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Comment When Adam9007 first came to my attention, I began to feel despair. However, after quite some discussions involving me, him and @MelanieN:, I began to see where he was coming from. He had a desire for things to be absolutely clear in policy so there is no room for wriggling. He also had a very strict idea of what significance was. It isn't easy for him, as I see it, to accept the 'wriggle room' that is the core of applying Wikipedia policies in day to day business. Believe me, he has lightened up since then. There's quite some way to go, but I think some day he would make a good admin. Go on, laugh. I don't care. Rather than backing him into a corner and shouting at him, take time to go over some cases in discussion with him. Calmly explain things, bearing in mind that he takes things rather literally and may have difficulties with humour. Pick cases that he was involved with, and also explain why you deleted (or tagged) some other things. He's a lot further on than he was - help him get there. There's no way the policies can be written to cover every little detail, and there will always be those on the strict side, and those on the lax side in interpreting them. And there's always AfD if you don't want to retag - there's nothing in WP:CSD so far as I can see that forbids retagging. In WP:PROD, it is specifically stated that replacing a declined prod is not allowed. (Removed AfD tags should be replaced until the discussion is closed.) Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see Adam's said what I was skirting round... Good luck, Adam. Have a break - I'm having one soon myself (not through stress - I'll be out of touch for various reasons). Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Peridon: I'm writing that essay in the hopes of explaining my views clearly. If anyone challenged me over an A7 tag removal, I could just point them there instead of having a great big song and dance. But of course, things don't always go according to plan; for this happened before I could finish it. I shall of course finish it when I return. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see Adam's said what I was skirting round... Good luck, Adam. Have a break - I'm having one soon myself (not through stress - I'll be out of touch for various reasons). Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I haven't looked at the articles linked above, nor any others Adam9007's untagged lately (my time is very limited at the moment), but I have spot-checked a couple dozen of his untaggings each time he's come to WT:CSD to complain, perhaps around a hundred in total. I've gone ahead and speedied maybe five of those, so clearly I think his judgment is mostly ok. On the other hand, I'm concerned about his statement above at 21:23 about untagging things he thinks should be deleted. Making people argue for things you already want done is disruptive - it used to be the one-line summary for WP:POINT around the time I started editing - and shows contempt for other volunteers' time. If you think something needs to be deleted but doesn't quite fit the speedy deletion criteria, leave it for an admin to decide whether it truly needs discussion. Or at least nominate it for deletion yourself instead of just untagging it. —Cryptic 22:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have also been concerned about this recently because, it basically outweighs the benefits of any apparent "claims of significance"; take Camp Lahti for example, he removed it because of "Programmes are events" which are not only thin thoughts but also not an explanation to not at least pursue deletion. I know DGG has had a long history about this recently going as far as to re-examine Adam's declines and nominate them himself; I know I also took several of these articles to AfD also. I know that DGG also suggested Adam at least consider deleting one path or another, by either AfD or PROD. I notice Adam has, but it's still being outweighed the removals. I believe some time away from this and, again, carefully examining how CSD actually works and should work. Once we start keeping these without pursuing forms of deletion, is then causing damage to the fluidity of deletion. I for one was being stressed by this very behavior because I along with a select number of my best colleagues were having their speedies removed. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 removed that A7, not me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged on this discussion, I had a look at the article in question. I think it was simply the presence of some references and a template that appeared to show a bunch of other summer camps as bluelinks that meant I didn't feel comfortable deleting it on the spot there. I notice my edit summary was "try PROD or AfD" which to be honest carries an implication of "I can't be bothered to improve this article and don't care if it gets deleted". I think the PROD was correct in this instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 removed that A7, not me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I've said many times before, I'm a hard-liner on WP:CSD. I looked at three of the examples cited here. Shreyansh Jain SK, not well written, at least as far as English grammar and diction goes. Since it is well known that we have bias towards anglo-european topics and native English speakers, I'm especially conservative about articles like this. There's a claim that he's a Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker. It's not unreasonable to say that's a claim of importance, and thus excludes A7. Reuben Haines III. Again, not well written, but about somebody who lived in the 18th century, and given our overwhelming bias for current events, I'm inclined to bend over backwards for historical figures. So, yeah, I agree that's not an A7. James E. Wolfe, has four published singles. Again, the article is poorly written and missing sources, but I think having four published songs is enough to get past A7. All of those might go down in flames at AfD, but there's enough there for all of them to deserve a full hearing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Roy, but just claiming that someone is a politician, businessman, or indeed alien ambassador from the planet Zanussi isn't a claim of notability unless there's at least one source supporting it, which there wasn't (thus failing BLP as well). I'd say that Adam really needs to brush up on what A7 actually means. Shreyansh Jain SK actually had no claims of notability at all, it was just an article written by someone about themselves (oh aye, I deleted it A7 a few moments ago with a bit of IAR, there was clearly no point in letting a PROD drag on for 7 days). Otherwise I could write a one-sentence article about myself saying "Black Kite is a politician, lion-tamer, shapeshifter, works for MI5 and likes cider" (all true by the way) and expect it to pass CSD. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SIGNIFICANCE explicitly says, A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're citing an essay... And according to your criteria, almost anything that states, 'X is a [profession]' cannot be A7'd. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:A7 says the same thing. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". I'm surprised that so many people in this thread seem to think that references are needed for a credible claim of significance. Omni Flames (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you don't think that. It's credibility we're talking about here. The claim still needs to be credible, and like the example I gave above, any claim out of the ordinary (in this case being a politician, in my case being a lion-tamer that works for MI5) is not credible without a source. Any politician, regardless of country of origin, would have such sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There's a difference between a credible claim and a credible claim of significance or importance. The Jain article claimed he was a writer. How is that significant or important? I'm a writer too. Am I significant or important? No. Is my local mayor significant or important? No. This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. Katietalk 00:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A reliable source helps the "claim of significance" be credible. Are all writers significant? No. So "John Doe is a writer." can be A7'd and I would delete that. "John Doe is a writer."[link to newspaper review] This, I would decline as John Doe is credibly significant. Same text, two different outcomes. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. makes sense. I think we all agree on that. Where we disagree is how and where that judgement should be made. I'm saying if there's any doubt at all, it should be made at AfD. If I say, Fred Foobar is a politician, clearly it depends on what level of office Fred holds. A member of my local community board is probably not notable. The president of a country probably is. Figuring out which applies is a job for AfD, not a job for one person, deleting the page in anonymity and obscurity. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A reliable source helps the "claim of significance" be credible. Are all writers significant? No. So "John Doe is a writer." can be A7'd and I would delete that. "John Doe is a writer."[link to newspaper review] This, I would decline as John Doe is credibly significant. Same text, two different outcomes. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cider! Now there's a thought for a bleak Friday. Suggest a few people around here could use one. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinged here by Adam9007. Of the 2 (out of original 4) diffs in the OP that I can still view, the A7 removals are quite defensible. My impression is that @Toddst1: has done an exceptionally poor job of demonstrating that there is a problem in need of community action against a single editor (ie, that all other actions that he could take have been exhausted). I encourage him to (re)start instead at the policy talk page, WT:CSD, and work on wordsmithing better definitions of CCS either within the policy or getting some of the essays that support said definition linked from the policy. I also think several editors could use a reminder that speedy deletion exists to reduce the load on AfD; A7's are rarely urgent and anyone except an article writer should be able to contest them without getting flak. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:, perhaps you would have been happier if I had spent more time looking through the dozens of complaints other editors have made about this user's CSD judgement on his talk page. Why don't you review his talk page archive and tell me if you disagree that there is a pattern of complaints on this subject about this editor? Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinged here some time ago, not sure if my comment is still needed; we argued (User talk:Adam9007/Archive 1#Incedo ) about my db-inc tagging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Time to close?
- The editor who people are discussing here has stated they're taking a wikibreak. It's obvious that no admin action is necessary yet. At this point, the thread serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the drama. Can we just close this thread with a warning that POINTy removals of CSD tags to "preserve the deletion process's (sic) integrity" are likely to wear out the community's patience if his views of what constitutes a credible claim of significance remain so far outside community norms? ~ Rob13Talk 00:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would oppose any close that implies the editor was being purposefully disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with a close, but I don't believe a warning is needed. Peridon explained well that Adam's declining of A7 is already coming a bit closer to community norms - and I think it's perfectly fine for your views to be more hard-line than others as long as it's not completely astray of consensus. RoySmith also explained well that "preserving the deletion process's integrity" can be valid in some cases. Many articles will probably not survive AfD at all, but that doesn't mean that they should be removed under CSD. It's good to have some editors with more strict interpretations of CSD on Wikipedia. Besides that, I also haven't seen any real consensus emerge with regards to a topic ban, though it has been suggested briefly at some points. Appable (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I do not see consensus for such wording in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Before I go on my wikibreak, feel I might as well link to what I have written so far. The most important bits are the one about NOTINHERITED and "implicit consensus" vs explicit. Don't forget, this is all based on (explicit) consensus to my knowledge. I stand by it, even if I take it a bit too literally. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with NeilN's comment about the close. Earlier in this thread N also stated that "If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat" which is an excellent idea. I would add that "if several editors show up with concerns about an editing pattern" that Adam could listen to those concerns as well. That is better than digging in ones heels. It also helps to avoid ANI threads like this one. I don't know if this is feasible but I am hoping that Adam will take it under consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In response to something in that essay, significance can be inherited, but it isn't always inherited. That is explicitly part of my close of the significance RfC. Additionally, a credible claim of significance does not mean that something might be notable. It means that something has a reasonable chance of being notable. I think this is a large source of the issue. "Reasonable chance" is a much higher standard than the "might be notable" you wrote in your essay, and if your thinking about that doesn't change, I think it's likely you'll be here in another couple months. That would be regrettable, because I think you are trying to benefit the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? "Reasonable chance" is the same as "might". Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. "Might" means any non-zero chance, whereas "reasonable chances" is considerably higher than zero. A random author might become notable (it's possible), but a random author doesn't have a reasonable chance of becoming notable (since very, very few authors become notable compared to everyone who's ever considered themselves a writer). ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the term "reasonable chance" is a bit too subjective. At least the term "might" is more objective. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. "Reasonable chance" is not too subjective for reasonable people. You've admitted that you've been taking a pedantic approach to the rules here. I think that's the crux of the issue. It's clear your heart is in the right place, but your judgement is not. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: But Todd, what defines a reasonable person? You're just using recursion! (This is humor, folks. Don't take it too seriously.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is. What precisely does "Reasonable chance" mean? 20%? 30%? 40%?.... It depends on who you ask. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know it when I see it and the Duck test apply. If you can't get comfortable with ambiguity like that, then you should recuse yourself from any actions on Wikipedia (among other places) that require reasonable judgement. Seriously. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If you must have a number say 55% (slightly more likely than not) although if you are unable to manage the fuzzy logic that goes into making a judgelent call I would recommend that you, as you have said you would do, step back from this type of activity. If there were hard and fast rules we would have a score sheet and/or checklist which could be applied by rote or even by bot to make content decisions.
CSD is, by design, a two step process 1) editors of varying experience tag an article {{db-something}} because they think it should be speedy deleted 2) an admin, who has been vetted by the community and who is expected to understand speedy deletion criteria decides to delete or decline based on their experiemce.
Except in very clear cases of misapplication of CSD tags, my very firm opinion is that non-admins should not be making the call to remove the tag. I know that is not policy but if you are concerned about "the integrity of the deletion process" the final decision should be left to an admin - the community has vetted them and trusts their judgement about what should and should not be CSDed. Articles do not need to be "saved" from CSD by bypassing step 2 above. By removing the tag yourself you have taken the decision from the community vetted editor and substituted your, not only non community vetted but community-objected opinion, in its place. Making the process 1,!1 instead of 1,2. Which is less than optimal. JbhTalk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually our CSD policy does not prohibit anyone except the account of the article creator from removing the tag, even in cases where a DUCK test would say it's the creator logged out. You just have to assume good faith unless it's obviously not the case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely disagree. If CSD essentially bypasses consensus-based decisions that generally govern Wikipedia in cases where the article would universally be deleted anyway, I think any editor in good faith should absolutely be permitted to remove any CSD tag they feel does not meet criteria within reason. Of course some editors are more hardline about CSD, but I think that's a good thing for the project. If we start to use CSD too liberally then it bypasses consensus in times where the article could be improved, though of course if CSD is declined too often it does clog AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. "Reasonable chance" is not too subjective for reasonable people. You've admitted that you've been taking a pedantic approach to the rules here. I think that's the crux of the issue. It's clear your heart is in the right place, but your judgement is not. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the term "reasonable chance" is a bit too subjective. At least the term "might" is more objective. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. "Might" means any non-zero chance, whereas "reasonable chances" is considerably higher than zero. A random author might become notable (it's possible), but a random author doesn't have a reasonable chance of becoming notable (since very, very few authors become notable compared to everyone who's ever considered themselves a writer). ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? "Reasonable chance" is the same as "might". Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In response to something in that essay, significance can be inherited, but it isn't always inherited. That is explicitly part of my close of the significance RfC. Additionally, a credible claim of significance does not mean that something might be notable. It means that something has a reasonable chance of being notable. I think this is a large source of the issue. "Reasonable chance" is a much higher standard than the "might be notable" you wrote in your essay, and if your thinking about that doesn't change, I think it's likely you'll be here in another couple months. That would be regrettable, because I think you are trying to benefit the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with NeilN's comment about the close. Earlier in this thread N also stated that "If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat" which is an excellent idea. I would add that "if several editors show up with concerns about an editing pattern" that Adam could listen to those concerns as well. That is better than digging in ones heels. It also helps to avoid ANI threads like this one. I don't know if this is feasible but I am hoping that Adam will take it under consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007: I think there is general agreement here that your idea of a self-imposed wikibreak for you is a good idea but we all want you to return to the generally good contributions you make (outside of CSD). Perhaps you'll agree to either steer clear of CSD upon your return or at a minimum, apply a different approach that takes into account the problems discussed here when considering removing CSD tags. What do you say? Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there's agreement at all that Adam should steer clear of CSD. Yes, I think that Adam may be a bit too hardline for A7 compared to the consensus, but at the same time I think there's huge value in having editors that see CSD as fairly strict criteria. RoySmith explained well that some of the pages linked there probably shouldn't be A7'd, even if they'd go down very quickly at AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: nobody said there was agreement that this discussion proscribed him avoiding CSD. It was a suggestion. Even you with, so few edits, agree that Adam has had problems in this area. How about you come up with a more constructive solution if you don't like the suggestion? Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: I don't know why my edit count has anything to do with what I wrote here (though I've never discussed anything on ANI). I've run across Adam multiple times before, as I too sometimes patrol speedy deletions to help clear the backlog of articles that comes up on CSD by removing incorrect nominations, correcting nominations (sometimes G11 isn't valid but A7 is, etc). And, like Adam, you can see on my talk page that I've also had debates about speedy deletion declines (I've backed off a bit because of those). So naturally, while I may not have as long a history on Wikipedia, I've run into Adam often. Many times, I agree with his removal of speedy deletions as well. That being said, I do think there are some cases when the tag should probably stand because it's not much of a credible claim of significance.
- I did misinterpret you regarding your suggestion, as I thought you were saying there was "general agreement" that he should steer clear of CSD; upon rereading I can tell that's not the case. My constructive suggestion is that there is no need for a real warning - Adam's declining of CSD is clearly coming closer to community norms (though of course more hardline than others, which is completely all right), he plans to take a wikibreak, and at least a few editors here believe that at least two of the four articles in nomination contain CCSs. With all that in mind, I think Adam's work in CSD is absolutely valuable and that while his approach may be a bit too strict of an interpretation of A7, having those editors who are reasonably strict is important. Appable (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: nobody said there was agreement that this discussion proscribed him avoiding CSD. It was a suggestion. Even you with, so few edits, agree that Adam has had problems in this area. How about you come up with a more constructive solution if you don't like the suggestion? Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt a summary.
- I hope everyone would agree that the proper way of nominating for deletion is to find an optimum balance; the question is what balance is optimum. Removing hopeless material at CSD is necessary, and the criteria have been tuned over many years to try to eliminate any definable group that might need more attention, or where one person cannot reasonably decide, or where the deletions are usually contested. For example, we do not have A7 for products, because it's hard to recognize something that is likely to have sources out of one's own field, nor for books, because many people might not recognize any particular title, as was shown by a great many failures to recognize famous books. But sending articles to AfD that are certain to be deleted does not help either, because for every unnecessary AfD there means we cannot pay the proper attention to the ones that do need discussion. An example of balance is the inclusion of web content in A7. When this was proposed, I opposed it, until it was shown to me how the overwhelming proportion of the great many submitted articles in that class was altogether hopeless.
- The definition of A7 has proven tricky., In my early years here I proposed several modifications, none of which were adopted, nor have most of those proposed by others. I think this is right, because there is a long history of interpretation at AFD and DRV based on the present wording, and this gives a certain degree of stability, and aids the admins in decided which to actually delete. I interpret a credible claim of significance to means a claim which if verified, would lead someone who understood the purpose of an encyclopedia like WP to think in good faith that the subject might possibly justify an article. No sensible person , for example would really think that being on a high school football team belongs in a encyclopedia ; but someone might think that being on a state championship team does, even if we usually do not consider that notable. (That's the difference between notability and significance. Most authors of a single book are not notable, but for someone to think they might be, is not absurd (except for a self published book, which is obviously not a CCS). No body could reasonably think that an artist who has not yet even been part of a group exhibition is notable, but if they have been, someone might think otherwise--even though that by itself is not enough, and such claims really need to be looked at by someone who knows how we judge artists. There's another factor:an article about someone not very important is usually either by a naïve new editor, or a promotional editor. Such articles need to be examined carefully to see if the claims for significance are made in good faith: I consider undeclared promotional editing in violation of the TOU not to be good-faith editing. At the least, such articles should be considered for tagging as G11. It's part of deletion policy that once an article has ben tagged for speedy, it may be deleted under any applicable criterion; if one comes across a A7 & isn't sure, it's usually worth considering it it falls in G11.
- I don't want to go into the specifics of the articles mentioned above: I also have a list of the misinterpretations. There is one general point: relationship is not encyclopedic significance. Nobody could rationally think that someone should get a separate entry in an encyclopedia just because their spouse is notable, except for very special circumstances. And certainly not for children, parents, schoolmates, business associates, and political sympathizers. (For the sort of special circumstances that can apply, see WP:EINSTEIN.) And possible future significance is not significance. Everyone who isn't dead might possibly become significant.
- Numbers were mentioned; it's hard to define what they actually mean. to the extent its meaningful, as a tagger or deleting admin, I wouldn't use speedy an article if I thought there were only a 2/3 chance I was right; it's equally unrealistic to expect 100%. WP being WP, there's going to be a good deal of variability. And the standard is not whether I think I am right, but whether I think that the community standard would think it right. It's not as much a matter of personal opinion as trying to understand what the consensus is.
- The most important point raised is that when one comes across a A7 tagging that does not apply, but the article should be deleted, it very much helps to change it to a Prod or an Afd. If one just thinks it's questionable, then at least a notability tag. Not just Adam, but other people should be doing this more often. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, Adam made at least two good calls out of four. The two articles that are live at present very clearly asserted the importance/notability of their subjects. The fact that they didn't prove this importance/notability with citations of reliable sources is irrelevant, as we are not talking about shutting down an AFD discussion where sources were requested but not produced. PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced. Even if the two articles that I can't see at the moment actually should have been speedied rather than AFDed, that only means that Adam made two minor mistakes; whoever PRODded the two articles that remain actually made two far mor significant mistakes. Pinging User:Tazerdadog and User:JesseRafe to get their opinions on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ping didn't work for whatever reason, but I'm here now. I think the A7 tagging on the article I was involved with was correct but thin - it's certainly defensible to claim that a credible claim of significance is made in the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to pontificate about what people are doing wrong, it's generally a good idea to actually know what you're talking about. Three out of these four articles were BLPs and as such can (and should) be PRODded purely because they don't have any sources. Obviously in many cases it is trivial to find such a source, but if you can't, it must be PRODded. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- One is dead, the remaining non-deleted article had a reference at the time it was tagged and from recollection of looking at the deleted ones before they were nuked, one of them also had a (questionable) reference. So 3 out of 4 would have failed BLPROD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I was merely pointing out that Hijiri88's quote that "PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced" is totally wrong when it refers to a BLP. It's surprising how many people don't realize this. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can PROD for any reason you like, including things like "This article reads like it was written by an uneducated drunk with two fingers". If it's not challenged, it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the articles presented at the top of this discussion, and I absolutely agree that the article on Wolfe was not a valid A7. Haines is arguable but where there's doubt it's better to untag and let a discussion happen. Another was tagged simulatenously as A7 (valid) and A3 (not valid), and both tags appear to have been removed in error when only the A3 tag should have been removed. I don't see enough disruption or malice here that justifies the continuing existence of an ANI discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
- Apologies for being late to the party on this discussion. I didn't expect it to be on the verge of wrapping up overnight.
- I've previously discussed the A7 removals with Adam (under my previous username, Bazj) and tried to clarify some of the points around A7 - though in retrospect that seems like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
- In pursuit of that discussion I took an RSS feed of Adam's A7 removals for a month or so...
- At the time I stopped the RSS feed (6 Jun) I sorted the data into live & deleted. The peppering of redlinks through the list shows the attrition since then.
- For a while I took the WP:AGF view that the removal of A7 indicated that Adam would have reason to vote keep in the ensuing AfD. However my experience has been that Adam seldom follows up his A7 removals with any further participation in discussion or improvement of the article. Effectively his actions have resulted in shoddy articles being given a free pass through the WP:NPP process.
- WP:AGF is a two-way process - those editors tagging articles A7 can't be expected to continue assuming Adam's good faith when he obviously makes no such assumption about their efforts that led them to tag the article.
- While Adam is scanning CAT:A7 and removing the tags with a vigor he effectively renders that CSD criterion ineffective meaning dross survives or is inappropriately tagged under some other criterion.
- My 2¢. (formerly Bazj) for (;;) (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with removing A7 even if you would vote delete in the resulting AfD, For (;;). While Adam may apply too strict a definition of A7, there are also articles that definitely do not have a credible claim of significance that are deleted under that criterion. That being said, I would recommend (not formally) that Adam does two additional actions (which DGG has mentioned here and to me directly) - make sure to nominate the article for AfD (as a procedural nomination) or PROD assuming the A7 wasn't applied incompetently (e.g. article not only has a CCS but also probably shows notability), and reply in the resulting discussion if it was a procedural nomination. Doing this would ensure articles nominated for speedy deletion go through the proper deletion venue and don't get a free pass through NPP. Appable (talk)
- Regardless of the fact that Adam9007 is currently taking a wikibreak, I propose that he be topic-banned from removing CSD tags, or at the very least from removing A7 CSD tags. This is no way implies that he is acting in bad faith. However, he is causing much disruption and time-wasting on the encyclopedia, and causing much rubbish to be left on Wikipedia. He is essentially performing an administrative function even though he is not an administrator and does not have an administrator's perspective. Removal of the tags is contentious, unnecessary (admins review before they delete), and disruptive. In addition, not only has he not conceded that his actions have been improper, he is writing an essay of self-justification in defense of his actions. For all of the above reasons, I think it's time for him to turn his attention on Wikipedia to other tasks, of which there are millions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Rubbish" in whose opinion? I have been calling out bad speedies for years, overturning several to take them to DYK and getting a positive reception for it. Some GAs of highly notable topics were once marked for speedy deletion. So while Adam may need to slow down a bit, his heart is in the right place. Remember that a new article is many new users' route into Wikipedia editing, and if you scare them away calling their good faith edits in disparaging terms, we will never retain editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Referring to articles unrelated to Adam9007's CSD removals is irrelevant. He's not a new user -- he's been here over a year and has made over 12,000 edits. I have specifically already noted that he is acting in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I hope you're not implying I broke policy? Not all "administrative functions" require admin privileges. I realise that just because we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we should (don't forget that also applies to articles meeting CSD; contrary to popular belief, it does not mean they have to be CSD'd), but if my contributions are unwelcome, then never mind when, I'm not even sure if I'll return. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. Just stop removing CSD tags; allow admins to make the call whether to keep or delete. You are more than welcome, and encouraged, to continue your contributing to Wikipedia -- and there certainly is a need for good and dedicated users. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- By formally proposing a topic ban, you have stated you feel my contributions are unwelcome. And what's to stop this happening in other areas? It's only happened here because it's an area I am (was?) heavily involved in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: I have never stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome. This issue is not being brought up here because it's an area you are heavily involved in. It's being brought up here because other editors are concerned that (in addition to being unnecessary) it is disruptive and detrimental to the project, and you are being requested to edit in other areas instead. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any real consensus that editors here feel that his actions are "disruptive and detrimental to the project" as a whole, though some removals may be too strict of an interpretation of the CSD rules. Some editors, like RoySmith, have also explained how hardline CSD reviewers are also valuable to the project. There's definitely a variety of opinions here, but I personally think Peridon nails it on the head - if we're concerned about Adam's removals of speedy deletion tags, the important thing is that that is improving and Adam can still be very valuable to the project by working on CSD reviews with a reasonably strict (less strict than now, but perhaps a bit more strict than the average editor) view of the criteria. Appable (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: I have never stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome. This issue is not being brought up here because it's an area you are heavily involved in. It's being brought up here because other editors are concerned that (in addition to being unnecessary) it is disruptive and detrimental to the project, and you are being requested to edit in other areas instead. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- By formally proposing a topic ban, you have stated you feel my contributions are unwelcome. And what's to stop this happening in other areas? It's only happened here because it's an area I am (was?) heavily involved in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. Just stop removing CSD tags; allow admins to make the call whether to keep or delete. You are more than welcome, and encouraged, to continue your contributing to Wikipedia -- and there certainly is a need for good and dedicated users. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I hope you're not implying I broke policy? Not all "administrative functions" require admin privileges. I realise that just because we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we should (don't forget that also applies to articles meeting CSD; contrary to popular belief, it does not mean they have to be CSD'd), but if my contributions are unwelcome, then never mind when, I'm not even sure if I'll return. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Referring to articles unrelated to Adam9007's CSD removals is irrelevant. He's not a new user -- he's been here over a year and has made over 12,000 edits. I have specifically already noted that he is acting in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Rubbish" in whose opinion? I have been calling out bad speedies for years, overturning several to take them to DYK and getting a positive reception for it. Some GAs of highly notable topics were once marked for speedy deletion. So while Adam may need to slow down a bit, his heart is in the right place. Remember that a new article is many new users' route into Wikipedia editing, and if you scare them away calling their good faith edits in disparaging terms, we will never retain editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Came here via Adam9007's ping. I cannot tell I remember having interacted with him before though I have A7-ed plenty of stuff. I did not read the whole thing, but from the four links at the top, two are inaccessible (likely deleted articles), and from the other two, one is a totally legit tag removal and the other (the rapper) is at least disputable (I probably would have tagged it if I was doing NPP, but I do not see a problem with de-tagging). Of course, the selection bias might be at work here; if the two deleted articles were correct A7s, a 50% correct record is not something exactly impressive.
- If someone regularly detags with an accuracy under 80% and continues after warnings (not saying this is or this is not the case here), I would easily support some form of de-tag restriction. Everyone can make mistakes, but not too many after the alarm went off.
Oh, and I do not know how the lucky pinged ones were selected, but if the objective was to prove that "others think like me", Adam9007 should probably read WP:CANVAS. (ANI threads can turn to !votes about sanctions against an editor, so it fully applies...)- Re-ping me if my input is necessary (I will not follow the thread). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I pinged everyone involved in that discussion, not just the people who !voted my way. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan I feel bound to say that Adam9007 may be a PITA but I've always found him to be 100% conscientious and above board in his dealings. I wouldn't even start to suspect him of selection bias in his pinging. If you want more examples of Adam's A7 tag removals check out the collapsed box above. for (;;) (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, redacting accordingly. (Saying which discussion it was from the start would have helped.) TigraanClick here to contact me 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I looked at the removals 1 through 7 in the collapse box (except 3 which was deleted). They all look good to me. Only this one has a disputable rationale (though I agree with it). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)]
- @For (;;): I'll go thorough and explain each one if necessary, but after a quick skim through them, a lot were obvious out-of-scopes, and should be unambiguously valid tag removals. You may have just proved that I can and do get it right a lot of (if not most of) the time. Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I think disputable rationales are absolutely fine (to me it's far better to remove a speedy deletion tag and have the article go through another deletion process if it doesn't seem notable than to bypass consensus in situations where consensus should not be bypassed), so that's good. As a general note to Adam9007, besides what I've said earlier, I've noticed that a lot of your edit summaries are simply "article asserts enough significance". Some summaries are more explanatory, though, and I think it'd also be helpful if you explained that in the edit summary briefly. Appable (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I looked at the removals 1 through 7 in the collapse box (except 3 which was deleted). They all look good to me. Only this one has a disputable rationale (though I agree with it). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)]
- Fair enough, redacting accordingly. (Saying which discussion it was from the start would have helped.) TigraanClick here to contact me 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan I feel bound to say that Adam9007 may be a PITA but I've always found him to be 100% conscientious and above board in his dealings. I wouldn't even start to suspect him of selection bias in his pinging. If you want more examples of Adam's A7 tag removals check out the collapsed box above. for (;;) (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I pinged everyone involved in that discussion, not just the people who !voted my way. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came across Ziadie family on my usual sweep through CAT:CSD and declined it after I found the family name-checked in The Independent and the Daily Telegraph. If it went to AfD I can't work out whether I'd !vote "keep" or "merge with Lady Colin Campbell", but I definitely wouldn't go with delete. In any case, Toddst1 should not be templating a user who hasn't edited in two years, that's just silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we running out of templates? WTF?? It's considered being a dick NOT to notify anyone who created an article when prod/afd/csd tags are applied. How do you know if they have an email trigger set for their watchlist? When they edit is immaterial. C'mon Ritchie, you're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If Adam Keller wakes from his slumber and starts improving the article, I will conclude a point conceded, but I can't see it happening myself, and my essay comes from years of experience. In particular, saying "If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article" to an editor who first registered in 2006 is rather nonsensical and comes across with all the charm and warmth of a bailiff reposessing a house. Consider a personalised message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- the templates come with Twinkle, and the work being done with new articles would be almost impossible without it. IfI get a notice like this, as an experienced editor I know how it got there and it would seem absurd if I got insulted about it. What we might want to do is to check the wording of all of them, so they are\ a/ briefer, b/ kinder and c/applicable to all type of editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we running out of templates? WTF?? It's considered being a dick NOT to notify anyone who created an article when prod/afd/csd tags are applied. How do you know if they have an email trigger set for their watchlist? When they edit is immaterial. C'mon Ritchie, you're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Repeated BDP violations by Dream Focus on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling
- Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shooting of Alton Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dream Focus has made repeated WP:BLP (in this case WP:BDP) violations on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) despite warnings and discussion (see the article talk page and the user's talk page). There is no excuse for this for a user of 9 years.
Examples (see diffs above) of the violations include accusing the person of:
- not paying child support
- raping a woman
- "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them at all"
- "Also he isn't a "victim" if he was reaching for a gun before getting shot." from the talk page
EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kindly look at the current version. Talk:Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling#5_children_mentioned.2C_but_not_details I reworded it be statutory raping, instead of just raping, since that's the term used by the federal government, and the name of the Wikipedia article for it. I have shown news articles mentioning he didn't pay child support, and did four years in jail for having sex with a 14 year old he got pregnant. Dream Focus 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I already eliminated "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them", and added references to the information I posted, before he brought the issue here. Dream Focus 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katietalk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is not what you said on my talk page. [21] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [22] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I had already added sources before the ANI started. This had nothing to do with it. And you removed my comment many times, so me hitting undo from your unfair removal that time, which took out something you said in the process, isn't anything you should be whining about. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [22] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is not what you said on my talk page. [21] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katietalk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Baseball Bugs is absolutely correct. This is indeed POV pushing, not unlike what's typically done after the stereotypical shooting of a black man by the police: any criminal record is broadly displayed, any previous arrest is mentioned, as if the shooting was deserved after all. That the man had five kids is easily argued to be pretty relevant, I think, and many editors are always eager to get the children into any biographical article; the circumstances of these children are not immediately relevant and speculating about them is easily a BLP/BDP violation. Saying something about how someone didn't care for their children is pretty vile, Dream Focus: such speculation on-wiki is a blatant violation. If it's about "the facts", then I expect you to start speculating in the same manner about the three police officers who were shot today, to keep it fair and balanced. I'm kidding, DreamFocus: that's a violation as well. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Nothing DreamFocus pointed out in Evergreen's first two points is untrue at all and easily sourced (and has been). Way too premature for ANI. Capeo (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- the issue isn't that the comments are false or not (though the last one cannot be sources), it's that the editor wouldn't abide by policy when when informed of it repeatedly. A veteran editor should need 11 edits to get something this fundamental correct. I didn't call this a content dispute either. It's behavioral. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Where the hell you getting this "11 edits" number? Last I checked, he'd only made 3 edits to the page in question, each different and over the span of a week. Evergreen, I think you've blown this out of proportion. pbp 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89 I admit to sometimes blowing things out of proportion, despite my best efforts. Perhaps this ani was premature as capeo says. But there were more than the three edits on the article. Blp applies everywhere even talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89. You need to learn the basic (BLP) rules first - then comment (maybe).--TMCk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was premature; I'm not going to block based on what I've seen yet but I haven't seen everything. I do think it's a good idea for the community to be aware of the issues discussed here, and I think they are indicative of some bigger problems that are coming to the surface in the US. Do we include criminal records for victims such as Castile or the child-rearing circumstances such as Sterling? For Castile we know he had a long records of being stopped for minor traffic violations--and we can end the sentence there, or we can add that according to many reliable sources such a record is indicative of how minority communities in the US are being policed. In other words, the simple "a fact is a fact" clearly doesn't mean we're being neutral, as Baseball Bugs indicated earlier. This is not a discussion for ANI, I know that well, but I encourage editors to make more better deeper contextualized considerations when adding what appear to be naked facts--which seems not to have been the case in this particular instance. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whaddayaknow, Shooting of Philando Castile had precisely what I was afraid it had--just "the facts". I'm hoping someone will add context to the "Police" section--since it turns out that "minority drivers [in Minnesota] were more likely than white drivers to be both stopped and searched, even though officers found contraband more often when searching white drivers", according to a 2003 study on racial profiling commissioned by the state. We really need to be doing better than this. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: In reply to some of your statements. Firstly, these are events, not biographies. The number of children is not relevant to the event and seems designed to invoke pity. It's not relevant how many children the deceased had, just as it isn't relevant how many children the officers went home to, either. Second, the use of the term "victim" is premature. They are deceased. Whether they are "victims" is POV. Certainly, the officers that shot Sterling believe they were assaulted and are the victims and Sterling was the perpetrator of felony assault. NPOV means we take neither position. Thirdly, child support is not relevant but a felony crime that makes a person a prohibited possessor of a firearm is definitely relevant if a firearm is alleged to have been felt, seen and/or found. A prohibited possessor with a firearm while on probation is facing substantial prison time (possibly a life sentence) and speaks to a motive for not wanting to be searched or be arrested if that is reported by reliable sources. It is as relevant as disciplinary history for officers or history of previous shootings. Fourth, broad studies from 2003 being applied to a single instance is classic WP:SYNTH. Do you have a source that would link that particular 2003 study to the officer? The officer might have been 12 years old at the time of the study. I doubt he read it. Broadly applying studies of macro-social ills to an individual to imply they are in fact exhibiting those behaviors is a gross BLP violation and I hope you aren't condoning incorporating that material in any way that that speaks to the individuals involved. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- DHeyward, I'm not following. It's a biography in an article on an event. I'm a minimalist and prefer to mention as little as possible, but if you're going to mention something it should be done properly. The classic SYNTH you are talking about is not applied by me, but by the well-developed articles in the very reliable sources that are used to supply the material for the addition I made. It's not my synthesis, therefore it's not synthesis as in SYNTH. So please look before you leap. And as far as I know someone who was killed is a victim--which is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition ("Anyone who is harmed by another"). Frankly, your suggestion that a man shot by police officers is somehow not a victim until proven...something? is profoundly distasteful. And I'm not even making any assumptions about the reasons these officers gave for shooting a man. Shooting him dead. I think life may be cheaper for you than it is for me, but a victim remains a victim, whether they're a cop or someone killed by a cop. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's biographical detail in a historical event. We don't need details like how many children or how many arrests from any of the parties. SYNTH is SYNTH and they aren't very well developed or high quality or BLP compliant if they are used to paint any individual as a criminal or a racist when they are talking about broad studies. And I find your insinuation that I somehow value life less than you quite repugnant. If this were an article on a woman that shot and killed a person who was allegedly about to rape her, would you call the alleged rapist the "victim" because they were harmed by another? I would hope not. Reliable sources avoid the word victim for people that are potentially justifiably killed. The shooter at the LGBT club in Florida is not a "victim." It's quite demeaning to those he killed. To be neutral, we have a shooter and the deceased. "Victim" implies an innocence or injustice that is not our place to conclude in cases where it's contested about who was right and it demeans the concept of who victims are if the view is so broad that it includes "anyone who is harmed by another." You can try saying the Orlando club shooter is victim because he was killed by police, but your logic is lacking. "Homicide" and "murder" are likewise terms that denote a person killed by another person but they have vastly different uses and connotations (note the title of the article is "shooting" and not "killing" or "murder."). --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: @DHeyward: The discussion of how to cover events like these belongs somewhere else than here. We seemed to have digressed from the issue of whether or not DreamFocus did anything wrong, and to me it's clear he hasn't. So he strongly advocated for a somewhat-controversial position on the talk page? That's fine, he can do that. As for his edits to the page itself, they're BOLD and they're not edit-warring, so it's OK. pbp 14:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's biographical detail in a historical event. We don't need details like how many children or how many arrests from any of the parties. SYNTH is SYNTH and they aren't very well developed or high quality or BLP compliant if they are used to paint any individual as a criminal or a racist when they are talking about broad studies. And I find your insinuation that I somehow value life less than you quite repugnant. If this were an article on a woman that shot and killed a person who was allegedly about to rape her, would you call the alleged rapist the "victim" because they were harmed by another? I would hope not. Reliable sources avoid the word victim for people that are potentially justifiably killed. The shooter at the LGBT club in Florida is not a "victim." It's quite demeaning to those he killed. To be neutral, we have a shooter and the deceased. "Victim" implies an innocence or injustice that is not our place to conclude in cases where it's contested about who was right and it demeans the concept of who victims are if the view is so broad that it includes "anyone who is harmed by another." You can try saying the Orlando club shooter is victim because he was killed by police, but your logic is lacking. "Homicide" and "murder" are likewise terms that denote a person killed by another person but they have vastly different uses and connotations (note the title of the article is "shooting" and not "killing" or "murder."). --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- DHeyward, I'm not following. It's a biography in an article on an event. I'm a minimalist and prefer to mention as little as possible, but if you're going to mention something it should be done properly. The classic SYNTH you are talking about is not applied by me, but by the well-developed articles in the very reliable sources that are used to supply the material for the addition I made. It's not my synthesis, therefore it's not synthesis as in SYNTH. So please look before you leap. And as far as I know someone who was killed is a victim--which is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition ("Anyone who is harmed by another"). Frankly, your suggestion that a man shot by police officers is somehow not a victim until proven...something? is profoundly distasteful. And I'm not even making any assumptions about the reasons these officers gave for shooting a man. Shooting him dead. I think life may be cheaper for you than it is for me, but a victim remains a victim, whether they're a cop or someone killed by a cop. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I encourage Dream Focus to add to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers that one of the dead officers was a white supremacist.[23] After all, "[i]t seems bias to mention some information and not others." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- If he were accused of shooting a black person, then yes, include it. It's ludicrous to have an article about a police shooting where you can't mention that the person shot had a record and was a prohibited person. After all, the police claims they shot the person because they reached for a weapon, so of course you need to mention the facts that he was unable to legally own a weapon. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do try to keep up. This discussion is about his children and his alleged history of nonpayment of child support, not his gun. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Purplebackpack, I have already stated my position on Dream Focus's edit, and it seems to me I'm not the only one who thinks that it was at the least very selective editing. Sir Joseph, it isn't about the gun, but "inability to legally own a weapon" was probably not printed on a bumper sticker. DHeyward, you can spin all you want, but the definition of "victim" I cited was the secondary meaning of the definition we have in Wiktionary--the first is "sacrificial victim". The OED lists a similar meaning, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc." The dead man suffered injury. Whether you want to call the Orlando shooter a victim or not is up to you, but NPOV requires that, well, NPOV.
What's at stake here is editorial judgment and discretion, and in this particular case that judgment should include how much context to give. It is plain to see that in the US, traffic stops are frequently based on race. There is little point denying that, and thus it is an integral part of what was just now again presented in the article as neutral fact--I have undone an edit in Shooting of Philando Castile that moved this context to the "Reactions" section, as if a cause for his record is nothing but a "media response". DHeyward, I will tell you once again, that any "synthesis" involved was executed by reliable secondary sources, not by a Wikipedia editor. As for Shooting of Alton Sterling, I see that the children as well as the other stuff are not there in the first description of the victim (I did not write that heading for that section) right now. But again, if we are not going to give extensive biographical information in an article on an event, why is the 2009 conviction in there, unless the officers knew about all that and it determined their cause of action? The implication is he'd done something wrong before and this is why he did it again, which implicitly justifies the shooting. There is a thin line between editorial judgment ("presenting facts") and BLP violation in cases like this. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Drmies here. We don't need anything that PBP and Dream Focus are trying to add here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to add anything. I wanted to remove information about him having 5 kids, and have already done so. Mentioning he had five children, to make people feel sympathy for him, without mentioning the negative details concerning those children (he didn't pay child support and one of them he fathered with a 14 year old girl he did jail time for statutory raping) is bias. So no reason to mention it at all. Not sure how this conversation just took off with people talking about other things here, instead of on the relevant talk page. Dream Focus 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, to a point: you're trying to remove information about Sterling's children, and remove a picture of him smiling, and basically remove anything else that might make him seem, you know, human. On the other hand, you're also adding a lot of nonsense to the talkpage to the effect that this man didn't care about his children. And in your ideal world, you'd have us say that these incidents have nothing to do with race or racism, even though you acknowledge that reliable sources state otherwise ([24]). As Drmies and Black Kite have mentioned, we can do better in our coverage of these incidents. And frankly, "doing better" would start with excluding people like you, with your track record on race-related subjects, from participating in editing them. MastCell Talk 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- A black Harvard professor published a study showing "Racial bias is not a compelling contributing factor in police use of lethal force". [25] Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue. [26] After watching the video footage, I don't know why anyone would think race had anything to do with this particular shooting. Not sure what "track record" you are referring too, nor do I care. The article should be about the shooting, not things unrelated to it. No reason to add in bias things to try to get sympathy from people. Dream Focus 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That track record would include things like pointing to a report, by a local TV station, about the mother of one of Sterling's children, who said it's not a race issue, as evidence supporting your statement that "Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue". It demonstrates either a certain carelessness or a shortage of understanding of editing principles, and it doesn't do a lot for your credibility in these matters, or in Wikipedia editing in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Harvard study only found no statistical significance for race in police shootings in Houston. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or poor media reporting of social science, but need to stop citing that as "proof" of no bias. See WaPo summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is also a mention by the BBC here. Although their summary states while the best data came from Houston, the overall study included data from 10 cities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Harvard study only found no statistical significance for race in police shootings in Houston. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or poor media reporting of social science, but need to stop citing that as "proof" of no bias. See WaPo summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That track record would include things like pointing to a report, by a local TV station, about the mother of one of Sterling's children, who said it's not a race issue, as evidence supporting your statement that "Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue". It demonstrates either a certain carelessness or a shortage of understanding of editing principles, and it doesn't do a lot for your credibility in these matters, or in Wikipedia editing in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- A black Harvard professor published a study showing "Racial bias is not a compelling contributing factor in police use of lethal force". [25] Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue. [26] After watching the video footage, I don't know why anyone would think race had anything to do with this particular shooting. Not sure what "track record" you are referring too, nor do I care. The article should be about the shooting, not things unrelated to it. No reason to add in bias things to try to get sympathy from people. Dream Focus 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, to a point: you're trying to remove information about Sterling's children, and remove a picture of him smiling, and basically remove anything else that might make him seem, you know, human. On the other hand, you're also adding a lot of nonsense to the talkpage to the effect that this man didn't care about his children. And in your ideal world, you'd have us say that these incidents have nothing to do with race or racism, even though you acknowledge that reliable sources state otherwise ([24]). As Drmies and Black Kite have mentioned, we can do better in our coverage of these incidents. And frankly, "doing better" would start with excluding people like you, with your track record on race-related subjects, from participating in editing them. MastCell Talk 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to add anything. I wanted to remove information about him having 5 kids, and have already done so. Mentioning he had five children, to make people feel sympathy for him, without mentioning the negative details concerning those children (he didn't pay child support and one of them he fathered with a 14 year old girl he did jail time for statutory raping) is bias. So no reason to mention it at all. Not sure how this conversation just took off with people talking about other things here, instead of on the relevant talk page. Dream Focus 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, @Drmies:, you need to understand the root meaning of "victim" which derives from "holy" and implies an absence of any responsibility for harm that comes to them. Spin it all you want, but in cases where we are discussing possible crimes covered by WP:BLPCRIME, the legal definition of victim is the one we are seeking, not common definitions. A victim is a "person harmed by criminal acts" or an "attack target." We must be very careful in how we use words so as not to create a criminal act where it hasn't been determined. I'm sure you are able to see other examples of words that can have the same common meaning but have entirely different connotations and impacts for the actor (i.e. "his death was a homicide" vs. "he was murdered" are entirely different statements when the actor who caused the death is known). There is no dispute over who caused the death's of Sterling or Castile. Using a backdoor way to call it a crime is simply not acceptable until it's been established. And no, we don't allow synthesis from even reliable sources to infer a living person is illegally profiling or was a crime when none if it has been established as legal fact. That's the heart of the BLP policy and covers living police as well as the recently deceased. You seem able to discern what is not relevant with regards to Castile and Sterling, even though published in reliable sources, but don't see it for the case of the police. None of it belongs in case you were wondering. There is no moral high ground of portraying any of the subjects as "more human" than another (your argument is even less convincing when you try to extend it to portray certain editors as "more human" than other editors). I believe your selective reasoning as to what's relevant is rather obvious but not malicious. I understand your point about why you don't think a prior felony is relevant to what the police knew at the time. The same is true for a concealed carry pistol permit, though. I can also understand that the police may not have realized they stumbled into an ongoing commission of a felony (prohibited possessor) that Sterling was aware he was committing - that is the argument that makes it relevant along with the felony reported through 911 - but that need not be covered, either, if the article sticks to BLP and known facts about the encounter and doesn't dip off into the weeds regarding speculative motives of the police or the subjects - nor should it be feeding speculation about editors motives. --DHeyward (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Victim". Look it up on Wiktionary. 1. Sacrificial victim. [obviously not how we use it in everyday English.] 2. Anyone who is harmed by another. [Obviously how we use it in everyday English, regardless of culpability.] 3. etc. The rest is you spinnin'. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Wiktionary over Black's Law Dictionary and any dictionary providing the root meaning. Brilliant sourcing. And like you noticed with the dead Orlando shooter, you declined to name him a victim despite being harmed by the police (hint: you know criminals are not victims exactly because of culpability and naming a victim takes a side). I think your argument is intellectually dishonest if you won't reconcile the cognitive dissonance - it's okay to take a side, just recognize you are doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Any dictionary providing the root meaning..." You mean like Merriam-Webster, which says "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else"? It's always good to check before making blanket declarations like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wiktionary should never be cited as an authoritative source for any definition, any more than Wikipedia should be cited as an authoritative source for its topics. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no provision for verifiability; there are no citations. It's okay for casual use, although I don't know why anyone would choose it over better dictionaries that are just as accessible. Me, I always go to M-W unless I'm specifically looking for BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- SBHB, M-W provides the root word "victima" meaning "holy." It's why the primary definition is "sacrificed." It's connotation is that "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed" with emphasis on "by someone else." Meaning, there is no shared responsibility for the action. That's the common understanding and plain meaning. It's why the press avoids the word victim without a crime being established. It's why the Orlando Pulse NightClub shooter, and Nice truck driver are not called "victims" despite a death as a result of a confrontation with police. The Boston Bomber spent many months gravely injured by police bullets in the hospital....still not a victim as that word implies the police are culpable and liable for those injuries. This is doesn't seem to be a difficult concept so I am wondering where the disconnect is. Note that this is not comparing Castile to terrorists, its affording the officer the same presumption of innocence as the other officers that were involved in police shootings. No one is casting Castile in a negative light. He is treated as innocent as well. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Get off the "holy" horse. The etymology is obviously irrelevant here, unless you want to get into some real allegory. I wasn't talking about the Orlando shooter, you were--I'm talking about the victims of police shootings who, until proven otherwise, did not deserve to be sacrificed. You're going along the "innocent until proven guilty" line and that's fine, but presuming the cop's innocence shouldn't meant that in the meantime you take away victimhood from the person who actually died in the encounter, as if we'll wait and see if he didn't actually do something at some time to deserve it. And if you don't want to compare such victims to terrorists, then I have a suggestion: just don't do it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problem that DHeyward has with this, is the implication that the police who shot him are therefore guilty of murder (or manslaughter or what have you). Wikipedia already has a section on Alton referring to him as the "victim" of the shooting. We don't know (even though I assume most think) that he is. I'm inclined to do so to be entirely honest. Alton was pinned down, how precisely he's going to harm either of the policemen is beyond me. What bothers me is that several news outlets are already spinning this as another police against black crime, I think it is in this case, but what point is the justice system if we presume guilt over innocence. "I'm talking about the victims of police shootings" think about this for a second, this includes everybody immediately at the moment of them being shot by the police (incl. criminals). Yes, it's a way of presuming innocence, but, it does so by at the cost of establishing the police as guilty of "shooting an innocent victim". Sorry, but, no. This ought to be neutral. Alton Sterling was shot by police officers. No guilt, no innocence, no victim, no criminal. Until we have absolute confirmation otherwise Alton is not a victim and the police are notguilty of shooting an innocent victim. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Get off the "holy" horse. The etymology is obviously irrelevant here, unless you want to get into some real allegory. I wasn't talking about the Orlando shooter, you were--I'm talking about the victims of police shootings who, until proven otherwise, did not deserve to be sacrificed. You're going along the "innocent until proven guilty" line and that's fine, but presuming the cop's innocence shouldn't meant that in the meantime you take away victimhood from the person who actually died in the encounter, as if we'll wait and see if he didn't actually do something at some time to deserve it. And if you don't want to compare such victims to terrorists, then I have a suggestion: just don't do it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- SBHB, M-W provides the root word "victima" meaning "holy." It's why the primary definition is "sacrificed." It's connotation is that "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed" with emphasis on "by someone else." Meaning, there is no shared responsibility for the action. That's the common understanding and plain meaning. It's why the press avoids the word victim without a crime being established. It's why the Orlando Pulse NightClub shooter, and Nice truck driver are not called "victims" despite a death as a result of a confrontation with police. The Boston Bomber spent many months gravely injured by police bullets in the hospital....still not a victim as that word implies the police are culpable and liable for those injuries. This is doesn't seem to be a difficult concept so I am wondering where the disconnect is. Note that this is not comparing Castile to terrorists, its affording the officer the same presumption of innocence as the other officers that were involved in police shootings. No one is casting Castile in a negative light. He is treated as innocent as well. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wiktionary should never be cited as an authoritative source for any definition, any more than Wikipedia should be cited as an authoritative source for its topics. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no provision for verifiability; there are no citations. It's okay for casual use, although I don't know why anyone would choose it over better dictionaries that are just as accessible. Me, I always go to M-W unless I'm specifically looking for BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- A "law-dictionary" (like Black's, who describe their dictionary as "the trusted legal dictionary of law definitions and terms") can't be used outside the narrow field of law since the definitions of words and terms used within he legal system sometimes differ from the everyday definitions of the same words and terms, as in this case. Which is why there's a market for such dictionaries, alongside Merriam-Webster's and others... Thomas.W talk 15:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- In general usage, people who are injured while committing a crime are not labelled victims. In the US if you shoot a burglar, they are not labelled victims. Outside of occasions involving police brutality etc and at that point it *does* become a legal definition. 'Was the person the victim of unlawful killing or did they die as a result of their own actions?' That is a legal question. Not a common usage one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Any dictionary providing the root meaning..." You mean like Merriam-Webster, which says "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else"? It's always good to check before making blanket declarations like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Wiktionary over Black's Law Dictionary and any dictionary providing the root meaning. Brilliant sourcing. And like you noticed with the dead Orlando shooter, you declined to name him a victim despite being harmed by the police (hint: you know criminals are not victims exactly because of culpability and naming a victim takes a side). I think your argument is intellectually dishonest if you won't reconcile the cognitive dissonance - it's okay to take a side, just recognize you are doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Victim". Look it up on Wiktionary. 1. Sacrificial victim. [obviously not how we use it in everyday English.] 2. Anyone who is harmed by another. [Obviously how we use it in everyday English, regardless of culpability.] 3. etc. The rest is you spinnin'. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Drmies here. We don't need anything that PBP and Dream Focus are trying to add here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Purplebackpack, I have already stated my position on Dream Focus's edit, and it seems to me I'm not the only one who thinks that it was at the least very selective editing. Sir Joseph, it isn't about the gun, but "inability to legally own a weapon" was probably not printed on a bumper sticker. DHeyward, you can spin all you want, but the definition of "victim" I cited was the secondary meaning of the definition we have in Wiktionary--the first is "sacrificial victim". The OED lists a similar meaning, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc." The dead man suffered injury. Whether you want to call the Orlando shooter a victim or not is up to you, but NPOV requires that, well, NPOV.
- Do try to keep up. This discussion is about his children and his alleged history of nonpayment of child support, not his gun. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- The complaint here is about what was said on a talk page. It's not normal to have to cite statements made in the course of discussing an article – it would be too complicated and recursive. Notice that the complainant repeats the facts in question in his complaint but does not produce citations either. This demonstrates how difficult it is to have a sensible conversation about such matters if one can't plainly state the facts in question without a lot of qualification or red tape. See the stoning scene in Life of Brian for a good parody of this problem. Dream Focus seems to have been acting in good faith in discussing the content of this controversial topic. It's the actual editing of the article that matters, not the discussions about it. If we are too quick to cry BDP in such cases, then our work will become impossible. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew, have you ever posted anything that was not a knee-jerk reaction to an AFD, a "friend" from the ARS being criticised or an irrelevant, badly contrived BlueSoup reason to keep stuff just because. (Apart from the "because I can" opposes at RFA, obviously.) I'm sure you must have, but I'm getting old, and can't recall specifically. Yes, DreamFocus is your friend. I see little in your rationale beyond that. Begoon talk 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Dream Focus's editing was entirely out of line here. "He did this", so "deserved what he got" has no place here. This is not the supreme court of partisan internet bickering. Dream Focus should count themselves lucky that the prevailing din obscured their actions, and enabled them to dodge a bullet. They may not be so lucky next time. Begoon talk 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, I must disagree that he ever will be held accountable. There are too many here who share his outlook. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Begoon , I never said that, or anything like that. I said its ridiculous to mention he had 5 children, without mentioning the negative aspects of that, that clearly bias. I'm not sure why everyone is twisting my words around so. Mentioning he had 5 children, without mentioning he didn't pay child support, and fathered one by raping a 14 year old girl, is bias, you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him. Either tell the whole story, or don't mention it at all. The situation was dealt with shortly after the debate started, this thing just stretching out needlessly. Can we close this thing already? Its going nowhere. Dream Focus 03:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- The intention of those edits was clear, and disgraceful. Of course you'd like discussion closed. So would I if I'd said such odious things and those statements had then been called out for what they obviously were. To the charge of your edits being of the "he deserved it" nature, you say "I never said that, or anything like that.", followed by "you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him." I think I rest my case. Having dodged the bullet you did, I'd keep my head down, rather than reflexively popping it up just to provide more evidence. Just saying. Begoon talk 13:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kenny Loggins vandal again, another range being used
Two weeks ago, a rangeblock was set in place for the Kenny Loggins vandal, as can be seen in this ANI discussion.
The guy has surfaced again using a new range. Can we get another year-long rangeblock? Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- July 20:
- July 19:
- Sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If there is one filter we could use then I'm stumped about how to configure it. The hoax content changes quite a bit from article to article, from edit to edit. There would have to be a bunch of filters, ones tailored for each article. For instance, we could have a filter preventing Ghostbusters or Fletch from appearing in Template:Kenny Loggins,[27] and we could filter any attempt to insert Sheena Easton or Kenny Loggins in the Roy Orbison discography.[28] as well as vice versa. From what I understand about filters, each one takes resources and adds time to our processing, so each one should be deemed necessary. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Repeated "test edits" attempting to add code that if succesful would link to external sites
1.65.169.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1.65.223.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.29.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.66.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.98.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.205.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.205.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
116.48.166.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
119.237.202.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
168.70.18.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
219.77.111.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
A whole bunch of IPs, all geolocating to Hong Kong, have repeatedly tried to add code to articles here (the IPs listed are the ones that I have seen, but there might be many more), code that from what I can see would add links to multiple external sites, if succesful (sample edits: [29], [30], [31]; check the page history of Argentine Air Force, Grupo de Operações Especiais (Portugal) and GOE (Brazil)). So maybe someone would be interested in creating an edit filter to stop it? Thomas.W talk 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strange. Each IP seems to be adding a large bank of links, and then pretty much immediately removing them (unless caught and reverted by another editor first). Not sure what this achieves? Gricehead (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You could whack-a-mole, or pass this to the edit filter? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll see about hacking up an edit filter. BethNaught (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseFilter/779, log only for now, private because the means of detection is flimsy. BethNaught (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At SPI, we have discovered a massive sock farm that is being used for seeming undisclosed paid editing. This spans dozens of accounts and dozens of articles. I am formally requesting a community ban be placed against Sunilseth15 (the seeming oldest registered account) and for articles by this sock farm to be blown up (WP:TNT) unless other editors have substantially changed or expanded the article.
We were led to this article [situation] after it was discovered that the accounts had been using a wide array of flickr accounts to dubiously release images under a creative commons license and then upload them to the Commons despite in some cases clear copyright watermarks were visible. All accounts are single purpose accounts and clearly have an intimate knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Everything about this set up appears to be a professional and willful attempt to create promotional articles and defeat our checks and balances. Given that nearly all the articles are for companies or individuals it has all the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing.
Thank you for your consideration, Mkdwtalk 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both a community ban and nuking of all promotional articles created by them. Thomas.W talk 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support community ban and mass deletion. They're almost all tech or software companies, with a smattering of biographies of barely notable or non-notable people. Nice catch. Katietalk 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good catch. What a mess. --Church Talk 16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and TNT. I know I'm not willing to
sort through that messfix the new articles they created. I doubt anyone else is. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuclear option. Kleuske (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both the ban and the nuclear option. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both ban and mass deletion of their creations. I had already made a list of the 28 articles they created and posted it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Slew of articles from a prolific sock farm. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nuke and Community Ban. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion. We need to make it clear that this is not to be put up with. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion of created articles. Great catch! This is way too much and I don't see why we should spend hours trying to AfD or cleanup the articles created. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion. Clear and extensive violation of Terms of Use and COI guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support and you might be interested in this message:
Email
|
---|
From: David <info@wikiwiz.net> Subject: Wikipedia Editor Message Body: Hi, My name is David and I am an editor on Wikipedia. I represent a group of people that has been editing Wikipedia articles for over six years. We decided to get in touch with websites like yours, to open the possibility of having a Wikipedia page or a backlink created specifically for you. Wikipedia is ranked top 3 on Google for almost any keyword, because Google loves this high authority website. Therefore, if your website had a backlink pointed from Wikipedia, its authority would significantly increase in the eyes of Google, and thus, your search rankings would greatly improve. Similarly, it will make you more trustworthy in the eyes of prospective visitors. In addition to that, Wikipedia is the #7 top visited website in the world. Millions of people read articles every day and having your link there can get you highly targeted, permanent and organic traffic. Moreover, many publications on .EDU or .GOV domains use Wikipedia references. Which means that if your website is among the referenced sources, there is a high chance of it being added on other .EDU sites, and therefore, get you high authority backlinks for free. There are a lot more benefits I can talk about, but in case if you're wondering how you can get a Wikipedia backlink pointed to your site - we opened a website where we share our Wikipedia editing services for a small fee. Please go ahead and visit www.wikiwiz.net We would be happy to cooperate with you on boosting your website's authority! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply to my email. Kind Regards, David |
- To my mind, it seems inherently wrong to seek payment for lacing wikipedia articles with backlinks - Lugnad (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ugh! That reeks of paid editing! Have you let them know of our paid editing policy? -- Gestrid (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Lugnad: Was this email sent to you in relation to this sock farm or are you bringing to our attention another case where you were solicited? Mkdwtalk 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If needed, we can contact them using their own Contact Us form. However, I doubt that'll get us anywhere. I'm unfamiliar with what CheckUser does, but would it help in this case? -- Gestrid (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest Legal or some other WMF staffer doing so while pointing them at our m:Terms of use and WP:Long-term abuse/Morning277, just to make it expressly clear to them that Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia Foundation both expressly forbid this. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation of that website, it appears they also offer creation of Wikipedia pages. Clearly, this is paid editing. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- In answer to Mkdw’s question: it was not, strictly speaking, an email. It was a message sent via the contact page of a web site. The web site is called lugnad dot ie. It focuses on Irish maritime history. I have not responded, in any way, to the message. I did email some members of Wikimedia Community Ireland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Ireland I doubt that they did anything either. –
- User:Gestrid mentioned starting another topic. I am not certain of the benefit of that. Nonetheless if you consider it warranted, then you start it and I will join in Lugnad (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per Jéské Couriano's suggestion, I'm emailing legal@wikimedia.org to ask them to contact the website. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've
sent the following emailjust finished a conversation with Wikimedia Legal regarding WikiWiz:
- I've
- Per Jéské Couriano's suggestion, I'm emailing legal@wikimedia.org to ask them to contact the website. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Email discussion with Wikimedia Legal
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Support the nuclear option. Ban the editors, nuke the articles, ferret out any backlinks. No sense in rewarding bad behavior. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuking. –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban and Nuke for egregious policy violations. If they learn that they can create an article, get blocked as a sock, and still have the article stay, then it's only an incentive to keep it up. That's how we did it with Orangemoody, and the precedent should stay. GABgab 19:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban and nuke Ban is obvious for mass-socking, and all articles are against Wikimedia policy, so should be deleted. Deletion also de-incentives others from doing similar things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, and salt, with a link to the SPI and/or LTA in the deletion messages. The more we call out this sort of thing, the less attractive it will become. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, salt. Also perhaps ban account recreation by the underlying IPs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, salt, pepper, and bone meal to deter pests. - This is actually really big, as I ran into this farm on an AfD vote (and a subsequent SPI) in a totally unrelated area. So it's spilling over into other processes and areas, and we can't have that, especially when it's really easy to unbalance XfDs with a vote or two. MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuke. Don't reward the socks by keeping their work around. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, even tho 2 or 3 of the articles are about notable subjects. (Dr. Moopens definitely & probably Aloise & possibly ToastAle.)
- BTW, I thought Google honored our nofollow for the links, in which case either they don't know this or they are deliberately claiming more than they can deliver. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support band, orbital nuke option, scorch the earth and salt. Zero tolerance for this sort of thing. Blackmane (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's utterly depressing that regulatory capture prevents us from lifting a finger in such cases except for extremes like this where the editor has proven himself wholly incompetent. —Cryptic 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban, Nuke, and do so ASAP Support is unanimous. Let's be expeditious about it. TimothyJosephWood 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would also like to support salting the articles. It has been my experience that once there is a monetary incentive, the articles are often recreated using IPs or other sock puppets. As Katie and DGG said, most of the articles are non-notable and the ones that are or become notable can be created through WP:AFC or request their semi-protection be removed at WP:RPP if the editor is not confirmed. Mkdwtalk 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kill! Kill! Kill! EEng 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass-deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, mass-deletion, and salting. This can be closed and the WikiWiz issue re-raised as needed in another thread. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nuke from orbit with prejudice. Not sure if mass deletion is feasible; prod-tagging all would be a good start. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Someone call Major Kong so he can ride the nuke on the way down. Serious mode: ban and nuke EvergreenFir (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a SNOW situation. No one is seriously going to oppose banning/nukeing/etc. What is being waited on here? We don't need anymore movie reference pile-on affirmations. Just do it already. Doc talk 04:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Strange edits and attacks against me
Special:Contributions/95.49.123.170 has posted an attack aganist me and posted a nobots template to prevent bots editing the sandbox but I going to remove it anyway. Any comment? KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have a comment. I was very close to blocking them, and still might yet. This user has been trolling the sandboxes, template documentation, and Wikipedia pages for quite some time now. They have been blocked a couple of times that I've seen. I am not convinced that nobots will work in the sandbox[32], but personal attacks from this user should not be tolerated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly familiar with Wikipedia,[39][40] probably a banned user evading his ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Previous blocks include User talk:95.49.250.107 and User talk:95.49.108.84. They've used various other IPs in the same range. I tend to think their experimentation days should be drawing to a close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly familiar with Wikipedia,[39][40] probably a banned user evading his ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe a rangeblock is needed for ban evasion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If someone can discover a relevant ban I'd be happy to act accordingly, but I haven't seen one yet. Banned Polish users anyone? It's quite a large range to block, but block-and-revert on sight could be considered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did some test edits to see if the bots clean it but that IP has done the same edits. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If someone can discover a relevant ban I'd be happy to act accordingly, but I haven't seen one yet. Banned Polish users anyone? It's quite a large range to block, but block-and-revert on sight could be considered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe a rangeblock is needed for ban evasion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Back at it as 95.49.107.224. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now already blocked. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
George Ranalli
- George Ranalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gurulupina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Ddperks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- On WP:COIN at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#George_Ranalli
- Previously on AN/I in 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive893#George_Ranalli
This is a problem reported on WP:COIN. It's basically resume inflation in a BLP article by several SPAs. There may be a COI, but it's hard to tell what the connection is. The last time this was at AN/I, the editor involved appeared to be the subject's wife. The article subject is an NYC architect who hasn't actually built very much in a long career. The real problem is WP:OWN. The main SPA has made over a hundred edits since July 11. They won't engage on talk despite repeated requests, and undo almost any edit made by others.[41][42]. (My own edit added headings which distinguished the architect's one significant new building from various renovation projects and paper designs. The SPA didn't like that.) The article needs trimming, but it seems impossible to do that without edit warring. Gurulupina edits only this article and some related articles. (Today, though, that editor made some minor cleanup edits to Frank Lloyd Wright.) Ddperks edits mostly this article, uploads related images, and may have a COI. If they can be induced to engage on talk, this can probably be worked out, but it may take the AN/I clue stick to make that happen. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This is one of those "good guy COI" cases. They write well, they cite sources, and they do a good job of editing. It's just that all the edits add up to a PR puff piece. The article subject is a minor architect with one notable building, a community center in Brooklyn, but the article makes him sound like a major figure in 20th century architecture. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The odd bit is that the problem may be what he's trying to be notable for; looks like he's a fairly useless architect, but a fairly OK museum/exhibit curator with a number of published monographs. Some trimming definitely needs to be done, though, and I would support the clue stick if this has been an ongoing problem. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ranalli probably does merit a page. But since since his case is sonewhat borderline, he does not need to have one if he does not wish to have one. Someone (Ranelli, a relative, a friend or a colleague) is obviously very clumsily attempting to give him a page. However, he has been in the news and the article is liable to developing BLP 3.6 issues. I suggest that we treat this as the minor incident that it is, by 1.) issuing stiff warnings to all of the accounts involved. and 2.) by making very clear to each of those accounts that having a page has its downsides. That neither they, nor we, can guarantee that negative information will not go onto that page in future. But that, if he wishes, Ranelli can ask to have the page removed. And give them very clear instructions as to how Ranelli can discreetly make such a request.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. Another editor just did a trim of the article. Suggest the usual warnings and then waiting to see what happens next. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violator and edit warrior
A user has been using multiple IPs to make persistent disruptive edits to three different articles (Julia Carpenter, Ben Reilly and Madame Web). The only reason I didn't file a WP:SOCK investigation is because the user claims that their IP address changes regularly by itself (while also confirming that the IPs are indeed the same user). The user claims that their edits are "good faith", but edit warring, violating copyright, adding persistent original research, and refusing discussion are far from good faith.
The IPs (so far)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:2054:D684:E128:A53 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:79A8:AD2E:ED04:EEE9 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:5E8:6321:5A0B:9018 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:244E:3EF2:6FFC:4FAF (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:1589:9185:7E57:2DCE (talk · contribs)
The situation started when a separate user left uncited original research at Julia Carpenter, which I removed ([43]). Then the disruptive editor re-added the original research, clearly unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines ([44]). I reverted it, before leaving a message on the user's Talk Page asking for a reliable source ([45], [46]). The user then outright refused discussion ([47]) before deciding to edit war on the Julia Carpenter page until BOZ protected the page and reverted the user ([48], [49]).
The disruptive editor then decided to revert a seemingly random edit I made to the Ben Reilly article, likely through my user contributions ([50]). Then the user decided to violate copyright by adding a copyrighted image to Madame Web that was uploaded for another article ([51]), which I removed ([52]). The user then decided to edit war again by re-adding the copyrighted image twice ([53], [54]).
When page protection expired on Julia Carpenter, the user reverted BOZ and continued edit warring, only to be reverted by myself and Crazy runner ([55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]).
This continued even after I left this warning on the Talk Pages of all the IPs (though two more IPs surfaced since then). The user replied with this. This was my final reply ([61]). The user has called me a troll and a vandal, but the age old "ignorance of the law" excuse doesn't stretch very far with this user considering I left links to Wikipedia's guidelines on their Talk Page very early on ([62]). DarkKnight2149 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your complete report, Darkknight2149. I don't have time to take a proper look at the editing involved — I'm not well at home in these topics, and I want to go to bed — but I'll mention that so far that's only a /65 range. If another admin finds cause, I'm pretty sure the individual can be blocked without any risk of collateral damage, by simply blocking the range 2602:306:cdd9:9480::/65. There's no need for an SPI report, IMO, as this isn't strictly "socking" (but certainly is a single individual). Bishonen | talk 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
User: Moon King disruptive AfD
"New user." First thing he does is add auto-AfD scripts to his userpage js and css. A new user shouldn't even know where those are, much less be able to know exactly how to find and add script content. The next thing the user did was nominate an article I created, Suzuka Naval Arsenal, for deletion, without even providing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument [63]. What that diff also shows is that whatever the script was didn't even work, because it took a second edit to get the template in seven minutes later, and 10 minutes total to execute the AfD in reverse order, just about if you look at the contribs, plus he botched the usernotice. So there's no "script" at work here.
The only thing the user has done since registering the article is comment on the AfD. I couldn't SPI because I don't know who the master is, and I don't buy a single word of the user's statement that he's a longtime reader who "just decided to get involved" over this article. I have provided not only a Google search with 7000 hits, but also specific sources with translation, to which the user replies "it looks like a directory." It clearly isn't, the user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:POINTY, and should be banned. At no time since registration has he ever bothered to make a single edit anywhere else besides the AfD. MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article is about a non notable factory. The user has failed to provide multiple reliable sources about the subject. He provided one which he hasn't explained why is reliable or what it is exactly. I gave it a cursory look and it looks like a directory to me. --Moon King (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Messing up the AfD nomination process would actually support Moon King being a longtime lurker and new editor. It's plausible that a new user might genuinely register to AfD something and be aware that there are scripts to do this (like with many things on the internet). In this case the script posted on their js and css pages is the first hit when searching "WP:AFD script". That being said, it is a bit strange, but unless you have specific accounts in mind (for behavioural comparison or checkuser), or if the AfD becomes problematic, I don't see how this is actionable. We just have to assume good faith in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing Patar Knight here, Assume good faith. Welcome to Wikipedia, Moon King. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's problematic because there are several sources in the article, WP:NEXIST has been met, and to alleviate the specific claim of "there's no sources about the factory", I've provided a full page, in-depth source that goes so far as to trace the history, the products manufactured, has pictures, talks about what the site is used for now, provided a translation of it, and Moon King insists that it's a directory, when it clearly is not. His rationale is "it looks like a directory to me", without any reasoning why that is, and now I apparently have to "explain what the source is." This is outright a competency problem, or deliberate trolling. If you want to allow that, go right ahead, I guess.
- I'm fairly certain he's not going to get the article deleted by any means, but the extent of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is far too high for a new user, and as I said, he's got no other focus than to get this article deleted, as evidenced by a total lack of editing otherwise. I see no reason to AGF. There's no reason for a new user to have this kind of focus. You want me to assume AGF? CU the user and prove he's not somebody else, because I'm sure he's well aware that he can't be CUed if there's no suspicion of a specific sockmaster. Better yet? Have the user make some other actual contribution to the encyclopedia, and show me he has the least bit of understanding about a single policy, because I haven't seen a single policy-based statement yet. I will AGF when behavior warrants it, and behavior does not warrant it. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- If it's that obvious of a keep, then the AFD will bear that out. When most of the referenced content is a list of what was built there, I get the directory comparison. And the titles of the three sources listed don't actually refer to the arsenal itself - not saying that they don't discuss it, I haven't checked, but if you go by the titles there's not a "History of Suzuka Naval Arsenal" or whatever. So I think I understand why it was nominated. If you've got additional information that might hint at something for an SPI, we can take a look at it - but in the absence of evidence, I don't know what we would do here other than keep an eye on things. There's nothing actionable as such - it's a valid AFD nom. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- To add to that, looking at the AFD... It's running solidly toward a Keep result. So it's not like there's a flawed nomination and multiple editors got suckered into following along - Moon King made reasonable arguments, incited you into providing an additional source, and other editors !voted Keep on the merits. That's precisely how AFD is supposed to work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Ultraexactzz. I looked over the 3 sources in the article and they're a bit on the weak side. If one searches through the Gbook, there are 4 mentions of Suzuka in the available text and only serve to verify that the statement about the aircraft manufacture and testing. The other 2 sources do the same, verifying the that the machine guns are licensed versions of types manufacture elsewhere. If it weren't for the all Japanese source that MSJapan posted at the AFD, I'd be hard pressed to vote keep. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, this. MSJapan decided to take a shot in the dark and accuse me of being the puppeteer of Moon King, with little or no basis for that except that we frequent AfD and edit within the same 18-hour period of the day. The discussion was closed as disruptive and groundless; anybody could easily tell Moon King and I are two different people. When I look at MSJapan's behavior, I'm seeing flashes of recent attempts he made to have User:Kvng sanctioned (though some of Kvng's edits were considered questionable, there was never any stomach for the sanctions MSJapan repeatedly pushed for). While MSJapan does make sensible contributions from time to time, he has a troubling history of attempting to punish those with whom he disagrees. pbp 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @MSJapan:, any comment? Filing SPIs like this, with no evidence and no real indication of AGF, is problematic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be blunt. I looked at it, and the tone and focus of the users on particular points in a discussion, as well as the edit timing of both users (within the span of a few minutes at times) looked pretty plausible to me. They both evade questions pretty much the same way, too. Now, if the CU I had asked for in the first place had been done for an obvious sock, I wouldn't have to "guess" to try to get some action, but I was left no choice. There is no AGF when a new user does nothing but focus on an AfD to the extent of not even bothering to participate in the outside world of the encyclopedia - it's classic sock behavior.
- @MSJapan:, any comment? Filing SPIs like this, with no evidence and no real indication of AGF, is problematic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're seriously going to tell me that some random person randomly saw my article on Suzuka Naval Arsenal, and that was his magic shining moment where he decided to "get involved" and rather than edit it to make it better, this "new user" decides AfD is the way to go for "the betterment of the encyclopedia", despite never having used AfD before. Then, instead of reading the AfD instructions, he decided to go get an AfD script, despite not having ever registered here before to know we had scripts, finds the js and css, puts together an AfD out of order (thus by hand) in about 20 minutes, also despite having never done it before? Really? Doesn't sound plausible when put that way, does it? Not only that, when he gets to AfD, he has no policy-based reason to send it to AfD, and then apparently needs me to explain sources to him. I explain the sources, and he refuses to accept the explanation - it's a directory, not because it is, but because he thinks it is. So at what point does it take for somebody to go "Gee, this is a bit weird, isn't it?" That's what I have a problem with - it is obvious this is a bad-faith sock with a personal ax to grind, and it's being ignored for no reason apparent to me. If the community doesn't want to follow its own rules, that's fine, but last time I checked, a bad-faith AfD was disruptive editing, sockpuppetry wasn't allowed, and people weren't allowed to lie their way out of things when the truth was obvious. If I'm totally mistaken, let me know, and I certainly won't expect anyone to do anything I ask ever again. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laying on the melodrama a bit thick don't you think?Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I've been here a long time; it has only been recently that I really feel like it's pulling teeth trying to get any sort of remedy unless it's an open-and-shut case where it's a major problem like NLT, suicide threat, etc. Other than that, no matter what's presented as evidence or how obvious that evidence is, editor conduct is not being addressed like it used to be. It's not just me, either; I've seen plenty of users reported here three and four times for the same thing, and nobody does a thing about it despite the same complaints coming up. These complaints are often from different people, so it's not like it's always one person or the cabal. If a report was made, someone looked at it, and something was usually done one way or the other. Now we have threads with no response for days, and all of a sudden we have a preponderance of sock farms, COI, and other editor misbehavior that somehow nobody ever noticed before, and it often affects dozens of articles before someone notices. It can't all be griping when different people bring up the same problem independently. In short, I think we're letting a lot of things go (administratively speaking), in the hope that they will resolve on their own, and they don't. I'll avoid the laundry list, but it really does beg the question of "why should I even bother asking for help", doesn't it? There's clearly been a paradigm shift somewhere, even though the status quo is that nothing has changed, and maybe that's the problem. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- MSJapan, while this may be a troublesome editor, you majorly goofed by thinking he was me. Your article's going to get kept, isn't it? And if you're worried about this editor, try to get him on conduct, not socking. If he's an SPA, he'll leave when the AfD is over, and if he's just a general nuisance, you can get him later. pbp 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, MSJapan, it occurs to me that Moon King may be upset about the topic rather than about you. Regardless, if you create ANI threads that come off as punishing people for disagreeing with you, you're probably not going to get much of anywhere. pbp 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Try to get him"? ... "get him later"? An interesting, illuminating couple of suggested approaches to the realities of collegial editing as you see them... Begoon talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- What can I say, @Begoon:, except that MSJapan has a history of trying to "get" people. He tried to "get" me because he I thought I was Moon King. And, at least when this was posted, there was a fair amount of evidence that Moon King was a disruptive SPA, though I've gone through his edit history of late and he does appear to now be turning to interests other than the AfD. BTW, the AfD has been closed as Keep. Perhaps it's time to close this as well with no action taken except an admonition to MSJapan not to use SPIs to fish. pbp 13:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Try to get him"? ... "get him later"? An interesting, illuminating couple of suggested approaches to the realities of collegial editing as you see them... Begoon talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I've been here a long time; it has only been recently that I really feel like it's pulling teeth trying to get any sort of remedy unless it's an open-and-shut case where it's a major problem like NLT, suicide threat, etc. Other than that, no matter what's presented as evidence or how obvious that evidence is, editor conduct is not being addressed like it used to be. It's not just me, either; I've seen plenty of users reported here three and four times for the same thing, and nobody does a thing about it despite the same complaints coming up. These complaints are often from different people, so it's not like it's always one person or the cabal. If a report was made, someone looked at it, and something was usually done one way or the other. Now we have threads with no response for days, and all of a sudden we have a preponderance of sock farms, COI, and other editor misbehavior that somehow nobody ever noticed before, and it often affects dozens of articles before someone notices. It can't all be griping when different people bring up the same problem independently. In short, I think we're letting a lot of things go (administratively speaking), in the hope that they will resolve on their own, and they don't. I'll avoid the laundry list, but it really does beg the question of "why should I even bother asking for help", doesn't it? There's clearly been a paradigm shift somewhere, even though the status quo is that nothing has changed, and maybe that's the problem. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laying on the melodrama a bit thick don't you think?Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're seriously going to tell me that some random person randomly saw my article on Suzuka Naval Arsenal, and that was his magic shining moment where he decided to "get involved" and rather than edit it to make it better, this "new user" decides AfD is the way to go for "the betterment of the encyclopedia", despite never having used AfD before. Then, instead of reading the AfD instructions, he decided to go get an AfD script, despite not having ever registered here before to know we had scripts, finds the js and css, puts together an AfD out of order (thus by hand) in about 20 minutes, also despite having never done it before? Really? Doesn't sound plausible when put that way, does it? Not only that, when he gets to AfD, he has no policy-based reason to send it to AfD, and then apparently needs me to explain sources to him. I explain the sources, and he refuses to accept the explanation - it's a directory, not because it is, but because he thinks it is. So at what point does it take for somebody to go "Gee, this is a bit weird, isn't it?" That's what I have a problem with - it is obvious this is a bad-faith sock with a personal ax to grind, and it's being ignored for no reason apparent to me. If the community doesn't want to follow its own rules, that's fine, but last time I checked, a bad-faith AfD was disruptive editing, sockpuppetry wasn't allowed, and people weren't allowed to lie their way out of things when the truth was obvious. If I'm totally mistaken, let me know, and I certainly won't expect anyone to do anything I ask ever again. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm done with my AGF. The editor(Moon King) is clearly being pointy and disruptive now. PRODed and then AfDed an article I created because I warned them about edit warring. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I nominated the articles because they are non notable. I came upon them because of our discussion. It had nothing to do with the minor misunderstanding we had.--Moon King (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- How did you come upon the articles "because of our discussion"? We didn't have any prior discussion about the article or show me the diffs if we had.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This comment shows that you are simply being disruptive or wasting others time. I will caution you as it is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE/WP:CIR territory. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is wrong with nominating similar articles in one AFD? Seems efficient to me. --Moon King (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you read that comment twice you would find what is so wrong in it - but you apparently you don't realise. This is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE or a WP:CIR. I'm going to stop posting as this is simply a waste of time and totally disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Lemongirl942, MoonKing's behaviour on the AfD is tending rapidly towards WP:Battleground behaviour (dispute with another editor and holding a grudge for no apparent reason). Going after a series of articles just because one editor created them. Your allegation that you learned about Pulau Saigon after talking to Lemongirl942 on your talk page is also false, you stalked her edits to do so. On top of that, you outright admit to stalking another editor's edits "You have brought yourself to my attention, I examined your edits, found that particular article, and determined that that particular article is not notable" and then on the actual AfD "I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well." seems awfully like you're breaching WP:WIKIHOUND as per; "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I suggest you desist quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you read that comment twice you would find what is so wrong in it - but you apparently you don't realise. This is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE or a WP:CIR. I'm going to stop posting as this is simply a waste of time and totally disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is wrong with nominating similar articles in one AFD? Seems efficient to me. --Moon King (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Problem editor at Marilyn Monroe
User:EditsOrArticles continues to add material to the article which is already in it. I have only edited the article to revert vandalism. This editor has continued to re-add the material and template another editor and myself about edit warring with him. The editor is new and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. We hope (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- because I added nicknames and religion to her Infobox? That's the case in any article.EditsOrArticles (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked by both of us to discuss at the talk page and instead continued and accused us of edit warring. We hope (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. He asked me to discuss subsection title change. I stopped changing it. He permitted the Infobox change because everybody knows it duplicates data that is already shown in-article. Are you new to Wikipedia? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are apparently not. We hope (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not new to Wikipedia? Should I show you all the Infoboxes of each and every article to prove my point? Of course not. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are apparently not. We hope (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. He asked me to discuss subsection title change. I stopped changing it. He permitted the Infobox change because everybody knows it duplicates data that is already shown in-article. Are you new to Wikipedia? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked by both of us to discuss at the talk page and instead continued and accused us of edit warring. We hope (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
EditsOrArticles also violated 3RR after receiving an edit war warning. I have been preparing a 3RR report but will hold off until we see what comes out of this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Diff We both reverted the editor twice--not 3 times. This account has only been around since July 12 of this year. We hope (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- None of you meet the 3RR, because each one of you reverted for a different reason.
- You both use this block to avoid Talk page discussion on the relevant article.
- One of you used ad hominem as per article Talk page for why any addition shouldn't apply. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That is not an ad hominem attack. It is advice that you would be wise to follow. I count five reverts on your part, so explain to me why I shouldn't block you for edit warring to keep you from doing it some more. Katietalk 02:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now EditsOrArticles has begun removing others' talk page comments, in this current discussion and on the talk page for the article under discussion here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And again here. Then changing another editor's comments above here. So far that's four incidents of refactoring talk page comments in about five minutes, and after warnings not to do so. This is getting out of control. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The first one reverted because I changed one subsection header. The second one reverted later because I added data to her Infobox. A discussion is currently underway and they appear to prefer triggerhappy blocks over serious on-topic discussions.EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I warned them both for harassment[64] and edit warring[65] prior to them. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project and you're making it a bettlefield when you can't have your own way. We hope (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Still waiting for the explanation. I don't care if you think you're right or they're wrong. I don't care what the content was unless it was a BLP or copyright violation, and it wasn't. You're edit warring and I want to know right now if you're going to continue or cease. And if you refactor others' comments on talk pages again, I'll consider it willful disruption, because again, that is NOT an ad hominem attack or a threat or harassment. Katietalk 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support boomerang for all three editors and possible full protection for the article with the WP:WRONGVERSION left in place. Each of them are edit warring and behaving horribly at the Marilyn Monroe article and the article talk page. The article editing history says it all: [66].
- WeHope and SundayClose have been tag-team edit warring at the article since July 17, 2016 and that's pretty much what they are doing right now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you show the admins the evidences of WeHope and SundayClose edit warring every new editor at Marilyn Monroe EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I guess the third editor is in error in his comments also....We hope (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did that for the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY investigation I'm about to request for both of you. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I guess the third editor is in error in his comments also....We hope (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently EditosOrArticles has a classic case of WP:IDHT because he reverted for the sixth time. Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. As always, open to review and discussion, but this is clear. Katietalk 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
WikiWiz
Some site owners who happen to be editors here have received emails from a company called WikiWiz. The website confirms this is paid editing. What can be done about this? I've posted relevant info below from a closed discussion:
Email addressed to Lugnad
|
---|
From: David <info@wikiwiz.net> Subject: Wikipedia Editor Message Body: Hi, My name is David and I am an editor on Wikipedia. I represent a group of people that has been editing Wikipedia articles for over six years. We decided to get in touch with websites like yours, to open the possibility of having a Wikipedia page or a backlink created specifically for you. Wikipedia is ranked top 3 on Google for almost any keyword, because Google loves this high authority website. Therefore, if your website had a backlink pointed from Wikipedia, its authority would significantly increase in the eyes of Google, and thus, your search rankings would greatly improve. Similarly, it will make you more trustworthy in the eyes of prospective visitors. In addition to that, Wikipedia is the #7 top visited website in the world. Millions of people read articles every day and having your link there can get you highly targeted, permanent and organic traffic. Moreover, many publications on .EDU or .GOV domains use Wikipedia references. Which means that if your website is among the referenced sources, there is a high chance of it being added on other .EDU sites, and therefore, get you high authority backlinks for free. There are a lot more benefits I can talk about, but in case if you're wondering how you can get a Wikipedia backlink pointed to your site - we opened a website where we share our Wikipedia editing services for a small fee. Please go ahead and visit www.wikiwiz.net We would be happy to cooperate with you on boosting your website's authority! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply to my email. Kind Regards, David |
Email discussion I had with Wikimedia Legal
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Another editor, Clpo13, confirmed that OTRS had received a complaint about an email similar to the first one above.
My question is: What specifically can be done on our end to connect users to WikiWiz (if that makes sense) and do we know of any editors currently connected to it? If any editors are found to be connected to WikiWiz, what should be done? A paid-editing warning? A block? What?
Yes, some of this content was taken from #Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm above. The initial post of the email was off-topic, and the discussion was closed, admittedly by me (a non-admin), per WP:SNOW, so I thought I should start a discussion specifically regarding this.
-- Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hehe, Lugnad. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is much like the case involving Wiki PR which was a company that offered wiki editing services, and got hit with a site ban. Also look at the Orangemoody case. Basically any editor found to be tied to the company will be blocked and their edits nuked. The only way to link accounts is to request a CheckUser so there needs to be some pretty solid evidence. Blackmane (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the OTRS ticket I was referring to, for anyone with access: VRTS ticket # 2016061310006803. clpo13(talk) 15:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blackmane is correct. We should run every single sock thru SPI (make sure you have evidence), nuke every page they have made and revert every edit, and make sure that the SPI or (inevitable) LTA subpages are linked in the block and deletion logs. Something like this is a block-on-sight offence for any of a litany of reasons (ToU violation, spamming, WP:NOTHERE). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Unwarranted reversion and failure to collaborate
Recently I started to check the notes of WWII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, subdividing the work in five tranches, which I completed after some days. At that point Bgwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened in WWII talk page emphasizing that I was changing the notes' style and, in addition, putting some errors on the page (he noted three but in fact there were five errors: three missing <ref> tags, one typo, “sf” instead of “sfn”, and one missing vertical bar in an {{sfn}} short note). These errors are quite easily corrigible, and I would have expected Bgwhite to provide to it himself or to alert me to do so, as this is the usual editors' behavior. I would anyway found out these errors after a short while, being used to perform a diff after check, as I did in the third tranche, finding one error. Instead Bgwhite's attitude was quite different: the last two tranches of my work were reverted, so that the page was returned to a “version without errors”, as Bgwhite put it; in fact the page was returned to a version with:[67]
- more than one hundred erroneous, because unnecessary, occurrences of <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>, with a proportional amount of wasted bytes (quite important in an heavy page like this, ~220,000 bytes), which I had substituted with {{sfn}},
- 11 missing {{pn}}, which I had added,
- many unimproved citations, which I did take care of,
- one double full book citation (in Citations and in References), one of which I had substituted with a short note,
- one long quote regarding “assault rifle” which repeated text fully visible in the linked website, and absolutely irrelevant in an high level page like this, which I had removed from the note.
Isn't just absurd Bgwhite's request that, for these changes to be accepted, a preemptive discussion is needed? This is hyperburocratism. There is also an ethical question: the use of reverting without reason. There was no change in notes' style (it always was of the short note type with link to the full reference, before and after my changes), and after Bgwhite's reversion the page was left in a lesser, not better, state than before. On a more general level, I need to know if normal people like myself are still allowed to participate to the WP effort, which ought to be of a collaborative kind. Carlotm (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this thread here? What are you looking to accomplish with it? Doc talk 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both
<ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>
and{{sfn}}
are used in the same short author-date citation style to solve two different situations, the former being necessary to bundle multiple short citations into a single footnote. In WWII page all the short citations used<ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>
markup even when it was not necessary and, as such, erroneous. My work was eminently about changing this erroneous, or if you will, inappropriate, because it consumes bytes for no reasons, situation. There was no change in citation style, rather a correction within the same citation style context. I even got thanks from Nick-D, who would not have done so if I had showed contempt for WP:CITEVAR. Carlotm (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both
- Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
AN/I is not the place to solve which ref style will be used in a talk page. Please discuss this on the talk page in question itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Magioladitis, is not about content, is not about ref styles. As I already wrote, the question is if reverting without cause and demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate are behaviors deemed to be celebrated or to be disapproved. Carlotm (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm "But it seems you don't care much about that" your presumption of bad faith here is the most worrying thing written on the talk page of the WWII article. Now you presume that Bgwhite refuses to collaborate because he asked that you have a plan of action before you try implementing it on the article and reach a consensus on whether this change is needed. Is it absolutely necessary to have wide consensus, no I don't think so if all it's doing is saving bytes of space then that ought to be fine without consensus, except that is not the only thing being changed as Bgwhite and Nick-D have noted. Taking Bgwhite to AN/I for this minor friction will go nowhere, no action is going to be taken because none can be taken. You haven't demonstrated that Bgwhite is unwilling to collaborate and you also haven't demonstrated that his reversion of your edits was needless, it introduced a few errors, fix them and then re-implement it. If Bgwhite reverts you again, take it to the talk page. If that fails, then get some outside opinion (Nick-D has already given theirs for example). If all else fails, then and only then bring it to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that this matter is resolved: over a week ago Bgwhite reverted the changes and started a discussion on the talk page largely on procedural grounds. I've supported the changes, and no-one else has raised any concerns, so they can be re-added with any necessary fixes made. Any further discussion would best belong at Talk:World War II#borked up refs (rude title courtesy Bgwhite) as this is a discussion over article content. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- When people play with rules as they please, a “law and disorder” environment is privileged, and productivity goes down, down, down. Carlotm (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Coming to AN/I with any problem (justified or not) causes an immediate drop in productivity (for all involved). As far as the above discussion has illustrated, there has been no playing with the rules only playing by the rules. You made an edit, Bgwhite reverted on the grounds that it caused errors, and now we're here. Content dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Timothyhouse1 persistently adding unsourced content despite many warnings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User I am reporting (Timothyhouse1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding content to articles without verifying where it came from. He has been warned numerous amount of times about adding unsourced content but it seems he has ignored these warnings and is still adding unsourced content to articles I gave him his final warning on July 19th but yesterday, he was still adding unsourced and unverifiable content, so I decided to report it here. It has to stop. People read these articles and we cannot have people persistently adding content and not verifying it with a source. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- example diff - the editor has continued to make these types of unsourced contributions after being warned multiple times. They do not seem to want to engage with us, so I think that unless they come here and agree to start verifying their claims a NOTHERE/CIR block may unfortunately be in order -- samtar talk or stalk
- Blocked two days. Blocks will be longer if behavior continues. --NeilN talk to me 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @NeilN:. If the behaviour continues should I report back here, report him to AIV or tell you personally? Class455fan1 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Class455fan1, AIV or post a note on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @NeilN:. If the behaviour continues should I report back here, report him to AIV or tell you personally? Class455fan1 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Was the unsourced content incorrect? I've no objection to blocking people who deliberately add false information to the pedia, and you certainly need to start referencing content before you can become an admin or get DYK or FA credits. But our policy and the standard rubric on our editing screen is still "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" changing that policy to "Encyclopedic content must be verified" would be a big jump and I'm not sure if we are ready for it yet. Currently BLPprod only applies to new articles on living people, if we changed policy to require all new info to cite sources then that would mean widening BLPProd to all new articles. I'm not necessarily against such a change, but if we do it I believe we should first go down the German route and change the system messages to prompt contributors to source their contributions. Having enforcement stricter than the system guarantees that people will be bitten. A stricter set of rules and editing system combined with a flexible and helpful community would make for a much less bity site. ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If an editor completely ignores multiple attempts by other editors to engage them regarding the burden policy, they're going to get blocked, sooner than later. --NeilN talk to me 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- From the nutshell at WP:V: "Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." It was challenged. Can't criticize anyone for conforming to clear Wikipedia policy; rather, you should give them a medal. If you disagree with the policy, you are free to try to get it changed, and best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sea Lions
We appear to have an infestation of Sea Lions over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment". Several experienced editors have concluded that the sea lioning is disruptive,[68][69][70][71] but I am not sure what, if any, administrative action is needed. I and pretty much everyone else has completely disengaged on the NPOV board but the steady steam of sea lion posts continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- If it is from off-site canvasing, that is generally considered an area where 500/30 protection can be applied. I don't know off hand the present state if this requires ArbCom to state it is covered,
but I would also add that "electronic harassment" easily could be interpreted under the Gamergate controversy ArbCom ruling, which 500/30 is an option for admins to apply already.Nope, check that, this is not the article I was thinking of. Definitely not under GG. (Please note that I have not reviewed the discussion and can't make a statement either way if that's off-site canvassing, only just noting this option for stopping disruption does exist if that is the case). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a precedent for applying WP:ARE topic bans for advocacy and disruption centered around this article, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't under gamergate discretionary sanctions, but it is under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Plus, the notion that the opinions of mental health professionals should be given equal weight with the delusions of the patients they treat is *cough* insane. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The TRUTH is out there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- So that's still around, the old "black helicopter" thing about the UN trying to take over the US from bases in Canada. I remember seeing it on the 'Net a long time ago... Thomas.W talk 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) (I've been on the 'Net since before the September that never ended, taking part in many discussions on mailing lists and Usenet long before the World Wide Web existed...)
- The TRUTH is out there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jed Stuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.234.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.224.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 87.6.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 87.1.117.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 82.59.56.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Above are a number of accounts devoted to persistent, long term lobbying on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot of people. Is this a canvassing issue or are some of these people long-term participants? I visited some of the IP addresses shown and they look like they only came here to make those posts. Some of them have other posts in the past but that may be multiple people with the same IP over time since they are from years ago. I do think this approach to editing is concerning; they have a right to their opinion but it's not really reasonable for the weird opinions of mentally ill people to be given the same weight as medical evidence just because a WaPo reporter gave them a forum to speak. Alicb (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- NPOVN has been used as a forum on mind control since 8 June 2016. The section should be closed, and kept closed, with blocks for anyone who persists. The corresponding articles and their talk pages also need firm attention to stop the current excitement because it is not reasonable to expect experienced editors to endlessly explain WP:FRINGE to enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No Personal Attacks
'Sea Lion' is a personal attack, those are not allowed on Wikipedia. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the removal of your comment. Being completely, uselessly off base is not grounds for removal. "Sea lion" may be pejorative, some might say petty, but it hardly clears the WP:NPA threshold that the community routinely applies in practice. Take that policy literally and 90% of editor time would be spent at ANI. An uninvolved editor will probably archive this subsection shortly. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Told you, Dude. Sea lions. Don't mention them. Jonathunder (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which type of Sea lion (disambiguation) is being talked about here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Resulting from the Gamergate controversy, "sea lion" became a term used by those that argued against those that supported GG towards those same supporters, based on the above linked Wondermark cartoon; it was used because these GG supporters (gamers, generally) would inject themselves into conversations on social media whenever gamers were mentioned, in a way that would disrupt the conversation and in an unwelcomed way. It slowly then morphed to mean, derogatorily, anyone sympathetic (or apparently sympathetic) towards the GG supporters, which has included some of us here on WP like myself. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a different meaning to the term? I'm struggling to see the applicability here, given that the article in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Gamergate (granted I have only vague ideas about what Gamergate is). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's this meaning, but that's completely off the rails. I think this was just a term thrown out in reference to a cartoon, and wouldn't read too much into it. Jonathunder (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a different meaning to the term? I'm struggling to see the applicability here, given that the article in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Gamergate (granted I have only vague ideas about what Gamergate is). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Resulting from the Gamergate controversy, "sea lion" became a term used by those that argued against those that supported GG towards those same supporters, based on the above linked Wondermark cartoon; it was used because these GG supporters (gamers, generally) would inject themselves into conversations on social media whenever gamers were mentioned, in a way that would disrupt the conversation and in an unwelcomed way. It slowly then morphed to mean, derogatorily, anyone sympathetic (or apparently sympathetic) towards the GG supporters, which has included some of us here on WP like myself. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which type of Sea lion (disambiguation) is being talked about here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Told you, Dude. Sea lions. Don't mention them. Jonathunder (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I take it we don't have an article on this use of "sea lion". Why that term, is hard to figure. Maybe because they "bark" en masse? As for Gamergate... like you, I know almost nothing about it, and I intend to keep it that way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No first-hand knowledge of any use of the term, but sea lions are loud, travel in large groups, and rudely use their size to run off other species. I wouldn't want a sea lion as a pet. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough that that take on the zoological aspect of sea lions would apply to calling a group of IP editors acting in the same manner, but that said, editors probably should be aware of the use of the term towards some WP editors here as a result of the GG controversy (there's a site dedicted to such), and that some can see it as derogatory. I wouldn't call it a personal attack necessary at a random editor, but that said, I would hope editors recognize that it has been used offensively around WP and should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Trolls with flippers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough that that take on the zoological aspect of sea lions would apply to calling a group of IP editors acting in the same manner, but that said, editors probably should be aware of the use of the term towards some WP editors here as a result of the GG controversy (there's a site dedicted to such), and that some can see it as derogatory. I wouldn't call it a personal attack necessary at a random editor, but that said, I would hope editors recognize that it has been used offensively around WP and should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No first-hand knowledge of any use of the term, but sea lions are loud, travel in large groups, and rudely use their size to run off other species. I wouldn't want a sea lion as a pet. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I take it we don't have an article on this use of "sea lion". Why that term, is hard to figure. Maybe because they "bark" en masse? As for Gamergate... like you, I know almost nothing about it, and I intend to keep it that way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
1/2 sibling talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP user 173.11.136.229 originally created Talk:1/2 sibling with content copied from Sibling#Half-sibling, which I have then moved to Draft:Half-siblings, but then the same page was recreated by 172.56.15.83, deleted, recreated again by 173.11.136.229, and finally deleted. To prevent the page from being recreated again, either the IP users should be blocked or the page should be salted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have protected the page for a month so that only autoconfirmed editors can create it. --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User:P3DRO
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
P3DRO (talk · contribs) after being reported for edit warring on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season and being warned to not add unsourced information about living people, P3DRO continues to do so. P3DRO claims to be an experienced user but he/she ignores Wikipedia guidelines. This is getting tiresome. SLBedit (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I added a reference from zerozero, a reliable source. You are persistently adding unsourced content about players numbers. Stop that childish behaviour! Respect other wikipedians contributions. P3DRO (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
P3DRO continues with the disruptive behaviour. SLBedit (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Relevant AN3 thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Both editors blocked by Bbb23 for 24 hours for edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Spacecowboy420 repeatedly insulting me and violating Wikipedia rules while making his own up
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User:Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly insulted me and mocked me in his comments on his talk page and at other pages. Here he threatens me with a block over an attack by an IP even though it is shared. I told him that it was a shared IP and I didn't do it, also he kept making his own rules up and didn't follow the actual Wikipedia rules as can be seen from his edit summary in this revert adding the alleged name again of a juvenile defendant. After that I informed him that the name can't be added due to Wikipedia rules and consensus was against it, but I kept making mistakes in typing so I reposted the message multiple times. Here however instead he mocks me for taking eight attempts to get my comment right. here he accepts what he said isn't in good faith and continues to poke fun at me. He thinks I'm "lecturing" him over his "lack of knowledge", while all I tried to do was act in good faith by informing him about Wikipedia policies so he knows them better. After that here he agrees with another user's comment of calling me a "jester" and then calls me an "entertaining' person. Then he tells me i'm not supposed to edit because the IP was shared and was used by others to attack, even though there is nothing such in Wikipedia rules. Clear cut he's making up his own rules and trying to harass others with false pretexts. Her he says he thinks that I'm here to fight and provoke while I didn't attack him but he was the one who attacked me several times. Also on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Mohammed_Afroz he displays that he either has no knowledge of Wikipedia's rules or knows and makes his own rules up. And he continues to willfully violate them even after being informed. You can notice from the article's talk page, it will be lengthy if I go into detail. His little knowledge of the rules and willful violation can also be seen from his edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Delhi_gang_rape&type=revision&diff=730829849&oldid=730661512 here and here even after being informed. This person clearly has no interest regarding following the rules and having a proper conduct with others. He clearly shouldn't be here. I request he be blocked for a short period of time for his wilful violation of rules and especially his unacceptable comments and rude behaviour towards others. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't read most of your message since the first part was enough. Wikipedia "rules" clearly allow an IP to be blocked for disruption including attacks on either contributors or other people. If you aren't happy about this, you will need to register for an account. Who made the attack isn't particularly germane unless there's a proposal to block your account because of the IP's activity or there's some evidence who made the attack is no longer using the IP. Warning an IP for making an attack is standard practice. Warning an IP after ~4 days is more complicated. Still it's a judgement call and it's difficult to fault someone for doing so unless they knew, or should have known, the IP was no longer used by the same editor. If you aren't the one who made the attack then clearly the warning wasn't directed at you, although as stated the IP may still be blocked if the editor making attacks is still using it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- First, Spacecowboy420 wasn't insulting you. He didn't tell you not to edit – he told you not to get upset over a notice left for another user. Second, he's allowed to warn you. Third, this is a content dispute, although there seems to be consensus here to keep the name out of the article. Either make new consensus or keep the old, but work it out on the talk page. Katietalk 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Gravuritas
Gravuritas (talk · contribs) has repeatedly accused me of being part of a smear campaign against people who voted to leave the European Union (see here and here for examples). Although I have urged him/her to be civil and not to make such allegations they have been rehashed and remade on at least two further occasions during a discussion at User talk:Gravuritas. The discussion began as a disagreement over content, but I feel the accusations made by the user go beyond what is acceptable. Gravuritas has also engaged in some minor POV orientated edit warring at Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (such as here, here and here), which is seemingly driven by personal opinion, and is something of which they have been warned about here. User is also removing sourced content from articles relating to the topic without discussion, such as (here) This is Paul (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I think This is Paul (talk · contribs) is being unduly sensitive and bringing our little tiff to this page is an over- reaction. It's also possible that I am being too brutal. I can see that this board is dealing with more serious falre-ups, but if someone here could review the points above and offer an experienced opinion I would appreciate it.
- Gravuritas (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTFORUM, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not really. But it's not a very solid AN/I report. I don't see any blocks for edit-warring for Gravuritas, or any blocks... at all. What remedy are you seeking, This is Paul? Doc talk 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- While I realise this episode is not as serious as some mentioned on here, I could find nothing specifically covering the accusations that were laid against me, and I was pretty angry about it. Gravuritas has basically accused me of being part of a political smear campaign, albeit indirectly, and clarified those allegations on at least two further occasions when challenged about them. Such behaviour should not be acceptable, particularly from an experienced editor such as Gravuritas, who has been here since 2013, so should know better by now. I feel he/she should either withdraw these allegations or be reprimanded in some way. We wouldn't accept this kind of behaviour from a newbie so we shouldn't accept it from anyone. This is Paul (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not really. But it's not a very solid AN/I report. I don't see any blocks for edit-warring for Gravuritas, or any blocks... at all. What remedy are you seeking, This is Paul? Doc talk 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTFORUM, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My guess is that your difficulty in finding specifics on how to deal with this derives from the fact that this at root a content dispute. I've found the Independent in the past to be sometimes at the wobbly end of WP:RS, and since the referendum result, they are over-keen on finding problems to report. In this specific case they are reporting someone's attempt get some named individuals prosecuted for 'Misconduct in public office'. The actual story was that somebody had only raised £27000. I therefore believed that the story was too trivial to put on the WP article on such a big subject, and also should be avoided under our policy of being extra careful what we put into an article about living persons. As the Indy only reported that so-and-so had raised money with certain intentions and did not attempt to back up that assertion, that avoids the risk of libel for the Indy but manages to get these individuals into a story with a very serious accusation in it. I think that story amounted to a smear. This is Paul (talk · contribs) is trying to extend that smear by putting it in a WP article, and does not wish to engage with this line of reasoning, beyond a belief that the Indy being generally accepted by WP:RS seems to absolve him from thinking critically about what exactly the Indy is doing in this instance. I assumed good faith on his part, so his repeated wish to participate in this instance of tabloid journalism by the Indy seems inexplicable.
- Gravuritas (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Questioning the notability of a piece of information is fine, as is doing so for the reliability of a source. Accusing someone of being part of an alleged or imagined smear campaign, particularly without evidence, is not. While this falls short of a personal attack, I believe Gravuritas's comments went beyond what would be deemed as an appropriate response, and are quite disparaging. He/she either needs to back up these claims with evidence beyond his/her own personal opinion, or retract them. This is Paul (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking this stage by stage: 1. I've given grounds for my assertion that the Indy piece was a smear, and despite lots of opportunity you have not attempted to dispute those grounds. 2. You repeatedly attempted to introduce this piece into the WP article. Given 1 and 2 choose your own description of that sort of editing. 3. I went unnecessarily far on my user talk page in calling you naïve- twice. I'm happy to say sorry for the 'naïve' description- that was 'beyond what would be deemed an appropriate response', though I don't think that's the bit that worries you: both of us, I think, think that 1. and 2. are more serious. Gravuritas (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think I re-added it once, which is hardly repeatedly. For the record the story to which Gravuritas refers has been mentioned by several newspapers, including the Financial Times and the Express (see here), all of them citing different amounts. I chose The Independent as a source, but could easily have chosen three or four others. I am not certain how a media source reporting the fact somebody wishes to take legal action against someone else constitutes a smear campaign. While I appreciate Gravuritas's partial retraction of their statement, I feel that it falls well short of what should be expected, which is a complete withdrawal of it. This is Paul (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Luis Suazo has been a major disruption on the page about Borja Mayoral. He twice [76] [77] removed sourced information of the subject playing for Real Madrid, without any reason. I went to his talk page to try to discuss, he went to mine and just called me a swear word. That alone should be evidence of WP:NOTHERE.
Luis Suazo continues to make unsourced, unexplained edits to the page. He has now reached a halfway house of instead of denying the player ever played for Real Madrid, now saying that he no longer plays for them. I'm getting rather tired of this uncooperation and his lame personal attack against me really means I can not assume good faith or human error. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've warned the editor using {{uw-npa4im}} with Twinkle. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I.P seemingly running amok on personalities of Jewish descent.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This I.P. is making large numbers of undiscussed changes to specifically Jewish personalities.Can somebody please take a look?[[78]] Regards Irondome (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity just like Christianity and Islam is a religion and not and ethnicity. I will let others decide if a change should be made and I will not make edits without approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.36 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)While that may be your own opinion, it is not a accepted fact. Certainly I, a Jew by ethnicity but not by religion, reject your assertion.In any case, you are editing against a clear consensus, that has been established through discussion on countless pages and occasions. I recommend that you read some of these before returning to this area and trying to impose your own interpretation. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's way oversimplifying things. Jews are an example of a ethnoreligious group. It's technically true to say that Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish can be considered an ethnicity. See, for instance, Judaism#Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism, Jewish identity, Who is a Jew?. clpo13(talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- All of the IP's edits have been reverted by User:Nihonjoe. Blackmane (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, eight days ago. See also User talk:Nihonjoe#Jewish people. @Irondome: Why is this being reported now when it's all been reverted? Is there another IP making the same edits? If so, please report that one, not this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The individual made a comment tonight on Jews talkpage about this "interpretation". I also notice that a SP investigation is now on the I.P's page. I was unaware that you had reverted them en masse, but I suspected a new attempt to make similar edits was about to start. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP edits seem to be the same as edits from this blocked editor: [79] Valeince (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- IP blocked for a month. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP edits seem to be the same as edits from this blocked editor: [79] Valeince (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The individual made a comment tonight on Jews talkpage about this "interpretation". I also notice that a SP investigation is now on the I.P's page. I was unaware that you had reverted them en masse, but I suspected a new attempt to make similar edits was about to start. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, eight days ago. See also User talk:Nihonjoe#Jewish people. @Irondome: Why is this being reported now when it's all been reverted? Is there another IP making the same edits? If so, please report that one, not this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Exclusion from discussion
AlexTheWhovian has been reverting several editors working on Quantico (TV series) over the past several days: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], most having to do with a list of episodes. I came across this looking at recent changes and reverted one of Alex's reverts suggesting in the edit summary "Massive reversion like this should be discussed first" so Alex reverted yet again still with no discussion on the talk page. Note that I have no contributions to this article. @Elainasla: took the issue up on Alex's talk page and I joined the discussion. After asking Alex for the specifics of his justification and waiting more than 24 hours without a response from Alex, I reverted Alex's reversion a final time (there will be no more from me) asserting that consensus is against his reversion in the edit summary and continued discussion on his talk page.
Since then, Alex has told me that I may not participate in this discussion twice [86] and [87]. We can talk about edit warring and content disputes all day, but nobody is allowed to unilaterally exclude comments on a content dispute like this.
I should also point out that there was a brief discussion on my talk page which I closed to consolidate it all in one place. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- AlexTheWhovian notified Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [88] [89]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Admins. Note that the user at hand refuses to confront their mistakes while editing, all the while knowing what they have done, and yet continues to turn the focus onto other editors. Such behaviour is atrocious when attempting to create such an encyclopedia. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [88] [89]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This escalated much faster than it should have and it doesn't belong here. I don't approve of user talk page banning, but the practice is permitted or at least condoned. Main idea: MOS:TVCAST outlines two ways to display cast information and neither is a table. I'm not a MOS regular nor a participant in the TV project but that seems conclusive. The MOS doesn't have the force of policy but edit-warring against is a bad idea unless there's a really great reason to. The proper place to discuss this would seem to be Talk:Quantico (TV series). Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mackensen. Does that answer all of your concerns, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian? 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Amen to that, brother. Luckily, I didn't ban anyone. Reports like these are a waste of good admin time. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that, 1) WP:TVCAST does not "ban" the use of cast tables, and 2) only a subset of WP:TV editors want to "ban" them (i.e. using them or not using them is thus "controversial", and is not a "settled" question). As to the specific circumstances, I'd rather not comment, as I already have a conflict with the editor named in this report, and consider myself tangentially "involved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You already have commented, and recommended the removal of at least one table, and the moving of both. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that, 1) WP:TVCAST does not "ban" the use of cast tables, and 2) only a subset of WP:TV editors want to "ban" them (i.e. using them or not using them is thus "controversial", and is not a "settled" question). As to the specific circumstances, I'd rather not comment, as I already have a conflict with the editor named in this report, and consider myself tangentially "involved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion started at: Talk:Quantico (TV series)#Cast table. (This is how it's supposed to be done, folks!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:I don't know enough about the clippers' collapse Sock of banned user.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above account claims to be a sock of User:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and has gone on a vandalism spree. Can we go ahead and put this one to bed?--Church Talk 04:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked. Our friendly neighborhood Cluebot reported this one to AIV. --NeilN talk to me 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Church: I tagged the account feel free to add the evidence like this report. Regards, --74.138.101.54 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Mediation request for ohnoitsjamie admin removal re admin tool abuse
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for mediation Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There hasn't been a "discussion" yet. There never was one with admin besides Ohnoitsjamie re:admin abuse; this page is for admin abuse, what the hell? Seriously, you're an arbitrator? Unbelievable. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the page to point to a mediation request which will not be accepted. --NeilN talk to me 06:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, which page is the page to post when an admin lies repeatedly over and over to justify clear abuse of power, and it can be proven? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can lay out your case here, presenting your assertions and diffs here. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here as in right here? Would you like links to each lie presented here over the years, with rebuttal for lie? Is this just a joke to waste my time, as if this was Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is that what this place has devolved to? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as in "right here". After all, you did bring this here! Evidence in the form of diffs is what you're going to need to prove your case. I think you're wasting your time, but that's just my opinion. Doc talk 06:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've read your mediation request. I'm quite prepared to block you if you continue to accuse Ohnoitsjamie of lying without presenting diffs or to refer to him as a "cancer" again. --NeilN talk to me 06:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here as in right here? Would you like links to each lie presented here over the years, with rebuttal for lie? Is this just a joke to waste my time, as if this was Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is that what this place has devolved to? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can lay out your case here, presenting your assertions and diffs here. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, which page is the page to post when an admin lies repeatedly over and over to justify clear abuse of power, and it can be proven? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can prove without doubt that Ohnoitsjamie has repeatedly lied, and am working on presenting it here now. I'm totally fine with being blocked if, after I'm done, you don't agree that he's purposely obfuscating liar. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The evidence is clear. I bet some people would be pleased if you were blocked, too! It isn't easy editing Wikipedia.
- Here is when I added the blacklisted link in the "External Links" section. It replaced a BROKEN LINK and had pictures of the creatures mentioned on the page. More to come. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor Kaiju, the next diff I expect to see is one of Ohnoitsjamie allegedly lying. --NeilN talk to me 06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is where Ohnoitsjamie states the link does not meet w:rs criteria, even though it was NEVER a source and was in the EXTERNAL LINKS section. This is lie number one. "Regardless of what you call your site, it does not meet our reliable source criteria." It was NEVER used as one, OhNoitsJamie. Agreed? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stop obfuscating, the site illustrated the very monsters mentioned on the page, that is all. I added a lot of those films to the list myself. Regardless, you do agree that OhNoitsJamie made a demonstrably false claim, correct? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I absolutely do not agree with your assertion that OhNoitsJamie made a demonstrably false claim. I see your repeated attempts to use your own website as a source, even in the EL section, as promotional and not serving the interests of the encyclopedia. Doc talk 07:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're quibbling over semantics from over two years ago. You were blocked for spamming. You attempted to justify your spamming. Your unblock request was declined. Got anything else? --NeilN talk to me 07:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's NOT semantics, it's following the rules. And he did it today, too. And he's done it a lot. So, you do agree he was wrong, and he should have known better, right? He does it a lot more. 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were warned multiple times to provide diffs with your accusations. Here, you did not. Blocked three days for making personal attacks without evidence and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. --NeilN talk to me 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's NOT semantics, it's following the rules. And he did it today, too. And he's done it a lot. So, you do agree he was wrong, and he should have known better, right? He does it a lot more. 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And a head's up that with first page Google results, the 40 hits a month from WP are totally insignificant and irrelevant to me, I get 10-40K hits a month and I can PROVE that the hits are statistically without ANY significance to my website. I was replacing a broken link and sharing encyclopedic knowledge (i.e. this is what the monsters look like)Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, doc, you know it was NEVER used as a reliable source and him stating such is FALSE. Retract your statement or leave the discussion, we need to agree on what WORDS MEAN. And yes, I have a lot more. But we need to settle this point, that OhNoitsJamie's claim was FALSE. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user attracted my attention several days ago since they add their signature to Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj and also add list of "stuffes" [90]. They behave like a bot, i.e. they just return and reinsert the edit without any attempts to modify it. I went to their talk page to see whether they are indeed a bot, and found their talk page full of warnings including, surprisingly, a 6 month block administered by me for persistent removal of a deletion template. My conclusion is thus that the user is incompetent to edit Wikipedia. I would just block them indef, but since technically speaking they are edit-warring with me, and their edits are not pure vandalism, I would prefer someone else to have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The six-month block expired less than a month ago and after that, they resumed their problematic edits. Zero acknowledgement of the disruption they're causing. Indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 06:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Spacecowboy420 repeatedly insulting me and violating Wikipedia's rules
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I made this complaint earlier but User:KrakatoaKatie incorrectly claimed that User:Spacecowboy420 didn't insult me (despite him plainly admitting he did) and said I should take the discussion about rules to the talk page, even though the main problem was him insulting me and someone who violates rules should be complained about. Not only that the person who closed the complaint was User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi the same one who called me a "jester" and insulted me on Spaceboy420's page. He should at least have the sense not to decide the outcome of the complaint since he himself was involved. I request that the editors Katie and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi do not decide the outcome of this complaint, as well as User:Mr rnddude too be kept out of this since he is involved as well. Only uninvolved admins should decide the outcome of this complaint. Anyway here are the contents of my original complaint:
- "The User:Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly insulted me and mocked me in his comments on his talk page and at other pages. Here he threatens me with a block over an attack by an IP even though it is shared. I told him that it was a shared IP and I didn't do it, also he kept making his own rules up and didn't follow the actual Wikipedia rules as can be seen from his edit summary in this revert adding the alleged name again of a juvenile defendant. After that I informed him that the name can't be added due to Wikipedia rules and consensus was against it, but I kept making mistakes in typing so I reposted the message multiple times. Here however instead he mocks me for taking eight attempts to get my comment right. here he accepts what he said isn't in good faith and continues to poke fun at me. He thinks I'm "lecturing" him over his "lack of knowledge", while all I tried to do was act in good faith by informing him about Wikipedia policies so he knows them better. After that here he agrees with another user's comment of calling me a "jester" and then calls me an "entertaining' person. Then he tells me i'm not supposed to edit because the IP was shared and was used by others to attack, even though there is nothing such in Wikipedia rules. Clear cut he's making up his own rules and trying to harass others with false pretexts. Her he says he thinks that I'm here to fight and provoke while I didn't attack him but he was the one who attacked me several times. Also on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Mohammed_Afroz he displays that he either has no knowledge of Wikipedia's rules or knows and makes his own rules up. And he continues to willfully violate them even after being informed. You can notice from the article's talk page, it will be lengthy if I go into detail. His little knowledge of the rules and willful violation can also be seen from his edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Delhi_gang_rape&type=revision&diff=730829849&oldid=730661512 here and here even after being informed. This person clearly has no interest regarding following the rules and having a proper conduct with others. He clearly shouldn't be here. I request he be blocked for a short period of time for his wilful violation of rules and especially his unacceptable comments and rude behaviour towards others."
- Please also note that after the complaint was closed, Spacecowboy420 continued to mock me here and specifically insulted me here and called me "Mr. Angry". Please also note that he said that he does not believe in good faith of other editors in this comment, doubting their good faith over mentioning the victim's name and witholding the rapists even though he was told they were simply following rules as the victim's family had given permission but there has been no permission for that of the rapist. He plainly states he does not assume good faith that too over plain incorrect allegations which is a violation of rules. I ask that he blocked immediately as he does not deserve to be here. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at several of the links and saw nothing that came close to deserving a block. While I'm not sure the name should be included, that's a content dispute, and you are not helping your case by spending so much time complaining about imagined slights. Please drop the "insult" issue, and concentrate on the content issue. (Not here, of course).(FYI, I have a personal rule - if you intend on providing a dozen links to demonstrate , make sure the first one is solid. When I get to the third or fourth and still haven't seen anything worth mentioning, I stop looking.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please also note that after the complaint was closed, Spacecowboy420 continued to mock me here and specifically insulted me here and called me "Mr. Angry". Please also note that he said that he does not believe in good faith of other editors in this comment, doubting their good faith over mentioning the victim's name and witholding the rapists even though he was told they were simply following rules as the victim's family had given permission but there has been no permission for that of the rapist. He plainly states he does not assume good faith that too over plain incorrect allegations which is a violation of rules. I ask that he blocked immediately as he does not deserve to be here. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple personal attacks by StanTheMan87
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made multiple personal attacks against blocked user Krzyhorse22 - diff1, diff2
Although warned, this kind of behaviour is not something expected nor permissable from any editor here -- samtar talk or stalk 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
IP edits on Narconon
81.157.87.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Narconon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Putting this here just because there so much involved it doesn't clearly belong anywhere in particular.
This WP:COI IP editor claims to be manager of Narconon UK, and is repeatedly making WP:POV edits to the article and edit warring to keep in a version that is favorable. The org is related to Scientology and so is covered under WP:ACDS. Each edit is accompanied by what is probably a legal threat, saying that the article was "against copyright laws".
So yeah. Have fun with that.TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well there is also this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP editor was not advised of the Discretionary Sanctions, I have advised them here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't someone jumped the gun here? The (apparently) newbie editor was notified on his talk page of the conflict of interest policy and the need to disclose any connections with the artcle subject at 12:43 following his edit to the article at 12:32. Yet having made no further edits at all is dragged to this noticeboard at 14:00. This should be closed as no action. Only if the editor makes further COI edits should this be escallated. --Elektrik Fanne 12:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I need opinion from an administrator here.Manjulaperera (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) You probably need to discuss this a bit further on the talk page, and then go to WP:3O if you can't reach a resolution. This discussion board is for more serious matters. This is Paul (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Manjulaperera A thread with only two posts is not an admin matter. Now an admin could comment could comment on the thread as a regular editor but your best bet is to post this link at the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. MarnetteD|Talk 15:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Refer to WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE for what are considered appropriate links. Does Nihal have an official site? if so then that should definitely be linked. The current external link doesn't appear to be their official website and I'm not entirely sure that it is entirely appropriate. As for administrator action, accusations of COI aren't really acceptable as far as I am aware. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Editors - @This is Paul: , @MarnetteD: and @Mr rnddude: for your time and advice. Since another editor reverted on the basis "....it's legalese unintelligible to the average reader", I don't want to re-add the External link back.Manjulaperera (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Based on @Mr rnddude:'s advice, I am adding possible official website www.consultants21.com of the subject on the External link section. Please feel free to revert it if it is inappropriate.Manjulaperera (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you are serious at your Edit Summary and not joking at all.Manjulaperera (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Jennifer_Nettles
I started a discussion about Template:Jennifer Nettles at User_talk:Jax_0677#Template:Jennifer_Nettles, as @TenPoundHammer: reverted my attempt to create it. Two of the articles proposed for the navbox were not envisioned until well after the navbox was created. User:TenPoundHammer threatened to report me to WP:ANI if I created the navbox again, despite WP:G4. Should User:TenPoundHammer send the navbox to WP:TFD once again, or should the discussion ensue, despite the fact that it may likely remain dormant where it is at? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI, especially since the talk page section in question only has four comments on it (meaning it's hardly been discussed). Unless evidence shows that this does belong at ANI, I suggest closing this thread as a content dispute. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - @Gestrid:, unless my latest comment about Template:Jennifer Nettles here or on my talkpage gets a reply, I am going to move the discussion to WP:TFD, as I do not see another avenue for this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:OnerFusion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OnerFusion has been doing cross-namespace moves of his user and talk pages. I can't fix this on my own, so I need an admin to sort it out. --Slashme (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- A short Google search has told me that been violating the username policy as both a promotional username and a username implying shared use. I'm reporting their username, as they were warned waaaaay back in 2012. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've reported the username. Since the topic is still open here, can an admin (maybe NeilN) take care of that? -- Gestrid (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let another admin decide that. The name seems to be more of an Internet handle of a single person as opposed to a company name. --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've reported the username. Since the topic is still open here, can an admin (maybe NeilN) take care of that? -- Gestrid (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21's ill-considered accusations of impropriety
In a talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement discussion here, Bolter21 accused me of using socks, writing the following:
- "He is obviously using socks..."
I'm trying to understand the policies, and to follow Wikipedia's advice. According to WP:IUC1.(c), ill-considered accusations of impropriety, Bolter21 clearly crossed that line. Per the same article's advice, I gave Bolter21 the opportunity to correct his/her good-faith mistake here, by striking out the comment and apologizing. However, Bolter21 again reasserted his/her original accusation:
- "I will apologize to a suspected sockmaster." (I think s/he meant to end the sentence with a question mark.)
Bolter21 has now accused me twice of using socks in discussions.
I gave notice here.
Thank you. KamelTebaast 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by the accused: There was a discussion in which Kamel and I were involved. Kamel made his point about a user, saying he apparently violated Wikipedia policy in 2012, then suddenly, 20 minutes later, a fresh new user came and supported Kamel's point. That user, under the name "Comment, please" , is obviously a sockpuppet, who came out of nowhere with full understanding of Wikipedia policies and discussion formats and also came to support a comment made by a user 20 minutes ago in the AE talk-page, something that concerns a very small number of users at every given moment (unlike articles and article talkpages) and that user made no edits since. Kamel later cited this dubious user to further support his opinion in a different discussion concerning the same topic. Now I wanted to open an investigation but I didn't do it because I had no time at that moment. Later I saw that Kamel has the opportunity to be a productive user so I just ignored the matter. A week has passed, and now he has turned up with threats, demanding my apology, and I am not willing to give one. Give me a week block? No problem with that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also in my comment on my talk page, I meant "I will not apologize to a suspected sockmaster."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
CommentThis is at best piddling. Kamel is a relative newcomer and appears recently to be using these administrative sites to get at other editors, first Sepsis (whatever the merits of that case), now Bolter, and in the meantime he dropped a note on Blade of the Northern Lights' page asking what is to be done with such outrageous editors like User:Nableezy, User:Zero0000, and of course, myself. I may be mistaken. But after a few of his edits came to my attention, I thought to myself that he's not in here for the long term. You need a tough hide here, and not go screaming for mummy at the first opportunity. He may not sock or be a sock - but there's little here to inspire confidence. He's going after editors and after articles they edit, like a crusading warrior for the just cause. I think this deserves a WP:Boomerang warning to the plaintiff. Bolter may at times use the odd loose language, but has the confidence of all regular editors in the I/P area as a clean, focused, balanced and productive editor, something Kamel has shown no sign of being. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment For the record:
- Sepsis II came after me, I defended myself, and ultimately what transpired from that was Sepsis II was topic banned.
- Yes, I received advice from Blade and I believe that I have been civil to Nableezy, Zero0000, and Nishidani, when , in fact, some have been less than civil to me (example here).
- All of Nishidani's points are strawman and has nothing to do with the fact that Bolter21 has publicly accused me of sockpuppeting.
- I do not know Comment, please nor have I ever had communication with that user except on the one page cited. In any case, Bolter21 is also accusing Comment, please of being a sockpuppet.
- As written above, in his/her own words, please add two more times that Bolter21 has accused me of sockpuppetry.
Bolter21's bravado to continue with the ill-considered accusations of impropriety ON an administrator's noticeboard (after being warned), shows how deserving of a sanction Bolter21 is. KamelTebaast 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- For clarity, I just looked up Comment, please's edits. There are only a few and only on one page. Therefore, Bolter21 is probably correct about Comment being a sock. However, Sepsis II has many adversaries, of which that sock could have come from any one. KamelTebaast 20:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1)
Do you actually think User:Comment, please is not a sockpuppet in general? - 2) The last time I accused you for sockpuppetry was a week ago and I put it aside and continued my work with you on Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier regardless. My comment was to say why I suspected you are a sockmaster and why my comment was not "ill-considered" as you claim it was. As I said, I continued regular business dispite my suspection and already managed to forget it, but now you came to me with threats and now you are propsing sanctions, so I explain why such comments were made, if I really wanted you to be investigated for creating socks, I would do it in an SPI. I am not childish enough to open an investigation against you just because you decided to warn me a week later and I have no intent to aplogize with a knife to my throat.
- 3) If the punishment for every person in Wikipedia who says "bullshit" was beheading, the rate of disconnected heads per capita in Wikipedia was higher than in Iraq.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- In Hebrew we say "Yāẖās Gōrēr Yāẖās", or in English "attitude follows attitude"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 2) Actually, the last time you accused me of sockpuppetry was today. The first time was a week ago.
- 3) I didn't ask that anyone be punished for that term, but used it as an example of incivility. KamelTebaast 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, the last time I said you are a sockmaster was a week ago, until you brought it again today, so I told you about my suspection after you threatened me with a report, so your argument is invalid. By all means you are a suspected sockmaster and there is evidence for it, yet I don't report you for, actually I havent reported you for a week and already forgot about it. Don't come to me with a wikipolicy and a smug face and threaten to get me blocked and except nice treatment and me saying "sorry, you are clearly not a sockmaster", such behavior in reality might get you pounched in the face.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggest Close with Warning
I see incivility by User:Bolter21, including idle claims of sockpuppetry, but, unfortunately in my opinion, idle claims of sockpuppetry are not normally subject to sanctions. I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning to Bolter21 that any future allegations of sockpuppetry that are not actually reported at WP:SPI will result in a block. For now, let's close this with a warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Editors have been blocked in the past for persistent accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up" Blackmane (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if you have evidence for an SPI file one if not stop with the accusations. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Am I supposed to say something else than "from now on I will never accuse anyone, publically and directly or indirectly as a suspected sockmaster when having evidence and not starting an SPI"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bolter21, as far as I am concerned you don't have to say anything, you just need to stop making unfounded accusations. There is no evidence whatsoever that Comment, please is a sock of Kamal (and bringing up a sock in a highly-visible forum is really stupid anyway), and as was said before, put up or shut up. Unfounded sock accusations are frequently used as ammunition in conflicts, but they are a denial of AGF. So don't do it again. What's next? Kamal, you know how to talk the talk: good for you. Comment, please: I'd love to see your evidence of who you think Sepsis is a sock of, and while you're at it, I'm quite interested in your previous history on Wikipedia, particularly your interest in the matter of Iran and its nuclear program. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Bolter21, from now on you must never accuse anyone, publically and directly or indirectly as a suspected sockmaster without having evidence, and without displaying that evidence. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and further personal attacks will result in blocks. Nyttend (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Additional May I suggest a WP:IBAN based on the implied threat of violence above WP:VIOLENCE? KamelTebaast 01:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- You may, and it won't happen. There is no implied threat of violence. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would defend myself but I just want to get on with it so I'll just tell Kamel to not follow the spirit of the recently topic banned Sepsis who tried to bend every policy when he didn't like people.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mogomaniac
Mogomaniac (talk · contribs)
Quick perusal of this user's contributions and talkpage (currently [91], with lots of diffs there in the last few sections) give a large history of edit warring to include unsourced information, uncivil behavior, and blatant vandalism. They don't seem to have learned from an AE block from May (which is pretty obvious from the unblock request itself), and have continued the same behavior on articles such as 2016 Munich shootings, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, Melania Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. The user also doesn't seem to want to discuss any of their edits, with no recent edits to article talk pages and only one edit to their own talk page despite the number of warnings there. I think this editor, despite the small amount of good that they've done recently, is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. ansh666 00:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Not watching, ping to notify me please.
As said by Ansh666, this user tried to twice minutes after said section was started, and without giving any rationale, pretty much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Before that, when warned by Majora about disruptive editing ([94] [95] [96] [97]) on the United States presidential election, 2016 article, this was all the user had to say. Then, the user has a small history of disruptive editing at the 2016 Munich shootings article, aggressively removing sourced information ([98] [99]). He/She has also repeatedly moved the article's title many times in a short time-span without even discussing it on the talk page first ([100] [101] [102]). When I moved the article to a suitable temporary title (I could not move it back to the original title at the moment), the user simply moved it back to titles he/she already used, again without talk page discussions ([103] [104]). This is all I know right now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- In all fairness, half of their edit to the US election page was fine (just unsourced but true nonetheless). The other half, however, was not. Just wanted to point that out. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, with a history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I doubt nothing would be harsh to a user like that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Romanian-and-proud?
I am wondering if this is the above editor:
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:60F0:3200:D9A1:98C2:D226:55A9
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:60F5:BE00:F950:FD98:18FA:3CBC
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:6045:3500:D9A1:98C2:D226:55A9
Archived discussion of the prior incident can be found here: Disruptive IP editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- All three quack like a duck to me. Blocked all three for two weeks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed TBAN on Ocdgrammarian
Ocdgrammarian, a new editor, seems like he could be a fine contributor to Wikipedia but I am concerned about a pattern of highly unusual behavior on Frank Gaffney by him, as well as a string of statements that seem to belie an ability to exercise good judgment. To wit:
- Here [105] the editor blanks the entire lede of the article in violation of a unanimous RfC decision made by Beeblebrox. After the blanking is undone, he immediately re-blanks it. [106]
- Here [107], here [108], and here [109] (and other places too numerous to list) the editor says various sources like CNN and so forth can't be used in the article as they're "leftist". At one point ArbCom member Doug Weller counseled him that none of the sources he'd identified as "far left" were, in fact, such but it didn't appear to ameliorate his concerns at all.
- Here [110], rather out of the blue, the editor seems to announce his belief in a "dastardly conspiracy" [sic] by Barack Obama to put "Muslims" in control of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency: "It's strange how well the US Missile Defense logo matches up with the Islamic Crescent. Unless Obama's supporters defend him instead of attacking Gaffney, there's enough there to prove a dastardly conspiracy."
- Here [111] the editor appears to accuse me of being a member of the Communist Party. (?!) That seemed so odd that I thought he was joking, but then he called me a "Stalinist" [112] which makes me suppose he might not be? Not sure. He also [113], accused me of of being part of the "mean girls club" which, I'm guessing, must be some kind-of Communist Party front group or fifth column.
- The editor has repeatedly announced he's a "refugee" [sic] from the Soviet Union (here [114] and here [115]and so forth); while I, of course, want to give GF assumption as to the veracity of that claim, there seems something a little off-kilter in the way this biographical note is repeatedly sprinkled into the conversation that gives me pause. For instance, as unsolicited proof of his refugee status, he tacks the words "Call of Duty" (as in the video game) onto the end of a post in Cyrillic script [116], which would kind-of be like a Syrian refuge randomly adding "حمّص" (hummus) to the end of his post.
This is a very delicate BLP on a current events topic and the above pattern of editing is a kind-of bull in the china shop approach which is not, how can I put this diplomatically ... helpful. I reluctantly propose a 90-day WP:TBAN on Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy be applied. LavaBaron (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Support
- Short comment, since you're proposing that Ocdgrammarian be banned from two pages for 90 days, I could suggest amending your request to Page BAN (PBAN) rather than topic ban. I'll take a look at the pages, but, from your diffs, a PBAN from both pages seems reasonable to be honest. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support (no regrets). LB has provided an excellent summary. Indeed, if this were an article the points raised would make an adequate lead, and the body would be easily written, sourced to the Gaffney Talk page. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
I have to admit I didn't know about the rules re blanking, but the remaining accusations are pretty laughable. For example, the "dastardly conspiracy" post [117] is obvious sarcasm, which the admin to whom the post was addressed understood immediately and responded to with "Fair enough." I don't know what's so bad about writing in Cyrillic or being a Soviet refugee, but the rest of his accusations are just as weak
Meanwhile, LavaBaron has been engaged in a campaign of harassment against editors on this page long before I got there. Arm Chair General called him out on it yesterday: (sorry, I don't know how to link the diffs) "Why do I get the feeling that you'll only be satisfied if the lead reads: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953): American conspiracy theorist, Spy for Israel, and probably eats baby's.?"
Almost as soon as I started editing the page, LavaBaron He went into personal attacks on my talk page, accusing me of being a Gaffney employee in some conspiracy theory of his: "If, like your previous userids . . ." . . . ". . .as I've previously communicated to your other personalities." . . . "In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us." He then threatened me with and ultimately filed an SPI on me just because I disagreed with him. I've previously kept my contributions on Wikipedia mostly to grammar edits on science and history articles I like to read, and I am not used to either Wikipedia customs or how to deal with hostility and personal attacks from other editors.
For some reason, he called me a "loose one" on the article talk page, and engaged in lots of other uncivil behavior. If anyone should be blocked from editing the article, it ought to be him.
Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.
- True; actually my exact quote was "oh boy, we gotta loose one" [118]. This was in response to Ocdgrammarian's quoting a long passage from The Fountainhead (in response to a routine WP policy comment by RunnyAmiga) and then claiming the "Islamic Crescent" was hidden in the logo of the USMDA. Given this context, I feel "we gotta loose one" is probably an accurate analysis of the situation. LavaBaron (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page, if anyone is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note, by "harassment campaign" I think he/she is referring to eleven different socks [119] I've got blocked who were active at this page (all of whom also blanked the lede repeatedly and complained that CNN was "leftist"). LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE
Please consider moving this proposal to WP:AE. LavaBaron, I believe you do misunderstand this post by Ocdgrammarian; it's a parody of the immediately preceding post by RunnyAmiga (note, not by LavaBaron, and no, RunnyAmiga is not an admin), not an actual suggestion of a dastardly conspiracy by Barack Obama. OCD is making a rhetorical point. I won't comment on your other points, as I prefer to remain uninvolved here. However, I have advice for you both: LavaBaron, I think your proposal would go better on WP:AE. You can refer to the discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and for biographies of living people there, compare my formal alerts on the user's page. And Ocdgrammarian, being unable to create diffs really hamstrings you in these kinds of discussions. I urge you to read the instructions in the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC).