→User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning: it has gone into cluebotng's file |
→Persistent harassment: new section |
||
Line 816: | Line 816: | ||
:Alfiejldavis01 may also wish to explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlon_Brando&diff=prev&oldid=774799535 this edit] to the same article. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
:Alfiejldavis01 may also wish to explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlon_Brando&diff=prev&oldid=774799535 this edit] to the same article. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
* Rights for bots to express themselves!! [[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>(distant write)</small>]] 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
* Rights for bots to express themselves!! [[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>(distant write)</small>]] 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Persistent harassment == |
|||
Can someone please block the unregistered or logged out editor using [[User:2600:8801:a409:fb00:9575:48c7:f56:65b8]] and [[User:208.25.211.33]]? He or she is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&diff=773904296&oldid=772232479 persistently] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&diff=774394964&oldid=773914552 harassing] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&diff=774797828&oldid=774433111 me] despite being firmly told to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&diff=774433111&oldid=774395077 not interact with me]. Thanks! [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:08, 10 April 2017
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) |
|
User:Spacecowboy420 blanking articles
Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reported to ANI in June 2016 for blanking articles. In closing the discussion admin Fences and windows stated that Spacecowboy420 had "taken on board that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and should not be the first option". Unfortunately Spacecowboy420 has resumed blanking entire articles.
On 21 March he blanked (1, 2) two articles, Ragging in India and Ragging in Sri Lanka, removing more than 40k of content. Much of the removed content was not found in the article he redirected the two articles to, Hazing, but Spacecowboy420 made no effort to add this to the Hazing article. I have twice tried to undo his edit, asking him to discuss before making such radical moves, but on each occasion he has reverted me (1, 2, 3, 4).
It is clear that Spacecowboy420 has not learnt. Could an admin please review his conduct?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm seeing troubling behavior on both sides. On your side, I do not understand why you immediately went and reverted him on a separate article unrelated to either of these. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I presume you mean this. Ragging in India, Ragging in Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are on my watchlist and as Spacecowboy420 edited these article in succession on 30 March (1, 2, 3), when I reviewed my watchlist on 1 April they came up one after another. FYI, I have made dozens of edits over many years on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Spacecowboy420 on the other hand had never edited this article prior to this. His edit on this article was simply a childish attempt to get back at me.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It does seem possibl that he edited it because you did, but his actual edit contained easily sourceable facts already in evidence elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, just wiping out entire properly sourced articles and redirecting them without any attempt at merger, and then not following WP:BRD when you are reverted is most certainly a problem and if Spacecowboy420 doesn't speak up here in a timely fashion I'm prepared to consider administrative action without their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. @Spacecowboy420: you need to explain your thinking on these repeat blankings. They appear to be contrary to merge policy etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It does seem possibl that he edited it because you did, but his actual edit contained easily sourceable facts already in evidence elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, just wiping out entire properly sourced articles and redirecting them without any attempt at merger, and then not following WP:BRD when you are reverted is most certainly a problem and if Spacecowboy420 doesn't speak up here in a timely fashion I'm prepared to consider administrative action without their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I redirected the ragging article to hazing on March 21st without complaints/reverts/etc. There is no need for such region specific articles such as Ragging in Sri Lanka when any region specific content could be included on the main hazing article. We don't need details of every single legal code related to hazing in one region, neither do we need every single case detailed on the article. I don't consider much of the content on those articles to be relevant to building an encyclopedia and it benefits Wikipedia to be a little more succinct, so that people can discover about hazing on one article, rather than bore them to death with 100s of different articles about hazing in each different nation. I do have to admit that I wasn't really considering merge policy when I merged the articles though, I was just making a judgement based on what I considered to be common sense. I am still of the opinion that the relevant content from the two articles that I redirected would be far better served if they were included on the hazing article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that Obi2canibe has been stretching the boundaries of what is civil in his comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AObi2canibe&type=revision&diff=773693151&oldid=773600129 this comment, is not really acceptable. Remove my comments from the talk page? that's just fine. Hide them with a snarky comment? less fine. Using an edit summary to tell someone to grow up? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=prev&oldid=773278261 again, not acceptable. Calling my addition of relevant and sourced content "a childish attempt to get back at me" on an ANI report, again not acceptable. BTW - I edited that article because after editing the Ragging in Sri Lanka article, I jumped around a few Sri Lanka articles reading, came across that article and saw the need for an edit. AGF please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course the above should not be considered when admins decide if to sanction me or not for redirecting those two articles - I would like that to be based purely on the my actions, and not consider if the other editor is acting civilly or not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just an FYI for everyone involved in/interested in this issue; I have started a merge discussion about the two Ragging articles at Talk:Ragging in India#Merge with Hazing?. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- So here's the thing: When you redirected each of those articles, you simply removed large swaths of sourced content. And no, you were not immediately reverted, but later on Obi2canibel did decide to revert you, and in both cases left the entirely proper edit summary Please discuss before making such a move. Up until this point, I don't see either of you doing anything particularly wrong. It is often better to discuss redirecting articles with significant editing history over a prolonged period of time before just deciding for yourself that we don't need them, but it is not required and WP:BOLD editing is encouraged.
- So what you did after that is where we see a problem, you were reverted, and asked to discuss on the talk page, and you just reverted back instead. That's not ok, regardless of what mildly snarky comments may have been used in subsequent edit summaries. And I would also point out the previous ANI linked above in which you seem to understand that just wiping out entire articles without a consensus to do so is generally not ok. Whether you are right or wrong about the actual content issue is irelevant, this is just not how things are done, edit warring to "stealth delete" two entire articles is not ok. As you've claimed to understand this before, we're going to need something a little better than "ok I get it now" or "but look at those edit summaries" in order to feel this is really understood.
- I would therefore ask that you voluntarily agree that for a period of no less than six months you will not redirect articles without prior discussion, and will follow a WP:1RR restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Prior discussion before redirecting an article when content is removed is of course no problem.
- I would like to clarify what exactly which edits you are suggesting being restricted to 1RR - if you are asking me to stick to 1RR regarding redirects then I'm sure that won't be a problem, if you are talking about a 1RR restriction on all edits, and if it is really voluntary then I am less eager to subject myself to that sanction, mainly because the concerns are related to one specific area of my editing, not my edits in general - for example - when I added content to the Tamil Tigers article discussed above, I was reverted - so I re-added the content along with a source - a 1RR restriction on all edits would have prevented me from re-adding that content with the required source.
- Also, I would like to clarify if there are any restrictions required on redirects that don't remove content - if I move an article because of naming reasons and I wish to redirect the original article name to the new article name, that seems to be pretty uncontroversial and doesn't seem to benefit from prior discussion.
- I'm all for something voluntary that makes me a better editor, that seems so much more productive than the standard blocks that most editors receive, I just don't want to subject myself to something that removes my ability to be an efficient editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is, edit warring is a behavioral issue, not a topical issue. The idea here is to get you to follow WP:BRD. The thing with edit warring is that the particpants all too often feel a false sense of urgency to "correct" an article when what is needed is rational discussion. That's rather the point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- ONUnicorn thanks for starting that discussion - I've given my opinion there regarding merging the articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Despite the need to revert my redirect and the need to create an ANI report regarding my redirect the editor who reverted/reported me is not contributing towards any discussion on the article talk page regarding my proposed redirect, which leads me to doubt his intentions regarding this whole drama. Either way, I'm attempting to discuss it there and get opinions from whoever wishes to contribute and will do the same the next time I consider redirecting an article, so I guess that's one thing I've gained from this report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging the others who weighed in on the previous ANI case: John Carter, Laura Jamieson, NeilN, Montanabw, Piotrus, Drmies, Rebbing, I JethroBT, TransporterMan, Herostratus, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, S Marshall, Cavarrone, WereSpielChequers, Mr rnddude and Timothyjosephwood. The only ones I didn't ping are Fences and windows and Johnuniq, considering that they have weighed in below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Propose restriction
I'm sorry to see Spacecowboy420 here again. My close last June said "further ill-considered blanking, edit warring over blanking, or incivil edit summaries might warrant another discussion". There doesn't seem to be a civility issue now, but redirecting Ragging in India without a merge or discussion is particularly ill-considered. I'm surprised he would be unaware of the major issue of ragging at Indian universities (which have specific regulations about this) and which is regularly alleged to have resulted in deaths that feature in the Indian press and medical literature.[1][2][3] Restoring a redirect when reverted was also poor judgment. Large-scale removal of content should not a first resort absent serious issues such as BLP, copyvio, but Spacecowboy420 is still going straight to removal. So I propose a formal restriction due to this ongoing issue, i.e. no undiscussed redirects or mergers. Fences&Windows 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Discussing proposals about large changes should be the first option. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely. This is a no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Seems warranted at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support, but not just a restriction on undiscussed redirects or mergers. He needs to be restricted on blanking, period. And I mean when he blanks unsourced sections, or most of an article, when the content is easily sourceable. The WP:Preserve policy should be taken into account. I've already made my case in the previous ANI case against him in on blanking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Temporarily oppose. WP:V presently says "verifiability is not a reason for inclusion", which is to all practical intents and purposes carte blanche for removing sourceable content from articles. Ridiculous though this is, Spacecowboy420's edits are exactly in accordance with policy as currently written.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- S Marshall's interpretation of the current wording of WP:V arises from an issue at WT:V he is currently embroiled in, and his comment here appears to be with that in mind. His equating "not a reason for inclusion" with "carte blanche for removing sourceable content" is faulty. But I rather doubt you all want to get into that here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- As I've already stated, I have no issue with 1RR for redirects (and if that included 1RR for blanking large amount of content, then I also see no issue with that restriction) - however if the restriction was in place for general content blanking, then I would like to have specific examples of what is and isn't considered blanking - one sentence? one paragraph? 100 words? or just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I'm troubled by you asking, after this discussion, about deleting whole paragraphs and swaths of 100 words. I'm not sure you're getting it... as a general thing, this project is about gathering and presenting, not erasing, information. If you would take the approach, when addressing an article, of "how can I add to and increase the usefulness of this article?" rather then "how can I reduce the amount of knowledge we are presenting here"... that might be a better approach.
- Okay, sure, sometimes stuff has to go. Sometimes there's dubious info, sometimes there's cruft, sometimes there's too fine a level of detail for a general encyclopedia. What I would suggest is that you consider leaving the clearing out of that to other editors, since you seem not have a talent for using the scalpel rather than the chainsaw in this particular task. There are countless other types of tasks which I'm sure you'd be well employed, and them you won't have to look over your shoulder wondering whether you are getting yourself in trouble. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I asked about paragraphs and 100 words just to clarify what is and isn't considered acceptable. I see no reason why someone trying to clarify what is generally considered to be acceptable would trouble you, surely that's much better than any ambiguity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes OK. Well I'm not an admin and I can't enforce any sanctions, so let's see if someone who is and can wants to chime in with a more precise definition of what you can and cannot do. I would suppose that "just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content" is going to be as precise as we can get. Herostratus (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned your opinion is just as valid as any admin's opinion. If there is no clear line as to what is acceptable and what is not then your advice "just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content" seems very sensible and easy to live with. (especially when combined with "discuss major changes first") Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Fences - I'm willing to accept your proposal of "no undiscussed redirects or mergers" - so as this ANI report has been here for a week now, could you put that into effect. I see this as a way to make me improve as an editor, so I have no issues with your proposal. (and thank you for noticing the improvement in my civility) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Systematic disparagement by User:Eric
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eric (talk · contribs), whom I do not know, has gone around to troll and disparage me on several talk pages where I posted a request for an A-Class review: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This is neither deserved, because I put much effort in the things I do, nor reasonable. In fact, it is exactly the kind of destructive attitude that is driving people away from Wikipedia. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- This does indeed seem a quite unnecessary exercise in well poisoning. What purpose does Eric think is served by slopping this onto multiple requests for article review? Their complaint can have no bearing on article assessment and seems purely personal. I suggest they strike these little barbs.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- While I've AFAIK never had any contact with either party before, it's worth pointing out that this incident didn't take place in a vacuum. I'd advise reading the FA review of the article in question (which was one of the triggering incidents for the decision being made to start moderating FAC discussions) for a little context here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent:, you are certainly right that there is always an origin story somewhere (and if it can't be reconstructed, it can be speculated). However, here, it is about a new start, about turning a page. The FAC is history and I want to move on with a lower aim, the A-Class. What Eric does is trying to prevent that new beginning. As I said: that is destructive and serves no one. --Edelseider (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't strike me as an excuse to go about trying to screw up the next attempt preemptively by setting prospective reviewers against the proposer. Personal dislike != justification for making the next review more acrimonious right from the start. If there's any practical purpose to these comments, I'd like to hear it.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for making that point, @Iridescent. @Elmidae: You might find a glance at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article and at the contentious editor's contribution history to be informative. These three links will provide the extent of my "interaction" with the contentious editor:
- initial contact: a polite encouragement I left on his talkpage in January 2016,
- his subsequent post on my talkpage (which I deleted without comment),
- his post on my talkpage today.
- I hesitated to post here at first because it adds to the contentious editor's principal accomplishment here on Wikipedia: the wasting of other editors' time. But I thought I had better weigh in. Eric talk 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that's abrasive-verging-on-douchy behaviour, and it would put me into a resentful mood as well. But do you really think you have to sabotage a proposed article review because of that? To my mind, you are damaging the process and the encyclopedia in an attempt to get even. - However, I'm bowing out here; I don't wish to be caught up in defending one set of non-collegial acting against the other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Elmidae: I'm sorry to hear that my action might come across as a sabotage attempt--it was not. And it certainly wasn't to get even--I wouldn't engage in such a mismatch, as I would hope one might deduce from the above-linked interactions. I simply wanted to make sure that all concerned took note of what a tedious mountain of clean-up work the contentious editor leaves in his wake. I find the mess and the time-wasting to be far more deleterious to the project than my bringing the problem to others' attention. Eric talk 15:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that's abrasive-verging-on-douchy behaviour, and it would put me into a resentful mood as well. But do you really think you have to sabotage a proposed article review because of that? To my mind, you are damaging the process and the encyclopedia in an attempt to get even. - However, I'm bowing out here; I don't wish to be caught up in defending one set of non-collegial acting against the other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for making that point, @Iridescent. @Elmidae: You might find a glance at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article and at the contentious editor's contribution history to be informative. These three links will provide the extent of my "interaction" with the contentious editor:
- Doesn't strike me as an excuse to go about trying to screw up the next attempt preemptively by setting prospective reviewers against the proposer. Personal dislike != justification for making the next review more acrimonious right from the start. If there's any practical purpose to these comments, I'd like to hear it.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent:, you are certainly right that there is always an origin story somewhere (and if it can't be reconstructed, it can be speculated). However, here, it is about a new start, about turning a page. The FAC is history and I want to move on with a lower aim, the A-Class. What Eric does is trying to prevent that new beginning. As I said: that is destructive and serves no one. --Edelseider (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- While I've AFAIK never had any contact with either party before, it's worth pointing out that this incident didn't take place in a vacuum. I'd advise reading the FA review of the article in question (which was one of the triggering incidents for the decision being made to start moderating FAC discussions) for a little context here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- There was also this in January, where someone corrected Edelseider's German and he told them to lick his arse. I withdrew from an FAC review because of the rudeness. Edelseider, you're complaining as though it's all one way. SarahSV (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- ...okay that's pretty indefensible (quite inventively malicious in German, actually). I stand by my point that the process shouldn't be made into a battlefield before it's even started, but if I'd been at the receiving end of this, I'd probably have snapped. Sheesh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- There was also this in January, where someone corrected Edelseider's German and he told them to lick his arse. I withdrew from an FAC review because of the rudeness. Edelseider, you're complaining as though it's all one way. SarahSV (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It is quite funny to hear from @Eric:'s mouth that I leave this or that in my wake since he has never, ever been in my wake; as a matter of fact, I don't know what articles he edits but it has never been any of mine, ever. He seems to take offence in the fact that I create articles, maybe I should have asked for his permission first? And paid a hefty fee, too? Is that how it works? Because he doesn't know a thing about the content of what I do - he just randomly attacks me. Is that nice? Is that good? I haven't asked for it. As for the German language, I am sorry that I got upset but the "correction" wasn't one. The user assumed that my German is poor (in fact, it is my mother tongue) without regard for the fact that the "poor grammar" in the article was not mine, but History's. As the article itself actually made clear. But he didn't read it because he jumped at me for my supposed incompetence. Which he didn't care to check by asking me if I speak German. I just hate it when people assume, like Eric does, that I am a worthless piece of feces and shouldn't tread on the same Wiki-path than them. It is not only insulting but also entirely gratuitous, because, I repeat, Eric has done absolutely nothing to improve my contributions. I will stop here. Edelseider (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is anyone else just thinking two-way interaction ban here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Iban for at least 62 days. And a refresher couse in NPA, CIVIL, and LETITGO for whoever needs it as pointed out above. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re L3X1's edit summary "fighting amongst yourselves is a sign of weakness" and the above "refresher course" suggestions: I would be interested to see any evidence of me "fighting with" the contentious editor, or any evidence of personal attacks, incivility, or obsessiveness on my part. Eric talk 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- What is posting the exact same edit 5 times? And I apologise, the second sentence should have expicitly been noted: if the shoe fits wear it. I fixed it. L3X1 (distant write)
Eric (talk · contribs) just can't help himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palais_Rohan,_Strasbourg&action=history. He just has to try and interfere relentlessly. Why can't he just leave me alone? --Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Eric: @Edelseider: I'm going to ask you both to voluntarily agree to a two way interaction ban, meaning you will both jus stay away from another, not comment on one another, not edit the same pages. We could make this short and sweet if you both just indicate your agreement with it right here, and it would reflect well on both of you to agree to resolve this without any formal action. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: I am all for it. In any case, I never approached Eric with anything - it is him who is attracted by me. If he gets off my back, I'd be very happy to forget his very existence again! Edelseider (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm likewise with Beeblebrox on this. I've given further input on my talk page, here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Eric: A yes-or-no reply to the above question would really be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am me
My self-declared foe @Eric: has stepped up his one-sided war against me by digging up my past: [9]. So for everybody who is interested in previous lives of editors, yes, I used to be RCS (talk · contribs) and also Insert coins (talk · contribs). And I do lots of good things! I write and edit articles and sometimes I lose my temper, which is not a good thing. I never systematically stalked another user in order to try and get him banned, though. In all the years that I have been active on Wikipedia, I have done some foolish things sometimes, but the good and constructive prevails: articles. Many articles. And more to come. This is what really matters, not my, our your, or his personal problems. Thank you and good morning or night. --Edelseider (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- meh. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the misinterpretation on my part. Nothing to see here, folks. DarkKnight2149 04:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Continued disruptive editing following many warnings at Ami Horowitz
User:Liftarn has many disruptive edits and tags on the Ami Horowitz article; s/he has repeatedly been warned and reverted; s/he has not initiated any discussion on the Talk page per WP:BRD; and s/he continues to make the same type of disruptive edits after the warnings and reverts.
Diffs of disruptive editing: [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22].
Diffs of reverts and warnings: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37].
User:Liftarn was notified here.
Based on the above, I suggest a ban from editing on the Ami Horowitz article. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- support the edits are purely pov or pointy and the disruption has gone on long enough. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or you could just add reliable sources to support dubious claims. // Liftarn (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- The article has numerous RSs, including in the first three, citing that Horowitz makes "documentaries", and that he is a "documentarian" and "filmmaker". Per WP:LEADCITE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Considering that Liftarn was reverted repeatedly by three separate editors (without one editor backing his/her edits), consensus was reached. The Talk page, not here, was the platform for Liftarn to state what needs to be placed in the article. Per WP:BRD, after the first few reverts, Liftarn should have taken the discussion to Talk, but never did. S/he just continued the same POV-pushing and disruptive editing on previously reverted edits. If this is not an example for an editor to be banned from an article, I don't know what is. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There's something more going on here than what Kingfisher claims. I note, for example, Kingfisher's removal[38] of content sourced to Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter. The relevant talk section appears to be Talk:Ami_Horowitz#Police, where Kingfisher claims that neither of these is a reliable, but is opposed by User:Sjö, who reverted the removal.
Their contributions to this page look serially problematic, e.g. using the clickbaiting International Business Times as a source [39], the marginal Independent Journal Review [40]. There may be a case for using those sources, but to use them and then denounce both Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter -- that looks fishy.
Kingfisher is a relatively new editor (~300 edits sine registering at the start of January), and a significant proportion of those edits are related to this topic. Most of the seem to be promoting Horowitz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly what does any of that have to do with what I put forward regarding Liftarn? (I stand by my edit and comments regarding those sources, I used Talk, I did not revert User:Sjö, and I will most likely take it to WP:RSN.) By the way, User:Sjö was one of the editors to revert Liftarn. Do you have problems with User:Sir Joseph, who previously filed something against Liftarn? The Kingfisher (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is why ANI is so toxic. I knew this would happen. BrownHairedGirl, the issue here is not a content dispute. Liftarn has shown that he is unable to edit without pushing a POV. He adds tags which are all reverted by editors sharing a multitude of views. For example I don't think Sjö agrees with all my edits on this page and I seem to recall a content dispute I had with Kingfisher, but he utilized the talk page and listened to other opinions. Liftarn has done nothing positive to this page and all his edits have been disruptive. Look at his history, he has a strong Swedish POV and has edited away or tagged anything negative about Sweden. That Horowitz is a documentary filmmaker is WP:BLUE, after all, he produced quite a few documentaries. What is needed is either a page ban or TBAN for Swedish stuff for Liftarn. Focusing on how few edits an editor has does nothing but makes sure new editors never engage in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Beware WP:BOOMERANG. Liftarn may or may not be POV-pushing; I haven't reached a conclusion on that. But so far, I see stronger evidence that Kingfisher is a POV-pusher. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's another example. Kingfisher asserts above The article has numerous RSs, including in the first three, citing that Horowitz makes "documentaries", and that he is a "documentarian" and "filmmaker".
The third of those refs is to The Times of Israel, says Horowitz, who operates Disruptive Pictures, has no training in what he calls “docu-tainment”. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- What's your point of that example? Horowitz didn't officially study filmmaking, but he is now a filmmaker who makes documentaries, as the RSs cite. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are talking content issues. Please try to focus on Liftarn's behavior and not proving why ANI is usually not a good place to seek out fixing issues. I find it extremely hard to believe that you looked at the diffs and history and still can't see problematic behavior from Liftarn. Which is a shame because you'll end up getting rid of several editors and you'll have an article that is incorrect and faulty. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- TO continue, Horowitz is not only famous for his Sweden documentary, he has done others as well. It's a POV push to say that because his Swedish documentary showed Sweden in a negative light, therefore he can't be a documentary filmmaker, that is a POV push. Look at all the large amounts of diffs provided. I'm going to bow out soon because I don't need my 12 year history looked at through a fine tooth combed which is the way of ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see an editor adding cleanup tags to problematic edits by an editor who appears to be POV-pushing. Maybe adding too many; maybe not discussing enough on the talk page. But I don't see Liftarn adding dodgy refs like those I mentioned above, nor do I see Liftarn denigrating reliable sources, nor do I see Liftarn adding refs to the unreliable Daily Mail, as Kingfsiher did here.[41] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- As I suspected, you haven't looked at the history fully. Liftarn is a disruptive editor and he is the one with a POV push. I'm going to bow out for now because I see no good of this. I'll just let this page become yet another biased article Wikipedia hosts. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see an editor adding cleanup tags to problematic edits by an editor who appears to be POV-pushing. Maybe adding too many; maybe not discussing enough on the talk page. But I don't see Liftarn adding dodgy refs like those I mentioned above, nor do I see Liftarn denigrating reliable sources, nor do I see Liftarn adding refs to the unreliable Daily Mail, as Kingfsiher did here.[41] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- TO continue, Horowitz is not only famous for his Sweden documentary, he has done others as well. It's a POV push to say that because his Swedish documentary showed Sweden in a negative light, therefore he can't be a documentary filmmaker, that is a POV push. Look at all the large amounts of diffs provided. I'm going to bow out soon because I don't need my 12 year history looked at through a fine tooth combed which is the way of ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, you continue to concentrate on the POV aspect, when this really has nothing to do with that. This entire report could have been written without a POV mention. As Sir Joseph pointed out, many editors have debated and discussed issues on the Talk page, all according to policy. Liftarn did not. You stated that Liftarn is "Maybe adding too many [tags]". What number constitutes disruptive editing, five reverts, 10, 20? You stated that Liftarn is "maybe not discussing enough on the talk page". "Enough" is not the correct word because Liftarn didn't discuss anything on the Talk page, after repeated warnings and opportunity, and per WP:BRD. Really, it is [dubious ] that Horowitz makes documentaries? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the record, my report had not one word about content or POV-pushing, but focused only on Liftarn's disruptive editing. I'm very interested in seeing how you address that, rather than your obvious focus on POV-pushing. Are there any administrators who might have a different opinion than BrownHairedGirl? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest again that you read WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, WP:BOOMERANG is an essay while WP:BITE is a guideline. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest again that you read WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- NA Com As a 15 year plus editor with 46,737 of edits, Liftarn should know way better than to do this. If they have a pro Sweden stance, they should be old enough to recognize it, and control it so it doesn't push him into making bad edits. Re: POV, I believe SPA says that being an SPA is not illegal, nor even bad. The point of AN/I is not to boomerang everyone invloved. This is why AN/I is described as "toxic", dangerous, and distateful. AN/I is about investigating the merit of claims and doing something about it. (hiding behind primitive weaponry is how too many establish content editors get away with block worthy behavior). Liftarn's comment "why don't you just do what you are supposed to in the way I so desire, then I wouldn't be disrupting" sets a new record for me of ludicrous AN/I responses. TLDR: If you listen closely you can just about make out the sound of me not giving a hoot re Kingfisher's supposed promo-y actions or the content dispute. Liftarn needs to quit it or I may find myself !voting support soon. L3X1 (distant write) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would essentially agree with the above. In addition, [[42]] Sweden does have issues, airbrushing unpleasant realities out does nobody any good. Irondome (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- But asking for sources for dubious claims also does nobody good. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- You know that it was never about "asking for sources". After all of your disruptive edits and reverts, the first time that you used Talk was yesterday, after this at AN/I. If you had followed BRD, there wouldn't have been a report, nor our time wasted. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, you know perfectly well that it is and you also know that all attempt at starting discussions have failed because you, User talk:Sir Joseph and User:Factchecker atyourservice never is interested in using sources or answering any any attempts at discussions. Also asking for sources for questionable claims (especially in biographies of living persons) should not require any discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Responding to name-drop. I have engaged this editor very patiently trying to work through his issues while also rescuing the article on Sweden-bashing which he began and which survived a deletion discussion only on the rationale that it would be completely rewritten (with multiple editors pointing to my own draft as a better starting point). I put in at least six hours rewriting the article to conform to policy but it has obviously not been to Liftarn's satisfaction. Our last discussions largely died down on March 11 and there were no further replies at talk. I just noticed that he posted a reply on March 31 which I haven't answered. I've considered posting an RFC just asking other editors what should be done about that article because of how fraught the discussion with Liftarn has been, but I just haven't gotten around to it.
- Oh, you know perfectly well that it is and you also know that all attempt at starting discussions have failed because you, User talk:Sir Joseph and User:Factchecker atyourservice never is interested in using sources or answering any any attempts at discussions. Also asking for sources for questionable claims (especially in biographies of living persons) should not require any discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- You know that it was never about "asking for sources". After all of your disruptive edits and reverts, the first time that you used Talk was yesterday, after this at AN/I. If you had followed BRD, there wouldn't have been a report, nor our time wasted. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- But asking for sources for dubious claims also does nobody good. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would essentially agree with the above. In addition, [[42]] Sweden does have issues, airbrushing unpleasant realities out does nobody any good. Irondome (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I take no position on the dispute discussed here or any admin action; but the user does seem to have an extremely difficult time getting the point. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that you prefer blindly reverting to your own POV fork without wanting to discuss any of the multiple issues with it like that you engage in original research an put in statements that are not based on any sources. When you are willing to talk about it, please respond on the talk page. // Liftarn (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I take no position on the dispute discussed here or any admin action; but the user does seem to have an extremely difficult time getting the point. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
In doubt
Sorry to intrude here but I was unable to ascertain if political and/or ideological propaganda are permissible on an user page. If it is not, is this the right place for opening an incident? Thanks Carlotm (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- It depends, mostly on whether it is offensive and/or excessive. There's a some guidance on this in the table at WP:UPNOT. Which userpage are you concerned about? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- What I was referring to is none that can be found at WP:UPNOT. Therefore allow me not to divulge the specific user page I stumbled upon. Quite often I saw users identifying some traits of their ideological position but never confirmation and promotion of their political standing very configurable as political propaganda. I was naive: after a little search I found plenty of userboxes of a political nature, like these down here, from the right side of the spectrum (I was unable to find any from the left side, but I am sure there are some, somwhere). So I imagine I have to bear this, for me unacceptable, abuse of Wikipedia. Carlotm (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This user is a Republican. |
This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump. |
{{User Hillary Clinton prison}}
This user supports the Libertarian Party of the United States. |
C | This user supports the Conservative Party of Canada. |
This proud American is a Conservative Republican. |
Most of those are ok, and useful (it can be good to know the kind of person you're dealing with). The one advocating prison for Clinton is unacceptable and I'll delete that one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Eh. lots of editors announce their political views on their user pages and they run the spectrum from the far left (we have more than a few Communists) to the other end where rumor has it that there is at least one admin who is a monarchist. Go figure. As long as the pages are not being used for promotion of a given ideology/party, or advertising something grossly offensive like racism it's generally been tolerated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- More eh, the fact that you only posted those on the right and supposedly claim that you are unable to find any from the left doesn't make me think this is done in good faith. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is the monarchist admin me? Because as the rumours go I'm also a communist. And an Anglo-Saxon supremacist (specifically, not a white supremacist, the vandal was very clear on that). Jokes aside, what remains here might offend or be upsetting to some users who don't like the current U.S. administration, but they're not like explicitly calling for violence or hatred of specific people or groups, those sort get deleted (like the one that was deleted here). From the left you can find:
This user supports the Green Party of England and Wales. |
This user supports the New Democratic Party. |
I support the Presidential campaign for Bernie Sanders. #FeelTheBern! |
This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms.† |
and so on - possibly varying levels of offense to some people based on personal politics, but not deliberately offensive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Ad is a monarchist, see his user page. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK nobody has complained about these boxes on my page :
This user hates The Sun and thinks anyone who treats it as a reliable source for a biography of a living person is stark raving mad. |
This user hates the Daily Mail and thinks any publication that claims "using Facebook causes cancer" is about as trustworthy as Jimmy Savile in the Cheltenham Ladies' College. |
User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Much as I may agree with it, your Trump one is a borderline personal attack and I think not appropriate here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is cutting, granted, but it's more a dig at the media that goes crazy every time Trump tweets anything. Does anybody else object to it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are userboxes really a big deal? Lepricavark (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. At least, the ones proclaiming political messages should not be in Template space. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I personally think that userboxen not related to what you do here on Wikipedia shouldn't exist. The community has repeatedly held otherwise. I don't care for it but here we are. Sometimes really extremist ones get deleted, openly racist, etc, but this stuff, probably not. Again, I agree they don't belong here at all but the community in its wisdom has declared that they are ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- The tangental reason I have for my userboxes is to warn people (in a humorous way) that I have biases against these three things and I should not be trusted to make a decent editorial or administrative judgement on any articles that relate to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- To answer Lepricavark's original question: You have not lived through the Great UBX War of 2006™ (see Wikipedia:Userbox migration#Other discussions for a handy list of previous discussions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war), so you probably don't know this, but yes, they unfortunately are. Had to learn this the hard way at my RfA. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Userbox Trump here is pushing BLP, but I think as long as it's in the user's voice and not Wikipedia's, it's fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- To answer Lepricavark's original question: You have not lived through the Great UBX War of 2006™ (see Wikipedia:Userbox migration#Other discussions for a handy list of previous discussions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war), so you probably don't know this, but yes, they unfortunately are. Had to learn this the hard way at my RfA. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The tangental reason I have for my userboxes is to warn people (in a humorous way) that I have biases against these three things and I should not be trusted to make a decent editorial or administrative judgement on any articles that relate to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I personally think that userboxen not related to what you do here on Wikipedia shouldn't exist. The community has repeatedly held otherwise. I don't care for it but here we are. Sometimes really extremist ones get deleted, openly racist, etc, but this stuff, probably not. Again, I agree they don't belong here at all but the community in its wisdom has declared that they are ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. At least, the ones proclaiming political messages should not be in Template space. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place. Found a Wikipedia user is posting for pay
This person is posting bespoke Wikipedia pages for businesses and individuals. He claims to be very experienced and active. I don't know if this is against policy but it seems like a conflict of interest.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01057b11b08a620d8a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhenley (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not looked on favourably. Sadly, there are ways paid editing could help (eg: paying a group of researchers to add sources to every one of our 200,000+ articles tagged
{{unreferenced}}
), but they get drowned out by the spammers. I dunno, maybe somebody thought JzG wasn't deleting enough articles this month or something.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)- You know, the WMF should hire some of these people, figure out who they're editing as, and then block them for violating the TOU. Be useful with uncovering the past cruft they've added. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I had a look at some of the reviews, and really this particular case looks like something that would be difficult to deal with unless functionaries wanted to get involved. You have both outing concerns and I suspect some socking going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what functionaries can do here, there's no obvious link between the name and an account, and the reviews appear to be anonymous so there's no indication of what content was edited. Am I missing something? (if I am and it even comes close to outing, email me or the functionaries team directly) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be narrowed down from the sentiments expressed in the advert; on the assumption that it could be actually believed. — O Fortuna velut luna... 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what functionaries can do here, there's no obvious link between the name and an account, and the reviews appear to be anonymous so there's no indication of what content was edited. Am I missing something? (if I am and it even comes close to outing, email me or the functionaries team directly) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I had a look at some of the reviews, and really this particular case looks like something that would be difficult to deal with unless functionaries wanted to get involved. You have both outing concerns and I suspect some socking going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- So this is the guy who is responsible for the 15K NPP backlog; jk. I'm about to run a username search, and as for outing, if his username is his real life name, thats not outing, that getting what you deserve. And ask for socking, I don't think he can have enough socks to obscure his evil deeds unless he is being deceitful on his resume. 1000 pages, 50K edits, 8 years, and 9 articles/day. Assuming he works 261 days a year, it would take just 111 days to create a thousand article, not 8 years. And anyway, the problem with socks is that he would have to birth, bottle feed, and raise a group of socks. Getting around duck is going to be hard work, and it is easier for him to fool the various LEO agaencies here at Wikipedia if he has just one accoutn, allowing him to pass off as an experienced established user. And being around for 8 years yet ony having 50K edits makes a pattern: It appears that he does an article in very few edits, not 40-60. So BOLO4 an editor named Ravish K or along those lines, from after 2007, who creates many articles, doesn't do CVU or participate in the community (AfDs, RfCs, RfAs etc) and uses a bare amount of edits per article created. In other words, could be any content editor. L3X1 (distant write) 21:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- And witchhunt is over. First 500 Ravishs check out. Found a guy who had created 2 articles, this and this, but unless his entire resume is lies, they don't match. I'll let the WMF chase this hare. L3X1 (distant write) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- You know, the WMF should hire some of these people, figure out who they're editing as, and then block them for violating the TOU. Be useful with uncovering the past cruft they've added. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, technically it isn't socking if they start a new account each time they have a new project and there is no overlap. It's a violation of th Terms of Use not to declare that you are paid, but such accounts are unlikely to get caught out if they create only one article and then go silent. That's exactly what I'd do if I was a paid editor, tell my client the name of the account so they can see I'm working on their behalf, especially since it looks like this guy bills for about ten hours of work for each article. Then when it's finished and I've been paid, abandon the account. Start a new one for the next client. If they disclosed their COI each time they wouldn't actually be breaking any rules at all. Perhaps I've said too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox: What about the part of WP:Sockpuppet about avoiding scrutiny? Making multiple accounts, one for each project, would seem to be an obvious violation of that, and therefore socking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. If they are editing in the same topic, it is SOCKing, right? One ~could~ say that paid editing" is a single topic. One very much could say that BLP is a topic, or consumer products is a topic, or articles about companies is a topic. So if they used more than one account to edit in any one of those topic, they would be socking even under a rigorous reading of SOCK. imo, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is debatable if it is socking, but it is block evasion. The master account was indefinitely blocked earlier this year. If editing by that person is identified, it can be deleted under CSD:G5. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- So we know who this dude is and his activities have been given the boot? L3X1 (distant write) 02:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- We know the master account. He's created at least one new account since being indeffed, which is known, but doesn't seem to have been active through Upwork since then. The problem is that if the main account is blocked, they tend to create new accounts for each subsequent job. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- So we know who this dude is and his activities have been given the boot? L3X1 (distant write) 02:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
POV forks being created as school project
I need some more admin eyes here. Looks like there's a school project going on at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, Berkeley/Environmental Justice Section 101 (Spring 2017). Many of the articles they're working with are fine. However, I'm seeing a lot that are pretty blatant POV forks, things like Food Justice, Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California, Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America and Undocumented Farmworkers in California. Moreover, there are a number of these in Draft and User space that are also issues, such as Draft:Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming which until just now referred to the President of the United States as "Drumpf". Many of them have already been nominated at AFD, but it would be great if we could have some more people come take a look at these. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, the Drumpf is almost certainly unintentional. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why an article on the well-accepted fact that pollution has a disproportionate impact on minority communities would be a "POV fork" — what article is it forking? We don't have an existing, specific article on the topic that I can find. If the article needs cleanup, improvement and balancing, then it should be edited accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- The same issue is also being discussed at WP:ENI#NPOV problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to reflog the horse about early closing AfDs, as that was done last week, but the Afd for Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California seemed to be closed awful fast, 140 minutes with 3 delete votes. Can we wait a little longer for the others to see if any !keeps are given? L3X1 (distant write) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've suggested that Wiki Edu require its students/participants to submit their pages for WP:New pages patrol review before putting them in the mainspace. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Srich32977 Not sure what you mean, all their articles are once moved to mainspace enter the new pages feed. I am unawar of any to get NPP on a page in a sandbox without turning it into a draft and submitting that for review. I asked Ian(wiki ed) about what to do with educational article here and he said Students should be treated like any other new editors . The section directly underneath that talks about drafts as well. L3X1 (distant write) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Is that the guidance that Wiki Ed is providing? Not good. They are sloughing off their responsibilities as teachers and handing us regular WP editors garbage to shovel out. Moreover, they are not following their own procedures by listing courses and articles under their purview. The Ed program is now in 80 countries. Whac-A-Mole on steroids. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Srich32977 Not sure what you mean, all their articles are once moved to mainspace enter the new pages feed. I am unawar of any to get NPP on a page in a sandbox without turning it into a draft and submitting that for review. I asked Ian(wiki ed) about what to do with educational article here and he said Students should be treated like any other new editors . The section directly underneath that talks about drafts as well. L3X1 (distant write) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've suggested that Wiki Edu require its students/participants to submit their pages for WP:New pages patrol review before putting them in the mainspace. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to reflog the horse about early closing AfDs, as that was done last week, but the Afd for Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California seemed to be closed awful fast, 140 minutes with 3 delete votes. Can we wait a little longer for the others to see if any !keeps are given? L3X1 (distant write) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Be advised that there are 6 sections (101-106), all of which are working on similar articles. Many are about California's Central Valley. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California was speedy deleted G11 during the course of the AfD, so there was no point to keeping it open anyways. ansh666 06:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi all. We have a few people looking into this. A few things:
- Students should indeed not be given any more or less consideration vs. any other new user. They do have staff support, however, so if there are problems you can notify us (either by pinging, leaving a note at WP:ENI/WP:ENB, or leaving a message for the Content Expert working with the class, who in this case is Ian (Wiki Ed)). Worst case scenario (presuming no truly egregious content, e.g. copyvios), everything is moved back into a sandbox pending thorough review and, if problems aren't addressed, they never leave the sandbox.
- Regarding
sloughing off their responsibilities as teachers
- To be clear, Wiki Ed are not instructors, but rather exists to set instructors up for success, giving them tools, training materials, assignment design help, and staff support throughout. The processes and best practices we use are based on years of past experience and community feedback (and will continue to evolve based on what works and what doesn't, so feedback is always welcome). Then we try to help out if things go wrong. If anyone would like to take a look at exactly the assignment structure and guidance these students receive, you can see it at the course's timeline page on the Dashboard. - I don't think I understand the idea of "submitting to" NPP. Do you mean AfC, or just not using a draft/sandbox first? Having them work in sandboxes and using our resources rather than AfC is specifically to avoid being a drain on volunteer time (among other reasons). Students work in sandboxes and are encouraged to ask for feedback when doing so. That's personally emphasized to instructors working in particularly contentious areas.
- Getting down to this specific class, its goal is to fill content gaps relating to environmental problems that had implications for environmental justice. While these topics are, for the most part, notable, they tend to focus on aspects of problems that are several steps more detailed than our existing articles. Because of this, Ian encouraged the class to begin by expanding existing articles, or creating more mid-level articles (even if this involved scaffolding an obviously incomplete article). While most of the class did this pretty well, sometimes the students got the scope wrong and ended up with overly narrow articles, or created forks where daughter articles would have been appropriate. In other words, in general it's a well-intentioned attempt to work within policy that has sometimes gone wrong. Ian's goal (in progress) is to help them to rebalance their articles or redirect their efforts in more appropriate ways. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- and, as I'm sure Ryan will confirm, this tendency to write overly specific articles is characteristic of many class projects; it's due to the students (or sometimes the instructor) not recognizing the difference between atopics appropriate for a term paper and topics appropriate for an encyclopedia . It's one of the reasons why some degree of supervision by Wiki Ed is important. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm basically going to let WikiEd stuff be, as the ins and outs are outside of my abilities. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- and, as I'm sure Ryan will confirm, this tendency to write overly specific articles is characteristic of many class projects; it's due to the students (or sometimes the instructor) not recognizing the difference between atopics appropriate for a term paper and topics appropriate for an encyclopedia . It's one of the reasons why some degree of supervision by Wiki Ed is important. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Question at science reference desk
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A question has just been posted at the science reference desk under the title "Good reasons for hating Jews" - I think this needs either immediate action or to be watched very closely by admins. DrChrissy (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- It appears this has now been dealt with by ian.thompson. DrChrissy (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll watch too (I am not Jewish). I can understand to have Reasons for hating Jews, even, as many are given in RS, and of course we hace articles on antisemitism and so on. It is not the "reaons fo hating Jews" that bugs me, but the "Good". We haven't Bad reasons for hating Jews. It's a fairly clear case of against WP:NPOV. Incidentally, we don't have Good reaons to hate Christians or Bad reasons to hate Muslims, or Tangential reasons to tell Sikhs why they're wrong. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew (and others): there's a particular antisemitic vandal who regularly trolls the reference desks. Revert, block, ignore (and/or revdel as appropriate). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a LTA or other page detailing his habits, ES, and IPs to see if a range block is in order? Or is he/she/it a IP hopper? L3X1 (distant write) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the neo-Nazi ref desk troll is typically associated with Soft skin (talk · contribs). And he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- That dude is off the charts. 130 socks? Probably could score a gold at sock olympiks, but BEANs. L3X1 (distant write) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the neo-Nazi ref desk troll is typically associated with Soft skin (talk · contribs). And he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a LTA or other page detailing his habits, ES, and IPs to see if a range block is in order? Or is he/she/it a IP hopper? L3X1 (distant write) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew (and others): there's a particular antisemitic vandal who regularly trolls the reference desks. Revert, block, ignore (and/or revdel as appropriate). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Elevatorone and Vijaya Ramanayake
User:Elevatorone recently created an article on Vijaya Ramanayake, as part of a review of the article I added a number of maintenance tags to assist in the improvement of the article. Elevatorone has repeatedly remove the tags stating comments such as "These are common knowledge in several Sri lankan Sinhalese written news papers. really do you need a death certificate to cite the day he died?!!!!!!". When I tried to explain to him that he needed to cite reliable sources as references for the information he made the following comments " These are quite common info. His parents info is not online, do you need me to dig them up on his 71 year birth certifaicte (sic) and place personal info like that online? Musch (sic) of this info is not online, bulk of Sri lanak publications don't go online. I know this person first hand. and to say "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". This man has contributed so much to Sri Lanka's entertainment. you may not know him, but to say this is a fucking insult! Seriously, get a life." When I then explained that he was probably contrary to WP's conflict of interest provisions he ignored my comments and continued to edit the article removing the maintenance tags again. Rather than get involved in a edit war I have referred the matter here to be resolved. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Elevatorone has put a "db-author" tag on the article, but, in fact, Elevatorone did not create the article, and other editors have contributed to it, so "db-author" is no longer applicable. For this reason I have removed it. The tag appears to be a gesture of sour grapes, with Elevatorone taking his ball and going home instead of following the advice given to them to read and follow basic policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- And he restored it again, despite my explanation on his talk page.[43] A block seems in order here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Apologies to everyone involved. I'm new to Wiki and learning. I have restored any of the issues mentioned. Site is as is and how left by other members. Will remain that way and will follow WP guideline going forward on all article. Elevatorone —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
104.163.140.228
It's clear this is a not new user, but what's else is, it's clear this is one of my past attacks and sockmasters, simply see their contributions which contain the same similar attacks. I'm not sure who this is, whether it's 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR or Winterysteppe-Pyrusca, but this is not a new user, and it's not someone taking us lightly. Similar to the said 2 banned users, they WP:HOUNDED me with different accounts, something that this IP's activity suspiciously shares. With this, there's enough to WP:RBI in similar patterns alone. However, what the 2 users shared, is that they would mass-remove everything, boldly attack me or my edits or also make any edit to anything I edited, and this is the same here. It's one thing for a user to casually make a few similar edits, but it's a whole different thing to pick up the same exact minute-to-minute behavior of past banned users. As such, it's definitely cause for examination. To add, I would Support (1) a block of the IP and (2) a rollbacking of the clear attempts at continuing whichever past-banned user they are, given WP:RBI supports it and we've used it before, and since banned users have no ability to continue any editing, especially in this case. Although PRODs can be removed by anyone, previously banned users, and WP:DUCK being applied here, certainly aren't given that capability. No simple new user comes back and continues editing as if naturally experienced, and This added now especially adds cause to what was similarly placed at the involved accounts such as 1Wiki8. This is all clear violation of WP:GAME. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. You're 100% incorrect with all your assertions above. I removed a few of your prods because they were bad. I believe I also commented on one of them that the PROD was incomprehensible, which to my understanding of the english language, it was. I have been removing PRODS lately where I think there is a chance to save the article, or where the nominator has not done their WP:BEFORE, and in many cases I also do a search and add articles. This is just Wikipedia working the way it is supposed to work: someone nominates an article for PROD, and someone else might remove the prod and perhaps even improve the article. I came here to have a look as I received a notice on my talk page. I don't intend to follow this discussion as it does not have any basis in fact, so have a nice evening. 104.163.140.228 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly the same editor. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SwisterTwister and Boomer Vial: are you two going to provide any diffs as evidence that the IP editor is making the same edits as the blocked editors you've named above? Evidence of this alleged hounding? Of the alleged attacking? Demonstration of this "exact minute-to-minute behavior of past banned users"? If it's so obvious then it should be very easy to come up with evidence. It's evident from the original post that you don't really know which banned user this might be but would like everyone else to guess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly the same editor. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The majority of them are going to be in 1Wiki8's now deleted contributions but as his still existing contributions show here and here, they highly share the patterns. Because of the unique behavior, it's showing it would in fact be 1Wiki8, especially as he had another account before, User:Eclipsed. This partly shows his comments before the December 2016 ban. Next, if this is also a differently used IP, the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.27.194.58 also has] one suspicious comment that shares the same behavior, complete with attacks at me and then the sarcasm. It's one thing for a casual IP to comment, even if SPA, but it's a whole different animal to share the same behavior. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can I ask you for one thing specifically? Can you provide a link for an edit where 1Wiki8 attacked you, and one more link for an edit where this IP made a similar attack? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The link you posted is for a different IP. Is it now your allegation that the two IPs are related? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- They may or may not be related, since they could easily be using proxies or similar, since the MO is entirely the same, and I doubt this is a copycat. As for the specifics, this is something similar to what and, for 1Wiki8, the similarities are in here, here, here and here, and FWIW the similarities can be shown at here and especially here because the brushing off of someone's genuine comment at User talk:104.163.140.228, much like 1Wiki8 at his ANI notice and surrounding messages from others, he would casually take as an apparent humorous game. I suppose the WikiLawyering at here may fit in too. "Smart" comments also show similar tones to this 104. IP at here and here, something that was still prevalent at 1Wiki8's ANI ban. As for why I started to consider, Winterysteppe-Pyrusca was because they would actively use multiple accounts at the same time, but I'm starting to seriously doubt this is them. Something as attention-grabbing as this (104's talk page) is certainly something mirroring what 1Wiki8 would've said at his talk page, given thank you for giving me a good hearty laugh during this festive season. Please more, you are wonderfully hilarious!, Thanks for your continued humor! I love it! Keep going. Also, to specify a part in his ANI, this shows some of his used "DeProds" and the relevant commentary. I know a lot of the commentary there, such as "I consider a PROD disruptive" or "Biased prod", can be used by different users, but I still can't believe it's all a happy coincidence. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Something else I happened to find while looking back is one of the random IPs that would show, here with the same MO, and there were quite a few, at the time, basically changing every day and totaling a dozen, 2 of which would geolocate to Montreal. Meanwhile, I found another 1Wiki8-involved AfD here and here. Comparing this, it's becoming far too suspicious. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can someone please block this IP? They have been entirely unresponsive about genuine concerns yet they continue their activities as shown by their contribs, showing they are not emphasizing an understanding, and especially when WP:DUCK is obvious here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see why someone would block me, as I've done nothing wrong and broken no rules. I imagine the reason no one is responding to your claims is that you have not provided any evidence of wrongdoing. The text above all amount to instances of "they might be X", which is just completely inaccurate speculation. The fact that I responded to someone's request that I get an account with "no", well, that amounts to a hill of beans, as they say. I have to say that I am hard pressed to see where I slighted you. I might have called one of your prods incomprehensible, which in my perception it was, but if that offended you I do apologize. Finally, I am an IP editor and have rights to AGF just like everyone else does, so I would suggest it's time to stop speculating and calling names. Have a nice day. Also, it seems that my router has reset and i± have a new IP. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing as looking up both ips return both of them being static, I feel like routers reseting wouldnt change your ip, however using a proxy would. [1][2] Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 16:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Those users who accuse me of something do so in violation of WP:AGF. I've done nothing wrong. My router assigns a new IP abotu once a week; I am not sure why. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ doesn't know how my ISP assigns IP's, but implies I'm a sock. Everything above, except for the admin asking for proof, is classic ANI bullying group dynamics.96.127.244.160 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can you provide a list of the various IP's you've edited under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is a realistic expectation. I wouldn't be able to. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe just the most recent ones. It should lift any cloud of suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is a realistic expectation. I wouldn't be able to. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can you provide a list of the various IP's you've edited under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Those users who accuse me of something do so in violation of WP:AGF. I've done nothing wrong. My router assigns a new IP abotu once a week; I am not sure why. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ doesn't know how my ISP assigns IP's, but implies I'm a sock. Everything above, except for the admin asking for proof, is classic ANI bullying group dynamics.96.127.244.160 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Might I ask, kind Wikipedia editors, on what basis are you beginning this witch hunt? Just for fun? Show me the incorrect thing I have done to bring on the mob. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never accused anyone of anything... i was simply stating a fact. Your defensiveness towards this topic matter however is leading me to suspect you of being a sock however, I cannot personally prove it at this time, but i will look for any evidence and present it. However, no one is assuming bad faith we are just stating what it looks like as well. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 01:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- When suspected of being a sock, the suspect's first order of business should be "Don't act like one." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, calling someone a sock without any evidence is not acceptable here.96.127.244.160 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you're not a sock, you have nothing to fear, and hence no reason to get defensive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, calling someone a sock without any evidence is not acceptable here.96.127.244.160 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- When suspected of being a sock, the suspect's first order of business should be "Don't act like one." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never accused anyone of anything... i was simply stating a fact. Your defensiveness towards this topic matter however is leading me to suspect you of being a sock however, I cannot personally prove it at this time, but i will look for any evidence and present it. However, no one is assuming bad faith we are just stating what it looks like as well. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 01:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to block someone without evidence. If any of these two IPs have done something wrong, list it and we'll see. So far I have not seen any specific evidence (have you, Ivanvector?), and "suspicious behavior" doesn't mean much to me. SisterTwister, "DUCK is not obvious"--not to me. You were asked to provide evidence, but what you gave is edit histories, not diffs with comparisons that we can act on. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, I haven't seen anything here that suggests a connection. I would think that when two administrators and an SPI clerk say "this isn't obvious, show the connection" the accuser(s) would not just continue to say "it's so obvious!" and hope for action. "I think they're the same user" is not evidence, and no admin who wants to keep their tools is going to respond to that. We do not require any editor to disclose what (other) IPs they might have used, and such a request is pretty close to harassment. If you have evidence (in the form of diffs) that demonstrates a specific violation of the multiple accounts policy, please file at WP:SPI, but do not do so if you can't make your own case. 96.127 is correct: accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is a sanctionable personal attack.
- I suggest this thread be closed immediately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. The unsubstantiated accusations of socking are an example of what is wrong with the Wikipedia process. The rational responses of two admin are an example of what is good in the Wikipedia process. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @96.127.244.160: don't read my comments here as an endorsement, there is simply nothing here that I can review. If other users raise good-faith concerns about your edits, it's in your best interest to discuss in pursuit of resolution of those concerns. This is a collaborative project, it's difficult to collaborate with editors who don't discuss. If you can't agree, please seek a third opinion and/or dispute resolution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing to discuss. As you and Drmies point out, the editors have presented no evidence that I have done anything wrong. All I see is unfounded accusations, which is as you correctly point out, harassment.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Better title for this thread.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- What about the IP editor's removing PROD tags? That is a fairly close affinity with the behavior of User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR[44][45][46]. Apologies about the very delayed response, I haven't been online as much lately. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Boomer Vial I think you're saying that a) a blocked user removed PRODS, and b) I have removed prods therefore c) I must be the same editor? Have you heard this one: Marilyn Monroe is beautiful. I am beautiful. Therefore I am Marilyn Monroe? Classic logical fallacy.96.127.244.160 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- What about the IP editor's removing PROD tags? That is a fairly close affinity with the behavior of User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR[44][45][46]. Apologies about the very delayed response, I haven't been online as much lately. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Better title for this thread.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing to discuss. As you and Drmies point out, the editors have presented no evidence that I have done anything wrong. All I see is unfounded accusations, which is as you correctly point out, harassment.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @96.127.244.160: don't read my comments here as an endorsement, there is simply nothing here that I can review. If other users raise good-faith concerns about your edits, it's in your best interest to discuss in pursuit of resolution of those concerns. This is a collaborative project, it's difficult to collaborate with editors who don't discuss. If you can't agree, please seek a third opinion and/or dispute resolution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. The unsubstantiated accusations of socking are an example of what is wrong with the Wikipedia process. The rational responses of two admin are an example of what is good in the Wikipedia process. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
What part of the behavior is the same did you not understand?[47][48][49][50] If I am incorrect, then you would have no reason to worry, nor to get so defensive. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- You continute to make a personal attack with no evidence. Prods have been removed by literally thousands of users, perhaps tens of thoussands. You need to apologize an stop attacking me for nothing. Why is this thread still open? zero evidence of any wrongdoing has been offered. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Methinks thou doth protest too much. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Dispute over Georgina Downs
I'm currently involved in a dispute with Thefactcorrecter about the content of the article at Georgina Downs.
I came across the article on 24 March (via a maintenance category, I think) and discovered it was heavily promotional in tone. I made several edits cleaning out what I considered POV material and replacing obviously biased sources with references from reputable news organisations. Diff: [51]
I also proposed a merge of the article with UK Pesticides Campaign, as I thought there was nothing to suggest notability of the campaign as distinct from Downs herself. After no opposition in a week, I went ahead with the merge.
Today, Thefactcorrecter added content to the page that was distinctly promotional in tone. Diffs: [52][53][54] I reverted this twice and placed two warning templates on the user's page: [55][56]
Then, the user left a note on my talk page, to which I responded thoroughly: [57] I was going to report this at WP:NPOVN but the user has just responded again [58] claiming to be the subject of the article and threatening legal action so I thought it should come here. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I left a NPA warning; the legal threat is implied but I doubt she knows our rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- DGG, I believe you warned the reporting party, not the source of the problem. John from Idegon (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I left a NPA warning; the legal threat is implied but I doubt she knows our rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a classic case of WP:DOLT. The message to Triptothecottage was not nice, but she kind of has a point. (When I've got a free mo, ask me about the time Peter Hammill dropped onto my talk page to complain that something I'd written on Van der Graaf Generator's article that was cited to Mojo - normally considered a good source - was complete bollocks). I have dropped some advice and agree with her on one salient point - just because something is cited to a reliable source, doesn't mean it's actually true. (It usually is, but not 100% of the time). I think the suggestion to re-appropriate and retarget the article to one about the UK Pesticides Campaign is a good one, and I think we should do that (ie: flip Triptothecottage's merge on its head). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have followed up with Ms Downs on my talk page, and done some reading up on who she is. Basically, at least some (and probably more) of what she tried to put in the article is backed up with reliable sources, and I've added a few, so while it might look like a vanity author, it does strike me as somebody who genuinely meets WP:GNG trying to do the right thing. I also note she has had column inches in the Daily Mail and I'm twitching (possibly with paranoia) that the last thing we need is another "my article was attacked by vandals and I was banned!" piece over there, so I have tried to tread very carefully with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rather, it appears to me a borderline notable person trying to write a suitably POV autobiography to advocate a cause. It's a rulebook example of why people should not try to edit articles about themselves. Trying to do the right thing does not mean succeeding in actually doing the right thing. An individual is absolutely not the best source for the significance of their work--about the worst source there is actually, except for a source that's a personal enemy. I do not support editing articles out of apprehension about what a particular newspaper might say (especially after we've made a reasonable decision that nothing they say is reliable--particularly with respect to BLPs). The article needs drastic editing to remove POV, puffery, and material sourced or derived only from the subject, including non-MEDRS medical claims. If nobody gets there first , I shall try to do it. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Copyright breaches by User:Vvven
User:Vvven has been warned about copyright breaches ([59] [60], ), uncredited interwiki copying ([61] [62]), and the use of machine translation ([63], [64]). A month after the warnings from User:Diannaa, Vvven's last five creations have been:
- April 6 - Puente Colgado (Aranjuez), a machine translation of a blog
- April 6 - Hotel Internacional (Barcelona), an uncredited translation of es-wiki
- April 2 - Portal Nou, a machine translation of a blog
- March 22 - Convent del Carme, Valencia, a machine translation of a blog
- March 22 - Sant Agustí, Valencia, a machine translation of a blog
Although Vvven is an energetic contributor, repeated requests to change behaviour haven't worked and the pattern is pervasive. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have issued a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- While this user has been brought to our attention, is the promotion of the drug Citicoline at User:Vvven an appropriate use of a user page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that too; but they also have useful links etc on the page. Just the one section needs to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have removed it and notified the user as to why — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that too; but they also have useful links etc on the page. Just the one section needs to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have removed it and notified the user as to why — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Users Dianna, Boing and Hydronium, i will change my strategy in order to develop that articles above named, and others. i will resume the information from that blogs because simply they not invent that information, they wrote that from sources that explain what happened with that buildings, their history. my intention is write all that important information but in a different way of writting, thats mean, a resume. And citycoline write, is a story of my life, not a advertsiment.... Thanks--Vvven (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Vvven blogs are not considered reliable sources here so I encourage you to find others. Also, may I ask, do you have an adept level of understanding of English? I just noticed you made several grammatical errors and some awkward phrases in your response above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
When I write without my translator, it tends to get worse. But it becomes comprehensible when I use it, as in the case of writing an article, or as in this paragraph. Greeting--Vvven (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I know, but only in these cases could be considered as reference blogs, since they were articles of buildings demolished centuries ago, so the photos and drawings of important painters are there, but the information, there are very few sources--Vvven (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Says Dianna that the next time I will block. I ask for a moment of consideration, maybe it will block a troll or a person who is creating articles of buildings that were important part of the history of countries when they were erected, however it is difficult for another person to create--Vvven (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Vvven you recently created Puente Colgado (Aranjuez). Could you provide the source you used for the content? Since you are being analyzed for copyright violations, it would be helpful to see if you improved with this latest article. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick Hi, friend, I summarized it, only placing the most important appointments as dates, architecture style, who built it, and other things, I took it from the same source--Vvven (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Vvven, could you please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs are self-published, unedited, and so cannot (normally) be used as references for articles, though they can be used as inspiration and to provide hints in seeking reliable sources for articles.
Is "slanderous" a legal threat?
At [65] an edit warrior said something about "slanderous". Does that comply with WP:NLT? As far as I can see, there is nothing slanderous in labeling a real peddler of pseudoscience as a peddler of pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course there's nothing slanderous there. This is the written word. Were it to be anything, it would be libel! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- A mistaken legal threat is still a legal threat. Besides, he/she is past 3RR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- After checking the material was properly sourced and did not violate BLP, I've blocked the IP for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- By itself, accusing another user of
slanderlibel isn't a legal threat. However, if they imply that they might pursue legal action, then we have a problem. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)- Exactly. While it is wrong to label another editor's actions as "slanderous" or "libel" without strong supporting evidence, a legal threat by definition involves threatening (whether explicitly or otherwise) to pursue legal action against an individual, group, or entity. This appears to be a pretty typical POV-based issue that comes up at contentious articles; experts generally agree on something, Wikipedia text reflects it, and an editor whose views are in conflict with the broader consensus feels that their viewpoint is being unjustly denigrated by the liberal use of loaded words - in this case "pseudoscience". Which the geocentric model is, for the record. Kurtis (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- NLT is meant to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. Technically nothing short of
If you do X I will sue you
is a "legal threat", but editors who talk about "libel", "defamation", "such-and-such editor may be in violation of such-and-such legal statute" and so on are almost always doing so with the clear intention of creating a chilling effect and so are in violation of the spirit of NLT, since the whole point of NLT is to protect editors from suffering said chilling effect. To defend editors who carefully skirt the boundaries of NLT on the basis that they didn't issue a direct legal threat is not a good idea. The one possible exception I can think of is related to copyright -- if someone saysThis Wikipedia article is in infringement of my copyright. Please fix it.
is not a direct legal threat and should generally not be treated as though it were meant as a legal threat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- NLT is meant to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. Technically nothing short of
- Exactly. While it is wrong to label another editor's actions as "slanderous" or "libel" without strong supporting evidence, a legal threat by definition involves threatening (whether explicitly or otherwise) to pursue legal action against an individual, group, or entity. This appears to be a pretty typical POV-based issue that comes up at contentious articles; experts generally agree on something, Wikipedia text reflects it, and an editor whose views are in conflict with the broader consensus feels that their viewpoint is being unjustly denigrated by the liberal use of loaded words - in this case "pseudoscience". Which the geocentric model is, for the record. Kurtis (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- By itself, accusing another user of
- After checking the material was properly sourced and did not violate BLP, I've blocked the IP for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- A mistaken legal threat is still a legal threat. Besides, he/she is past 3RR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good grief no. Plus it was only in an edit summary, which read "Removed slanderous statement." Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. There is, after all, a great divergence between accusing someone of something and ensuring that they face a consequence for doing so. — O Fortuna velut luna... 12:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not a legal threat (Darkknight2149 has put it best IMO). A legal threat sounds like "I'm going to sue you" and is a pretty bright line. Even commenting on one's activities exposing them to legal liability ("you could be sued for ...") is generally not a NLT legal threat, unless it's in the form "I could sue you for ..." and/or it comes with "... and I'm going to sue you". However, repeatedly referring to other editors' activities as libel and slander is likely to earn you a WP:CIVIL block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. There is, after all, a great divergence between accusing someone of something and ensuring that they face a consequence for doing so. — O Fortuna velut luna... 12:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Cow manure pasteurization machine (talk · contribs)
Not really sure what this user is up to, but can an admin look into this...? Thx. 172.58.40.94 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Cow manure pasteurization machine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a brand new account SPA who welcomes newly created accounts. The account appears familiar with pinging and welcome templates, and seems adept at finding one or two-edit accounts to welcome. Most probably, it is a sock. As I was writing this report, Beeblebrox blocked this sock. But now, this is where things are becoming more complicated. The accounts that were being welcomed by the now blocked user, are also behaving like socks. Some are creating mostly unreferenced articles which sound vaguely like hoaxes to me. Others are making edits that appear to be unconstructive. Yet others, collaborate on brand new articles, although they are one or two-edit accounts. Example, United States House Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation of the Facts, Evidence, and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can a CU check into this? Thanks. Dr. K. 04:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: If this gets too out-of-hand, I can see this turning into an SPI situation rather easily. That may or may not be necessary at the moment, depending on what an administrator decides based on the number of socks, WP:DUCK applicability, ETC. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed this user while I was doing New Page Patrol. User:Messy555 had created Oleander Sladojevich, which I tagged for WP:BLPPROD and another reviewer tagged for WP:A7. Messy555 removed the tags. I warned, and restored the tags. The subject editor then welcomed Messy555 six times, and Messy555 removed the tags. I gave a final warning and restored the BLPPROD tag. I haven't examined the behavior of the other welcomed editors. I think that Messy555 is a good-faith editor, who hasn't removed the BLPPROD tag the last time. I agree that the blocked editor seems to be a troll. As to one or two-edit accounts to welcome, there are always a lot of one-edit accounts, some of whom create clueless articles in article space that need speedying. Thank you for blocking the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upon checking further, the new accounts collaborating on the new article I mentioned above, appear to be members of a university educational assignment. Some of the other problem editors such as Billcrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be socks, some are vandals, some were created at around the same time, but I am no longer certain that they are related to each other. Dr. K. 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the first account: a very rudimentary guess is this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil, and I wouldn't be concerned too much about its connections to the accounts it's mass-welcoming. The user's just on a mission to find a way around extended-confirmed protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tarage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is very suspicious-looking. I have seen their edit history and, judging from their behavior, I think they might be a sockpuppet of this notorious user. This user has a tendency to revert legitimate edits, and then either alleges vandalism or writes an insulting edit summary. Sometimes this user even reverts legitimate edits without providing an edit summary. Tarage has also made a couple of personal attacks in the edit summary box in recent months. Could someone please look into this account to make sure that I am not mistaken? SpringBeauty (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- No. You don't get to come here and make wild accusations without a. giving any kind of evidence of disruption; b. a specific locus of a dispute; c. having talked the matter over with the editor. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm about to block this user. Yamla, what do you think the odds are that this is SlitherioFan2016? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll do you one better: it's the child Fangusu. Vanjagenije, will you do me a favor and add this to the SPI, and tag them? Feel free to ask another CU to look at the various IPs. There's a rangeblock in there as well, for an IPv6 address, that they may find interesting. I gotta run. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Adorable. I was going to leave them alone but making an ANI on me has urked me enough that I'm going through their 'contributions' and reverting them. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Have fun... but, FYI, "irked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Bored1995
Bored1995 has emailed at least three admins (and I suspect more) asking for particular edits that they have made to be deleted, and offering payment for doing this, see User talk:Bored1995#Re: Your Email.
They have not been specific about which edits are involved and what the problem is, despite at least two of us replying (in my case at least by email to them, so they have my email address now) and offering to help (for free) if they can be specific.
This is just a heads-up to other admins. No action required other than awareness required at this stage IMO. In particular, if valid it may really be a request for oversight. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW I have no evidence of anything malicious going on here. But yeah, it's a bit odd that multiple admins get the same email and there is an offer of payment involved. Strange. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Likewise. I'm assuming it is just a newish editor who has made some edits they now regret (who hasn't?) and didn't realise that it's not trivial to delete them. That's the fascinating thing about a versioned wiki... in a sense you can change anything, but in another sense you can change nothing.
- But it's a tricky one IMO. We've been asked not to discuss on-wiki, but we don't want to all be reinventing the wheel. I'm guessing that there are no oversight issues involved, but we must assume that there may be, and avoid raising them on-wiki.
- I have now received two emails detailing what they want deleted (or suppressed) but have as yet no clue as to why. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm one of the admins who received that first email. It had gone straight to my spam folder and then got deleted with the rest of the spam shortly after I read it. I never got the followup that Andrewa received with more information about what the person wants deleted, possibly because I only responded on Bored1995's talk page and never by email. This looks like a user who simply does not understand how Wikipedia works. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. And I don't want to bite them.
- And yes, I'm sure they've provided some details to me precisely because I have invited them to do so off-wiki. Happy to forward them (by email again) to any admin, functionary etc who wants to see them. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa and Doczilla: Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though? Just being 'asked to' is an insufficient reason. In the interests of transparency, editors' behaviour and edits should be discussed openly by the community, not a select group. See: WP:EMAIL; 'Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public (on users' talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia's talk and project pages), where others can review and note them.' Unless, of course, they are so dire as to require WP:OVERSIGHT. But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission. — O Fortuna velut luna 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" I'm not sure why you're asking me that, but I did not discuss any of this off-wiki. "But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission." Clearly the user does not know what permissions we have. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please exercise a little precision :) I did not say you had discussed it off-wiki. And your permissions are for all to see. — O Fortuna velut luna 09:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, our permissions are for all to see, but I'm fairly sure this user has no idea of their exact significance. That's there too of course, if you dig, but many far more experienced contributors would have no idea either. Admins should make it their business to know, but most users don't normally need to, and that's one thing ANI is here for. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Exercising precision would help, yes. Precisely who were you talking about when you asked, "Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" Fortuna?
- Yes, our permissions are for all to see, but I'm fairly sure this user has no idea of their exact significance. That's there too of course, if you dig, but many far more experienced contributors would have no idea either. Admins should make it their business to know, but most users don't normally need to, and that's one thing ANI is here for. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please exercise a little precision :) I did not say you had discussed it off-wiki. And your permissions are for all to see. — O Fortuna velut luna 09:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Admins are routinely asked off-wiki to delete revisions, especially any in CAT:REVDEL. Off-wiki is better suited for some people, and some subjects. And admins are quite capable of deleting non-oversightable content if policy allows it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" A very strange question to ask the guy who started this thread, IMO. But some things can only be discussed off-wiki, and so I think it's important to seriously consider any request to do so, and to make allowance for the fact that the user requesting may not know much about the various roles, processes and permissions here. Agree that on-wiki is preferred for all others. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" I'm not sure why you're asking me that, but I did not discuss any of this off-wiki. "But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission." Clearly the user does not know what permissions we have. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa and Doczilla: Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though? Just being 'asked to' is an insufficient reason. In the interests of transparency, editors' behaviour and edits should be discussed openly by the community, not a select group. See: WP:EMAIL; 'Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public (on users' talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia's talk and project pages), where others can review and note them.' Unless, of course, they are so dire as to require WP:OVERSIGHT. But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission. — O Fortuna velut luna 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm one of the admins who received that first email. It had gone straight to my spam folder and then got deleted with the rest of the spam shortly after I read it. I never got the followup that Andrewa received with more information about what the person wants deleted, possibly because I only responded on Bored1995's talk page and never by email. This looks like a user who simply does not understand how Wikipedia works. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
My latest reply
Part of my reply to the email in which the requested "deletion" was detailed:
But to action it we need a rationale... the reasons you want these edits removed. And the reasons must be strong. You seem to be really asking for these articles to be all but deleted, and that will lose work by other contributors too.
When you made these edits, you agreed to license them. That license is irrevocable, and you have no right to withdraw it. This is quite clearly and prominently stated in several places.
But I'm assuming that you have good reasons for wanting these edits deleted. So have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ
it would be worth a careful reading. Note particularly the table comparing the three methods available, and the comment right at the bottom " Even if the material doesn't match the explicit limits of the Oversight policy, exceptions are sometimes made in unusual cases to allow for suppression of problematic material."
You could also look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy
but I don't think it is much help.
Comments on any of that welcome. In particular, have I told any lies? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"I just want to write the truth. And I also donate to wiki."
Could someone please do something about 14.193.192.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They're repeatedly ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70]) adding material that is out of scope to List of oldest universities in continuous operation, don't know enough English to understand what the list is about, or understand messages on their talk page. And I have really tried to explain what the problem is, both in edit summaries (and yes, they're obviously Wiki-savvy enough to both use edit summaries themself and see what others write in summaries, they just don't know enough English to make themselves understood, or understand others) and on their talk page, including strongly suggesting they should edit the Japanese Wiki insetad of the English language Wiki, but they just continue. Obviously feeling they're entitled to add whatever they want wherever they want since they "donate to wiki". But I give up... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Warned about edit warring so they'll have to make coherent arguments on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- This sounds very familiar but I can't remember the exact incident, can others? Possibly a return of a blocked user. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not entirely... the phrase I donate to wiki (rather than to Wikipedia) indicates a particular linguistic background, and it has been used before. If they are a repeat offender they may well read this and change it next time, of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The only places I can find that phrase used are here, and here (in the form of a question: "Would I donate to wiki? ABSOLUTELY NOT..."} Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not entirely... the phrase I donate to wiki (rather than to Wikipedia) indicates a particular linguistic background, and it has been used before. If they are a repeat offender they may well read this and change it next time, of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Indefblock+Noedittalk for 엠비엔 뉴스특보
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
block this user
Currently abusing the edit privileges. I've requested a global lock at m:SRG. Jerrykim306 (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not done you appear to grossly misunderstand WP:BLANKING and edit warring. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that global lock either. I did protect the page to stop you and the other editor from continuing your disruptive, pointless edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Legal threat?
Nesnad posted on the COI noticeboard about a user or users with a possible COI at Monica Youn. Nesnad mentioned "she threatened me with some lawyer-talk." Is this a legal threat? I've notified both Nesnad and the IP editor of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Warned. El_C 05:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Normally a person's request to remove a photo should be taken seriously, but there isn't much wrong with File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg on Commons. It has complied with the relevant Commons guidelines and was taken at a public event. Legal threats aren't the way to go here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can see why she would not like it, aesthetically - it is not of portrait quality, by a long way. But the issue here is philosophical: it's a legally permissible image, but that does not necessarily make it a good idea to include it. Mugshots are permissible, but including them as the headshot for an article is kind of problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Normally a person's request to remove a photo should be taken seriously, but there isn't much wrong with File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg on Commons. It has complied with the relevant Commons guidelines and was taken at a public event. Legal threats aren't the way to go here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- We should always be respectful of WP:BLP subjects who express strong preferences. The best solution here is to suggest she create an account, then discuss releasing a photo that she finds acceptable. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's a separate issue (plus Commons can be complete asshats about this kind of thing, they have never shown any inkling of understanding that just because you can doe something, that doesn't mean you should). This is an enWP problem. A subject has only one available Commons image, the subject does not like the image. Whether to include it or not is a purely editorial judgment. The best solution is always to negotiate release of a photo the subject prefers, and approaching it in full-on angry mastodon mode doesn't make that any more likely to happen. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Guy, I respect your efforts to be diplomatic. That's great. Buuuuut. This is an encyclopedia not a publicity machine. It doesn't matter if the subject "likes" the photo or not. We aren't here for her publicity, we are here to depict the subject. That's all. Cheers. Nesnad (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Removing the image was the wrong move. El_C 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well hey, I thought that photo looked awfully familiar. Agree with the above. We have no obligation to comply with the subject's personal preferences in minor areas of aesthetics. We do however have an assumed obligation to present the best article we can, which includes using the best images available. If the subject has a strong opinion about it, then it should serve as impetus for them to take and upload a better version or follow the steps to release one for use. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a look around and it isn't difficult to find images or videos of Monica Youn appearing at public events. If the disputed image was the only image available it might be a problem, but there would need to be an explanation of why it was causing a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just because a photograph was taken at a public event doesn't make it acceptable for upload here or to Commons. Here, it has to fulfill WP:NFCC, which, unless it was a free or a compatibly licensed image, it won't be. A non-free image won't be accepted for a subject that is alive and for whom there are free images available. For upload to Commons, it also has to be free or compatibly licensed, and no non-free images are accepted unless they are released by the copyright holder. Being taken at a public event is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Being taken at a public event by the Library of Congress is relevant. At any rate, I am in apparent contact with the subject and we can probably close this. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is not relevant to whether it can be used on Wikipedia or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Being taken at a public event by the Library of Congress is relevant. At any rate, I am in apparent contact with the subject and we can probably close this. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just because a photograph was taken at a public event doesn't make it acceptable for upload here or to Commons. Here, it has to fulfill WP:NFCC, which, unless it was a free or a compatibly licensed image, it won't be. A non-free image won't be accepted for a subject that is alive and for whom there are free images available. For upload to Commons, it also has to be free or compatibly licensed, and no non-free images are accepted unless they are released by the copyright holder. Being taken at a public event is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a look around and it isn't difficult to find images or videos of Monica Youn appearing at public events. If the disputed image was the only image available it might be a problem, but there would need to be an explanation of why it was causing a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well hey, I thought that photo looked awfully familiar. Agree with the above. We have no obligation to comply with the subject's personal preferences in minor areas of aesthetics. We do however have an assumed obligation to present the best article we can, which includes using the best images available. If the subject has a strong opinion about it, then it should serve as impetus for them to take and upload a better version or follow the steps to release one for use. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Removing the image was the wrong move. El_C 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's a separate issue (plus Commons can be complete asshats about this kind of thing, they have never shown any inkling of understanding that just because you can doe something, that doesn't mean you should). This is an enWP problem. A subject has only one available Commons image, the subject does not like the image. Whether to include it or not is a purely editorial judgment. The best solution is always to negotiate release of a photo the subject prefers, and approaching it in full-on angry mastodon mode doesn't make that any more likely to happen. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
N I H I L I S T I C
- N I H I L I S T I C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user made their first edit on April 3 2017. Their third edit was creating a fully-formed navbox. They have created a number of articles on non-notable political candidates, one of which (Carl Loser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) was deleted as a G10, and they have piled into several debates ad discussions in a way that makes genuine newbieness entirely implausible.
Is this a duck? Guy (Help!) 08:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The user name is dubious and suggests WP:NOTHERE. It may be a reincarnation of someone else, but that is for the checkusers to look into.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Carl Loser deletion was discussed on my talk page, with the conclusion being that it wasn't a legitimate case of G10, but rather a notability issue. As for AfDs, I've gotten involved in maybe one or two that were unrelated to my own articles? I forget how I stumbled upon those, but in researching one of them, I discovered the econlib blacklisting issue, which opened a whole new can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N I H I L I S T I C (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstand nihilism, but I associate it with don't give a fuckism, which states, "Suffering (conflict and stress) is caused by attachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by detachment (not giving a fuck)." Every essay or guideline that says "there is no deadline," or "stay cool when the editing gets hot," etc. encourages patience; but it's a lot easier to patient when you're detached; and it's a lot easier to be detached when you feel a certain amount of despair.
- Many, maybe even most, philosophies and religions have an element of nihilism, which encourages apathy toward a world in which our power to effect the changes we would like to see is limited. Christians say, "Don't worry too much about what happens in this world, because God will destroy it anyway." Buddhism teaches that attachment leads to suffering. Even some atheists say, "Life is meaningless because we are just a tiny speck in the cosmos, so don't fret too much about what goes wrong in this life."
- Apathy often comes about due to burnout originally arising from caring too much, and people may turn to these philosophies during times of transition in their lives when they are looking for relief from stress, anger, sadness, exhaustion, etc. Society (while paying lip service to idealism, for the benefit of the youth and naive)even wants people to take this path, since it's more convenient for rulers to have a populace of people who have said, "I no longer care what happens in the big picture; I'm just going to do my job and put in my time until death, without stirring up trouble, because it's pointless trying to effect any major change."
- I have seen this happen to many people, although some of them went back and forth between caring and not caring, as they would get involved again in trying to fix problems, and then get burned and say, "Oh yeah, now I remember why I decided to detach." Friends and family will of course always say, "Yeah, just detach and focus on your immediate family and your small circle of friends, and don't worry about the big picture." When you look at how entrenched culture often is, nihilism can start to seem reasonable. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)#
- Let's look at the facts here. Your first edit was on April 3, 2017, and within a couple of days you're lecturing me on my Talk page about how terrible it is to remove links to these peerless libertarian think tank sources, leaving condescending comments and canvassing fans of the site sin question, specifically including the person who added rather a lot of the links to econlib. This positively screams WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE and indeed also off-wiki collaboration. There is no "can of worms" on econlib blacklisting, there's a site which was blacklisted due to abuse, a completely routine action, and, incidentally, a cleanup of excessive links (see User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib for extended descriptions of some of the deceptive and inappropriate uses of these links, along with possible good-faith explanations which nonetheless do nothing to justify failure to fix the problem).
- Bluntly, your use of Wikipedia process is inconsistent with the short duration of your registration here. What was your previous account? Guy (Help!) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't lecturing you, I was disagreeing with you. "Lecturing" implies teaching someone from a position of superiority. I certainly didn't mean to have a condescending tone. Policy and guidelines are complicated and nuanced, even byzantine, so everyone is going to err at some point in their application of them. My concern is that there seems to be a pattern in which legitimate objections by various users (most of which boil down to the same points about reliable sourcing) are being repeatedly ignored or dismissed. You have some legitimate points at User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib, and I'm glad you summed them up in an essay, but I think the solution needs to be narrowly tailored enough to avoid causing more problems. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to push the issue per WP:ACCOUNT, but agree with Guy that all of this suggests a good deal of Wikipedia experience. It looks like you have been around the block here and are not a complete rookie when it comes to doing Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never said I was a complete rookie. I just ignored the inferences JzG was making about me because they were irrelevant. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll ask you straight out, and it's not irrelevant because it was mentioned in the initial post: What other accounts have you edited under? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, the request is quite pertinent: who are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never said I was a complete rookie. I just ignored the inferences JzG was making about me because they were irrelevant. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to push the issue per WP:ACCOUNT, but agree with Guy that all of this suggests a good deal of Wikipedia experience. It looks like you have been around the block here and are not a complete rookie when it comes to doing Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't lecturing you, I was disagreeing with you. "Lecturing" implies teaching someone from a position of superiority. I certainly didn't mean to have a condescending tone. Policy and guidelines are complicated and nuanced, even byzantine, so everyone is going to err at some point in their application of them. My concern is that there seems to be a pattern in which legitimate objections by various users (most of which boil down to the same points about reliable sourcing) are being repeatedly ignored or dismissed. You have some legitimate points at User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib, and I'm glad you summed them up in an essay, but I think the solution needs to be narrowly tailored enough to avoid causing more problems. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen this happen to many people, although some of them went back and forth between caring and not caring, as they would get involved again in trying to fix problems, and then get burned and say, "Oh yeah, now I remember why I decided to detach." Friends and family will of course always say, "Yeah, just detach and focus on your immediate family and your small circle of friends, and don't worry about the big picture." When you look at how entrenched culture often is, nihilism can start to seem reasonable. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)#
- Given that Nihilistic is an obvious sock of somebody and has ducked direct questions on that issue, and given that they have taken to going around canvassing and stirring the pot (e.g this edit at Vipul's page, creating Template:Don't_use_econlib.org,_use_Wikisource_instead, creating Tabloidophobia, opening the swiftly closed ANI below, etc ) this user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that we indef them already. Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's obviously not a new user, but not obviously a sock. Seems like WP:CLEANSTART applies, unless there is any proof of using this account to evade sanctions or using this account in conjunction with another account, then what is the issue? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Spacecowboy420 please read the thread before commenting. Even if the editor is not a sock puppet (more likely than not they are), he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia by the evidence provided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's obviously not a new user, but not obviously a sock. Seems like WP:CLEANSTART applies, unless there is any proof of using this account to evade sanctions or using this account in conjunction with another account, then what is the issue? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeffed (for now). --NeilN talk to me 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Inlinetext? El_C 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Probably, the self-righteous harassment of Vipul is a giveaway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. NIHILISTIC doesn't seem to be harassing Vipul, but in fact arguing that links added by Vipul shouldn't be blacklisted, which strikes me as the opposite of what ILT would have suggested. Additionally I can see several times when their editing substantially overlapped in a way that would be difficult to do. While NIHILISTIC's account was created on the same day as ILT's, it was made in the morning, before ILT was blocked. They're also not editing in an area that ILT did. It's possible, but I'm not seeing the evidence. Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Probably, the self-righteous harassment of Vipul is a giveaway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing by User:Hookahlove on Maratha–Mysore War since 4 April 2017. The user removing well-cited content without any proper explanation, no serious effort to engage on the talk page. He deletes already existing material, which is backed by sources and is adding his own POV. Shimlaites (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Shimlaites: Well, this is an edit-war, and an edit-war is like a Tango- it takes two, as you have demonstrated. In any case, it is clearly a content dispute, and your discussion should remain on the article talk page; this venue is for serious behavioural issues that require administrative intervention. Can somebody close this please? — O Fortuna velut luna 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't help but notice that this user is not an administrator. What happened? 82.132.239.38 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought it had previously been an admin, but turns out it decided against being one itself. That explains it, thanks. 82.132.221.214 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Oath2order
Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion [71] regarding the issue. Through my time as an editor on Wikipedia I have learnt from various editors and discussions that the article should remain as it is prior to changes until the discussion is complete, something which this user is refusing to do. They also go against policy on the use of HIGH's and LOW's, in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor to the table as seen here [72]. In the same edit they also sneakily change the table before the discussion has closed. They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here [73]. They have also said specifically to myself on the talk page of article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) that " I hope you have fun spending what will probably be a long time reverting edits here. :) "which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive. I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here [74] [75] [76] [77] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- What you're doing is unpopular. I said "enjoy constantly reverting" because anonymous people will continue to do it. Not me. And stop editing S9E1. That's blatantly not OR. Oath2order (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not about "popularity", it's about the fact that the discussion is ongoing. You changed it well after you stated that which can clearly be seen in the diffs. Never said it was OR but as other editors, including yourself have said high/low is against policy. Also you, as a registered editor should know to take note of edit summaries and respect policy and standards, which you continue to ignore due to personal preferences. Brocicle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never said it's about popularity. I said that it's the anonymous editors that are going to keep reverting back to the highs and lows. Sure, the discussion is ongoing, but that is not going to stop the anonymous editors from doing what they do. You took my quote out of context. Before that I said "there'll be quite some outrage", strongly implying that'll be from the other people. As you've been one of the people reverting, you should know full well that I'm not the only person who's been doing that. You come here to complain about me, but looking at your contributions, you have not done anything to attempt to mitigate what the anonymous editors are doing.
- You mention that I agreed that HIGH and LOW is against policy. You do understand that things change in discussion, right? That's what happened. I discussed it with other users and we came to an agreement on how the tables should be formatted until you decided to intervene.
- Finally, I would like to mention that the examples of reversions that I've done that you've posted were on April 5. One of them was not even something I've done (link 75) so I don't know why you shared that. But. April 5th. That's when you first joined the discussion on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). You'll note that with the except of one edit on season 9, I have not reverted anything. I listened to what you said in the edit summary. Oath2order (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not about "popularity", it's about the fact that the discussion is ongoing. You changed it well after you stated that which can clearly be seen in the diffs. Never said it was OR but as other editors, including yourself have said high/low is against policy. Also you, as a registered editor should know to take note of edit summaries and respect policy and standards, which you continue to ignore due to personal preferences. Brocicle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Mass category changes
Shouldn't there be a discussion before changing all these cat's ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- If listed in Category:Massacres in Egypt then add Category:Massacres in 2011. If listed in parent Category:Mass murder in Egypt then add Category:Mass murder in 2011, what is wrong? Choose, both "massacres" category or both "mass murder". Articles in question are October 2014 Sinai attacks and Wael Mikhael incident. Both category (by year and by country) must be added for consistency, it doesn't matter, massacres or mass murder. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
User:JzG's questionable spam blacklist additions, removals of citations to reliable sources, failures to usefully engage, etc.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JzG has responded by Vipul's paid editing campaign by blacklisting a large number of sites and removing citations to those sites. As was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise, Vipul's motives in some cases for adding certain sites remain mysterious. But he seems to have poisoned the well, by provoking JzG to treat those sites as though they were inherently spammy.
Many users have expressed concern that JzG went too far in his anti-refspam efforts because the blacklisted sites have also in many cases been referenced for legitimate reasons by users uninvolved in Vipul's campaign, but JzG's response seems to typically be simply that the sites were being refspammed, which doesn't really address the issue of legitimate citations to those sites. In researching this, I also found that a number of users have been objecting to JzG's removing reliable sources on questionable grounds, and then repeatedly reverting their reinstatement of the citations without waiting for other editors to weigh in on the talk page. Some pertinent links:
- MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3: Brief convo between JzG and Dark567 about econlib.org. Dark567 says, "I think econlib.org needs to be removed" from the spam blacklist. JzG responds, "It's being spammed by user:Vipul".
- User_talk:JzG/Archive_143#Nolo_as_legal_source: Brief convo between JzG and Bri on the use of Nolo as a legal source, began 10 March 2017. Bri argues, "Nolo (publisher) is probably a reliable source." JzG responds, "It has been extensively refspammed."
- MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org: Convo among multiple users, including JzG, Jrheller1, and David Gerard, on the merits of blacklisting econlib.org, began 19 March 2017. David Gerard remarks, "This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move".
- User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#FairTax: Convo between JzG and Morphh, concerning [78][79], began 20 March 2017. Morphh objects, "You should discuss these things on the talk page and site examples before tossing up such tags and removing references".
- User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#Problematic_mass_alleged_REFSPAM_removals: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, began 23 March 2017. jhawkinson objects, "Marginal Revolution is a reputable economics blog and mruniversity.com has their video segments. They don't qualify as REFSPAM."
- User_talk:JzG/Archive_145#Removal_of_sources_as_not_complying_with_RS: Convo between JzG and Endercase, began 23 March 2017. Endercase objects, "If you don't have time to leave a slightly larger explanation on why you removed something maybe you don't really have time to be accurately removing cited information."
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive_deletions: Convo among multiple users (initially Rjensen), began 26 March 2017. Rjensen objects, "User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation"
- Talk:Avalon#Vanity_press: Convo between JzG and Cagwinn concerning Lulu-published book (see [80][81][82][83]), began 30 March 2017. Cagwinn objects, "Throop qualifies as a reliable source (see the second bullet below), despite this book being self-published, per WP guidelines, which I have already brought to your attention".
- Talk:Cato_Institute#SPS_citing_of_Cato_data: Convo between JzG and Srich32977, concerning Cato as a reliable source (see [84][85][86][87]), began 1 April 2017. Srich32977 objects that "given that Cato-sourced material meets all 5 factors of WP:SPS policy it is not proper to cite SPS as a rationale for its removal."
- Talk:Rent-seeking#Tullock_paradox_.2F_marginal-revolution: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, concerning [88][89], began 1 April 2017. jhawkinson objects, "You are repeatedly making edits that are not justified by your edit summaries, as well as declining to usefulyl engage."
WP policy and guidelines are so complicated and labyrinthine that it's very easy to err when trying to apply them, but there seems to be a pattern of his not listening to users who raise legitimate concerns, and not waiting for a broader consensus to emerge, but rather continuing to reinstate the same edits. So I think that should stop. It would also probably be good, while spam blacklist removals are being discussed, to stop removing those citations, unless he's going to tell us now that he's willing to be the one to add back all those citations once the sites are removed from the blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- 1) You're supposed to let the user that you are discussing know you started this thread.
- 2) you would do good to also link to the older discussions to give readers a background: e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Riceissa, which in a way resulted in the reason for blacklisting the domains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Line by line
|
---|
(AgganoorRajani (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC))
Whenever you remove links, there is a chance someone might ocmplain. Above we see a decent cross-section of the reasons. They might find the source ideologically pleasing and therefore unquestionably reliable; they might be supporting a favourite book or author; they might be defending content that has no better source; all kinds of things. This is not evil. However, the amount of dispute is very small here, and the problem quite large. It will not be managed by weeks-long discussion ate every page, and it's not a simple yes/no that can be solved at RSN because some of it is unambiguous (e.g. the deceptive attributions of historical books). I review every link individually, I do not remove all of them. Short of tagging every one I have looked at and saying I have looked and not removed anything, you'll never see that. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
- To be honest, I'm more concerned that a six-day old account is already posting this sort of thing on ANI. Number 57 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- And as always, if something is reported by an editor who can be attacked for whatever reason, WP and the admin cabal will see that as a reason to ignore the underlying issue and blame the victim instead.
- JzG uses his admin powers, and the blacklist is just one, to strong-arm his POV in content disputes. He has done this for years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- You say. Your case might be stronger if you did not spend so very much of your time complaining about rouge admin abuse.
- Every single addition was posted to the blacklist noticeboard, and can be (and in at least two cases has been) challenged and independently reviewed. And this is not about a POV, it's about controlling link abuse. Which is something I have done pretty much since I joined Wikipedia.
- And the OP? Clearly at this point either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm more concerned that a six-day old account is already posting this sort of thing on ANI. Number 57 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is an impressive list of challenges to my removals of links. When you consider that I have removed fewer than five thousand links in the last year, it clearly shows... er... something. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. I just did a check, admittedly using crappy Excel and working on edit summaries, but around half of my last 5,000 mainspace edits have been removing problematic sources. Of these, fere than one percent have generated any kind of pushback, at a rough count, and a lot of that has been from people who I think subsequently accepted the outcome. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "No good deed goes unpunished" cuts both ways. The content creators rarely get praised either for their good content; they usually just get criticized when they add content that people object to. It's the same way with those who focus on deleting content that shouldn't be there; they're likely to get more criticism for their mistakes, than praise for their justifiable deletions. That's just how it is. Mistakes tend to attract more attention (certainly more public attention; the "thank" log is not viewed by as many people as ANI) than good deeds, because mistakes tread on people's toes. Although I think patrollers, etc. tend to accumulate more barnstars than content creators, so there is that. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- IME, good additions certainly get praise. What's damaging is this kind of weird waste-of-space vendetta post by you. Suggest we close & ban. Alexbrn (talk) 1:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- "Vendetta, n. a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone" I don't have any vendetta. I posted one ANI thread. Big deal. That's neither a prolonged campaign nor a sign of bitterness. ANI just happens to be the go-to forum for concerns about behavior that isn't confined to one topic area. If he erred, he erred; if I erred, I erred. Stuff happens; we know that. I haven't made any accusation of bad faith. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- IME, good additions certainly get praise. What's damaging is this kind of weird waste-of-space vendetta post by you. Suggest we close & ban. Alexbrn (talk) 1:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- I believe I wrote above about how BOOMERANG has little business at AN/I, but posting this after having been brought to AN/I by the very editor you are reporting looks suspicious. And isn't rogue spelled rogue not rouge? L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely rouge. See WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to hold off on taking it to ANI, because I thought, "I hate to escalate it if I don't have to; what's the rush," but then JzG reported me, so I thought, "Whatever, if he's going to do that, then so am I, since apparently escalation is not as big a deal as I thought; plus our interactions are going to be scrutinized anyway, so I may as well get my side of the story out there." Regrettably, the first person to escalate often ends up looking like the whistleblower with good intentions, while the second person ends up looking like he's just retaliating to take the focus off of himself, so this tends to encourage being the first to escalate. (By the way, what's the shrubbery reference, JzG? I tried googling it, but no one has created a KnowYourMeme entry yet.) N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- How does a 6-day-old user know anything about ANI, much less "holding off" on using ANI? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think the actions taken by JzG were appropriate under the circumstances. Yes I sort of defended one of the websites but didn't feel like it was the time to push it in the midst of the messy and difficult cleanup after Vipul's cohort. - Bri (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not spend a lot of time on this please, it would fly in the face of WP:DNFTT. Guy's actions were proper, and the OP is clearly a sock- or meatpuppet. Would someone please close this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- A user who's been here for 6 days and is a self-styled expert on "patterns"? Definitely not a real newbie. I would NAC this myself except that British IP hopper would probably yelp about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others by User:Rævhuld
Complaint
Sorry if this is too long but I request you to read it carefully. Hello User:Rævhuld, has recently been involved in disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others. The incident started after his sourceless edits at 2017 Stockholm attack were removed. After that he comments on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack stating that it should be mentioned as Islamic terrorism. But instead of giving any reliable sources which state that this attack was done so out of such motives, as reliable sources are required, he makes false claims that "the attacker has accepted he did it for ISIS" even though no source made or reported such a claim and there were only suspects and no definite identity of the attacker. He also made insinuations and indirect accusations questioning that "knowledge is not allowed" and "Is Wikipedia a safe space"? His claims seem to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda online. However as that isn't anything itself about the nature of the attack and still unconfirmed information at this point. There have been reports about ISIS links but these were reported after some of Rævhuld's edits regarding Islamic terrorism and comments. Regardless, there has been nothing about the attack itself and as such unsourced edits or text not present in the sources cannot be added. He later made another claim on the talk page that ISIS claimed responsibility even though it didn't. His sourceless edits have been removed by multiple users with all of them over the reason that there isn't any source or the source isn't saying what he added: [90], [91], [92], [93]
I tried telling him several times that the sources made no such reports as he has been claiming and his claims amount to OR and self-interpretation: [94], [95], [96]. However, instead of listening to it, he threatened me with edit-warring block, even though I had made only one revert that too by assimilation with other edits and sources. I didn't make any further reverts in any sense whether it be simple undoing or editing it back along with new content. I explained this in the edit summary while removing his warning. I again stated to him that the sources did not say what he claimed. I further lengthened the comment, asking him not to issue threats and notified him that he himself had reverted at atleast once. Seeing as we both had made the same number of reverts and the user should keep to the standars which he is setting, I warned him about his reverts as well. He however again issued the notice despite being notified about his own behavior and I had already read his warning. I removed it again and told him in the edit summary not to comment again or edit-war on my talk page.
However he commented again and falsely accused me of "harassing" him even though I only commented once, warning him about his reverts. He also claimed that "But you were blocked because of edit war on the exact same article". However I was blocked for edits on 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing, not 2017 Stockholm attack. Notice the difference please, as you have been misreading a lot. And the reason I was blocked for were reverts trying to follow BPL, but I already apologized for that and even another administrator thought it was wrong for me to be straight away blocked instead. Regardless, it is completely another incident now in the past. Rævhuld had himself reverted at least once. I told Rævhuld about all of this and also warned him to stop falsely accusing others including me of harassment. However he removed it, falsely accusing me again of harassment even though I did no such thing nor meant any harassment, I only told him about his comment and warned him to desist from his disruptuve behavior.
He actually made 2 reverts in 24 hours: [97], [98] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondonder, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you.
Also I forgot to mention earlier, I never reverted Rævhuld. I was friendly to him and added some sourced material which he had earlier misrepresented. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments
Please note that a section started by Rævhuld about MonsterHunter32 was removed by User:Vujjayani. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why was it deleted? And that by a sock puppet, which was banned short time after? Could we please set it back in again?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that I have reported him for harassing me on this website. Someone (Monster?) has removed my plead for help. This user is harassing me, could someone please stop him? It's unbearable! I reported him because of edit war and he was blocked. Then he harassed my talk page. I asked him to stop his abusive behaviour and he harassed me again on my talk page. Then I asked you admins to stop him and someone - as far as I can see it, it's Monster - removed my post about him being abusive.
- Honestly, can you please stop him?
- PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)?--Rævhuld (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- PPS! Just read his talk page! A lot of people agree with me on his aggressive behaviour. Someone said he should step back and drink a tea! Please, someone, could you please stop him from harassing me? And why was my post about him deleted by a blocked user? Could you please set my plead of blocking him on my talk page back in?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Rævhuld, do not baselessly accuse me of being a sockpuppet of User:Vujjayani or him being mine. Just because someone removed your comment doesn't mean you can hint at me or baselessly accuse me of it, the comments of many other people were deleted, not just you. I was the one to complain him. When I originally made this comment, I cited the article name of ANI as well as the section of your complaint as that time your comment was there. After some time I noticed your complaint was gone, which i exactly why I changed the link to the section of the article to the diff of when your complaint was made. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am accusing you of bein a bully. I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet. I only ASKED if someone could check if the new user who "accidentally" deleted my post could be a sock puppet of yours. That is at least a possibility. That is not an accusation, I only asked the admins to control it. Since it's very suspicious that someone deletes me trying to get help getting rid of harassment and suddenly the post is gone and the harasser is posting about me.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- And now what harrasment and edit-war are you talking about? I only commented once on your talk page, that too to notify and warn you anout your reverts, before you falsely started accusing me of harassment. Also what block are you talking about. My 24-hr block was made for 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing 5 days ago. That is over and I apologised for it. On 2017 Stockholm attack where you reverted twice, I reverted once. And I am providing undoubtable proof for everything I say. Please do not falsely accuse me, it is you whose behavior is becoming a harassment to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you undid more than once. The only difference is, that you did it manually. Not to mention that I got an edit war warning on my talk page - and I decided not to edit again on the article. Some hours later you put an edit war warning on my talk page, clearly because I did in on yours because of your edit warring. I asked you in a polite way to stop harassing me. But you know what? You continued. Then I asked the admins to just block my talk page so you can't reach it. Funny how this was deleted.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rævhuld, I undid only once and you did it twice. But I didn't start accusing you of edit-warring automatically. Your claims clearly seem to be not put of any good intent. I warned you because of your reverts, you should apply the ideals to your own self as well, please do not complain of "harassment" that too when one warns you simply for your mutiple reverts. Just after one warnng for your reverts, you started accusing me of "harassment". I wouldn't even have commented on your talk page again if you hadn't falsely accused me of harassing you. Your talk page cannot be blocked, the user has to stay away. I told you not to falsely accuse others, when you still kept being disruptive I warned you. But you don't listen. You also made negative comments against others. You have broken mutiple rules. That's why I have complained against you. I was making my complaint before yours got published. So please do not blame me with excuses or false accusations when your behavior is the reason behind it all. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also while you say are requesting admins to "block" your talk page, I was the only one who asked you to stay off my talk page and not come again with warnings. Of course you came back to falsely accuse me of "harassment" even though I had only commneted once on your article when you first accused me of "harassment" and that comment too you removed. These are complete double-standards in your behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rævhuld I "lie". I go the pains of a hour of collecting all the evidence, I avoid making needless disputes with you, yet I "lie". Do I? You never asked me to stay away from my talk page, but after me warning you for edit-warring, I didn't come again except to warn you to not make any false accusations against anyone. All you asked me was to stop harassing. Even though I never harrased you nor made many comments at your talk page except when warning you for when your behavior was against rules. I didn't bully you, but you sound like I am some sort of "evil sadistic person". In good spirt, I asked you to desist from any attacks and accusations on others. You didn't desist, what else will I do but complain you? I asked you to stay away from my talk page, you didn't. Don't comment about what others are seeing, contemplate on your own behavior. No one can block anyone from editing on anyone's talk page, but I haven't commented on your talk page except to provide you warning for your behavior. The only other comment was to notify you of this ANI complain as a notification is mandated by the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also per you User:Rævhuld, me notifying you about the ANI complaint against you is "Harassment" even though it is required by the rules to inform the one who you complained of. Also I forgot to mention. You say you did not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. But you made it clear in your own comment that you think Vujjayani can be the sockpuppet of no one but me: PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Rævhuld why did you feel it necessary to add material that has not been verified yet (if ever)? You can't simply say someone is harassing you just because you do not like what they write, especially if their side goes with consensus. Also, just wondering, is this your first account? On your userpage, you awarded yourself a barnstar and in the description it states you have been editing for several months. However, that is not possible because that was self-received during your first month here. Could you elaborate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Which not verified material did I add where? I used source on all my work. And yes, this is my first account. I had an account many years ago, but that was just one week and I forgot my log in data. When I created my page, I just took another users talk page as inspiration. And I actually provided evidence for the harassment. Just view the post that was illegally deleted here. He harassed me. I asked him kindly if he could stop. And he just continued. End of story. --Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - If you're in reading mode I suggest you check this ANI-discussion about "Rævhuld" from 8 March 2017, just after the account was created, and the swiftly removed message (see bottom of page) I posted on their talk page on 12 March might also be of interest. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- And? What do you want? If you could some Danish you would know that my name means "fox hole" and not asshole. There is something called Danish English. You removed it and claimed it did not exist. I saw my mistake and did not put it back. Are you happy now? This has nothing to do with the topic. I am being harassed by a user.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Rævhuld Oh, but I do know Danish, and a fox burrow is "rævegrav" in Danish, not "rævhuld" (check this article about the red fox on da-WP: "ungerne fødes i en såkaldt rævegrav, en gang udgravet f.eks. i en bakkeskråning", and a search on "rævhuld" on Google yields nothing but a username on a number of websites, including WP. So who do you think you're fooling?. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thomas.W thanks for the read. I am more convinced this is not a new user and even if he/she is they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Why was Rævhuld not blocked during that discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- He doesn't seem to consider to wait for information to come in and sources to say anything. He kept claiming the sources said "The attacker has admitted he did it for ISIS" and "ISIS has claimed responsibility" which is a misrepresentation of sources. This seems to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda on social media. However, what he added was completely something which the sources never claimed and these reports about pro-ISIS propaganda too are just reports, and any link with the group is not confirmed. Either he isn't properly reading the sources or is violating rules wilfully. Oh and Rævhuld, nobody is stating your names means "asshole" even if they thought so in the past. If they think your user profile reflects that you aren't a new user, then that they can investigate. So yes, it is entirely relevant unlike your repeated baseless claims of anyone harassing you or insinuation of others being a sockpuppet just because your complaint was deleted. Nor many of your edits were actually based on what the sources said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- As for unverified content, some of it is here:[99], [100], [101], [102]. Also I doubt one week amounts to months. Even if you did, you should mention it on your user page. From your user page, it is clear you aren't correctly claiming you edited for past many months. If you only copied the other as inspiration, it seems odds for you defending it. You are harrasing others yourself Rævhuld, such disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. You must stay within the rules. Falsely accusing others is completely against them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment 2 - "Rævhuld" is also trolling the German Wikipedia, doing the exact same thing there as here, trolling that has drawn the attention of de-WP administrators, including a block for personal attacks yesterday... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I earlier thought he was misinterpreting and didn't have much knowledge about him violating the rules through his behaviour, but based on this it seems he is behaving in this way deliberately and wilfully. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment When I saw the user page with all the self awarded barnstars and ITIS awards I thought he looked familiar. Starting to sound more and more NOTHERE. L3X1 (distant write) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Eyes on a TFD please
Could some admins please keep an eye on this TfD please? The creator of the template (Fabartus (talk · contribs)) has made some uncivil comments and personal attacks, and it seems to be getting worse. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment)
In context, this hardly seems like a personal attack, and certainly not one at the level of the real one it responded to, and I say this, obviously, as no particular friend of User:Fabartus.Personally, I think user campaign buttons are a bad idea, in general, but selectively banning them is far worse.Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)- @Anmccaff: - Sorry if I've assumed this incorrectly, but based on your comment I think you are looking at the wrong discussion. It sounds like you're looking at the Donald Trump user box discussion; Train2104 is referring to the Template:Adr discussion. Again, apologies if that's off.
- As to this request by @Train2104:, I do think that Fabartus's comment posted on Andy Dingley's wall was probably not appropriate. Re: his most recent comment to me, I have to take some of the responsibility - I went over the top here, as I was a little irked by his "newbie" comment. I'm no longer a regular user of WP, and I was perhaps a little out of practice ignoring small slights like that.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment)
- The personal attack by User:Fabartus was in this diff of the TfD discussion. Fabartus was replying to an IP editor, 216.12.10.118 (talk · contribs), and he stated "Unfortunately, I can't really respect your cowardly behavior." Apparently Fabartus dislikes getting a comment from an IP address, and he makes a further insult about that later in the discussion. I hope that User:Fabartus will respond here and offer to watch his language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Political POV-pushing by User:HistorianMatej
- HistorianMatej (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:HistorianMatej is trying to use the article Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia as a propaganda platform. It's bad enough that reliably-sourced content gets removed with edit summaries such as "Lying media and press, unreliable sources" (the sources are Financial Times, CBS and Politico, and there's about a half-dozen more equally reliable sources supporting the same content, given on the talk page). But apparently it's hypocrisy of adding neo-nazism to party ideology because media said so and deleting official party statements because of no secondary source. The official party statements in question accused others of being fascists. No, equally following what secondary sources report in both cases is not hypocrisy; following blindly what the party says about itself and its opponents is somethint the party website may do, but not an encyclopedia. HistorianMatej edit-warred for the past few weeks over both the removal of reliably-sourced content and the addition of party propaganda without secondary sources. They have been repeatedly asked to discuss the content or pursue venues such as WP:RSN if they seriously want to claim that Financial Times is "lying". This conduct is highly disruptive and should be stopped, either via a block or via a topic ban. Huon (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear to me that he doesn't understand WP rules on reliable sourcing. The content he was removing seems to be reliably sourced, and the part he was adding I would call, at best, a WP:SELFSOURCE that could only apply to statements about themselves. That said, I don't get the feeling that he is being purposefully disruptive. He is probably a member of that party and doesn't like having his party called "neo-nazi," but is not very experienced in understanding how WP reliable sourcing works. I would support a limited duration page ban on Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia so he can cool off, edit something where he doesn't have such strong feelings and know this isn't appropriate behavior on WP. But someone needs to go through and explain to him how WP:Reliable Sources works on WP. -Obsidi (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved administrator input needed regarding Wikipedia:Harassment
Yesterday I boldly protected the Wikipedia:Harassment policy page with the summary "This is a policy which has significant real-world implications. Changes should only be made with consensus." following some backwards and forwards editing. I left a fuller explanation at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Page protection as I am involved with an ongoing RfC and another ongoing discussion on the talk page, which has not reached a consensus as of this timestamp (additional input welcome independently of the protection issue). On my talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Regarding WP:V Geogene is strongly objecting to both the reversion of his edits to the policy page by Mkdw and my page protection.
To avoid splitting discussion I would prefer responses to this to be at Wikipedia talk:Harassment and it would be very helpful if people could avoid conflating views on the process (reversion, protection) with views on the policy or changes to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- A contested and controversial RFC regarding the issue is on-going and also marked with {{Under discussion inline}} on the harassment policy page. Geogene has opposed several other proposals. They've even stated they will continue to "oppose proposals". They unilaterally went ahead and changed the policy ahead of the RFC closing. It was reverted by me citing the need for consensus. Geogene reverted it back. I then reverted it and Thryduulf locked the policy page. I should note at the time I had not participated at the RFC and was uninvolved up until that point in time. It was a good intervention by both of us and this is a borderline case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Mkdw talk 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I fail to see how my !votes on other proposals gives Mkdw the right to summarily revert my bold (and likely non-controversial) addition [103] to the harassment policy. In fact they are only trying to personalize things, conduct unbecoming of an Administrator (much less an Arbitrator). This started when I boldly added a footnote to a policy. Mkdw summarily reverted it twice, [104], [105], giving no reason other than "get consensus first". Also, I should point out that contrary to Mkdw's edit summaries, that sentence is not under discussion. Their reverts are a direct violation of WP:PGBOLD, which says:
Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made.
Thryduulf then escalated further by indefinitely protecting the page, because my edits supposedly don't have consensus [106], which is also a violation of WP:PGBOLD as cited above. Page should be unprotected, and my edit should be restored to the policy, until/unless Mkdw or others give concrete reasons for opposing. Unfortunately, this is becoming an Administrator conduct issue as well. Maybe they should quit digging? Geogene (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)- Why don't you accurately quote my edit summary if you're going to use quotation marks, rather than paraphrase, and secondary quote my full edit summary instead of cherry picking? You left out "and largely opposed at the moment". Literally the sentence in which your addition occurred was marked with the "under discussion" template. Mkdw talk 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is not under discussion, and therefore is not being opposed by anyone except for yourself and apparently Thryduulf, and both of you are supervoting to keep it out. I am sorry if I accidentally misrepresented what you said, and would like for you to quit misrepresenting the underlying facts of this dispute. While you're at it you could try to stop personalizing everything just because you are in the wrong. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why don't you accurately quote my edit summary if you're going to use quotation marks, rather than paraphrase, and secondary quote my full edit summary instead of cherry picking? You left out "and largely opposed at the moment". Literally the sentence in which your addition occurred was marked with the "under discussion" template. Mkdw talk 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I fail to see how my !votes on other proposals gives Mkdw the right to summarily revert my bold (and likely non-controversial) addition [103] to the harassment policy. In fact they are only trying to personalize things, conduct unbecoming of an Administrator (much less an Arbitrator). This started when I boldly added a footnote to a policy. Mkdw summarily reverted it twice, [104], [105], giving no reason other than "get consensus first". Also, I should point out that contrary to Mkdw's edit summaries, that sentence is not under discussion. Their reverts are a direct violation of WP:PGBOLD, which says:
- Endorse protection - if there's a revert war going on on a policy page, protection is warranted. I don't have an opinion on the discussion or the dispute, and I didn't really read anything that was written here after the original post. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
- Endorse protection per Ivanvector, and suggest that Geogene is instead the one who should stop digging, as they seem to be rapidly heading towards digging a hole which they may find to be rather unpleasant. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- How so? Personally, I'd rather be blocked than bullied, although that isn't completely up to me. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- To each their own. Either way, it was a valid protection, especially considering it's bold, revert, discuss, not bold and revert repeatedly until someome makes you stop. I would recommend that you take a step back and do the "discuss" part instead of complaining that you're prevented from reverting again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Should page protection be indefinite? Isn't something like 30 days more normal? Policy is that you can generally edit a policy page. Unless a specific problem user is tbanned or something--which might be more fair if consensus is that I'm in the wrong. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, indefinite is not necessarily infinite. I'm sure once the policy page stabilizes and doesn't have so many possibly controversial changes being proposed it would be more than reasonable to downgrade or remove it. Until such time as then, though, it's not that onerous to propose changes on the talk page and, if consensus is to make them, have administrators implement them. Doing it that way makes sure changes get the staying power of consensus behind them and helps prevent mini revert wars like this one from taking place. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Should page protection be indefinite? Isn't something like 30 days more normal? Policy is that you can generally edit a policy page. Unless a specific problem user is tbanned or something--which might be more fair if consensus is that I'm in the wrong. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- To each their own. Either way, it was a valid protection, especially considering it's bold, revert, discuss, not bold and revert repeatedly until someome makes you stop. I would recommend that you take a step back and do the "discuss" part instead of complaining that you're prevented from reverting again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- How so? Personally, I'd rather be blocked than bullied, although that isn't completely up to me. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Edit warring on a policy page is seriously not cool. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse protection - Drmies says it with economical precision. A no-brainer. Jusdafax 05:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse protection We are talking about a policy page with huge impact here, so edit-warring is a no-no. Lectonar (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse protection - Changes to any WP policy must have community consensus, so any unilateral change can and should be reverted by any editor who is able to do so. If there is an active RfC regarding the change that was made, then the change should be reverted even if the RfC is heading that same direction; IMO, RfCs must be allowed to run their full course before any actions are taken based upon those RfCs, since consensus could change before the RfC is closed. These were good reverts and page protection. (Non-administrator comment) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course a policy should be protected to avoid even minor edit wars, but WT:Harassment badly needs attention from more editors. It is being argued that WP:HARASS should apply to people who are not editors, apparently in the belief that such people may not be covered by WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Its worse than that, *as written* its currently saying that no 'personal information' (which is defined) of *anyone* can be uploaded to wikipedia unless that person has done so themselves. Editor or non-editor alike. Which would basically mean every biography would have to be heavily redacted, no biographical data, no photos etc. Geogene's issue is with discussion of sources used in articles (it would mean we could not discuss at RSN a source's place of employment for example, a key indicator for some sources) but that is actually a minor issue. Frankly the harrassment policy is being skewed by people (and Thryduulf is amongst them) who have little understanding of the consequences of what they are doing. He has protected a policy page that as written (without any qualifiers) states we cannot have any photographs of people unless that person uploads it themself. This is so far beyond idiotic its just.. gah. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah it is has been messed up for a while. Good prompt for remembering that the written policies and guidelines just express the consensus of the community; they aren't rulebooks or laws. There is plenty of time to fix it. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well sort of. Policies are meant to be rules - things that should be followed in all cases unless a *really* good reason to IAR it can be provided. Depending on the policy, the IAR bar can be exceedingly high (or pratically impossible in the case of BLP). Guidelines are best practice guidelines - should be followed because following it results in a better encyclopedia - but not neccessarily in all cases, some areas may routinely ignore guidelines because they are not appropriate for them and the bar to deviate is far lower. The harrassment policy is meant to be followed. It is descriptive of 'do not do X, because X is harrassment'. When a policy of that sort a)says something that is factually incorrect, b)applies it in a way that is completely unenforceable and out of line with the very most basic function of compiling an encyclopedia, it de-values it as a policy. As it stands, that 'policy' is functionally as useful as an essay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death and Jytog: did you read where I said "it would be very helpful if people could avoid conflating views on the process (reversion, protection) with views on the policy or changes to it."? Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: fixing ping above. My "d" key is temperamental. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. I just ignored it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah it is has been messed up for a while. Good prompt for remembering that the written policies and guidelines just express the consensus of the community; they aren't rulebooks or laws. There is plenty of time to fix it. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Its worse than that, *as written* its currently saying that no 'personal information' (which is defined) of *anyone* can be uploaded to wikipedia unless that person has done so themselves. Editor or non-editor alike. Which would basically mean every biography would have to be heavily redacted, no biographical data, no photos etc. Geogene's issue is with discussion of sources used in articles (it would mean we could not discuss at RSN a source's place of employment for example, a key indicator for some sources) but that is actually a minor issue. Frankly the harrassment policy is being skewed by people (and Thryduulf is amongst them) who have little understanding of the consequences of what they are doing. He has protected a policy page that as written (without any qualifiers) states we cannot have any photographs of people unless that person uploads it themself. This is so far beyond idiotic its just.. gah. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Endorse protection and hand Geogene the block he's asking for. We cannot have edits acting against consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Bahuzag
Reporting a fairly complex case involving Bahuzag (talk · contribs), his promotional articles and suspected IP editing, all in the context of a 2015 series of SPIs.
Bahuzag's promotional writing, apparent in Zaheer Abbass Gondal which he created, focuses on promoting the same religious sect (and its literature, websites) as the 2015 flock of sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364/Archive: a Pakistan-based sect of devotees of a mediaeval sufi Sultan Bahu. Apart from promotional writing, Zaheer Abbass Gondal's initials can be seen in the username "Bahuzag", so we likely have a case of creating autobiographic articles. Additionally, after article creation Bahuzag seems to have been switching to IP editing [107] [108] [109], perhaps in a poor attempt to avoid highlighting the link between his username and these promos, so this again can be termed as sockpuppetry.
Technically these are all minor transgressions on their own. But looking at them in combination, I see an example of bad-faith editing in clear violation of Wikipedia rules by an editor skilled in avoiding detection. Please advise. — kashmiri TALK 05:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
These books are a priceless treasure for the whole mankind and an immense light of absolute right guidance for all times to come
—right in the prose. El_C 07:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
After being blocked for a period of one week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content in January 2017 by Beeblebrox [110], this editor continues adding unreliable sources in articles, websites like Discogs, WhoSampled and Facebook or any other websites that are against the guidelines (WP:ALBUMAVOID). Other editors Dan56, Kellymoat, Walter Görlitz and me included has tell this editor in his talk page that these sources not reliable for Wikipedia but ignore us, after the edits has been reverted by other editors, the editor restore his poorly sourced content. Here are the edits made by this editor just recently [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've given them a month's holiday. That should be time to clear up the mess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Thanks. If this editor continue to adding unreliable sources in articles after the block has expired, I've reported this issue again if necessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Tecsatan: Using legal threats on talkpage
The above user is now threatening myself with a legal threat after I removed an image he uploaded to West Midlands mayoral election, 2017 as it was a copyvio, with no written permission on OTRS. Could someone block them please, per WP:NLT and WP:NOTHERE. They also fail WP:COI as is related/connected woth Beverley Nielsen, whom they are promoting. Thanks. Also reported through AIV. Nördic Nightfury 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked His Illustrious Highness, the Count Adam Nicholas Schemanoff, BSc (Hons), FdSc. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I searched both here and on the Commons, but I couldn't find a place where the user was specifically told to contact OTRS to verify the permissions. I've now done so on their talk page. Mz7 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here. My greatest problem here is the failure to issue the threat with basic English proficiency. Fair not
fare
; copyright notcopy right
;obverse outrages behaviour
means, literally, opposite to outrageous behavior; outrageous behavior notoutrages behaviour
;disproved or proved to be false
is a tautology, they mean the same thing; and finally, a supporter of one ..., not,a support of one ...
. Serious question to people with legal knowledge;Sadly, the law and electoral commission guidelines supersedes any terms and conditions that may be held by Wikipedia
- does UK law have even the slightest jurisdiction on Wikipedia's affairs? to my knowledge, the encyclopaedia is under US jurisdiction. Under what circumstances could the encyclopaedia be affected by external judicial affairs? I get that for copyright we employ both US and origin country copyright laws, but, is this to protect the encyclopaedia from being sued or censored? If there is a policy or page I can read for this kind of information I'd greatly appreciate it. Recently I've gained an interest in how legal structures operate in different countries and the interplay between nations. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)- As far as I understand it, British law allows for libel cases to be filed regardless of whether there is any British jurisdiction, and I would presume that extends to other civil suits as well. But I don't think a person could be charged with any sort of criminal offense based on an edit to WP, even if that person is a British national residing in the UK, given what (admittedly little) I know about international jurisdiction. In truth, I'd be a little disappointed if a person were able to be charged with a crime over an edit to WP in any jurisdiction, though I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Note that I'm an American, and am, therefore, by definition ignorant about all things that can't be deep fried or have a bald eagle silk-screened onto them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Deep fried eagle? That's just blindly harmful over enthusiasm; destroying the very thing you wish to honor. It doesn't get any more 'Murikan than that!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'd point out that the legal threat the user was making was to go to the police and have an editor charged with electoral fraud because he removed the editor's preferred candidates's picture from Wikipedia. This is so comical that either the user is trolling us or they haven't got a clue about the laws on electoral fraud, which is ironic if he is interested in promoting a candidate in an election. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- He has now claimed that not only have complaints been made, but a cease and desist order has been issued. However, if he is indeed the person that he claims to be, a swift Google will probably explain the reality of the situtation... Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, British law allows for libel cases to be filed regardless of whether there is any British jurisdiction, and I would presume that extends to other civil suits as well. But I don't think a person could be charged with any sort of criminal offense based on an edit to WP, even if that person is a British national residing in the UK, given what (admittedly little) I know about international jurisdiction. In truth, I'd be a little disappointed if a person were able to be charged with a crime over an edit to WP in any jurisdiction, though I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Note that I'm an American, and am, therefore, by definition ignorant about all things that can't be deep fried or have a bald eagle silk-screened onto them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here. My greatest problem here is the failure to issue the threat with basic English proficiency. Fair not
Challenge to a closure
Wikipedia Talk:Identifying reliable sources#Defining reliability of a medium via the trust on the medium among its readers was closed by User:Francis Schonken on April 13:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC). Diffs: [116]
Discussion in the editor talk page ended without mutual understanding. 3rd party opinion was requested in Wikipedia:Third opinion, resulting as guidance to report the issue in Administration noticeboard. The other editor has been noted about this in his talk page following the guidance here. I am a new editor, been here only for 5 days, so I hope I did everything right before entering this board. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"I am a new editor, been here only for 5 days, so I hope I did everything right"
I find that hard to believe. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)- Maybe I take that as a compliment. Anyway, that is the truth. Other editor in question was kind to link me to a guidance when I asked how to request reopening, I ended up reading quite a few pages to learn how to report and did my best doing it the right way. My studies on journalism were helpful too. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse the closure. (Non-Admin comment) The closure seems fine. Per WP:SNOW, a discussion may be closed quickly if it seems that the outcome won't change by allowing the discussion to go on for a long time. My advice is to accept the closure and focus your energies on improving Wikipedia. Good luck with your future editing! Exemplo347 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Overturn Closure. WP:SNOW:
closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up.
A discussion of only a few days with just a few people involved isn't enough to WP:SNOW close by anyone other than the initiator. As long as he still isn't convinced, I would wait a while longer for consensus to develop before a closure. Mind you, I think the idea is bad, and if it is opened up I'll vote against it, but I don't like things getting shut down that fast. (An IP here for all of 5 days is trying to make substantial changes to core policy pages and knows how to appeal to ANI. Either your a really fast learner or a sock, but miracles happen and so I'll WP:AGF.) -Obsidi (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Number 57: Uninvolved admins should not be so uninvolved they do not know what's going on...
here uninvolved admin is referring to a ARBPIA violation that I was already punished for with a 12 hour block. This is for some reason being raised in what should be a section about User:Shrike. Further the block is noted here in an AE complaint against myself by User:Shrike. I think there should be sanctions against admins who make these kinds of egregious errors during formal sanctions proceedings. Seraphim System (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it was actually Nishidani who raised those edits and I responded to them. It's true that I didn't notice they were the ones you had already been blocked for (although in fairness, that block was not discussed at WP:AE), but I also didn't say that you should be blocked for them. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning. You are required to notify someone when you report them at ANI... Number 57 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes it's worth mentioning, I have never reported anyone at ANI before. I have withdrawn the complaint, but User:Shrike is pushing for me to be sanctioned for the same infraction twice, even though he knows about the first block. I would ask the admins to clarify that attempting to hijack an AE complaint is not correct procedure. This is the kind of incompetence that has gotten User:Shrike blocked in the past, and makes editing Wikipedia very frustrating for competent editors. Seraphim System (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are you drunk, stoned or otherwise trying to commit suicide by admin? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now then, Kingsindian! We are expected to assume that all who ride the highroads and lowroads of ANI can walk in a straight line (or in a manner otherwise determined by the Chicago Outfit)... — O Fortuna velut luna 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now this from the same admin threatening to block me for reporting to ANI - I think this is disturbing and should be addressed, as I should not be threatened with retaliatory sanctions by a supposedly "uninvolved" admin. Seraphim System (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- If ARBCOM wants to sanction a new editor for an unintentional good faith mistake that should have been resolved outside ARBCOM, I accept that, because technically I did violate the consensus clause - even if I did it unknowingly. You live you learn. ARBCOM admins pretending they are too dim to understand what I am saying, dismissing my complaints as frivolous, and threatening me with sanctions because I have filed complaints that I believe are legitimate is a separate matter entirely. I believe I deserve the same courtesy the Committee has shown User:Shrike. Seraphim System (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Kingsindian I am entirely sober and stand with truth and reason, though I am resigned to my inevitable defeat, thanks for asking. Seraphim System (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I also firmly believe that these actions by admins undermine Wikipedia and drive away competent editors. I would not be the first. If all the editors who can write and have a scholar's passion for citation are pushed out by the admins, they will bear the responsibility for having destroyed Wikipedia. Editors who are committed to improving Wikipedia should be allowed to do their work. It is very clear what is going on here. What is my interest in allowing myself to be abused to freely offer my contribution to a project that does not value my contribution or stand by its own purpose? Seraphim System (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: I don't know if it has occurred to you, but the only one who is in danger of being blocked over this matter is you. I would advise dropping this ANI complaint and the retaliatory AE complaint, and make your case at the original AE complaint. There is no upside to escalating this matter and throwing around accusations. Since you say you have never filed an ANI complaint before, and you say that you're sober, I put this behaviour down to plain ignorance of the way Wikipedia works (which is distinct from how you imagine it works). Others may not be so kind. It is up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have already withdrawn my AE, due to the inaccurate perception that it was filed as retaliation, but it is still being commented on for reasons that I can not venture to guess at, which is why I came here. Seraphim System (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Spam by User:Patrick Boots CEC
User:Patrick Boots CEC is inserting disambiguation links into various articles that redirect to Aaron Fechter by saying that the topic is not to be confused with Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine. This appears to be spam in order to promote an invention by Fechter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. Edit warring too. --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Crikey, the things people turn fanatical over, eh? Still, he seems to have found the talk page now. GoldenRing (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Massive edit war on Irritable male syndrome
A IP editor (185.104.184.142) has been edit warring with another editor on Irritable male syndrome. I cannot count how many revisions have been done but 185.104.184.142 needs to be blocked. He/she keeps making excuses that the content was put in by someone else and sources say it was rejected. RegalHawktalk 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RegalHawk: I'm struggling to see the IP's contributions as blatant vandalism that would justify you breaking 3RR. The change is partly a pretty uncontroversial wording change (it may not be an actual improvement, but it's not making the article worse, either) and the other part is changing "under scrutiny" to "rejected" - and "rejected" seems a pretty fair summary of the cited source to me. AFAICT, this is a content dispute that neither of you have attempted to resolve this at the article talk page. Feel free to explain it to me if I've grossly misunderstood the situation, though. GoldenRing (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Socking. Took the appropriate actions. [117] --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning
ClueBot NG edited the page on Marlon Brando and stated his political affiliation was to the Republican Party. ClueBot NG outrageously accused me of vandalism when I reverted the edit back to the page stating his true political ideology as a Democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfiejldavis01 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- [118] Good ClueBot! --NeilN talk to me 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- ClueBot is actually Democratic? I'm not surprised. No, I see, you're saying Brando is. You've got it the wrong way round, User:Alfiejldavis01. You edited the page stating Brando was Republican,[119] and Cluebot reverted to Democratic.[120] Is it April 1 again? Bishonen | talk 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
- Alfiejldavis01 may also wish to explain this edit to the same article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rights for bots to express themselves!! L3X1 (distant write) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Persistent harassment
Can someone please block the unregistered or logged out editor using User:2600:8801:a409:fb00:9575:48c7:f56:65b8 and User:208.25.211.33? He or she is persistently harassing me despite being firmly told to not interact with me. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)