EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) |
Vitamindaughter (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 694: | Line 694: | ||
:::Sounds great, thanks <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vitamindaughter|Vitamindaughter]] ([[User talk:Vitamindaughter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vitamindaughter|contribs]]) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:::Sounds great, thanks <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vitamindaughter|Vitamindaughter]] ([[User talk:Vitamindaughter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vitamindaughter|contribs]]) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::::In addition: if you do this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleuske&diff=775394860&oldid=775394188] again you may face sanctions. That really is not acceptable. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
::::In addition: if you do this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleuske&diff=775394860&oldid=775394188] again you may face sanctions. That really is not acceptable. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::Sorry do what? I think she asked me to talk to her on her talk page. How is it ok to remove an addition for lack of sources when it is all sourced? Also I was not aware accusations of bias were not ok because my post was edited due to questions of neutrality. In fact, nobody is neutral, so I decided to report on just the one main event of the LCME accreditation history at the school which is reported on at another school's wikipedia page.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vitamindaughter|Vitamindaughter]] ([[User talk:Vitamindaughter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vitamindaughter|contribs]]) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::::Sorry do what? I think she asked me to talk to her on her talk page. How is it ok to remove an addition for lack of sources when it is all sourced? Also I was not aware accusations of bias were not ok because my post was edited due to questions of neutrality. In fact, nobody is neutral, so I decided to report on just the one main event of the LCME accreditation history at the school which is reported on at another school's wikipedia page. The user wants to remove information about Armenian genocide I think it's kind of pertinent, similar to holocaust denial.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vitamindaughter|Vitamindaughter]] ([[User talk:Vitamindaughter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vitamindaughter|contribs]]) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 17:49, 14 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) |
|
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)
- Which is good, because it means we can WP:CSD#G5 the articles. That word needs to get out. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'd still AfD em, and as High Command is staying tight lipped about who these accounts are, I doubt we're ever going to find a list of all his articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure this has been checked already, but some of the job descriptions are public and mention the subject name. Here's a list of the ones I found after looking through every entry: Klaus Guingand was AfD'd, Valmont Group was disclosed (talk page) though someone should probably check the accounts named there, Host Analytics Inc doesn't appear to have been looked at and has no disclosure, similarly with Rainer Gerhards, Countable Corp., Sam Rizk was AfD'd, Lamia Ltd (can't find the article, described as a "Finnish e-commerce solutions provider"), eCaring (can't find an article), Octopus Deploy (not disclosed), Air Fibre Internet (can't find article), Business Models for Dummies (deleted), Touchmail (updated, deleted) . From looking through past jobs this person has also been engaging in paid link additions, though there were no specifics. If someone had the time, you could click through each job to the client, and see if you can find out who they are from their other (public) jobs to look for an article. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think Irving Guyer might also be one from this job, but less certain. Contains links to that clients website, and was created at the same time the job was accepted/completed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure this has been checked already, but some of the job descriptions are public and mention the subject name. Here's a list of the ones I found after looking through every entry: Klaus Guingand was AfD'd, Valmont Group was disclosed (talk page) though someone should probably check the accounts named there, Host Analytics Inc doesn't appear to have been looked at and has no disclosure, similarly with Rainer Gerhards, Countable Corp., Sam Rizk was AfD'd, Lamia Ltd (can't find the article, described as a "Finnish e-commerce solutions provider"), eCaring (can't find an article), Octopus Deploy (not disclosed), Air Fibre Internet (can't find article), Business Models for Dummies (deleted), Touchmail (updated, deleted) . From looking through past jobs this person has also been engaging in paid link additions, though there were no specifics. If someone had the time, you could click through each job to the client, and see if you can find out who they are from their other (public) jobs to look for an article. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'd still AfD em, and as High Command is staying tight lipped about who these accounts are, I doubt we're ever going to find a list of all his articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Which is good, because it means we can WP:CSD#G5 the articles. That word needs to get out. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 9 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)
- @Bilby, L3X1, and JzG: I've created a table of the public job postings at User:Samwalton9/Ravish. If you want to help, click onto a job, look at the job message + clients other jobs, and see if you can figure out where their article is/was. Bilby, what's your history with this user? You seem to have already been deleting and blocking, so don't want to duplicate efforts. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 11 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 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) 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)
- I think one of those diffs is wrong, should be this one, but close. But it's interesting on another level too... it does not appear on my Google search and should. The User talk:Onorem/Archive 9 definitely contains the string. So perhaps there are others I am missing, too. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 12 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)
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)
- Um, no? It's actually centrally relevant since original creative works by US Federal Government employees created in the course of their duties are de facto in the public domain if non-sensitive and unclassified. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Which has nothing whatsoever to so with whether the photo was taken at a public event, and everything to do with whether it was taken by a US government employee in the course of their duties, wherever it was taken. It could have been shot in the Oval Office bathroom, the 15th sub-basement of the CIA building, or on Mars, for that matter. 22:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, no one mentioned the Library of Congress or government-employee-produced-image in this conversation until quite late. All that was said originally was "at a public event", which is what I responded to, and which is, to repeat, not relevant to an image's status as usable here. Some images taken at public events will be usable, some will not be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Um, no? It's actually centrally relevant since original creative works by US Federal Government employees created in the course of their duties are de facto in the public domain if non-sensitive and unclassified. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 10 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)
I can't help feeling that an important point is being missed here. Yes, the image is perfectly legal. Nobody disputes that. The issue is that the usbject apparently seriously dislikes it. It's not a particularly fine photo, so I can kind of see why. Enforcing use of a photo - a decorative element, not really core information - against the clearly expressed preferences of the subject, is a bit of a dick move. There are better ways of handling this than "no, fuck off, we're allowed to use it". Guy (Help!) 07:52, 13 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 [6] 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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9] [10] [11] [12] 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)
- Not done anything? Reverting with an explaination, and pointing them in the way of the discussion seems like doing something to me. Yes, things can change in discussion but that doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged it is against policy yet went against it and discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page, after I explained to keep it as it was originally until the discussion is complete, along with sneakily adding in the high/low to each episode under the pretense of your edit summary discussing the first episode alone on April 8th. I said exactly what I said in the episode summary multiple times on the talk page and in the reverts before you decided to pay attention to it, which a quick look at the edit history shows. Also when I joined the discussion has no relevance, an editor may choose to join a discussion at any time if they choose. Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Brocicle: Except that the anonymous editors and other users have done far more than I have. Why aren't you reporting them here?
- Not done anything? Reverting with an explaination, and pointing them in the way of the discussion seems like doing something to me. Yes, things can change in discussion but that doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged it is against policy yet went against it and discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page, after I explained to keep it as it was originally until the discussion is complete, along with sneakily adding in the high/low to each episode under the pretense of your edit summary discussing the first episode alone on April 8th. I said exactly what I said in the episode summary multiple times on the talk page and in the reverts before you decided to pay attention to it, which a quick look at the edit history shows. Also when I joined the discussion has no relevance, an editor may choose to join a discussion at any time if they choose. Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 11 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)
- You joined the discussion on April 5th, and your first edits telling me to stop reverting and go to the discussion were on April 4th and April 5th. So, let's look at the edits.
- Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). You edited on April 4th, which I admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. The edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through January of 2014. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2). You edited on April 4th, which I again admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. As with Season 1, the edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits, where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through April of 2016. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Season 3, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert my revert, first edit of yours in the last 500 edits, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edited was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Season 4, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back to July 2016. Next time I edit was never, actually.
- Season 5, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through May 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Season 6, same thing. Edit on April 3rd, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through February 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Season 7, same thing. Edit on April 4th, and I did not revert anything. This is the first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
- Season 8, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through April 2016. Next time I edit was never.
- Season 9, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, this is first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion.
- RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 1) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page, or edited within the past 1000 edits, for that matter.
- RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page.
- So, with that evidence here, let's look at your argument. Quotes of yours are in bold/italics, my responses are not.
- Quote A: Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion regarding the issue. This has been proven false. The word constantly implies that I've been ignoring what you've been saying; it implies that there's been an edit war over the status of the table. This is wrong. Throughout each season, I have shown that you have directly told me once to go to the discussion on the season 9 talk page. It is not a "constant" refusal. It's been nearly a week since you first told me to go to the discussion page, where I have only edited the pages in a method that would be compliant with WP:MOS, not even touching the HIGH and LOW that we have been discussing. If you did have an issue with the white "win" text, I apologize, as as far as I'm aware, you've said absolutely nothing on the matter.
- Quote B: They also go against policy on the use of HIGHs and LOWs And you're wrong here. I have not been adding HIGHs and LOWs. I've added different coloring, which the users on the talk page came to a consensus about before you joined the discussion. Now, as you mention, yes, I know that editors can join a discussion at any time. However, at the time, that was the consensus. Consensus is ever-changing, I understand that. But you have to remember that that was what it was at the time.
- Quote C: They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here And that's why we, the editors on the talk page, came to the agreement about the coloring. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
- Quote D: which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive This is wrong. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
- Quote E: 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 You know, adding this in is extremely disingenuous. You're implying that I've been constantly reverting. I haven't. As I've said in Quote A, you warned me about the talk page and then I stopped reverting.
- Quote F: discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. Given that that's all who was talking at the time, and that's all who had been in that discussion since it started on March 28th, you can't really claim that it "hardly holds merit". Nobody else was joining; you can't blame me for nobody else joining the discussion.
- Quote G: in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor You do understand that I was the one who added the hidden note, right?
- Final Notes: You come off disingenuous here. Your tone and wording acts as if I'm edit warring, and ignoring a long extended period of notes and warnings to stop reverting and go to the talk page. As proven above, this is just downright false. Oath2order (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're interpreting tone to your own will. Also yes, you did add high and low in this edit here [13] which you can clearly see in the diff. Why ignore the note if you added it yourself? You're more than welcome to ask other editors for their opinion on something, especially since only one other person was in the discussion and was about a mass change to all seasons. Two people having a discussion for a day hardly constitutes a consensus. Rather than follow protocol you deliberately went through each season to revert without reason. You're also mentioning the anonymous editors, question is why aren't YOU doing something about it? Trying to shift the responsibility to me when you acknowledge what they're doing is rather poor. And if you know high /low is against policy why in your recent edits have you not removed them? Pot kettle situation but whatever. Brocicle (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Brocicle: I ignored the note because as I have repeated numerous times, the consensus at the time was to remove them. The discussion about high and low started on March 28th, it was not "just a day". The anonymous editors and reverting of pages quite simply is not my job. I'm sorry but you can't try and make something my responsibility. I use Wikipedia in a different way than you do. Oath2order (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your discussion specifically with User:Seanmurpha lasted a day. You ignored the note on April 8th which was long after the discussion about the "consensus" had begun. Utterly ridiculous that you sit there and try and make something my responsibility and when it is turned around back on you backtrack. Very ironic. Brocicle (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Brocicle: Yes, and if you read the rest of the talk page, you would see that HIGHs and LOWs were discussed with User:Realitytvshow in the section titled "HIGHs and LOWs" which started on March 28th. You can't look at one single part of a discussion and say Okay, yes, I ignored one note post-warning. One. Throughout all seasons. You're trying to make this into a far bigger deal than it actually is. I'm not making anything your responsibility; you've seemed to take that upon yourself by just starting to warn numerous editors, both registered and anonymous. It's not ironic because what you don't seem to understand is that I use this site differently than you. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to police other users on their edits. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to revert the other users edits. I'm sorry if you don't like the way I edit.
- You have absolutely no right to get mad at me for adding the lightblue/pink colors to the table. There was a discussion among three registered users, with anonymous editors popping in and out every so often. We achieved a consensus on how the pages should be laid out. Following the simple diagram under WP:EDITCONSENSUS, we had a previous consensus for cornsilk SAFE. The page was edited to reflect that consensus. The article was edited further. I did not agree. We followed the "seek a compromise". I have done absolutely nothing to warrant you opening up this discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oath2order (talk) 22:46, 12 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: [14], [15], [16], [17]
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: [18], [19], [20]. 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: [21], [22] 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:[23], [24], [25], [26]. 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)
- Seems like there are no takers this time either. Odd. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- ??? Whats that mean? L3X1 (distant write) 12:38, 12 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)
- He hasn't restored his latest edit since it was reverted, but it seems to me like this is going to need some kind of resolution to avoid becoming a problem again later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 11 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)
- Quite a rapid response. I wish my local constabulary would react with such alacrity. The last (and hopefully, only) time I had to take out a restraining order against someone, it took about 5 months to go through. To be fair, a temporary one was issued after a mere 2 weeks (and the subject getting arrested on related charges). But still, it begs the question: to whom, exactly, was the court order issued? I humbly suggest that even if the threat were to be retracted, there would remain another obstacle to an unblock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- And the source of His Highness's nobility: [27]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's worse: His Excellency President for Life, Ruler over all Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Lord of the beasts and fishes, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE for example. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, that's more impressive than Norton the First, by the grace of God Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's worse: His Excellency President for Life, Ruler over all Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Lord of the beasts and fishes, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE for example. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @NeilN and Black Kite: Has this editor claimed to be nobility somewhere? I haven't seen it and I feel lost now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: It was on his userpage, but has since been removed. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 11 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
- MjolnirPants/MPants at work:- Can this be reopened please? The user has just posted on his talkpage saying he is capable of (in theory) hacking and is now blaming other users for his issues. Courtesy ping: Mz7; NeilN Nördic Nightfury 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re-opened. I have removed talk page access and email access (based on a note on my talk page) from the editor. They seem to have reproduced an email complete with addresses on their talk page - another admin may want to remove and possibly revdel. Note my only interaction with the editor was to block them. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the record, I'll forward the email I got from this editor to any uninvolved admin who might need to see it. There's nothing really shocking in it though, just more of the same crap from his talk page and the rather unusual assumption that I'm in charge of the admins. Don't get me wrong, I definitely should be in charge, but I think we all know I'm not. Yet. I'll leave the next close for someone else this time, because I get the feeling I'll say something really snarky in the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh my God, Pinky and the brain.... best TV show ever! ...NARF! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- It really is at the top of any recommended watching for anyone plotting world domination. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh my God, Pinky and the brain.... best TV show ever! ...NARF! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re-opened. I have removed talk page access and email access (based on a note on my talk page) from the editor. They seem to have reproduced an email complete with addresses on their talk page - another admin may want to remove and possibly revdel. Note my only interaction with the editor was to block them. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - I just noticed that I was referenced in Tec's talk page comments, though attributed to NeilN. Presumably, if Tec is being honest, due to their dyslexia. I'd like to be clear that I was not aware of Tec's dyslexia and was, I had thought,
making fun
of the immaturity of their behaviour. Tec in the interest of full disclosure; I am not an admin. Now with regards to harrassment and electoral fraud, I'd like to put these to bed. Permanently. Having an image deleted off Wikipedia is not harrassment. Period. There is no futher discussion to be had about that. Now, I have not stepped foot in the UK in my life, so take my interpretation of your electoral fraud laws with a bushel of salt, but, nobody has committed any of the following; bribery, treating, undue influence, personation, made false statements (propaganda and libel), breached the secrecy of the ballot, committed racial hatred, or any of the false registration/multi-vote offences listed here. But seriously, if you actually reported this to the police... facepalm. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 14 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. [28] --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good call. GoldenRing (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to split this over multiple discussions, but reverting 40 times is not appropriate, it is quite disruptive, in fact. This is what ANI or RFPP are for. El_C 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- The RFPP report sat there for 25 minutes before I picked it up. It was silly, making those rapid-fire reverts for non-BLP violating material but not worth blocking two good editors over, IMO. --NeilN talk to me 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough, I'll stand down. But for next time, if one of us regulars is not attending to RFPP, there's always someone checking ANI. El_C 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- The RFPP report sat there for 25 minutes before I picked it up. It was silly, making those rapid-fire reverts for non-BLP violating material but not worth blocking two good editors over, IMO. --NeilN talk to me 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) The temptation to add "Irritable male syndrome? WHAT THE &*&&^% is WRoNG WITH THAT, ^&&%$?" would have irresistible back on the first of the month... Anmccaff (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to split this over multiple discussions, but reverting 40 times is not appropriate, it is quite disruptive, in fact. This is what ANI or RFPP are for. El_C 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, there are not that many regulars at WP:RFP; I'd say about 15-20 all in all. 25 Minutes is not that much, imho. And indeed it was edit-warring, after all, socks notwithstanding. Lectonar (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the avg time from report to response is more like 60 minutes, higher at Night US time and weekends. L3X1 (distant write) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've said this many times before and no doubt I'll say this many times again - measuring average times at RFPP is misleading. Sometimes reports sit there because they're on the edge of needing protection and admins are keeping watch on the articles for more disruption. --NeilN talk to me 21:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good call. GoldenRing (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- And shorter at European day-time ;); I try to keep an eye on that, even while at work. Lectonar (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Socking. Took the appropriate actions. [28] --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just add here that these guys should be warned IMO (I agree with NeilN that blocking would be innnapropriate). ~40 reverts isn't appropriate for a minor content change like this, socks or no socks. It is disruptive plain and simple. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
User Epulum
Could someone please have a look at User talk:Epulum#Reinstatement of merged article?
I have been concerned for some time about this user's approach to the issues raised at Talk:Cozido#Requested move 4 March 2017. In fairness this RM, which they raised, was messy through no fault of theirs. The proposal was to move the article then at Cozido to a more specific title, Cozido à portuguesa. The initial close was move, which was disputed (by me and others) and reverted by the closer. The eventual close was not to move, and to merge the content that had meantime been created at draft:Cozido with the more specific content already at Cozido.
A key issue was, do we want one article, covering both the general topic Cozido and the specific Cozido à portuguesa? Epulum was strongly of the opinion that there should be two articles, but the eventual close found consensus on having only one, hence the merge. Reverting the initial move therefore left Cozido à portuguesa redirected to Cozido.
I became concerned when Epulum then proposed to merge Cozido with the existing article at Cocido, on the related Spanish dishes. (Cozido is Portuguese.) It seemed possible that this was a back-door way of reversing the merge decision, and so IMO it has proved to be. But many users would not realise that this is frowned upon, so it was not a big issue. Cocido links to three articles on more specific, Spanish dishes, and merging all of these is probably not a good idea, so the eventual result of this merge would probably be to split out Cozido à portuguesa again, as Epulum wishes.
To complicate things further, I suspect this is actually the correct course of action. It is the process that concerns me. But how do we best get it back on track? I have suggested that the discussion should focus on the eventual article structure. Epulum seems resistant to this, for reasons I do not understand.
The reason I have finally brought this to ANI is that Epulum has restored the merged article at Cozido à portuguesa, in defiance it seems to me of the RM result, and maintains that this was a correct course of action. I think at this stage I need to seek an uninvolved admin. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Correction: Draft:Cozido covered more general content, as the Cozido article was originally written on a more specific type of cozido dish, namely cozido à portuguesa. --Epulum (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is true, except it's not a correction, it's quite consistent with the synopsis above. And as far as I can see, irrelevant anyway. And such a reply is typical of the discussion to date.
- Is it the only dispute you have with my synopsis above? Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- (I was involved in the RM) I don't think I follow here; what is wrong with his split of the article? The current state seems like a great outcome to me, with Cozido serving as a WP:DABCONCEPT and more specific dishes being listed at their full names. You say on Epulum's talk page that the result of the RM was "merge", but how can a Requested Move be closed as merge?! This seems like a content dispute anyway, what admin action are you asking for here? Laurdecl talk 06:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just asking for another admin to look at it. No specific action requested. To me the RM outcome was exactly that, consensus was achieved and assessed by closer. But no problem found is a legitimate outcome, and I will of course respect it, and will have learned something. Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Personal attack by Fabartus
Fabartus posts this on my talk page about seomthing that happened 5 days ago. I don't appreciate it and if someone could just take a look and do something that would be great. [29].SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SparklingPessimist - This looks like only one occurrence. Am I missing something? Is this a repeated behavior? What dispute is this originating from, and where? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- He has also attacked other users as well Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on a TFD please SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Fabartus (talk · contribs) appears to have a long history of persistent incivility and general hostility. See the half dozen NPA blocks between 2008 and 2011, as well as continued personal attacks and bizarre, militant comments just within the past few days (not including the diff linked by the OP). Fabartus's interactions with other contributors seem to fall short of the decorum we expect. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [30]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Juliancolton - I agree. This is problematic behavior, and clear evidence shows that this is a repeated and long-term issue.
- Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [30]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fabartus - I don't think I need to go into in-depth details regarding Wikipedia's civility policy nor Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks towards others. Your history clearly demonstrates that you've been shown these policies numerous times and that you should be reasonably aware of their existence. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. You need to either engage in civil discussion over the specific disputes and concerns you have and appropriately, or drop whatever stick it is that you're carrying and move on. Your last block was for one month due to incivility; please please don't make me have to be the guy that blocks you for yet another instance of this issue... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't have that much patience. Indef blocked, any admin can undo it if you feel he's reformed and will stop attacking and harassing other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I read the very considerable history before acting. Please confirm you have, and let me know why you think it's disproportionate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This was in response to someone claiming mere mention of a one of the more benign Trumpism was "hate speech." Obviously the response was that of a seventy, eighty-ish (I'm guessing) curmudgeon, written in Curmudgeon-ese. Reads like the know-it-all wiseass inhabiting the end stool at a thousand bars, but it isn't the sort of thing that deserves blocking, any more than the piece responded to, written in Snowflakian is, although, truth be told, her bit was more insulting, in some ways. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff:That's pretty insulting, I just gave my honest opinion on something and I didn't insult anyone or curse at anyone. I think it's funny you think I'm an old curmudgeon, though considering the fact that I'm a college student, I'll take it as a compiment. Don't you have some redditing to attend to? Thanks.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This was in response to someone claiming mere mention of a one of the more benign Trumpism was "hate speech." Obviously the response was that of a seventy, eighty-ish (I'm guessing) curmudgeon, written in Curmudgeon-ese. Reads like the know-it-all wiseass inhabiting the end stool at a thousand bars, but it isn't the sort of thing that deserves blocking, any more than the piece responded to, written in Snowflakian is, although, truth be told, her bit was more insulting, in some ways. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I read the very considerable history before acting. Please confirm you have, and let me know why you think it's disproportionate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't have that much patience. Indef blocked, any admin can undo it if you feel he's reformed and will stop attacking and harassing other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fabartus - I don't think I need to go into in-depth details regarding Wikipedia's civility policy nor Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks towards others. Your history clearly demonstrates that you've been shown these policies numerous times and that you should be reasonably aware of their existence. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. You need to either engage in civil discussion over the specific disputes and concerns you have and appropriately, or drop whatever stick it is that you're carrying and move on. Your last block was for one month due to incivility; please please don't make me have to be the guy that blocks you for yet another instance of this issue... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Yes. Your honest opinion was roughly "Trump EqUaLS HITLER!!!!!! That's what "hate speech" kinda implies, connection to some real underlying nastiness, although if you think the Godwinning is premature, substitute David Duke, or something. And please don't promote yourself; Frank's the Curmudgeon, you're the Snowflake.
- What, exactly, if anything, do you mean by the reditting crack, BTW? As I see it, you have once again substituted thought with personal insult. People who seeks bans might want to look behind them, 'cause when you throw some stuff, it tends to return. Anmccaff (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ignored.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to take your bickering elsewhere, both of you? It's not adding anything to this discussion at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect this is the right place; while Frank has a long history of low-grade assholery; the person bringing the complaint is gaining on him pretty fast. Were it not for the old stuff, and the (justified, I think) fear that it'll continue like this, this should have a boomerang, or perhaps a double trouting. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Look; one and only one person in this debate called one editor a "Girly Girl" on their way to other offenses and outright said that all IP editors are using subterfuge, said the particular one was an idiot, generalized that all hiding behind IPs are (caps original) "NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT", and deliberately furtive, and that they're deliberately betraying trust and that "Drawing and quartering would be too good for them.". As far as I can tell the IP merely disagreed with him on a sensitive (to him) point. I can believe this is a user who's older and used to being the old curmudgeon on the bar, but if that curmudgeon starts suggesting the death of other users like that in the middle of otherwise insulting tirades, most bars are going to ask them to leave. This behavior is not OK on Wikipedia. It would not be OK in most diners, in libraries, in internet cafes, at home. That (presumably) he felt ok to do it here was a mistake, and he should not have the opportunity to continue it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Three points. First, Frank ain't here. You blocked him, indefinitely; continuing to comment on things he can't respond to seems a little tacky, unless it is required for other reasons. Next, if we take as a given the prematurely crusty persona (he appears to be a decade younger than I'd guessed), "girly girl" is mostly an ageist crack, not a sexist one, as the remainder of the post reinforces. Those are both peripheral, and, as mentioned, overcome by events; the guy was blocked without even a chance to respond, followed by the usual stream of admins suggesting that perhaps it should have been different, but, now that it's done....
- The big deal is that two people traded snark, and one of them continued it onto the board here...and that's the one walking away. Anmccaff (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Look; one and only one person in this debate called one editor a "Girly Girl" on their way to other offenses and outright said that all IP editors are using subterfuge, said the particular one was an idiot, generalized that all hiding behind IPs are (caps original) "NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT", and deliberately furtive, and that they're deliberately betraying trust and that "Drawing and quartering would be too good for them.". As far as I can tell the IP merely disagreed with him on a sensitive (to him) point. I can believe this is a user who's older and used to being the old curmudgeon on the bar, but if that curmudgeon starts suggesting the death of other users like that in the middle of otherwise insulting tirades, most bars are going to ask them to leave. This behavior is not OK on Wikipedia. It would not be OK in most diners, in libraries, in internet cafes, at home. That (presumably) he felt ok to do it here was a mistake, and he should not have the opportunity to continue it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect this is the right place; while Frank has a long history of low-grade assholery; the person bringing the complaint is gaining on him pretty fast. Were it not for the old stuff, and the (justified, I think) fear that it'll continue like this, this should have a boomerang, or perhaps a double trouting. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to take your bickering elsewhere, both of you? It's not adding anything to this discussion at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ignored.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- On the one hand, user was given a final warning by Oshwah above—on the other, it's clear that this has been a repeated issue. But it has been over half a decade since the last block. I think 3 months block is sufficient in this case. El_C 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Endorse block An indef seems perfectly appropriate, there's no reason to change it to a timed block as there is no reason to expect a miraculous change in this user's personality exactly three months from now. Block appeals are a thing if they do suddenly learn to act like an adult. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- re to El C: Half a decade, but significant recent behavior. In any case, any bold enough admin can roll it back to 3 mo if you want, or I will if I see a consensus here that it was excessive. Waiting for more consensus input (thanks, Beeblebrox & El C) may help. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, I haven't familiarised myself with the recent history, so you two might be right. Waiting for a sensible block appeal sounds... sensible. El_C 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I probably would not have gone for an indef block, especially before the user had a chance to acknowledge Oshwah's final warning, but now that it's done I see no pressing need to intervene. Fabartus is just chronically nasty to his peers and that's something we shouldn't tolerate. Digging a little deeper, I came across more instances of blatant personal attacks from the past several months, among them: "I really find you and this bothering event to be outrageously silly"; "OK jerk, the articles are all yours"; "suggesting this kind of change because you're ignorant, also says you are too lazy to research the topic". This is to say nothing of his having addressed a female editor as "Girlly Girl". Until Fabartus learns to comment on content and not contributors, I think the block is perfectly justified. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Uninvolved commenter here: I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the personal attack in the first diff pretends to 'refute' the OP by citing (easily) demonstrably wrong "facts" in response to her claims during a very brief exchange. I can understand (if not entirely sympathize) with someone who gets upset at an editor who displays some fundamental ignorance over a long period of time, but to attack someone over such a short exchange with an argument that is, itself fundamentally ignorant is something we just don't need here. I'm endorsing the indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I should probably add this for the record - I am completely fine with Georgewilliamherbert's block. After five previous blocks for the exact same issue, I consider the notion that "we're past warnings at this point" as a completely valid argument. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sad to see Frank blocked. I have worked with him one before with no problem, but agree with the block. I hope he will learn his lesson and come back in 6 months. L3X1 (distant write) 03:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support block, indifferent on the length of time. When a user starts yelling at everyone about a template they created, it's time to put on the brakes. While nothing in that gigantic wall of blue text was brazenly insulting, there's enough sarcasm and passive aggressive language to make me raise an eyebrow. I do realize, however, that there will always be a curmudgeon or two on the project, but at some point we need to stop ignoring our racist grandparents and start holding them accountable (and no, I'm not saying Fabartus is racist, it's a metaphor for not saying "oh, that's just the way they are"). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reduce block - An indef is overblown, I recommend a reduction to 3 months. I have to agree with Anmccaff on the general gist of what happened. A crusty old curmudgeon (Fabartus) got angry at an ill informed college student (ThatGirlTayler/SparklingPessimist) for spewing tired old talking points and calling people names. It is what it is. I mean for crying out loud she called at least 60 million people bigots;
Donald Trump barred Muslims from entering the U.S. supporting him is supporting hate speech and bigotry
- please don't give me that shite excuse of, well "saying someone is supporting bigotry doesn't necessarily mean that you're calling them a bigot". Don't you think Fabartus, potentially a Trumpian, might be insulted by that crude generalization. Let me weigh this up; girly girl vs. supporter of hate speech and bigotry. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I came across the disruption caused GiannisKaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while editing Athens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I noticed that this editor was involved in a longterm edit-war changing temperatures, without using sources, in the climate table for Athens. I left them an edit-warring warning on their talkpage a few days ago, explicitly telling them to stop it. In response, he started the same edit-war again at Athens today, changing the same two temperatures, and adding more unsourced climate-related text to boot. Checking further the edits of this user, I have reverted his changes to several more articles, as completely unsourced. In addition, this user is completely uncommunicative. A block of this SPA is needed asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe this user is being malicious, so I've issued a week-long block with the warning that any further disruption of this sort will result in an indef block. Hopefully this gets their attention. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
User Maleidys Perez
- Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs)
I'd already requested a block today at AIV, and was counseled to come here instead. Persistent vandalism and addition of unsourced content, including the most recent [31]. Apparently China may soon get Youtube. Possibly. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- The unsourced content by itself might be enough, but as you note, there's persistent vandalism to Tony the Tiger, e.g. switching all appearances of "Tony" and "Tiger" (Anthiger "Tiger" the Tony...) and dumping three extra copies of the article into what was already there. Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive removal of file deletion tags
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RonaldGlider (talk · contribs)
In regards to: File:DOME T4240ZMS microserver.jpg
User has repeatedly attempted to hide the fact that they uploaded a file with an unclear source by changing the information and then remove the tags. I have warned them many times to do so and left them a final warning on their talk page to stop. They have not listened. This has crossed into the disruptive territory and is a blatant attempt to misrepresent a file's copyright status to protect it from deletion. I have no choice but to ask for administrator assistance. --Majora (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Request for renewed topic-ban
I'd like to ask for a renewed topic-ban for User:Robertwalker User:Robertinventor on Four Noble Truths. He has been flooding the talkpage with his comments since 5 december 2014 (Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2#Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism + Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 3 + Talk:Four Noble Truths + Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Have you ever seen this before?). See [32] [33], [34] for previous (eventually granted) requests for a topic-ban. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge for their opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- It does look like this is a problematic disruptive recurrence of the same activity described in the prior ANI posts. I should note however that the user in question is Robertinventor and not User:Robertwalker (which is unregistered). -- Dane talk 04:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The account in question is User:Robert C. Walker, which is a declared alternative account of User:Robertinventor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies. He signs with "Robert Walker." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The account in question is User:Robert C. Walker, which is a declared alternative account of User:Robertinventor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan, in terms of "renewed topic-ban": Please submit the administrator's diff from the user's talkpage imposing a previous topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK thanks. The topic ban was for six months and expired 27 November 2016. After the expiration, Robertinventor did post extensively on Talk:Four Noble Truths from mid-to-late December 2016, whereupon he stopped for three months: [35]. He made one post a few days ago, which was a concise summary of his perceived problems with the article: [36]. Since that was not a disruptive or over-lengthy post, I do not at all see any cause for a topic ban. In fact, it was your WP:TPO-violating deletion of that post [37] which caused the consequent brouhaha on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, that's right... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK thanks. The topic ban was for six months and expired 27 November 2016. After the expiration, Robertinventor did post extensively on Talk:Four Noble Truths from mid-to-late December 2016, whereupon he stopped for three months: [35]. He made one post a few days ago, which was a concise summary of his perceived problems with the article: [36]. Since that was not a disruptive or over-lengthy post, I do not at all see any cause for a topic ban. In fact, it was your WP:TPO-violating deletion of that post [37] which caused the consequent brouhaha on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking at Talk:Four Noble Truths, which the OP asserts Robertinventor "has been flooding with his comments", I only see one single comment by Robertinventor since December 2016 [38], a concise summary of what he perceives to be problems with the article: [39], which Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted three hours later [40], in blatant violation of WP:TPG. It seems to me therefore that if anyone needs a topic ban from the article (or other sanction), it is more likely to be Joshua Jonathan. – Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, everything here is confusing. Instead of User:Robertwalker, the OP appears to have meant User:Robertinventor. And instead of Talk:Four Noble Truths, the OP appears to have meant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, he did not mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism; he did indeed mean Talk:Four Noble Truths. He's trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alas, I lack psychic skills at remotely reading the IP's mind, and would rather wait and see what the OP declares he meant. Talk:Four Noble Truths seems to have been the location of the earlier topic ban, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism seems to be the location of the current dispute. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to. He mentioned Four Noble Truths and Talk:Four Noble Truths several times in his OP and made it clear that is where he wants a topic ban enacted. The username mixup was quickly resolved as caused by the way the user signs their posts. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well he has posted but hasn't addressed the matter, so you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- A topic-ban would naturally include any discussion of the topic on the article talkpage itself, and other pages.
- I have above referred to Robert's previous extensive commentaries at the talkpage of the "Four Noble Truths" article; he resumed his comments in december 2016 (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article, and continued in april 2017 at the same talkpage, repeating his arguments (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article). I reverted this latest addition, beacuse it got fed-up with the repetition of his previous posts, including his december-post. There-after he also posted a thread on the the same topic at the Buddhism Project page.
- I'm not "trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO"; I'm trying to show that Robert has brought up the same topic again and again, without gaining concencus. I got fed-up with the extensive posting when Robert added this summary of his previous post which was a repetition of his posts from 2015 and 2016. I found it disruptive; from the absence of any comments he might have concluded that there is still no support for his view or suggestions, just as before. Instead, he again brought up his complaints. Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it.
- After that, I thought, again, "Ignore, ignore!" Yet, the triggering point for asking for a renewal of the topic-ban, is the fact that Robert again mentioned a discussion I and several others had with User:ScientificQuest at the Anatta talkpage. Robert writes "@Joshua Jonathan: reverted every single edit that @ScientificQuest made to the Anatta article. He eventually just gave up editing wikipedia." See Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Again, Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion, and Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Constructive comments, in which I and several others explained what the problem with his edits was. In "Constructive comments," I gave an extensive explanation of my revert, to which SQ responded:
- "Hi Joshua, Chris, Victoria, and Robert. Please don't mind my personal note - since I made some bad personal remarks here earlier, I figure it is only right for me to write a personal apology. And again, instead of writing on your individual talk pages, I decided to own it up in public.
- Joshua, thanks a lot for your very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this line-by-line feedback of exactly what went wrong in my post. It keeps it to facts, and states exactly what the problem is with the style. Coming from a background of writing for academic Journals, I can see my tendency to write original research - because arguably that's what academics do (unless perhaps they're editing Wikipedia pages). So I acknowledge your criticism and I stand corrected."
- So, it's not only the overflow of comments by Robert, it's also this kind of tendentious editing which is too much. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well he has posted but hasn't addressed the matter, so you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to. He mentioned Four Noble Truths and Talk:Four Noble Truths several times in his OP and made it clear that is where he wants a topic ban enacted. The username mixup was quickly resolved as caused by the way the user signs their posts. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alas, I lack psychic skills at remotely reading the IP's mind, and would rather wait and see what the OP declares he meant. Talk:Four Noble Truths seems to have been the location of the earlier topic ban, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism seems to be the location of the current dispute. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, he did not mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism; he did indeed mean Talk:Four Noble Truths. He's trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, everything here is confusing. Instead of User:Robertwalker, the OP appears to have meant User:Robertinventor. And instead of Talk:Four Noble Truths, the OP appears to have meant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch, please stop deleting
andor collapsing other editors' text on Talk:Four Noble Truths. See WP:TPO and WP:TPG. Moreover, if text is collapsed, an explanation should be given in the title of the collapse, and should be signed and dated using four tildes, so that everyone can see who collapsed the text, when, and why. I have now uncollapsed the myriad instances on Talk:Four Noble Truths. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: Please do not falsely accuse me of "deleting", when I didn't. I only collapsed the text. I did add an explanatory title, informing the interested reader to also consider the discussion in Archive 3. Fair title, I say, for a wall of post that is linked to more walls of text about the same thing. The TPG guidelines state "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Let us request Robertinventor to avoid repeating himself in his walls of post (evidence below), per TPG. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I thought my post was clear, but for complete accuracy I've now changed the word "and" to "or". The post you collapsed was not a repetition (I've checked the archive you referred to). Nor did you sign and date your collapse. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @Softlavender: - thanks so much for reverting[41] Sarah Welch's non consensus collapse of the talk page discussions for Four Noble Truths! I know that I tend to be verbose. I think you have pretty much all worked out what happened now, glad to see it. In case it helps, here is a short summary as I see it. I did one post on Talk:Four Noble Truths after four months of silence there. @Joshua Jonathan: reverted that post deleting my comment from the talk page[42]. @Farang Rak Tham: reverted his edit. @Ms Sarah Welch: then collapsed nearly all my posts on the talk page. I posted to @Joshua Jonathan:'s talk page asking him not to delete my posts and in that comment I also reminded him of my previous request to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI [43] but explained this did not extend to asking him to delete my posts, which I can do myself. He did not warn me of this current action or ask me to modify my behaviour before taking it out. Meanwhile I also posted to the Buddhism Project talk page about the reverted and collapsed comments. The conversation is here: [44]. Later in that conversation I declared my intention to add a POV tag to the article to say that its neutrality has been questioned and asked Joshua Jonathan if he would take me to WP:ANI for adding the tag. @Joshua Jonathan: responded saying that he wouldn't take me to WP:ANI if I add the tag but there is a "consensus" that the article is unbiased and that mine is just a "personal opinion". @Ms Sarah Welch: said that if I do add the tag, she will immediately revert it because she says I am repeating a past concern rather than voicing a new one[45]. The discussion then turned to what counts as a WP:RS in the topic area of Buddhism which has been a matter of much heated debate in this project. I wrote a very long reply to that - but it was my only comment for the day.
Then - to explain why I am using a different name just now - at that point, realizing that I had written rather a lot in that conversation, I logged out of my main account and logged into User:Robert C. Walker. It is an account that I have linked to my main account in both directions as a legitimate alternative account. It's purpose is as a way to log into wikipedia for non controversial editing as a "wikibreak" when I get caught up in any controversies that may lead me to be over verbose in my replies. It means that I don't get those red notification messages when I am pinged which I find helps me to take a real wikibreak from the conversation while I can still edit wikipedia in areas other than the controversy, whatever it is. I have just seen a message on my alternative account by Joshua Jonathan saying that he has taken out this action. So that is the whole of the story as I see it. Any questions do say. I have logged back into my main account for this comment to avoid confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please add @Robertinventor's walls of post on WikiProject:Buddhism talk page as evidence here. Nevertheless, I hesitate in supporting the topic ban proposal for what has happened so far, and need more time to reflect on this. FWIW, @Robertinventor is repeating the post-April 2016 discussion (he acknowledged his habit of repeating himself). Would @Softlavender be willing to volunteer, read the walls of text and discussions since April 2016, the sources cited in those discussions, and mediate an outcome that helps improve the article further per wikipedia content guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- That WikiProject Buddhism thread came about because Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted Robertinventor's recent (after a three-month absence from the page/article) concise and neutral post three hours after Robertinventor posted it [46] -- an action which was a direct policy violation. As I've stated above, if anyone merits any kind of sanction here, it is Joshua Jonathan. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender, You evaded my suggestion: I take it you don't want to mediate yourself. Would you want to deal with Robertinventor's walls of texts, self-confessed repetition etc? Robertinventor behavior has been disruptive, as past admin reviews have found, and which led to a block. I find your concerns with @Joshua Jonathan unpersuasive and one that ignores the full context. You mention this delete that included in its edit comment "You've summarized enough". Which is true! Even Robertinventor admits, "I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again [= repeat], perhaps I went into too much detail". Clearly, TPG states, "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Yes, indeed WikiProject:Buddhism discussion thread came about because Joshua Jonathan deleted something, but that delete came about because Robertinventor did something. Almost all human beings react when they are repeatedly provoked. Perhaps not the way we may like in our better moments. There is a chain of events relevant here. You can help stop this chain and wreck-in-the-making, if you would be willing to mediate by reading the scholarly sources, Robertinventor's and Joshua Jonathan's take on them, and suggesting ways to improve the article. Would you mediate? Would someone else want to go over the walls of text in Archive 2, 3, 4 and the current Talk:Four Noble Truths, then mediate? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've been reading Robert's latest post again (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article, and this sentence sums it all up:
- "So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream."
- That's what he has been hammering on since two and a half years, despite any lack of concencus for reverting to his preferred version. The problems with that preferred version have been pointed out again and again and again and again and ad infinitum: WP:OR and a lack of WP:RS.
- I've also read part of Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article again; it's a long overview of his personal understanding of Buddhism, and his lack of knowledge of the relevant literature. Which has also been explained over and over again.
- I've been reading Robert's latest post again (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article, and this sentence sums it all up:
- @Softlavender, You evaded my suggestion: I take it you don't want to mediate yourself. Would you want to deal with Robertinventor's walls of texts, self-confessed repetition etc? Robertinventor behavior has been disruptive, as past admin reviews have found, and which led to a block. I find your concerns with @Joshua Jonathan unpersuasive and one that ignores the full context. You mention this delete that included in its edit comment "You've summarized enough". Which is true! Even Robertinventor admits, "I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again [= repeat], perhaps I went into too much detail". Clearly, TPG states, "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Yes, indeed WikiProject:Buddhism discussion thread came about because Joshua Jonathan deleted something, but that delete came about because Robertinventor did something. Almost all human beings react when they are repeatedly provoked. Perhaps not the way we may like in our better moments. There is a chain of events relevant here. You can help stop this chain and wreck-in-the-making, if you would be willing to mediate by reading the scholarly sources, Robertinventor's and Joshua Jonathan's take on them, and suggesting ways to improve the article. Would you mediate? Would someone else want to go over the walls of text in Archive 2, 3, 4 and the current Talk:Four Noble Truths, then mediate? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- That WikiProject Buddhism thread came about because Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted Robertinventor's recent (after a three-month absence from the page/article) concise and neutral post three hours after Robertinventor posted it [46] -- an action which was a direct policy violation. As I've stated above, if anyone merits any kind of sanction here, it is Joshua Jonathan. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Content issue
|
---|
Take the quote from Walpola Rahula at the section Talk:Four Noble Truths#According to the Pali Canon Buddha realized cessation as a young man of 35. Rahula views Nirvana as some sort of metaphysical entity, which can be realized/known ("gnosis"). In a Buddhist context, this is a highly disputed notion. According to Rahula, the reality of this entity is proven by the fact that it can be experienced. Gombrich himself, a student of Rahula, expressed his astonishment on Rahula's views on this; he found it to be a naive kind of epistemology. A quote like this needs context, on the history of Buddhism, religious/mystical views on metaphysical reality and the highest principle or reality, the interplay between Asian spirituality and western spiritualiy (Rahula's view reminds of Neo-Patonism and the One; the Theosophical Society, which had a very strong influence on Sri Lankese Buddhism, was deeply influnced by Neo-Platonism, which was en vogue in the 1800s; was Rahula influenced by western thought, and if so, by which, an to what extent?) et cetera. It takes hard work do give this context, and a lot of WP:RS. Robert seems to be unaware of this. Instead, Robert writes:
|
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: For the wikipedia guidelines on Relgious sources, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. Thanks! I had the idea today to write a short essay on WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area in particular for the project, for comment, which may help. But this is obviously not the time given that I am being taken here to be topic banned for writing too much :). I'm taking a wikibreak for a few days to calm down, and most of the time I am logged into my linked alternative account which I use for this purpose. But because of this action against me I am checking it occasionally for a few minutes at a time in case a brief reply from me is needed such as this one. Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Tim Zukas block evasion
Regarding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, the guy has been ramping back up into the same old behavior since December 2016, with a couple of disruptive edits in the last few days. Here are the recent IPs he has used:
- 205.154.246.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2016 – April 2017
- 205.154.244.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) June, December 2016, January–April 2017
- 205.154.244.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January–February 2017
- 169.229.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) September 2014, January–February 2017
- 205.154.244.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2016 – March 2017
- 169.229.6.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2015, February 2017
- 130.65.109.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2016, February 2017
- 169.229.202.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014, January–March 2015, February 2017
- 169.229.202.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) February–March 2015, February 2017
- 75.16.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014 – February 2015
- 128.32.104.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) July–October 2014, January–February 2017
- 70.90.163.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2013 – February 2015, December 2016 – March 2017
Perhaps we can block these IPs individually for a good long time, rather than attempting a rangeblock, as there are neighboring IPs which are heavily used by library patrons. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- These are all definitely addresses used by LTA Tim Zukas as they all geolocate to Cal State University (Office of the Chancellor), University of California - Berkeley (Office of the President), the Berkeley Public Library, and a Comcast Commercial account in Walnut Creek, CA. These IPs all belong to registered owners that he used in his many earlier spates of disruptive editing and block evasion, and mirror the same pattern of mass unexplained deletions of content made to transportation related articles (aviation, airports, railroads, etc) is exactly the same disruptive behavior Zukas was permanently blocked for on January 25, 2016. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Blatant advertising on wikipedia - Violation of T&C
This page on Wikipedia is a company profile, something that is violating the policies of Wikipedia. BookMyForex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvirbuyforex (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it is, rather. Going by your username, are we to assume that's your competition?! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- In any case, I have adjusted the content of the article slightly, so it is now less spammy. Thanks for bringing it to our attention 👍 and, mind, note well what happens to Forex ads on Wikipedia. And any others, for that matter! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be deleted immediately as a financial scam. We're not here to allow scammers to rip off our readers. How do I know this is a scam? The version before FIM edited it contain the claim that they deal currencies with "zero margin", and specifically at the interbank market's mid-quote rate. This means that they can't possibly make any money. Indeed, if they have expenses, it means that they lose money on every trade. So it is just a "loss leader" right? Well, they don't say that they have any other product or business. And besides, loss leaders don't work when you are selling money - anybody want to buy a dollar for 99 cents? How much would you like? It should be deleted immediately per WP:IAR. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: That'll still be worth more than sterling in a few months ;) Man, but that's a damning analysis of their so-called business model. You are the most righteous dude. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, editor User:Codename Lisa is chronically edit warring and now attempting to delete the article Play Magnus. The editor should not be editing the article after they have placed a deletion +tag. Please get involved and stop this nonsense. Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're both edit warring, and should go to the talk page to discuss the infobox parameters and where that image should be. There is nothing wrong with an editor editing an article after placing a deletion tag. I've even started a talk page section for you. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- And per the giant notice at the top of this page and when you edit this page, I have notified Codename Lisa of this post. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, I am going to do something that I am sure everyone agrees I am perfectly allowed to: I am going to edit something well outside the area of dispute. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- And per the giant notice at the top of this page and when you edit this page, I have notified Codename Lisa of this post. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand this edit war. I've seen a lot of them. User:A thinks the subject of the article is a fraud. User:B thinks it is not so. User:A brings a source. User:B says it is unreliable. Then, forth and back revert. Something like that.
- But Codename Lisa's changes looks like the kind that any sane Wikipedian does every day. Hell, if I had come to that article first, I might have done it. And IQ125's revert looks like some vandal doing random reverts. IQ125 is giving contradictory messages. On one hand, he comes to CL's article and says why doesn't she improve the article. On the other hand, he reverts the improvements. Also, there is shouting, juvenile vilification in AfD.
"DO NOT CHANGE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS UNDER A DELETION +TAG."
I had never heard such nonsense. How do you suppose the article rescue squad works then?
- I don't like this at all. Something is very wrong here. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a regular editor of chess-related articles I have frequently noticed this editor's behavioral problems, including edit warring, article OWNership issues, original research, overlinking, wholesale reverts rather than discussions, lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, bad faith accusations of "vandalism" etc. Perhaps WP:MENTORing would help but frankly this editor has been around long enough to know better. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
User Goodness222222
Goodness222222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could use his user page deleted (attack page) and talk page access changed. It's getting rather abusive. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
D'SuperHero and Shimlaites
I've copied this from WP:AIV:
- Shimlaites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. This user is already changing lede of Airlift (film) and already i had referenced in Accolades section. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- D'SuperHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The user is unaware of the utility of block warnings, is reverting my edits on my talk page and is removing sourced information and citations from the page(Airlift (film)). Shimlaites (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
When each of you is reporting the other, it's clearly not a matter of obvious vandalism. Could someone check into this situation and take appropriate actions? I would do it, but it's time to leave for work. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This seems to have been a simple content dispute in which neither editor was guilty of vandalism (and both editors should have discussed the disputed content at Talk:Airlift (film) instead of reporting the other at AIV); but Shimlaites has now been checkuser-blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of Barthateslisa. D'SuperHero, you should refrain from calling an edit "vandalism" if it's possible to assume good faith (this and this weren't vandalism either); also, note that any editor (even a real vandal) is allowed to remove a warning from their own talk page like Shimlaites did. (Shimlaites was perfectly right about this revert being inappropriate.) But no admin action beyond Shimlaites's sock block should be needed here. Sideways713 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
User:SevenGear23 consistently adds unreferenced controversial information [50], [51] and removes my warnings from his talk page [52]. Please, help me with the issue. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Corvus tristis: users are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages, it is to be taken as a sign that they have read them. They've only had one recent warning about unreferenced edits, it seems you might get somewhere by better explaining that Instagram is generally not reliable as a source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, he removed, but he had two warnings about reliable sources. If you look through his editing history, he never adds any source at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There was an older one from December, other than that it looks like you posted the warning, then posted the same warning again after they removed it, which to my mind is just one warning. As for sources they mentioned Instagram in an edit summary. That's not really how it works but at least they tried. If the Instagram had been reliable you could have added it as an inline citation for them and/or shown them how to do it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, he removed, but he had two warnings about reliable sources. If you look through his editing history, he never adds any source at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
3 month block for an editor-admonition for admin
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is being copied from User:Cassianto's talk page. He has been blocked for 3 months for "personal attacks", while the admin whose comments prompted his comment has only been admonished. We hope (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Amortias-so what then do you intend to do about the uncivil comment that caused this comment? "Actually, nevermind I don't care what your excuse is... You can shove that entire (sly) aspersion casting comment up your ass." We hope (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If there's no answer within a reasonable timeframe, I will take it to AN because this is unreasonable. We hope (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seconding you on that, We hope. A shame, but — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just the three months eh? Is that an example of the type of fine admin comment that lowly editors are expected to follow these days? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If The ed17 wishes to complain about it they able to do so, if they do I would suggest another administrator reviews it as I have (and was in the process of) advising Coffee that comments like the one they made may be acceptable between editors where there is a certain level of informality and understanding but they can be interpreted by others differently. Coffee however has not recently come off two recent block for personal attacks and harassment. Amortias (T)(C) 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So if I see an admin make a comment like that, I have to carefully research the background to check if there's "a certain level of informality and understanding" between the parties, yes? Sorry, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. And this 3-month block is preventative, not punitive, yes? And some kind of warning/ reminder was given first, yes? And I've just seen the grilling an RfA hopeful has been given about "conflict resolution". Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Amortias, warning Coffee nearly ten minutes after being advised about an ANI?! I'm afraid the chronolgy works against you :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis
- But he's the one who made the uncivil remarks. This doesn't cut it. An admonition for one but a 3 month block for the non-admin editor. We hope (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- We hope Just to clarify, that's what I meant about the chronology- the way it reads now, Amortias didn't even approach Coffee until after you had pointed out to him what Cassianto was responding to, and warned him of a possible ANI. Damage limitation, nothing else :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I wasn't aware there was an ANI relating to this or a report lodged anywhere for that matter. I made the block then went to advise Coffee after querying with other admins as to if this needed to notified at somewhere such as AN as I imagined there would be some disagreement with the block, between seeking advice and finishing my notification to Coffee I've been reading a few talk page comments here and trying to respond to them.
- @We hope: If you wish to raise this at AN to review the block then please feel free to do so, as per my comment above it is on the list of things I'd planned on actioning but hadnt yet had chance to action. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- But he's the one who made the uncivil remarks. This doesn't cut it. An admonition for one but a 3 month block for the non-admin editor. We hope (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If The ed17 wishes to complain about it they able to do so, if they do I would suggest another administrator reviews it as I have (and was in the process of) advising Coffee that comments like the one they made may be acceptable between editors where there is a certain level of informality and understanding but they can be interpreted by others differently. Coffee however has not recently come off two recent block for personal attacks and harassment. Amortias (T)(C) 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
We hope (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this We hope. Just to clarify, this is the chronology I was making reference to:
- 11:46: Coffee's PA
- 11:53: Cassianto's PA
- 12:38: Cassianto blocked
- 12:44: We hope advises Coffee over 'block[ing] one but not the other'
- 12:52: Amortias warns Coffee over his PA
- 13:07: Amortias says he 'made the block then went to advise Coffee' — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the admonishment is fine. Cassianto has a very long history of personal attacks, while Coffee doesn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can believe if I told someone to "shove something up his/her ass" on a talk page or in an edit summary-I would be brought here. We hope (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If an editor has even "a very short history of personal attacks" is it really a good idea for an admin to be quite that uncivil? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: True, but I doubt that you would get a block for any significant period of time if it was your first offense. I'm not saying that I think he should have made that comment, but a sterner warning that this may lead to stricter measures if continued is all that is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Coffee struck out his uncivil comment, here. Also his response to Amortias's warning is here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very glad they have struck that. Although not until an hour had passed and it had been raised here? I've seen "ordinary" editors blocked for much less. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Coffee struck out his uncivil comment, here. Also his response to Amortias's warning is here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @We hope: True, but I doubt that you would get a block for any significant period of time if it was your first offense. I'm not saying that I think he should have made that comment, but a sterner warning that this may lead to stricter measures if continued is all that is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Inviting a user to shove something (a comment?) up their ass is rude, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a personal attack. Calling another user a hypocrite is definitely a personal attack. Given that it was obviously retaliatory I might have considered warning both users rather than blocking one, but then again given Cassianto's block log I can't fault Amortias' discretion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Civility, one of the WP:5P, eh. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Shove it up your ass" is uncivil by all counts; the block for the non-admin sounds like the old police hue and cry "round up the usual suspects". We hope (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I...I'm sorry Ivanvector. I really don't know much that about Canada, but does it happen to be backwards day there? TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's a huge gap between an uncivil comment and referring to someone by a derogatory term in a section header on their talk page. Or should you be blocked for suggesting my rationale is backwards? Coffee's comment is sub-par, but it would not be a blockable first offence for any user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Or should you be blocked for suggesting my rationale is backwards?
Oh boy. The knives are really out on this one aren't they? To answer your question, no because this a forum forreporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors
, and if your observation makes patently no sense then others are free to question it. How many buttons you have doesn't factor into that equation.- I never said Coffee should be blocked, what I am saying is that on its face, the assessment that "shove it up your ass" is "rude" but "hypocrite" is somehow worse, is so outlandish as to be Orwellian in it's flat denial of the basic meanings of the words. If you're so emotionally wrapped up in this that you're willing to threaten to issue blocks because editors with common sense are willing to question the nonsensical then it might be time to take a break and revisit this issue after some tea. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's a huge gap between an uncivil comment and referring to someone by a derogatory term in a section header on their talk page. Or should you be blocked for suggesting my rationale is backwards? Coffee's comment is sub-par, but it would not be a blockable first offence for any user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the admonishment is fine. Cassianto has a very long history of personal attacks, while Coffee doesn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Idiotic administrator comment - I went overboard in my reply to ed17, I'll fully admit (and I've amended it as such post-Amortias' comment on my talk page). But, treating one of our newer admins like they had some form of maliciousness in their block of Cassianto (which I wasn't even aware had happened till We Hope notified me of this discussion) when they were just doing what they viewed to be correct is not fair to Amortias. I'll sit here and take admonishments from anyone who finds it necessary to do so... Just please keep your frustration/anger/discontent directed towards the right admin. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, you think that three months is perfectly fair then? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any possible way to expect myself to make a fair decision about this block, to be honest. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, right. Phew, that's you off the hook then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any possible way to expect myself to make a fair decision about this block, to be honest. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, you think that three months is perfectly fair then? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, what in the actual fuck is going on around here? Am I seeing straight or do I see an admin telling someone to shove something up their ass and then someone being blocked for calling them a hypocrite? Coffee you should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace to the admin corps. I'm done with this project. I no longer want to be a part of a system where this kind of bullshit is tolerated and admins are held up on a special platter. --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't go overboard and jump ship. We've had enough heads on platters. Let's find a way to work this out without making the whole world blind. Jonathunder (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Quite agree. Sometimes these kinds of problems are solved simply by admins voluntarily handing in some of their tools. Although, in this case, we seem to have a few admins able to choose that option. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment A 3 month block seems spectacularly way over the top, and definitely punitive to this uninvolved Wikipedian. I can't see why any kind of block was called for, but having decided it was necessary, 3 months?!? Seriously? It also struggles to reach any criteria for harassment. No comment about Coffee's behaviour. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Uninvolved also, but agree with above comments, unsure if a block was called for, but 3 months seems seriously disproportionate. Irondome (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is that still the case if you become aware that the user just came off a 1-month block for the same behaviour? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You mean, that one that was on almost as shakey grounds as this one?! "That catch 22, that's one hell of a catch!" :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And that it's their thirteenth block for personal attacks? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is that still the case if you become aware that the user just came off a 1-month block for the same behaviour? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Amortias: You've not been an admin very long, only about 2 months. You probably therefore aren't in a good position to issue blocks like this, which are best handled by very experienced admins (Floquenbeam and Bishonen both spring to mind) and even then only after a strong consensus here. I'd invite you to go back to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and look very carefully at his answer to Question 5, and wonder if it applies to you in this instance. As a result of your actions, we have now had a longstanding admin announce their retirement and quit. Therefore, your block was an absolute net negative to the project, and you really ought to have seen this coming. I don't really think Cassianto is interested in the project anymore so to be honest I can't see much call for him directly appealing the block or doing anything about it, but it should not have happened in the first place. Consider yourself admonished. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the record I object to this admonishment, in case it wasn't clear. In the interest of moving on I will not be commenting further in this thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (you might want to click on the link, the "admonishment" is not entirely serious and is more akin to something like this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC))
- Comment And if he did decide to go back to creating content, events like this block and the prior one have to make him say "why bother?". Laser Brain is a good admin and the project really needs to have him stay on board, but he's saying "I give up"-as so many of us are. We hope (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Right so it's absolutely fine for one admin to tell another to shove their comment up their arse but when another editor complains about said comment they get blocked ? .... How in the actual fuck does that make any given sense?, In all honestly Cass pushes boundaries at times we know that however in this case Cass didn't deserve blocking (and in all honestly neither does Coffee - A simple warning to Coffee would've sufficed), No one deserves blocking and I'm sure Amortias knew full well shit was going to hit the fucking fan so why block ?, This place is going down the shitter rather quickly now!. –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, Amortias, but that's an absolutely terrible block - if editors are trading insults, unless one is particularly egregious you either block both or admonish both (the latter would have been preferable, I think). But since Coffee is asking that advice be directed at him - what on earth has got into you recently? Various trips to ANI, badgering opposers on an RfA (and then on their talkpage)? It's not good and you need to wind it in pretty quickly. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: How are any of the ANI discussions that I've been looped into (or opened myself) relevant to this, or is it just that I'm supposed to carry every single thing I do around with me till I die now? I'll also note that I don't disagree, nor retract, any of my previous actions besides my comment to ed17 specifically. Unless replying to opposes (a thing that used to be almost standard for nominators to do a few years ago) is somehow unacceptable behavior on this site now? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, of course you're not supposed to carry them around for ever, but these are recent. If they'd been two years ago and you hadn't been back here since, no-one would have cared, or mentioned it. And replying to opposes is fine, but not in the passive-aggressive manner that you did to Ritchie333 and Cassianto. You're not even doing the nominee a favour, because people are even more unlikely to change their minds. I'm not suggesting you get dragged off to ArbCom or anything, but you really do need to think a bit more sometimes before pressing that edit button. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I'm just concerned now, because if I am to take your comments, along with the entirety of this thread fully to heart... what I'm supposed to deduce seems to be that the metric we use to determine whether administrators are good administrators or not now depends on how often admins are brought to ANI. That is a scary thought. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, of course you're not supposed to carry them around for ever, but these are recent. If they'd been two years ago and you hadn't been back here since, no-one would have cared, or mentioned it. And replying to opposes is fine, but not in the passive-aggressive manner that you did to Ritchie333 and Cassianto. You're not even doing the nominee a favour, because people are even more unlikely to change their minds. I'm not suggesting you get dragged off to ArbCom or anything, but you really do need to think a bit more sometimes before pressing that edit button. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: How are any of the ANI discussions that I've been looped into (or opened myself) relevant to this, or is it just that I'm supposed to carry every single thing I do around with me till I die now? I'll also note that I don't disagree, nor retract, any of my previous actions besides my comment to ed17 specifically. Unless replying to opposes (a thing that used to be almost standard for nominators to do a few years ago) is somehow unacceptable behavior on this site now? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Immediate Unblock and huge trout, whether Cassianto comes back or not, is irrelevant, the block should be undone immediately. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine for Cassianto to get his block, but admins should not go around saying rude things. This happens on AN/I alot, people say wrong things and are never punished. What are we going to o, drop 24 punitives for incvility? Would those get escalated? Desysop people who can't control their mouths? C'mon. L3X1 (distant write) 14:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unblock. This comment did not justify a block, much less a three-month one. Coffee has been baiting editors recently. I don't have diffs to hand, but as I recall he has done it to The Bounder. He has also been editing and adminning at the same pages. These are issues that should be looked into, rather than blocking someone who responds negatively. SarahSV (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unblock and everyone step away from this cluster-fuck of a thread. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Oh dear, will I get blocked?
- Comment I'm quite happy to admit when I've screwed up and that I screwed up here. I'm happy to have the block overturned if its found to be made in error and give my apoligies for the storm its caused my intentions were good but we all know how the road to hell is paved. I'll offer my apologies to Cassianto at their talkpage if the block is found to be in error. Amortias (T)(C) 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unblocked I've taken the liberty to unblock Cassianto for this. Yes, I am well aware of his block log, and history with personal attacks that have led to blocks, however this one was not warranted. I'm not going to comment on the activity that led to this, but sufficive to say this block was not appropriate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unblock - This... was terrible judgement on the part of Amortias. Cassianto should not have been admonished, let alone blocked, for their "PA". First off, Coffee was not only rude, but, they flouted ABF by doing precisely to Ed what they were so angry about having been done to them; the casting of aspersions. Side-question; Why (pray tell) would Ed respond to me and my comment at RfA in an e-mail? Did we not already having significant trouble because of off-wiki communications with regards to that RfA already. I have to hazard a guess that Cassianto's "hypocrite" comment was directed at the fact that Coffee went to Ed's page to cast aspersions about, what was in their opinion, Ed's casting of aspersions at Coffee - I'll come back to this in a moment. Is that not the defintion of hypocrisy? Now, I sincerely appreciate Coffee striking their comment and want to say they showed good character in doing so. Coffee, if you have an issue with something somebody said, you hash it out civilly with that person and not by going to their page and attacking that person in the same manner that you think they did to you. I don't personally see that this was necesssarily an aspersion, but, I can see how it may be interpreted to have been one. On a more general note; this is why people don't trust the admin corps on this site, when you're asked at RfA how you would approach an issue you respond by saying "with a gentle hand". When your given the mop you start swinging it like its a baseball bat at even the slightest issue. Stop. This is far from behaviour "befitting of your station". This, is one sorry state of affairs. Take a step back and have a think about the role you played in escalating a quibble, into a fist fight. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- He is unblocked. I guess there was no other alternatives to explain User:Coffee about his uncivil comments without using the word hypocrite as a section heading. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Whopper fiasco
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Burger King had a 15 second ad last night on major TV shows in the US, ending with the phrase “OK Google, what is the Whopper burger?" that caused Google Home to read from Wikipedia. A top ad exec at the company edited the article (without declaring his paid editing status) the day before putting in straight ad copy into the Wikipedia article as the lede, which was read by Google Home. This is all documented at ADWeek from before the ad ran, Associated Press, Verge, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. etc.
I'll just repeat was I wrote at User talk:Jimbo Wales
How should Wikipedians respond? First we should ban the whole company (excluding the burger flippers and minimum wage folks) and its parent company from editing. In particular, all directors and officers ranked VP and above, and all employees of the advertising, marketing, and PR departments, their regular advertising and PR firms, as well as the ad firm known as "David in Miami" who conceived of the ad. (He is also know for this work of genius [53])
Of course they should be let back as editors if they declare all their previous paid editing adventures. These are likely to be extensive since there are 71 articles linked to the Burger King navigation template (just over half of these are exclusively about Burger King).
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like overkill on something that ended up being pretty minor, and I think ANI is the wrong venue - this isn't an incident specifically requiring administrator attention. Sam Walton (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's "pretty minor". Google news gives 10,000 articles on the incident. They all in effect say "Wikipedia is a joke. Content can be bought and sold - but we don't even have to pay Wikipedia!" In other words - it goes to the heart of our credibility. They are trashing it for profit and violating our Terms of Use at the same time. BTW, a million people have viewed the video on YouTube. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think the best response would be to let this work of vandalism stand until they stop running the ad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note; I'm only half joking. See my comment at Jimbo's talk for why. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- On the one hand, that was brilliant promotion. On the other, that's an abuse of Wikipedia. I think we should write a new policy document that starts with "We the Editors", gets to the meat of it with "It is their right. It is their duty. To throw off such advertisers and to provide new policies for their future security" and ends with "That these united Articles are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent of Advertising". Tag it with the usual CSD G1/3, {{NPOV}}, {{Advert}} maintenance templates and be done with it. Seriously though, this has been dragged onto Jimbo's talk page as well. It's going to be a company PR issue at this rate. I think it's a bit too meta for lowly admins to be stepping in. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So where's the best place to get the company banned? It's not just 2 paid editors - it was the company's decision to blatantly violate our rules for profit. We just need to tell them loud and clear that it is not acceptable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but this seems like petulance and revenge rather than a legitimate course forward. BK exploited consumers' over-reliance on technology to sell some more burgers, they didn't steal state secrets or cause anyone one or thing actual harm. What should be done is the same as what you'd do with any other paid editing, remove the edit, warn the editor. Repeat behavior warrants escalation of responses, but don't let your sense of embarrassment on behalf of the Wikipedia lead to reaching for the nuclear options. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're requesting an unknown number of indef-blocks to be placed on an unknown number of accounts, a block of the person who actually did it? not appropriate per our blocking policy because the person hasn't so much as received a warning, but, more than that, us blocking them won't send a message at all. They won't care. The harder hitting message is the vandalism that the page has now received. It's a shame google blocked the ad. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The closer says that nothing can be done here. I checked on similar paid editing cases, and they were at WP:AN, e.g. [54]. Do you suggest I go there to start the community ban section, or are you saying that neither AN or ANI can now do community bans? Can a community ban be done from User talk:Jimbo Wales(I'd guess not) Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is closed - please don't re-open it. Open a discussion at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard if you have proof that an editor is performing paid edits without disclosure. Administrators aren't going to start blocking people at random. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Smallbones: Well; Iridescent has described almost this exact situation in the words, directed at nobody specifically in this context, 'why would you want to hold a discussion like that on a user talk page, especially a user talk page with a near-legendary intolerance of opinions that go against the user in question's personal prejudices? No matter what's decided there it can't possibly be considered consensus'© (apologies for the ping- purely in the spirit of not talking behind backs) That seems to sum up the so-called equitable value, such as it is, between this page and that one. Whatever won't be achieved here is less likely to achieved there, I think. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing random about the requested community ban. The company admitted the deception involving the edits even before the commercial went on the air . If the folks above are saying that a community ban of a company can't be done anymore at AN or ANI, then I'll likely take it to WP:COIN after the holidays. But community bans of companies have been done here at least twice before, I don't see what would prevent it from being done again other than most editors being off-Wiki right now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Look, you're not going to get the answer you want at this noticeboard - numerous people have pointed out to you that nothing can be done at this noticeboard. Can I close this discussion (again)? I've already directed you to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard - it's the exact place you should be discussing this at. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing random about the requested community ban. The company admitted the deception involving the edits even before the commercial went on the air . If the folks above are saying that a community ban of a company can't be done anymore at AN or ANI, then I'll likely take it to WP:COIN after the holidays. But community bans of companies have been done here at least twice before, I don't see what would prevent it from being done again other than most editors being off-Wiki right now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Smallbones: Well; Iridescent has described almost this exact situation in the words, directed at nobody specifically in this context, 'why would you want to hold a discussion like that on a user talk page, especially a user talk page with a near-legendary intolerance of opinions that go against the user in question's personal prejudices? No matter what's decided there it can't possibly be considered consensus'© (apologies for the ping- purely in the spirit of not talking behind backs) That seems to sum up the so-called equitable value, such as it is, between this page and that one. Whatever won't be achieved here is less likely to achieved there, I think. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Look, I just want to know where the proper place to start a discussion on a community ban of a company is. It used to be at WP:AN. If it is now at WP:COIN I think we can both live with it. And it will be done after the holiday. Just pooh-poohing the possibility of a community ban of a company, however, is not acceptable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Trilateral Commission edits
Could I draw your attention to the activities of CarolSeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Trilateral Commission article. They have been inserting, initially, totally unsourced edits mentioning a person called Carol Binkley These edits have been reversed by users X4n6, Grayfell and myself over the last two days as non-notable and unsourced. There have been various conversations on both the Trilateral Commission Talk page and the CarolSeer Talk page in which editors have been accused of being "part of a global conspiracy". In her last contribution she admits, after many enquiries, to being Carol Binkley. I personally have issued a warning to stop edit warring, but Carol Seer(?) has now reverted to her edits over ten times in the last two days. I am not reverting again, as I have no intention of edit warring. This editors actions appear to be a violation of WP:COI,WP:V,WP:DUE, as well as edit warring. Could admins please look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reading the comments on their talk page, and the edits to the article, it's clear they are WP:NOTHERE to work on the encyclopedia, and they have been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rick, I agree with you. Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well I'm part of this whole global conspiracy don't you know (still waiting for my check mind you). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that, I'm still waiting for my check!! David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps Trilateral Commission should be placed under the Arbcom American politics ruling? John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The article says it's a "...non-partisan discussion group founded... to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan." It's true that the commission is controversial to some American conspiracy-theorists, so I get it why we might like to afford the article the protection of discretionary sanctions, but I think that would be taking "broadly construed" right up to its outer limits, if not beyond. David in DC (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- SEMIs are cheap. it's better than PCR, and stamping ARBCOM on it won't prevent anything.L3X1 (distant write) 21:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The article says it's a "...non-partisan discussion group founded... to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan." It's true that the commission is controversial to some American conspiracy-theorists, so I get it why we might like to afford the article the protection of discretionary sanctions, but I think that would be taking "broadly construed" right up to its outer limits, if not beyond. David in DC (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps Trilateral Commission should be placed under the Arbcom American politics ruling? John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that, I'm still waiting for my check!! David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well I'm part of this whole global conspiracy don't you know (still waiting for my check mind you). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rick, I agree with you. Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
TazminDaytime
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could you please look at TazminDaytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been repeatedly adding incorrect/unsourced information, taking part in edit wars, ignoring people's explanations as to why their edit was undone and insulting other users in talk pages and edit summaries.--Koljanc (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ridiculous unfounded allegations. The information I posted was correct, you removed every single thing I posted with little to no explanation. TazminDaytime (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see a lot of edit warring by TazminDaytime against different editors including this revert with an unacceptable edit summary. A WP:1RR restriction would curb this tendency. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- How long ago was that posted again? Don't be ridiculous. TazminDaytime (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you made this edit summary today, so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Less than fifty edits ago. --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Six edits ago, to be precise. I think someone really needs to have a good long read of WP:EW and WP:CIVIL, make an apology and start working with others before Neil decides I shouldn't be the only hammer in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Six edits for the troll comment, about forty for the edit I linked to. And a lot of edit warring in between. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have a lot better things to be doing than listening to you all overreacting about posts made three months ago. TazminDaytime (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is from yesterday. So hopefully one of the "better things" you will be doing is learning how to edit collaboratively and seeking consensus in disputes rather than edit warring and personally attacking other editors, lest you find yourself with plenty of extra time on your hands while waiting out a block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have a lot better things to be doing than listening to you all overreacting about posts made three months ago. TazminDaytime (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Six edits for the troll comment, about forty for the edit I linked to. And a lot of edit warring in between. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Six edits ago, to be precise. I think someone really needs to have a good long read of WP:EW and WP:CIVIL, make an apology and start working with others before Neil decides I shouldn't be the only hammer in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- How long ago was that posted again? Don't be ridiculous. TazminDaytime (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see a lot of edit warring by TazminDaytime against different editors including this revert with an unacceptable edit summary. A WP:1RR restriction would curb this tendency. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest a short block I think, with a response such as the one above, that the repeated warnings given in this thread are not sufficient to generate any introspection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Given that their first edit after denying there was any issue here was another revert and snarky edit summary, I agree. I've blocked TazminDaytime for 72 hours for overall disruption and inability to edit collaboratively.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Opinions on indefinite block please
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I blocked LeoHsn for two weeks for a series of edits culminating in this disgraceful attack. I made it clear that any more cases of incivility would result in an indefinite block. [55] They've now posted two comments, while not uncivil towards a specific editor, I believe show an attitude which is incompatible with WP:5P2. [56], [57] Looking for feedback on whether or not the two week block should be changed to indefinite. --NeilN talk to me 18:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Block per WP:NOTHERE. I had to remove personal attacks against editors (including me - which is unthinkable because I'm a delight!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islam-related terrorist attacks and I got bored of it very quickly. There's an issue with attitude that I don't think can be sorted out with temporary sanctions. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indef supported That's someone who's looking to push their viewpoint, not work on an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is clearly indef-worthy, in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Block Their posts clearly show a WP:RGW attitude. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Indef Block per WP:NOTSOAPBOX.- MrX 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note Talk page access should be revoked too... Exemplo347 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) Per this edit here: [58] I've indef'd the account and pulled TPA. Sorry to jump the gun Neil, but that's enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You did the deed while I was fiddling with the niceties. --NeilN talk to me 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) Per this edit here: [58] I've indef'd the account and pulled TPA. Sorry to jump the gun Neil, but that's enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Martinnorheim - Persistent unsourced additions
- Martinnorheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite repeated attempts to engage with this user by various other editors, Martinnorheim continues to add unsourced edits (apparently WP:OR) to terrorism-related articles. Myself, Kristijh, st170em, and skycycle have all tried to engage with and warn the user via their talk page, but to no avail. Please see the history of the above-linked article for example edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Disruption continues: [59] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit war on Raid on Dartmouth (1749)
There appears to be a rather sizable edit war over a section of Raid on Dartmouth (1749) between several IPs. Francinum (Talk) (Contrib) 20:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- And zero talk page posts. Semied three days, PC a month as this reverting has been going on for a while. --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Re: POV Forks
Related Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#POV_forks_being_created_as_school_project
Hi...I am the instructor for the class at Berkeley. Thanks for this conversation. We are very glad that WikiEdu provides the additional support needed to make university students great contributors to Wikipedia. It resources the students to be able to bring their considerable research skills to bear on creating great, neutral content.
The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record as having said a number of pretty inflammatory things about race and the environment and also having done some. These strike the eye and appear incredible to some members of the Wikipedia community. In one case, a Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally.
It has been suggested that the students are committing the error of going into too much depth in their articles. Environmental problems don't occur in isolation from human systems and are in fact caused by social and economic factors. I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with [systemic biases.] I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on [to do about it]
Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.
And thanks again to WikiEdu and Ian in particular for creating a vehicle for rigorously trained students to improve Wikipedia and create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice, despite their novice-level skills at negotiating this particular technology. --EJustice (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have replaced what EJustice was trying to post without the breaking of the page. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upon reading the above post, I am trying... very hard to continue to assume good faith, but there appears to be a serious disconnect between what this educator wishes to achieve and the goals of Wikipedia. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I can set EJustice on a better path than they are right now. Messing up ANI is not a good first step when assuming Wikipedia competency. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to
savehelp you! Anmccaff (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)- (Non-administrator comment) At this point I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. From the above, I do get the distinct impression that this bit of knowledge hasn't yet arrived in Berkeley. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to
- This class is also being discussed at WP:ENI, where the issue of a possible shared account, violating WP:NOSHARING, has arisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is so awkward. User:EJustice you and your class are attempting to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of WP:NOT - which defines the mission of Wikipedia and says what WP is, and what it is not) as well as WP:NPOV. Your class is adding loads of very bad-by-WP-standards in a topic that is so controversial that it has been to our "Supreme Court" (WP:ARBCOM) on multiple occasions and has what we call discretionary sanctions" on it, namely contemporary US politics. We generally warn people not to make their first edits on topics that are so hard to work in. You have led a whole class of new editors into it, in a very foot-stomping way.
- The problems go far beyond "going into too much depth in their articles" (part of what we call WP:UNDUE). Almost all the content is pure advocacy with explicit POV language and sourcing. The same content and ideas have been added to many articles and new articles, with no effort to integrate or deal with WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL content with negative projections about the future. There have been WP:BLP violations.
- Your post is not promising in that you show no openness to understanding the problems here, as does this AfD !vote, this partial (?) removal of a PROD, this response to someone trying to point out relevant policies and guidelines... oy.
- Please be aware that we do indefinitely block editors (and students and their instructors are editors like everybody else) who refuse to listen when people try to explain community norms (the policies and guidelines by which the editing community governs itself) and press on. The discretionary sanctions allow that blocking to happen swiftly when the problems are clear and there is no sign of them abating but only continuing. That would be ... awkward and I for one hope you can start hearing what people are saying to you in the several places across Wikipedia where people are responding to the class and to specific articles. I understand that your WP liaison is trying very hard to communicate with you, your TAs, and your students (diff) off-WP. I hope that bears fruit and this does not turn into more of a train wreck than it already is. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I disagree with your characterization of our students' work (soapbox, not, npov, undue, crystalball). I've read those policies and don't find that the pages in question generically violate them. Could you perhaps show statements that do so? It would help us understand what you're speaking of. Your references to the few edits I've directly engaged in highlight the same problem. Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations. No need to do this yourself, but if you could find a soapbox-y statement that would be great. There's a lot of contentious stuff going on right now in the US and it does feel like a lot of soapboxing is going on. But that doesn't mean that, for example, mountain-top removal coal mining isn't actually affecting poor people in Appalachia. How is it a violation to document that? Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, a response with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:ARBCOM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc. is a not uncommon intimidation tactic. The work of your students is far better on the whole than typical newby editors. Their work certainly should not evoke this knee-jerk response. I hope some admins with cooler heads step in and help resolve this.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I highlighted a few examples in my AfD comments, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this discussion. For example there is WP:CRYSTAL about Trump in Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States, I reviewed several of the the articles and I don't think the policies are being cited maliciously in this case Seraphim System (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
IP vandal (14 April 2017)
I have just given a fourth-level vandalism warning to 64.19.143.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (after the vandalism of two articles following a lighter warning), since this user had previously received up to {{uw-v3}}. Please take any appropriate action. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report. The person has not edited since 15:08, April 13, 2017 (eleven hours ago), so there's no need to block at the moment. Please let us know if the vandalism resumes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I posted here with the hope that someone else would monitor this user’s activity, since I’m not particularly active here as of late. But I’ll shout if I see something. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also, please note that all four of the recent edits were clearly deliberate vandalism, with deliberately misleading edit summaries. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing.
Chazlepley (talk · contribs) has constantly reverted my edits on the Big Brother Canada articles without including an explanation as to doing so, I have tried to explain to them the reason for my edits, but they keep reverting them. ([60], [61], [62], [63]) VietPride10 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- FTR, VietPride10 posted the above. L3X1 (distant write) 02:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Personal attack - threat of outing by PastieFace
I am reporting this edit by PastieFace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a personal attack, per WP:OUTING: "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Jeh (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- TP editing rights can go. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Barek: ...which they promptly proceeded to do (this edit doesn't contain new outing though). Overall I think this user has problems with WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, and assuming bad faith on the part of other editors who, at Talk:Physical Address Extension, established consensus against their attempted addition to the article. And not to be arrogant, but I think PastieFace really does not understand the material in question as much as they think they do. They are fast approaching an indefinite block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Cleanup on aisle Ponyo?
Take a look, some kinda odd moves there. Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- ? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Soapboxing and other stuff
Vitamindaughter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote extensively, but not very neutrally about University of Missouri School of Medicine, in such a way I concluded she was using the article as a WP:SOAPBOX in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I reverted that, since the balance of the article was definitely out of whack. The user in question then proceeded to demand I "Reinstate [her[ edits", accused me of being German and hence being biased. She retracted the accusation of being German later, but kept the 'biased' bit. I Informed her of WP:BRD and told her to take it to the talkpage,1, 2 which she didn't, but started an edit war instead, both in the article and my talk-page. This has now devolved into baseless accusations on my TP. At this point, I was utterly convinced Vitamindaughter is WP:NOTHERE to help improve the encyclopedia, but instead WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Can an admin please intervene? Kleuske (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is in good faith. User accused me of lack of citations when everything seems to be sourced unless I misunderstand something. Since my neutrality was questioned my only add to the page remained the ongoing accreditation controversy which I think should be discussed on the page, and is discussed on other medical school's pages. See George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences. User @Kleuske edits mainly about feminism, genocide, and seems to be biased toward in censorship on subjects of discrimination. Happy to make good edits to improve the reporting but don't think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing other editors of bias or censorship. You are confusing disagreement with conflict, and you are edit-warring. Please use the talkpage to politely discuss your proposed edits and to develop a consensus among editors for changes to the article. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds great, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- In addition: if you do this [64] again you may face sanctions. That really is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry do what? I think she asked me to talk to her on her talk page. How is it ok to remove an addition for lack of sources when it is all sourced? Also I was not aware accusations of bias were not ok because my post was edited due to questions of neutrality. In fact, nobody is neutral, so I decided to report on just the one main event of the LCME accreditation history at the school which is reported on at another school's wikipedia page. The user wants to remove information about Armenian genocide I think it's kind of pertinent, similar to holocaust denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds great, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing other editors of bias or censorship. You are confusing disagreement with conflict, and you are edit-warring. Please use the talkpage to politely discuss your proposed edits and to develop a consensus among editors for changes to the article. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)