Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) →Advice to keep a distance defied by editor Tenebrae: WP:DRAMA: people who seek to exploit the site as a launchpad for unnecessary conflict and strife; in other words, drama/unnecessary creation, prolongation, and/or spreading of conflict and strif |
||
Line 451: | Line 451: | ||
:::Yeah, I know. {{noping|Catflap08}} and one other user were hounding me, and the user in question aggravated the issue and made a bunch of comments that gave the impression that I was the one at fault. Their, I've declared my bias. That said, bias has nothing to do with the obvious statement of fact that that user has a tendency to post ''extremely long'', near-impossible-to-read comments on ANI and elsewhere. It's not a deliberate attempt at filibustering -- it's just a quirk of communication style, and one I occasionally indulge in myself to almost the same level as they do. So it's not difficult to imagine how it came about that there was "no consensus" one way or another on the canvassing question. |
:::Yeah, I know. {{noping|Catflap08}} and one other user were hounding me, and the user in question aggravated the issue and made a bunch of comments that gave the impression that I was the one at fault. Their, I've declared my bias. That said, bias has nothing to do with the obvious statement of fact that that user has a tendency to post ''extremely long'', near-impossible-to-read comments on ANI and elsewhere. It's not a deliberate attempt at filibustering -- it's just a quirk of communication style, and one I occasionally indulge in myself to almost the same level as they do. So it's not difficult to imagine how it came about that there was "no consensus" one way or another on the canvassing question. |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
::::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]''' [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] ''closures''. But I don't even see ''that'' as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.) |
:::Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] ''closures''. But I don't even see ''that'' as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.) |
||
::::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]''' [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead. |
:::You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead. |
||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
Line 467: | Line 469: | ||
:::Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Admin-opinion_request_on_canvassing_issue|that short thread]], for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes [[WP:involved]] behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Admin-opinion_request_on_canvassing_issue|that short thread]], for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes [[WP:involved]] behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::To be clear, by "[[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::To be clear, by "[[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]''' [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::: You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::: You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
Line 483: | Line 486: | ||
:{{re|Pyxis Solitary}} You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
:{{re|Pyxis Solitary}} You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APyxis_Solitary&type=revision&diff=789364109&oldid=789359228 told me to eff off]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
:Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APyxis_Solitary&type=revision&diff=789364109&oldid=789359228 told me to eff off]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]''' [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not [[WP:NPA|PA]]. "Extremely [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
::If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not [[WP:NPA|PA]]. "Extremely [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::{{re|Mandruss}} As I said above ({{tq|At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner}}), it's open to interpretation whether the above remark is a personal attack or just a [[WP:CIVIL]] violation. The former view is in line with the definition at [[WP:WIAPA]]: {{tq|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable].}} Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::{{re|Mandruss}} As I said above ({{tq|At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner}}), it's open to interpretation whether the above remark is a personal attack or just a [[WP:CIVIL]] violation. The former view is in line with the definition at [[WP:WIAPA]]: {{tq|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable].}} Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
Line 508: | Line 512: | ||
:::::::If you revert Tenebrae's constructive/good-faith edits solely because Tenebrae was the one that made them ... well, it might technically meet the "criteria" defined at [[WP:HOUND]], but only because it took place on one article rather than many. By the same token, if your reverting/challenging Tenebrae's edits is not hounding because it was localized to one article, the same is true for Tenebrae's "hounding" of you. I don't need to provide evidence -- the diffs in your first post here clearly show Tenebrae making rational arguments in favour of not using italics or the phrase "make love" in the plot summary. If you revert those edits because you don't like Tenebrae, without any policy- or guideline-based rationale, that is at the very least [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], even if not WP:HOUNDING. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::If you revert Tenebrae's constructive/good-faith edits solely because Tenebrae was the one that made them ... well, it might technically meet the "criteria" defined at [[WP:HOUND]], but only because it took place on one article rather than many. By the same token, if your reverting/challenging Tenebrae's edits is not hounding because it was localized to one article, the same is true for Tenebrae's "hounding" of you. I don't need to provide evidence -- the diffs in your first post here clearly show Tenebrae making rational arguments in favour of not using italics or the phrase "make love" in the plot summary. If you revert those edits because you don't like Tenebrae, without any policy- or guideline-based rationale, that is at the very least [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], even if not WP:HOUNDING. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::By the way, your nitpicking a single sentence in a cautionary message ''addressed to the user with whom you are in conflict'' and taking it out of context as an "accusation" against you for which I should provide evidence (again, even the text you quoted included the words "it's entirely possible") is just more evidence that you are more interested in picking fights than in building an encyclopedia. You are not making any friends with comments like the above, and are in fact rapidly losing them. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::By the way, your nitpicking a single sentence in a cautionary message ''addressed to the user with whom you are in conflict'' and taking it out of context as an "accusation" against you for which I should provide evidence (again, even the text you quoted included the words "it's entirely possible") is just more evidence that you are more interested in picking fights than in building an encyclopedia. You are not making any friends with comments like the above, and are in fact rapidly losing them. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]''' [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Drop_it message] Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on ''Carol''. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in <big>''any''</big> article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Drop_it message] Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on ''Carol''. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in <big>''any''</big> article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
Line 526: | Line 531: | ||
:::::::::::Not only is it 100% clear you [[WP:IDHT|didn't read a word]] of my above carefully-reasoned and polite response, you clearly don't know anything about linguistics. I don't speak a whole lot of those languages, but I can tell you with certainty that ドラマ most often refers to TV miniseries (and also applies to longer foreign shows like ''Friends'' and ''Game of Thrones'' that don't tend to be produced in Japan at the same rate), and 戏剧 refers to the theatre. I am not just having a laugh at your expense here -- I am seriously questioning your [[WP:CIR|competence to edit Wikipedia]] if you don't realize that the English word "drama" has a number of completely different meanings and the one you are referencing is recent slang and is not likely to come out when you type the solitary word into an MT program. If you don't understand that "drama" as you are using it here is slang, then are you writing slang into Wikipedia ''articles'' as well? That would support Tenebrae's assertion that your article edits violate MOS. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::::::Not only is it 100% clear you [[WP:IDHT|didn't read a word]] of my above carefully-reasoned and polite response, you clearly don't know anything about linguistics. I don't speak a whole lot of those languages, but I can tell you with certainty that ドラマ most often refers to TV miniseries (and also applies to longer foreign shows like ''Friends'' and ''Game of Thrones'' that don't tend to be produced in Japan at the same rate), and 戏剧 refers to the theatre. I am not just having a laugh at your expense here -- I am seriously questioning your [[WP:CIR|competence to edit Wikipedia]] if you don't realize that the English word "drama" has a number of completely different meanings and the one you are referencing is recent slang and is not likely to come out when you type the solitary word into an MT program. If you don't understand that "drama" as you are using it here is slang, then are you writing slang into Wikipedia ''articles'' as well? That would support Tenebrae's assertion that your article edits violate MOS. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::^ [[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]. |
::::::::::::^ '''[[Wikipedia:Wikidrama|Drama]]'''. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]] 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::"'''And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??'''" |
::"'''And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??'''" |
Revision as of 05:09, 9 July 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) |
|
Apparent IDLI removal of G5 Speedy Delete request
Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion [1] based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user, WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion [2] after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor [3] who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept [4]. His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".
I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert [5]. He refused [6] [7]. It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.
Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?
- (2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.
- (3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).
- (4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?
- (5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.
- (6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?
- (7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?
- -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- The key thing here, to me, is WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Uncollapse for a gigantic wall of text about... something
|
---|
Hang around here long enough and you'll notice the same editors and admins that can't and won't wait to revert, delete and block at the drop of a hat even before an edit is completed when its THEIR IDEA can't be convinced to do the same even when someone goes out of their way to do it the RIGHT WAY and tries to get a "consensus". Why? They don't take orders from anybody because they're above that and least of all from anybody who doesn't have their "rank" or "time in service" or edit counts and all the other meaningless "stats" they think makes them more equal than others and that apparently give them...gasp...some OWNERSHIP here. And if you snoop around here long enough and particularly in talk pages and you realize that a lot of these editors and admins have the luxury of being able to edit at "work" and at home and that many of them are "educators" with access to a wide range of computers, public and private Wi-Fi networks, various public and private email systems, multiple smart phones, multiple tablets, multiple IPs that in countries like the U.S. can be in another state and seem far apart geographically but literally be only a couple miles from each other and that many of them are uber-nerd computer geeks with access to resources and know-how the rest of us can't imagine AND that there are all kinds of little cliques and cults on here; you might start wondering just how often when an editor or admin that normally can't wait to shut down some "vandal" not only refuses to do so when asked even with they're not SPECIFICALLY ASKED, they come up with a LAUNDRY LIST of reasons why they shouldn't. Like "it's not worth the time". Of course they have plenty of time to post that it's not worth the time and others have plenty of time to give examples and hypotheticals that "prove" it wouldn't be worth the time. And they have plenty of time to troll around admin noticeboards and apparently investigate and respond. But no time to send a nastygram and block threat and revert or protect anything. When you throw the "policies" and "rules" in some long-time editor/admin's face or rather they step in front of what you're throwing out for anyone to catch and let themselves get hit in the face AND you have links to the diffs and all those things that "good" editors use to try to create a "consensus", they're PROTECTING SOMEONE rather than protecting the project. Start snooping around user talk pages for the editors and admins that patrol and block and revert and threaten endlessly and do little or nothing else and just kind of keep track of what names show up over and over and how a lot of them seem to spend a hell of a lot of time on OTHER EDITORS AND ADMIN'S TALK PAGES RESPONDING TO MESSAGES THAT OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T INTENDED FOR THEM and you just might go all conspiracy theorist and start thinking that there could be a relatively small core group of editors/admins here with a bunch of different usernames and accounts who technically wouldn't be "sockpuppets" by the "official" definition because according to Wiki:SP a "sockpuppet account" is created by someone who has been BLOCKED. So if they have several accounts and haven't ever been blocked on any of them they can't really be sockpuppets, can they? Factor in how many of them seem to think they have a duty to let everyone know when they WON'T BE ON WIKIPEDIA and WHY as if they're calling in sick to work or something and have a responsibility to do so and how super-important Wikipedia suddenly doesn't matter at ALL for days or weeks because they have something going on in their "real life" that's going to keep them away and look at the times where people have left messages on their talk pages they've either ignored completely or responded to and then deleted their responses or where they respond with "I don't have time to respond right now and won't have time for hours" (or days in some cases) and all of a sudden its like they have mutliple personalities. That's not your imagination. They do. Literally. Or at least they try to. But they slip up from time to time when good old "muscle memory" takes over and they log in as their "alter ego" when they get home from work or to wherever they're picking up public Wi-Fi or whatever little tricks they're using to log in from different IPs as different people, but they head straight to the talk page for the character they were last logged in as to see if they've gotten any messages from cronies and maybe they get distracted or get angry if somebody gets in their shit about something and they forget who they are and respond to a message sent to their other character on that talk page when they least expected it and from a total stranger to boot. And of course they're the same ones that endlessly preach to IP editors to "sign your comments" because that way they get notifications if they have that IP on a watchlist of some kind or have articles that IP edits or visits a lot on a watchlist, etc. Basically they want to see everything that IP does and says but what they NEVER do with IP editors is personally encourage them to sign up for an account. Why? Because that makes it a lot harder for them to cyberstalk strangers AND it makes that editor more "legit". Especially if that editor happens to use a real email address for a real account they actually use instead of some free account they created just to make another "character" and account and because that person is probably NOT doing what they're doing. Which is be a sneaky little bitch with multiple accounts at least one of which is probably the one they use at their go government-employee job at a library or college or high school where they're getting paid and compensated damned well to pretty much be full-time Wikipedia editor/admins about 8 hours a day 5 days a week while someone else like a grad student or assistant teacher or library aid is doing their actual work. Then they go home how and change identities and fuck with more people as yet another "respected Wikipedian" and they report when they won't be on Wikipedia because during those hours or days they're somewhere else posing as yet ANOTHER one of their characters or are at some super-secret little get-together plotting and scheming with their other cronies they know in the "real world". So when they not only refuse to block or support blocking someone or at least warning them or trying to engage with them using the excuse "it's not worth the time" and then yet another supposedly dedicated Wikipedian comes along and explains WHY the first person who responded to say they weren't going to do anything is right to not do anything and explains why, it's pretty freaking obvious they don't want to block that account because its somebody's alternate account. And even though it would be really easy to issue a very short block or have another crony or even use another character to remove it within a few minutes or hours, there's one big problem when it comes to blocking accounts. There are constantly updated pages of current blocks, former blocks etc etc etc with all the info about who blocked them, why etc and if you know your way around a little bit, you can find THE IP the "user name" is just a substitute for. And there are some legit, honest and hard-core Wikipedians who really hate the way some power-tripping clowns try to run this place and they REALLY detest hypocrites and people who are here for personal gain rather than "build an encyclopedia". And clearly anyone that is running multiple accounts and is in cahoots with other sneaks isn't doing it because they're "building an encyclopedia". The fact that they literally never contribute ANYTHING and spend ALL of their time deleting, blocking and reverting and the only "content" they put on Wikipedia is their OPINIONS and CRITICISM, at least other than the little bit of time they put into sticking up for their cronies and covering their asses and their OWN ASSES by NOT doing what they do in heartbeat day in and day out, they're getting some kind of benefits from their presence here besides a warm fuzzy feeling about "building an encyclopedia. Like I said, there are some die-hard Wikipedia cops here who don't give a shit how popular or respected or admired or "civil" an editor is, if they suspect that editor is running multiple accounts, has some COI or is just plain up to something, they'll block them AND they'll start using all kinds of other tools to look for patterns in their activity, see what users just happen to log in say within minutes to a few hours after they log off on a regular basis, etc and they'll sniff them out. Hell, I know very little about how the whole internet thing works as far as IPs and ISPs and all of that goes and I know damned good and well you can live in one state and have an account with an ISP several states away for your home internet, work in another town and even in another state and have internet access THERE through your job but also take home your laptop and be using your home internet access but be VPNed through work so regardless of where you happen to be it'll be your employer's IP or IP range for THAT internet access and then have a smart phone and internet access through your personal cell service, do the same thing with a work phone and even use "prepaid" internet access with a Straight Talk account and pretty much sit at home and be logged on to Wikipedia as 4 or 5 different editors at once and even if somebody was suspicious for some reason and started digging all they'd find is 4 or 5 different IPs in at least three different states. But the thing is that even a lot of longtime Wikipedia editors and even some of those running multiple accounts don't know that just because you have an account doesn't mean your IP ceases to exist, and some of them no doubt are using IPs that will traced back to within a handful of miles of each other and if one is say a university or library and another is a private account AND they're frequently logged on within minutes or a few hours of each other but never simultaneously, that's a big red flag. Anytime you see the normally nasty or at the very least smug, condescending and generally snotty "dedicated" Wikipedians who are all by the book and know the policies and rules chapter and verse and will spend what has to be hours putting their OPINIONS on here if it keeps someone else from becoming more "powerful" by opposing an admin request or whatever and that's who they are 99% of the time and ALL they do or at least all they CLAIM to do is the thankless, tireless and endless work of fighting vandalism, hunting sockpuppets or notifying new editors of everything they're doing wrong immediately and never have any time or interest in any of the suggested activities or discussions they get notifications for on their talk pages, but yet once in a while have plenty of time to answer messages sent to other editors or to defend other editors in clear violation of multiple polices and even do a little scolding or at least sermonizing to an editor who reports that person, it's a safe freaking bet they didn't suddenly become human beings. They're covering someone's ass or their own ass and don't want to block that editor because blocks draw attention from the people they don't want even knowing they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk • contribs) |
WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After my last comment on the matter, I was done and ready to move on; however, they've now accused IJBall and myself of being sockpuppets of each other. With no evidence to back up their claims, they are making personal attacks, and that is simply not tolerable. I've never interacted with this user until they showed up to IJBall's talk page in a negative manner not assuming good faith, and based on their response to that, they think it's okay to automatically assume bad faith. From what I've seen, however, they have serious battleground behavior, and if anyone disagrees with them, they basically get all hostile toward them on top of assuming bad faith. This is not the kind of user Wikipedia should have, and they need to change their behavior. As IJBall seems to have interacted with them more, he'll be able to provide some more background. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Amaury, please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled, or someone got their feathers ruffled and took it out on you or someone else. If you come here, you need to make a cogent case with a sufficient number of diffs proving a lengthy pattern, and your own behavior will be looked at as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: While I actually think that there was probably nothing actionable, you really should stop with this "Diffs please" thing. If you read Amaury's comment and go to the linked talk page, you can Ctrl+F the word "sock" and the comment in question comes up almost immediately. I'm assuming this was also the case when you posted the above. You said essentially the same thing with a thread I started a few months back about a near-SPA whose every edit showed the same pattern I was talking about (and so individual diffs would have been pointless). Yes, in this case Amaury could have provided the diff, but he did provide enough information for you or anyone else to find the comment in question very easily. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is no need to be passive-aggressive. I provided a link to a discussion where this stems from above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Wikipedia; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I provided a link to a discussion containing everything without having to sift through links rather than individual diffs as that's just as useful. Sorry that didn't seem to meet your standards. In any case, [8], [9], and [10]. Hostility, condescending, and personal attacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Wikipedia; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Re "List of Wynonna Earp episodes" discussion in editor's talk page:
- I contacted an editor in his talk page regarding deletions of sourced content. You injected yourself into the discussion between us. This was not a discussion in an article's talk page. You misused WP:AGF, WP:COMMONSENSE , WP:LETITGO, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and WP:BATTLEGROUND as weapons, attempting to intimidate me. What you should have done is mind your own business and stayed out of it. And yes, I do think the 'knight in shining armour' persona is suspect. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan 08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I fail to see why IJBall insists on having a citation in the column header when the episodes are already cited in the column's cells. If there's a WP:MOS reason for this I'm not aware of it. Now there are citations in both, which seems like overkill to me, especially since it's the same source. Also, all other cites in the article are in the cells, where cites in tables usually are, and not in the headers. Amaury's accusation that Pyxis Solitary has a battleground mentality is far fetched in my humble opinion. Pyxis Solitary's initial messages are polite and to the point. That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far. But so is taking this to AN/I. Again, all in my humble opinion. For what that is worth. Kind regards, Yintan 09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan 08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yintan, I don't know if you just skimmed the discussion on IJBall's talk page linked to above, but you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't the MOS, the issue is WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article. Pyxis then re-added the air date with a source and came to IJBall's talk page to complain because IJBall should have just attached the source himself rather than removing it and accused IJBall of unproductive editing. That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN above, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and read other editors' minds and take care of what they should have done by finding and attaching the sources themselves, it is the responsibility of the editors who add the information to properly source it if they don't want it removed, provided it's relevant for the article, of course. And yes, currently, the episodes are sourced in the cells; however, when there's an episode guide available, it's much more beneficial to make the episode guide a column source rather than individually source each episode. Although that's beside the point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not so much missing the point as trying to say I honestly don't see what all your fuss is about. And trust me, I've read that Talk page. A few times even because at first I thought I was missing something MAJOR. I didn't. It's just about the citing of a source and one Talk page message that isn't even unpolite or threatening. I think your advice to Pyxis Solitary to cool it is fine but I suggest you and IJBall cool it too. "Battleground"? "Personal attacks"? Come on. Or take this to WP:3 perhaps? Yintan 18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- "IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article." Nope. The air date was sourced. The source was attached to the title of the episodes. The first time, he deleted ALL the source because in his opinion:
- Where in MOS:TV does it say that epguides is not an acceptable source for episode titles and air dates? Wikipedia also has a {{epguides}} template for it.
- The second time he deleted the air date because the source (Variety) was not next to the air date -- but it was attached to the episode title. Are episode tables now going to contain TWO identical citations? One for the episode title and one for the air date?
- Amaury, do Wikipedia and its editors a favor by not twisting facts to support your accusations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:
- "showing up here with an unnecessary attitude", "You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression", "Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here", "It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain"
- ... exactly who was the one that resorted to "battleground behavior", "personal attacks", and "hostil[ity]"?
- So what do Admins do with an editor that tries to use ANI against another editor with false accusations of "serious battleground behavior", and slanders that editor as "not the kind of user Wikipedia should have"? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:
- * Admins: Is this or is this not Inappropriate notification? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: That is not canvassing. He opened an ANI thread about an incident that took place on that editor's talk page, so notifying him is well within appropriate boundaries. Unarchiving is a questionable action, but re-notifying once one has unarchived is ... still not canvassing, since that user is already involved.
- Also, please never make remarks like this again. Casual sockpuppetry accusations are not acceptable. I have seen users get blocked for it in the very recent past, and you should be very careful. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, open an SPI.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- To quote Yintan:
- "That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far."
- I got it the first time. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anywhere in this thread that you said "Sorry, that was going too far". Quoting someone else who agrees with me doesn't mean anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to very much agree with the title of this thread, and I haven't even looked into it beyond the sockpuppetry accusation. I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me or was very recently), or if you just routinely go back through months' worth of other editors' contribs and form bizarre/offensive/idiosyncratic opinions thereon, but the above comment is atrocious, and you should strike it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anywhere in this thread that you said "Sorry, that was going too far". Quoting someone else who agrees with me doesn't mean anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- To quote Yintan:
- "I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me...."
- Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, currently here ^ and example 1, example 2, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- So ... you're not wikistalking me or acting as a meatpuppet for someone who is wikistalking me ... you're just making sweeping claims about my "history", based solely on your experience of my commentary in two threads over the past 24 hours. Awesome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cynical meatpuppetry suggestions aren't much better than Pyxis Solitary's sock puppet slip, Hijiri88. Can we stick to the subject before this thread derails even further? Yintan 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yintan: The above comment appears to be posted in the wrong place. You should probably move it to follow the cynical meatpuppetry accusation in question, rather than the retraction of said accusation.
- Cynical meatpuppetry suggestions aren't much better than Pyxis Solitary's sock puppet slip, Hijiri88. Can we stick to the subject before this thread derails even further? Yintan 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- So ... you're not wikistalking me or acting as a meatpuppet for someone who is wikistalking me ... you're just making sweeping claims about my "history", based solely on your experience of my commentary in two threads over the past 24 hours. Awesome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Long explanation of why "I suspect that someone might have contacted you by email and here's why I think that" is not quite the same as "I think you are the same person as this other editor because I don't like your face". Read it if you want, don't read it if you don't want, but please don't pretend you read it when you didn't. (Note that "you" here is generic; very little of this collapsed section is directed specifically at Yintan, who definitely is acting in good faith and would not pretend to have read this when he/she had not.)
|
---|
|
- I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page that I was alluded to in this report; when one talks about another editor, they should at least have the courtesy of pinging them. Here we have yet another case of Hijiri88 inserting themselves into a report where they have admitted that they have not read the report in its entirety, making "sweeping claims" themselves about an editor they don't know of or any other actions they took before this report, and therefore giving an opinion based on a biased opinion and not any facts of the report. Disappointing. -- AlexTW 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, if you keep up this
stalking/battleground act, you'll probably be blocked pretty soon. I did no such thing as "admit that I have not read the report". Pylix made a gross personal attack, refused to strike, when told off by an impartial observer on ANI ignored it, and then when told off by a second observer (me) claimed that she had heard it the first time, even though she had made no indication of such. What, exactly, am I missing here? Aren't you the one who is inserting himself into a report he has not read? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)- If you read my post, you'd see that I stated "I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page". You may even visit my talk page for proof, if you wish. I recommend you revoke and strike out your personal attack of stalking, as you recommend other do, as you have no basis for this claim. It was you that mentioned me without pinging me directly, attempting to do so behind my back, hence my current involvement after I was indeed notified. I quote you: "I haven't even looked into it" - your admittance in the fullest. I, for one, have read the entire report. -- AlexTW 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did read your post. In fact, the bit you seem to be accusing me of not having read was the one bit I couldn't really avoid reading -- you pinged me, and the bit you refer to was the bit clipped and included in the notification. Showing up here just to attack me when you clearly hadn't even read even my comments (let alone the entire discussion) is a stalking/battleground act. Yes, it would have been slightly "more stalking" (and slightly "less battleground") if you hadn't been invited here by another user doing the same and had instead been constantly monitoring my contribs for the last two months, but that doesn't really make what I said wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did indeed ping you; I thought I'd at least be courteous in giving an action that I did not receive in kind. How unfortunate that you won't strike your accusation, when you demand that others do the exact same thing at the same time. A shame. I wasn't even aware this thread existed until I was alerted by another editor, so it would have been stalking if I showed up unannounced, but alas for you, that could not be more further from the truth of what happened. Anyways. I'll let you get back to the thread. Enjoy. Do try to ping other editor's when talking about them, even if they had forgotten you and their encounter with you from months ago. -- AlexTW 11:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: What "accusation" do you want me to strike? Are you referring to the parenthetical clause that linked to a comment by you?
- I didn't accuse you of anything there: I merely stated that someone had contacted you off-wiki about me less than two months ago, and linked the diff of you disclosing that fact. There were two massive incidents involving people going around badmouthing me through the Wikimedia email service back in 2013 and 2015; you making that comment had metaphorically triggered my metaphorical PTSD regarding the issue, and I have been on alert for similar warning signs since. When Pyxis, a user with whom I never interacted until about 36 hours ago, suddenly started talking about "my history", I was naturally concerned that whoever emailed you, or perhaps someone else, had emailed them as well, so I asked about it, and included the diff solely so I wouldn't be accused of being "paranoid".
- It turned out that Pyxis was just being hyperbolic, and her comments about my "history" were referring to my brief interactions with her over the past 36 hours, but I was not wrong to take what she said literally. Once again, I didn't accuse you of anything: if I was accusing anyone, it was the unnamed editor who "warned you about me".
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did indeed ping you; I thought I'd at least be courteous in giving an action that I did not receive in kind. How unfortunate that you won't strike your accusation, when you demand that others do the exact same thing at the same time. A shame. I wasn't even aware this thread existed until I was alerted by another editor, so it would have been stalking if I showed up unannounced, but alas for you, that could not be more further from the truth of what happened. Anyways. I'll let you get back to the thread. Enjoy. Do try to ping other editor's when talking about them, even if they had forgotten you and their encounter with you from months ago. -- AlexTW 11:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did read your post. In fact, the bit you seem to be accusing me of not having read was the one bit I couldn't really avoid reading -- you pinged me, and the bit you refer to was the bit clipped and included in the notification. Showing up here just to attack me when you clearly hadn't even read even my comments (let alone the entire discussion) is a stalking/battleground act. Yes, it would have been slightly "more stalking" (and slightly "less battleground") if you hadn't been invited here by another user doing the same and had instead been constantly monitoring my contribs for the last two months, but that doesn't really make what I said wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you read my post, you'd see that I stated "I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page". You may even visit my talk page for proof, if you wish. I recommend you revoke and strike out your personal attack of stalking, as you recommend other do, as you have no basis for this claim. It was you that mentioned me without pinging me directly, attempting to do so behind my back, hence my current involvement after I was indeed notified. I quote you: "I haven't even looked into it" - your admittance in the fullest. I, for one, have read the entire report. -- AlexTW 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, if you keep up this
- Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
→ ADMINISTRATORS: We have a problem with false accusations being made by editor Hijiri 88. See Drop it for evidence. In same linked thread I have told him to stay away from my Talk page. His conduct in my Talk page — and as witnessed in this ANI — is toxic, out of bounds, and unacceptable. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
* This is an interpersonal ANI and should only be closed by an Administrator. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pyxis, at this point I think there's roughly 2% chance of you actually reading this, but you seem to share with a lot of other new users a common misconception about Wikipedia admins. You should read WP:NOBIGDEAL (and the rest of that section). Wikipedia admins (AKA "mop-holders") are not powerful authority figures who control the project like people with the same title on various other websites -- they are normal editors who hold certain special tools, some of which require them to have a certain amount of trust divested in them. ANI threads only need be closed by admins if those admins unilaterally resolve the issue by blocking someone, deleting a page, or the like. By saying that only an admin should be allowed close this thread, without opening a subthread with a specific remedy proposal, you are (inadvertently) saying that the thread should not be closed unless you or Amaury is blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hijiri88: Though I doubt it's what you meant, all of us do know a few admins here and there who have been divested of trust, if not their tools. EEng 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pyxis, at this point I think there's roughly 2% chance of you actually reading this, but you seem to share with a lot of other new users a common misconception about Wikipedia admins. You should read WP:NOBIGDEAL (and the rest of that section). Wikipedia admins (AKA "mop-holders") are not powerful authority figures who control the project like people with the same title on various other websites -- they are normal editors who hold certain special tools, some of which require them to have a certain amount of trust divested in them. ANI threads only need be closed by admins if those admins unilaterally resolve the issue by blocking someone, deleting a page, or the like. By saying that only an admin should be allowed close this thread, without opening a subthread with a specific remedy proposal, you are (inadvertently) saying that the thread should not be closed unless you or Amaury is blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri 88: Nope, not that one. The incorrect and proved-false accusation of stalking. And Pyxis has control over their own talk page - if they don't want you there, and want to keep the discussion in one thread instead of having you divert away from the attention of admins by starting a new thread, they are entirely within their rights to do so. -- AlexTW 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, fine. You didn't stalk me. You showed up to a discussion in which you weren't involved, and in which I had made only a few passing remarks, just to harangue me. Normally, when someone sends you a canvassing message like that, you should just tell them to buzz off. As I have already explained to her on her talk page, her choosing to notify you specifically out of the dozen or so users I "alluded to" was clearly not done in good faith. It was canvassing, and you should have either ignored it or told her off for it. I didn't show up on ANI to request that you be blocked, or anything of the sort, and there was no obligation on my part or that of anyone else to "notify" you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri 88: Nope, not that one. The incorrect and proved-false accusation of stalking. And Pyxis has control over their own talk page - if they don't want you there, and want to keep the discussion in one thread instead of having you divert away from the attention of admins by starting a new thread, they are entirely within their rights to do so. -- AlexTW 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is going nowhere fast. So allow me to throw in my two cents. Pyxis Solitary, Amaury and IJBall, if you still have a problem with the sources in the article take it to the article's Talk page or, if you feel it's more serious than that, go to WP:DRN. I honestly don't think this is a matter for this board. As Softlavender said earlier "Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled". Pyxis Solitary shouldn't have made the puppetry accusation, yes, but accusing her of battleground behaviour and personal attacks is rather far fetched too. Can we move on? And to AlexTheWhovian and Hijiri88: I don't think this thread is the place for the two of you to fight things out. Kind regards, and with all due respect, Yintan 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- As I told you before, this has nothing to do with the sources, which are fine now, it has to do with WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. It was not IJBall's responsibility to attach the sources, it was Pyxis'. It was well within IJBall's rights to remove unsourced material and rather than come to IJBall's talk page to complain, they should have just added a source, like they did, and nothing more, accepting that they were wrong and moving on. Additionally, and this is the bigger issue, them accusing us of sockpuppetry without any evidence is a personal attack which editors can be blocked for. Their aggressive and battleground behavior also doesn't help, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to say. Having a quick search through ANI shows that isn't the first time there have been issues regarding their behavior in general, not specifically the battleground aspect—see here and here—and whether or not they actually know their behavior is wrong and they legitimately think they are always right, I don't know. But something needs to be done about their behavior as it is not acceptable. Their messages here and on IJBall's talk page speak a great volume on their behavior, and there are three editors who agree, one of them essentially being neutral as they weren't even involved with the discussion on IJBall's talk page or the edits on the article in question. The fact that they can't even admit that they at least crossed a line and apologize is very concerning. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yintan: FTR, I stopped having a problem the minute Pyxis referenced the info in the episodes table. I don't know why Pyxis came to my Talk page after that fact, and why they persisted even after I explained my viewpoint (which is backed by WP:BURDEN, FWIW). This can be closed, as long as Pyxis realizes that they need to dial down their own behavior, because Amaury is not the only editor that has found their behavior WP:BATTLEGROUND-y lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If you prefer to go round in circles and endlessly repeat yourself instead of moving forward, so be it. Yintan 21:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yintan: It's called reinstating the opening points. But if you prefer to just ignore all the valid points raised here by three established editors and act like Pyxis did nothing wrong at all, then wow. Basically, we should let them get away with their behavior and nothing should be done is what's being implied. I'm done here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I think you'll find I've adressed all the points you mentioned earlier in this thread. I do question their validity, yes, and if you don't like that, fine. Also, I never said, nor implied, that "Pyxis did nothing wrong at all". If that's what you think you've read then "wow" indeed. Cheers, Yintan 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yintan: It's called reinstating the opening points. But if you prefer to just ignore all the valid points raised here by three established editors and act like Pyxis did nothing wrong at all, then wow. Basically, we should let them get away with their behavior and nothing should be done is what's being implied. I'm done here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Good idea, let's close this thing. Yintan 21:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If you prefer to go round in circles and endlessly repeat yourself instead of moving forward, so be it. Yintan 21:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Personal insult
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attitude_Era&diff=prev&oldid=788319559
oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989talk 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989talk 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nickag989 has already been warned several times for this single occurrence, so let's just close this topic and move on. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other. TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- 124.106.141.235, he already has been warned and has apologized to you. I don't know what more you're hoping for. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why was there no WP:Boomerang discussion here. The horrific insult of "idiot" was preceded by the edit comment of the complainant here of "edgy"? are we 14?. Is it not possible that the IP editor, who has since vanished, and seemed to know far too much process to not be an experienced Wikipedian, was in fact an idiot, and that User:Nickag989 nailed it? Nfitz (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Continued battleground mentality of Joefromrandb
Joefromrandb has been blocked twice on June this year for battleground and incivility. Today he reverted the redirect, done by the AFD closing user[11] and after that when he got reverted on the article, he reverted the entire AFD closure[12] and again reverted the redirect.[13] His edit summaries on two of those edits are indeed not civil.
Why he didn't opened a request on WP:AN instead, or consult the AFD closing user on their talk page? I am also not seeing if he ever edited the article[14] or the AFD[15], I am that's why wondering if he is doing this just for starting a fight.
Other than that, I am seeing that one other user[16] also complained on his talk page regarding his edit warring on The pot calling the kettle black, and here's his response to it.[17] Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment by closer--Hi all, I'm the one who closed the AFD. While I am indeed not an admin, I have closed many AFDs over the years as a NAC. I weighed the arguments of those in the discussion who opined that the content of the article, for numerous reasons, did not warrant it's own article and that the content in the article at present was troublesome, specifically, had serious issues with neutrality, and the quality of sources. Some opined that some of the content in the article should be included in the target article suggested, and recommended a selective merge. Weighing all these comments, I closed the AFD as a redirect, recommending the selective merge suggested by some be done from the history. If my closure is disagreed with on the basis that my assessment of the consensus is incorrect, then I accept that (it has been some time since I have closed an AFD). I'm not overly phased either way. I assessed the consensus of the discussion as I saw it and closed accordingly. If an admin believes it should be overturned, so be it. Steven Crossin 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--The AFD page being on my watchlist and observing the seq. of edits; I warned the editor moments before the ANI thread was opened.I am of no-opinion as to the continued behaviour of the user.And this is prob. suitable for WP:AN.IMHO, the AfD was well-closed!Winged Blades Godric 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is going to be unanimous support for the AFD closure anyway, but given two recent blocks hardly 3 weeks ago for same kind of conduct (I have now mentioned on my original post), there is clear problem with the conduct of the user. Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've had my differences with Joe in the past, but in his defense, I don't think that was an appropriate NAC. That AfD should have been closed by an admin. Joe probably went a little too far with his reverting, but this isn't as cut–and–dried as the OP claims. Also, contrary to what the OP says, in my opinion Joe's revert edit summaries were not uncivil. Lepricavark (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- "ridiculous non-admin supervote"[18] is not civil. Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- The word "ridiculous" may be pushing the boundaries of civility, but he only used that word in one of his edit summaries, not two. At the very least, you are overstating the incivility. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- "ridiculous non-admin supervote"[18] is not civil. Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Ridiculous non-admin supervote" is also not INCIVIL. The non-admin is true and the supervote is true. On whether it is ridiculous, honest people may differ. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it is uncivil and also nonsensical because closure was entirely policy based, there is no "supervote" since the closing user has no contributions on the article or any related article. Joe sure attempted to WP:GAME the system there, but it just doesn't work all time. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: it is uncivil to use the term "ridiculous", but it is ok to use the term "nonsensical". Do I understand you correctly? Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- That appears to be the gist of it. I find the complaint to be specious. (Whoops, I guess I just did it, didn't I?) Carrite (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just like you wrongfully found closure to be a supervote? Enough people seem to be agreeing though that he caused disruption, including you on your previous comment. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Enough people seem to be agreeing that Joe's behavior was really not all that bad. Mind you, these are people with far more experience and clue than you have. You're starting to display some WP:IDHT behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just like you wrongfully found closure to be a supervote? Enough people seem to be agreeing though that he caused disruption, including you on your previous comment. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- You shall be banished to the stocks for your criticism of this frivolous complaint... oops. Lepricavark (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Capitals00 is the one trying to game the system–excuse me; WP:GAME the system, with this report, chock full of psychological projection and passive aggression. At least he or she realizes it doesn't work all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that you are on a thin ice here with your apparent WP:CIR issues. People are agreeing that you are being disruptive. Whether you take message from ANI complaints or not, we all know, but it will be treated as caution anyway. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- He's not on as thin of ice as you seem to think he is. Frankly, you are in no position to be making CIR accusations, which could be perceived as uncivil and inflammatory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be talking about some other guy then, not the one who had 2 blocks for battleground mentality last month and multiple users are still highlighting the evident disruption after the block. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- What about the multiple users who strongly agree that a block is not warranted at this time? Lepricavark (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be talking about some other guy then, not the one who had 2 blocks for battleground mentality last month and multiple users are still highlighting the evident disruption after the block. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- He's not on as thin of ice as you seem to think he is. Frankly, you are in no position to be making CIR accusations, which could be perceived as uncivil and inflammatory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that you are on a thin ice here with your apparent WP:CIR issues. People are agreeing that you are being disruptive. Whether you take message from ANI complaints or not, we all know, but it will be treated as caution anyway. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Capitals00 is the one trying to game the system–excuse me; WP:GAME the system, with this report, chock full of psychological projection and passive aggression. At least he or she realizes it doesn't work all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- That appears to be the gist of it. I find the complaint to be specious. (Whoops, I guess I just did it, didn't I?) Carrite (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: it is uncivil to use the term "ridiculous", but it is ok to use the term "nonsensical". Do I understand you correctly? Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it is uncivil and also nonsensical because closure was entirely policy based, there is no "supervote" since the closing user has no contributions on the article or any related article. Joe sure attempted to WP:GAME the system there, but it just doesn't work all time. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Ridiculous non-admin supervote" is also not INCIVIL. The non-admin is true and the supervote is true. On whether it is ridiculous, honest people may differ. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment by uninvolved editor— I don't know if it's proper for me to bring "evidence" here, but I saw this editor unilaterally revert another close without discussion just two days ago: Special:Diff/788018906. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: indef block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Joefromrandb has been blocked 8 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore propose an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support, as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Apart from all that I have already said above, comments like these[19][20] that not only distracts users from discussing content but also misrepresents the position of next editors are a part of WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as noted above, I've had my differences with Joe. What has happened here, however, does not warrant an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: It seems you haven't checked his recent edit history or seen the other diffs I provided. Anyway, I can provide a few more here. He was blocked for a week for calling people a troll[21], he came off from a 1 week block on 21 June and started calling people a troll again and again,[22][23][24] while violating 3RR.[25][26][27] Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- My position is that none of these recent incidents, individually or collectively, rise to the level of an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Capitals00, you may want to strike your allegation that I "broke 3RR", because it's demonstrably false. I'll AGF that you just made a mistake, and will strike it out with all due expediency. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- According to the diffs you have provided, he did not violate 3RR. Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to help you. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- We are not basing the proposal on "what has happened here". We are basing it on nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence. He has clearly crossed into net negative. If you want more evidence, that can be provided. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Its not minor when disruption is long term. Look the entire complaint as well as diffs provided by me and other editors regarding Joe's conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: It seems you haven't checked his recent edit history or seen the other diffs I provided. Anyway, I can provide a few more here. He was blocked for a week for calling people a troll[21], he came off from a 1 week block on 21 June and started calling people a troll again and again,[22][23][24] while violating 3RR.[25][26][27] Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support, although I'm not sure I have the right, being an 'injured party' and not an administrator. Looking at the pattern of blocks, the majority were in 2013 and only renewed this year. The sarcasm displayed on the user's talk page certainly indicates that a one week ban is not regarded as anything more than a negligible slap on the wrist. However, I'd be inclined to suggest a shorter block as a counterproposal and only proceeding to indef if there is a resumption of such behaviour after that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I invite everyone to have a look at Talk:The pot calling the kettle black, where this user suggested, among other things, that I "confine myself to the Simple English Wikipedia". My response to him or her was quite restrained. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - block. Reverting the close of a non-administrator ain't a firing offense. Why non-administrators are permitted to close AfDs is a mystery and they are definitely NOT supposed to be closing controversial AfDs. As Joe notes, doing so is a form of supervoting. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for WP:CIR issues, it is more than apparent that since after coming off his 24 hour and a one week block last month he is carrying out same conduct on multiple occasions. You can start an RFC on Wikipedia_talk:Closing discussions if you don't agree with the rules of closing discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you had agreed with the rules of closing discussion you would be challenging it on WP:AN rather than edit warring over the close. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for WP:CIR issues, it is more than apparent that since after coming off his 24 hour and a one week block last month he is carrying out same conduct on multiple occasions. You can start an RFC on Wikipedia_talk:Closing discussions if you don't agree with the rules of closing discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Indef is asking too much for fighting against a contentious close. While I don't think the close was completely unreasonable, I agree with Carrite that controversial AFDs should be left to admins, and generally are, which tends to prevent some of these issues. The authority for this is listed [28] here, not on some talk page. That doesn't excuse Joefromrandb behavior, but an admin closer is typically better equipped to deal with problems that arise from controversial closes, via having the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as well. While I stand by the way I closed the AFD, as weighing the arguments in the AFD this is the consensus I found (and if an admin disagrees with the outcome, I am perfectly happy for them to revert my close - I'm human, and I don't claim to be all-knowing). I didn't think much of the comment of the user who reverted the close and don't think it justifies an indef. While I disagree that purely because I am not an administrator, it makes my closure a supervote, I realise everyone may not see it this way. I saw an old AFD. I reviewed it and found a consensus, and closed it. Some disagree. That's fine by me. I'm not really that active here anymore. But I don't think any blocks are needed. here. Steven Crossin 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think his total contribution (as of say the past year) has crossed into net-negative territory. Ethanbas (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. See his talk for reasons, yes, over years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
- Oppose - Sorry but indef is IMHO overkill, I also agree with Carrite, Dennis and Gerda - The AFD shouldn't of been closed by a non-admin, That being said I don't agree with how Joe did things (He should've gone to DRV) but all that being said there wasn't any uncivil or snarky remarks and personally I'm not seeing any battleground mentality so blocking as a whole would be rather pointless and this ANI thread as a whole is pointless. –Davey2010Talk 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Deletion review? Not WP:DRV but WP:AN, article was not deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Deletion review is for deletion discussions and not for those articles that can be accessed through the history by any user, WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Where does it say that on WP:DELREV? Maybe it's there, but I don't see it. Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions supports what I am saying. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following:
if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly
. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)- Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN. Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.). Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on WP:DRV that concerned a Afd discussion that resulted in redirect? WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- The page calls itself an essay. That's not merely my personal opinion. And I'm not going to find anything for you. I'm not sure what your second sentence was supposed to mean, but your claim that I "had a hard time learning English" was certainly more uncivil than Joefromrandb's edit summaries that you were complaining about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on WP:DRV that concerned a Afd discussion that resulted in redirect? WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.). Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN. Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following:
- Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions supports what I am saying. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Where does it say that on WP:DELREV? Maybe it's there, but I don't see it. Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Deletion review is for deletion discussions and not for those articles that can be accessed through the history by any user, WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Deletion review? Not WP:DRV but WP:AN, article was not deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, now I am. The close clearly ran afoul of both deletion policy and NAC guidelines, but I'll save the details for deletion review. I was reverted at the article in question by User:Razer2115, who suggested "deletion review, reopening the AfD, or ANI". I chose suggestion number-two. It's truly comical how Capitals00 is playing the role of the injured party here, when he or she was at the very least, my counterpart in this edit/revert-war. That's the kind of shit that I truly can't stand. Thank you, Carrite, for explaining this. I learned something here, despite the best efforts of some of the drama-seekers. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[29] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Lol. And I suppose you think that was a civil comment. Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[29] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Things weren't done as well as they could have been, but even the closer isn't unhappy about being reverted - and I don't think any block is called for here, certainly not an indefinite one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose--Checking his contribs., somehow this user don't like the idea of WP:NAC(albeit, even on RFC's!) but as many have observed, his net contributions are yet to veer into the negative.An indef is thus an over-kill.Winged Blades Godric 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose -- per Carrite, above. This is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which is hugely perdicable when one bears in mind this particular nominator. I dread to think what Softlavender would've done with the bit, something that they so desperately crave. CassiantoTalk 09:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose -- per Zeb, above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose a severe case of overuse of a sledgehammer here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
AFD review requested
Hi all. Just letting you know I have self-requested that my close be reviewed and either overturned or endorsed - here. Thanks. Steven Crossin 02:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks from ContraVentum
First and foremost, before diving into the problem, I would like to say that @Abequinn14: has recommended that we take this situation to the Administrators' noticeboard. [30] Due to user:ContraVentum clear WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that has currently led him to receive a 48 hour block, in which he violated WP:1RR which is enforced for any articles related to the Syrian Civil War.
Now with that out of the way, the problem began on June 21 at the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article where user:ContraVenum falsely claims that a consensus was reached for WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and information on a Template that he and his friends created to replace the info box which was a clear violation of WP:T3 (An admin had taken down the template for WP:T3 violation) . [31] He then continues his stubborn behavior of not wanting to take this issue to the talk page and reverts my edit [32] claiming that he updated the info box, [33] in order to avoid at that time a WP:1RR. I then go and ask him in one of the edit summaries to lets take this to the Talk Page in order for us to avoid an unnecessary edit war. [34] In which, an administrator monitoring the situation increases the page protection to only administrator use for the next 7 days. [35] Which was perfect for us to hash out this issue, but he was no where to be found during that timespan. An as soon as the 7 days administrator protection wore off he goes and does three reverts in a span of 24 hours [36] [37] [38]. During that time he starts a new topic of discussion calling it (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) which was a clear personal attack in order to tarnish my good name. Even though he did all of this I participated in the discussion and debate until he clearly started to belittle, and degrade me as a person.[39] [40] I went and reported his behavior and clear violation of WP:1RR to user:Bbb23 in which he agreed that it was deserving of a block for 48 hours. [41] An now in this span of his 48 hour block another administrator has already acknowledged that the title of the topic of discussion he created (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) was a clear personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and changes the title too (Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org) . [42] Now, I'm hoping as his block ends that he can be blocked from editing indefinitely from this topic as he as not provided anything better or beneficial to the article and for the last month he has vandalized the info box with biased inaccurate sources and has shown no effort in cooperating with other editors. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Skip your personal attacks on me and get to the core issue / the actual dispute in this long edit war. The matter is that Chilicheese22 has been mass deleting reliable sources, essentially reducing the article from this version [43] to this version [44], i.e. among other things most drastically deleting a whole separate warring faction in the infobox, even though summarizing the reliable sources would require having to list said faction. There even exists a separate article with references itself about the Southern Transitional Council, which CC22 is very insisting on removing from the infobox. I have never got an actual rational explanation from CC22 about what is wrong with the sources used, for instance sources such as criticalthreats.org and alaraby.co.uk, and yes, even The Guardian. The furthest I've come with him in getting an actual explanation is him stating that all sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE". Then I try to make him account for why the sources are as bad as he claims them to be (see talk here), but I'm met with a slurry of ad hominem and guilt by association argumentation, meanwhile CC22 never actually makes a rationale for every single source he has deleted (see the talk again). This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and obstructing the consensus process by CC22 repeatedly reverting every insert that I do, never substantiating his actions, and laying the burden of accounting for the use of every WP:RS onto me, in order to evade explaining rationally what is his problem with stated sources. CC22, you could as well delete 100% of the article and then ask me to type a full rationale for every single one of the 319 refs of the article as to permit using them - but of course Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You must account for your drastical deletions to the article.
- So, for the admins reading this, please consider the mass deletions in the article. Essentially, I'm annoyed that Chilicheese22 is doing these deletions, while never offering an actual explanation of why every source is bad as he claims them all to be. If CC22 is unable to account for his claims, I want CC22 to stop the deletions, and if he does not, I would like sanctions placed onto him. These are my wishes. --ContraVentum (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [45] [46] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [47]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh... Abequinn14 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Basically I asked you Chilicheese22 now and have been asking you 1000 times... why should criticalthreats.org, alaraby.co.uk, the Guardian etc. be deleted? I'm simply summarizing those sources, period. Regardless of what you believe I might have of "agendas". By your massive deletions in the infobox, you're denying the existence of the 1) Southern Transitional Council, 2) the al-Hizam Brigade, 3) the Hadhrami Elite Forces, 4) the recent split between Southern Movement and Hadi government, 5) the existence of the Hadramout Tribal Council, 6) the support of the Hadi Government by 6a) Egypt, 6b) Somalia, 6c) Djibouti and 6d) Eritrea, and 7) the support of the STC by UAE. This is all well-sourced information. CARE to elaborate on a reasonable motive of such deletions?? No you don't. Instead you're filling me and everybody else with horseshit in diarrhoea-mode. It's ridiculous you're wasting my time arguing endlessly about this. I convince myself that you must be taking the piss on me, dragging me through long-standing edit wars and now the immense Wikipedia bureaucracy in my attempts to save the article from your damaging actions. So you can just keep the article brutalized by your erasures, a shame for the Yemeni Civil War article but I don't have further desire to discuss with complete morons in order to make consensus/compromises. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- For admins: Please close this thread. I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic, nor contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban. If this is the kind of trash people one has to deal with, then this is not a place for me. Chilicheese22 can keep his way, and everybody will be happy, yay.. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [48] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- :::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [49] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I feel like this account (User:ContraVentum) just does not much more than just harass. It's just a troll, just rebutting his useless edits with harassment. An indef block is needed. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Abequinn14: Totally agree, couldn't have said better myself and he is just adding more evidence against himself through his talk page. Anyone that opposes should just go and check his talk page [50]. Honestly he is continuing to expose himself Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- :::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [49] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [48] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [45] [46] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [47]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Please do not do anything to encourage accusations of WP:ADMINSHOP, Chilicheese22- edits like [51], [52], and [53] step close to it, to say the least. At least while this discussion is in progress. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok, I have one question how is this [54] WP:ADMINSHOP when I was just asking a question. An the other two I apologize for (Even though this one was more of me questioning the length of the block [55] I apologize for this one if any offence was takin) as you could see it was in the heat of the moment when I was being insulted. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- 'Please do not do anything to encourage accusations' is the point. — fortunavelut luna 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Understood and appreciate that. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
'If any admin @Black Kite: @EEng: @Boing! said Zebedee: can take a look at the situation that has transpired and look at the rant that User ContraVentum had posted in his talk page (already deleted it, please check edit history of the talk page [56]) and give your opinion on the proposal down below as there is clear support for an indefinite block against this editor, who has done nothing, but vandalize the article, show the inability to work with others, and disrespect other editors who have differing opinions from him'.' Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: indef block & Topic Ban
ContraVenum (This includes his other account 176.23.1.95 admits this is his account here [57]) has shown the inability to work with others and has shown his true colors when not being able to reach a consensus with people that defer with his opinion. He has received his second 48 hour block in a week and I am proposing that he receives an indefinite block until he can prove to us that he has changed, by apologizing to me for his derogatory terms and promising that when adding large amounts of information he will take it first to the talk page. Also, since he has proved that has not done anything beneficial to articles related to the Syrian Civil War (i.e. Yemeni Civil War) he can never be allowed to edit them.
- Support, as nominator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Support, it should prevent his useless edits. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support block, not TBAN Agreeing with Hijiri 88. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Way too extreme for a single uncivil remark. I haven't read the above (multiple!) walls of text, and I doubt any admins will, but I did see the bit about how this indef block proposal was made specifically because CV is refusing to apologize for calling the OP "a trash human". Present evidence of long-term disruption, in a form people are likely to read, or present a more reasonable proposal. Making a single WP:DICK comment normally results in a short block, which User:EdJohnston had already administered before Abequinn's !vote above.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've been compared to Hitler because my view of the Book of Genesis is more in-line with that of the Jewish Publication Society and Christine Hayes than that of some Christians in the American Deep South. And I'm pretty sure some bona fide neo-Nazis have called me "degenerate scum" before. (I helped crack some Nazi dog-whistle codes back during the upsurge in fascism on English Wikipedia last fall, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked about me that way on their off-wiki fora.) A lot of the time people just seem to be building on standard epithets rather than coming up with anything new, honestly. I mean, the same user who compared me to Hitler has also called me a bunch of homophobic epithets, but you would think with their obsession with sex they could come up with something more interesting than "fag". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support as one of the "honorless scum" Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Reading through the editor's rant on his talk page was enough for me to conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support - After reading through the same rant that TheGracefulSlick read, I can conclude that they aren't here to build the encyclopedia. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 22:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support block, not redundant/pointless TBAN I too have now read the rant referred to above (permalink) and agree with the above assessments. I would say, though, that NOTHERE users don't need to be TBANned; that would just clog up the logs at WP:RESTRICT. In the event that he apologizes and is given the WP:OFFER, then a ban can be proposed as part of the terms of said offer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request
This is essentially a self-report:
There has been an ongoing discussion on several Wikipedia pages about the way fact that I quickly went to WP:ANI after issuing a final warning on Henia Perlman's talk page, following a pattern of adding content to The Holocaust or a few related articles that were reverted because they were not in a form ready to be posted to the article or it was not cited at all or not properly. The user has mentioned that she is challenged by some of the technical formatting in Wikipedia -- and this has been an ongoing theme, so I am posting this so that this can be sorted out.
As I understand it, the user is concerned that I issued the block report on this incident page very soon after she posted content… and just before she took me up upon my offer to format the citations. As I understand, her issue is that 1) it went very fast and 2) she would have preferred that it went to WP:Mediation, per one of her latest postings on this - item #1. She has said that she feels I should be investigated about:
- Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
- Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?
User talk:Henia Perlman#The block is a summary (with diffs) of the warnings and activity that resulted in me posting a request to block on June 19th, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request block of User:Henia Perlman. The ongoing editing issues are discussed throughout Talk:The Holocaust, but the specific edit in question is discussed here and here, regarding the final edits: this edit (08:43, June 19, 2017 ct), which I reverted (09:34, June 19, 2017 ct), and this edit (10:51, June 19, 2017 ct), which I reverted a few minutes after it was made here (10:53, June 19, 2017 ct).
As a side note, she has not been performing edits since the 31-hour block, and is instead posting proposals for edits on the article talk page.
Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea even what's being requested here, but please, please can we not have this end again with a block of an intelligent, good-faith editor who's having trouble learning her way around? (Later: After looking around a bit more, it does seem like Henia Perlman is preoccupied with vindication in the matter of her prior block, or something, and that never ends well. Our focus here should be on getting her to realize that that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now, and she should just forget about it.) EEng 01:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- EEng#s, I am absolutely not asking for a block, nor any sanction against Henia. I am doing a self-report to see if there's something I did wrong. Is self-report the wrong term? Again, it is to determine:
- Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
- Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?
- It seems that she needs to have that done to move on. Any suggestions to help resolve this are greatly appreciated! I haven't been successful in my attempts to try to move this on - like this. I am stumped. I am lost. I feel bad and I don't know what to do to move this on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to an editor who is having trouble learning their way around, but that isn't why this block was imposed. There was a very clear proposal under discussion at AN/I regarding a voluntary Article Ban. There has been a lot of good faith extended and assumed, but the discussion at AN/I wasn't ambiguous — the editing at the Holocaust article has been disruptive, and it is not a good article to learn on. I don't think CaroleHenson acted wrongly here. To help Henia, I will say that any discussion at AN/I is serious, and the community worked out a voluntary article ban proposal as an alternative to indefinitely blocking a new editor. We want Henia to have an opportunity to get used to how things work here, but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't serious. If an admin issues you a final warning, and there is an open discussion at AN/I about a voluntary article ban, and you agree to it, and then edit the article you will get blocked. That's how you learn. Asking for justice against our admins (who are much beloved) at AN/I usually doesn't end well, so the sooner we move on from this, the better for Henia. Seraphim System (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, EEng.
- If someone doesn't mind taking a look at the questions, that would be great. I think the issue was that she didn't feel she should be blocked for making edits that were not meant to be unhelpful and that there should be another official remedy other than moving to blocking if the edits were not meant to be disruptive.
- Regarding Mediation, my understanding is that is for content disputes - to resolve disputes regarding specific language in an article... which is not the issue here.
- This issue seems to fall into the category of conduct disputes - and the page discusses the use of templates (which I did) and WP:ANI. Perhaps, I could have posted a message on the ANI requesting assistance, rather than requesting a block in cases like this. It would truly be helpful to get input about whether there was another approach I could have taken. That was my intention for the posting, because I think answering the questions will help both Henia and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't get an edit conflict and my posting was made on top of Seraphim System's comment... which appears to answer the questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I pretty much bowed out of it after Henia posted a rambling message on my talk page saying that other editors at The Holocaust "see [her] as a threat". I replied to her, offering what I hoped were helpful words. I was pretty frank, though. My advice hadn't seemed to be having a positive effect, and she had appeared to be grasping at straws since her block, distrustful of people (such as CaroleHenson) who had gone out of their way to help her and shopping around in some sort of futile quest for...I don't know what. Vindication? It didn't make sense to me, and I had begun to dread logging in for fear of finding that more drama awaited me. I really don't have anything else to offer, helpful or otherwise. Henia will either move on from her block and make a concerted effort to become a competent Wikipedia editor or she won't. Calling for investigations isn't productive. Does anyone really have time for this?
- I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Heartfelt agreement with that word or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I was the admin who gave the 31 hour block originally to Henia regarding their editing on The Holocaust, after multiple editors, admins and non-admins, advised her to stop. I feel like a lot of editors have gone out of their way to try to help Henia, some offering mentoring which they seems to take up, but have fault with at the same time. Henia's last rather lengthy post on my talk page here: [58] brings up a number of these same concerns that CaroleHenson mentioned. Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. Carole, you've had the patience of a saint in helping her, and I don't see that you've done anything remotely wrong. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone that contributed to this issue. As I understand it, I followed the processes correctly, which means that in addition to discussion on talk pages, I properly used templates to warn about the issue on her talk page, and followed the block policy correctly. As I summarized (and no one disagreed), Mediation is for content disputes and this was a conduct dispute, so mediation is not the proper venue for these kinds of issues. To this point, I have not heard of alternative strategies.
- As an FYI, I am not an administrator, but I am a seasoned editor and NewPages reviewer.
- I totally agree with EEng that
it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now
and RickinBaltimore thatHenia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out.
(Her latest mentor added a post several days ago to Henia on their talk page.) There are many other nice and encouraging comments that have been made and I am happy to summarize them on Henia's talk page.
- EEng#s, Is this sufficient input? Is there anything else that is needed to resolve this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin either, but because of my nobly gracious bearing I'm often mistaken for one. You showed great patience in an extremely frustrating situation. While it's always possible to say, "Well, you could have done this or that as well, before going to ANI", you did nothing wrong. EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Henia Perlman posted the following at RickinBaltimore's page:
- "Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation." You wrote: "My reason for the block was that Henia was continuing to make the same edits that they were repeatedly told by multiple editors (including an admin) not to make."
- Henia Perlman posted the following at RickinBaltimore's page:
- Please, specify
- 1) "the same edits",
- 2) the name of the admin who repeatedly told me not to do the same edit,
- 3)why was I guilty of socking.
- Thank You.
- Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- So, I posted it here for continuity of discussion - and hopefully to resolve this once and for all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Henia Perlman:
- 1) "The same edits" means that you continued to add content that was not ready for the article and was not properly cited. See the warnings on your talk page, for instance.
- 2) Ealdgyth is an admin
- 3) Socking refers to WP:Sockpuppetry, which was discussed at User_talk:RickinBaltimore#Rachelle/Henia..... You used two different accounts, the Rachelle Perlman account and the Henia Perlman account after you were blocked. We've been all through that - you explained it had something to do with a computer issue - and now that you're using just one account, we're good on that count as long as you just use one account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am asking RickinBaltimore to answer my questions.
- Because of my physical disabilities, I cannot interact with everybody.
- Thank you.
- Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Henia, I want to apologize for a delay in getting back to you. Weekends are a very slow time for me on Wikipedia, as I'm busy with family stuff, and it's hard for me to jump on frequently. Carole did however summarize exactly what I was going to respond with. The block was originally for your conduct with disregarding editors asking you to use sourcing, and this was after multiple warnings and requests to not do so. As Carole stated, Ealdgyth is an admin, and they explicitly told you that you needed to work with the community on this issue. As for the multiple accounts, I was perfectly OK with your explanation on what happened, and I know you're just using this account now. I'm not going to be monitoring this or my talk page much today or tomorrow, since I'll be busy, but anyone here can assist you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Advice to keep a distance defied by editor Tenebrae
On 2 February 2017, Tenebrae and I were advised to "avoid each other".
Since then, I am the one who has respected this advice. The same cannot be said of him:
- On February 21, 2017: he changed my edits.
- On February 22, 2017: he reverted my edits.
- On March 11, 2017: he replied to my comment in the article's talk page. (I did not respond.)
On April 6, 2017, Tenebrae was reminded by another editor of the ANI advice and warned about staying away from me.
- The latest: on July 4, 2017, Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages.
There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. My edits can be avoided by Tenebrae. I know there are some who will interpret the ANI advice as merely a "suggestion" and dismiss my bringing attention to this situation as "she doesn't like this editor" ... and ignore the bigger picture, which is: what's the point of advising two editors to stay away from each other if one of them doesn't? The ANI advice ends with: "the best way forward...and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."
I am asking Admins to walk the talk. I am asking for the ANI advice to be enforced. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding the following:
- On February 22, 2017: he left me a message on the article's Talk page @ 03:24 about an editing preference not found in MOS:FILM. (I did not respond.)
- On February 22, 2017: he undid my edit in MOSFILM ... which he then self-reverted @ 04:18,.
- On March 11, 2017: he changed content back to the edit made by an IP-only editor that I had reverted.
And of greater significance:
- On 23 February 2017: he filed a false-accusation ANI against me.
Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??--Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- For those reading this ^ comment for the first time: it was reposted below, near end of the thread. You'll find my response there. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose topic ban on Tenebrae from the article Carol (film). This is clear stalking and harassment, which began 6 months ago. Tenebrae, stay away from Pyxis Solitary or you will be hit with a one-way IBan or worse. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Needs more evidence, preliminarily opposed to TBAN That "advice" was issued in a non-admin, heavily-INVOLVED closure by a user who was themselves no doubt partly responsible for there being "no consensus [...] and the only activity in the thread for a week [being a non-constructive two-way back-and-forth]", since they have a somewhat notorious penchant for TLDR walls of text, which in your case appears to have (inadvertently) filibustered the discussion. Such advice is not enforceable on its face, and if there has been hounding going on for the intervening five months the evidence above is extremely meager.
- Softlavender's proposed TBAN would miss the point anyway, because, if the problem is "hounding" rather than a content-based dispute (during which, again, the last ANI thread didn't reach a consensus on whether one or the other had violated any policies), the hounding would just continue on a different article. If Tenebrae is right on the substance, then if anyone should be TBANned it is not them. I don't know if they are right or wrong, as I haven't checked, but Pyxis Solitary hasn't said anything on that one way or the other, just saying that Tenebrae has violated non-binding advice issued by someone who probably shouldn't be issuing that kind of advice given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding.
- Now, if hounding, however slow-motion, has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis Solitary on the article Carol (film), making up his own "rules" and insisting an inexperienced newbie abide by the non-existent rules, since six months ago; that is demonstrable. The fact that he continued to do that despite the well-reasoned advice and close of that ANI, and continued doing so just now, is proof that he is continuing to harass Pyxis Solitary for no good reason. Since the harassment has been confined to that article, a TBan on that article is the simplest solution which will cause the least sanctioning of the offender at present. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, Hijiri, your snipe "given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding" is clearly involved on your part (your quarrels with the party in question), so if anyone should recuse or should have recused themselves anywhere, it's you, here. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Declaration of bias
|
---|
|
- ^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making involved closures. But I don't even see that as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.)
- ^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no involvement here, in any way, shape or form. I had no involvement with the article or dispute in question and had never so much as seen the name of either editor before that ANI thread. I believe that even a casual reflection of that thread by literally any member of the Wikipedia community (other than you, Hijiri) will demonstrate that the entirety of my involvement in that discussion was as a manifestly uninvolved third party community member making every good faith effort possible to get the two parties to reconcile the matter amicably, or at least turn down the heat a little bit (neither was capable of even briefly discussing the other without recourse to inflammatory descriptions of the other's conduct and motives, and this went on for quite some time). For two weeks, the thread languished on ANI and almost not a single comment by anyone but the two parties slinging accusations, with me occasionally attempting to find some common understanding between them and encouraging them to try an RfC, arbitration, or some other community resolution process to the content dispute, since it was clear that no one in this forum saw behaviour that they were prepared to act upon.
- After almost a week without any movement on anything, both parties asked for the discussion to be closed and though I knew they were destined to come to a loggerheads again before too long, there was clearly nothing more to be done at ANI at that time and I obliged. Even then, I only acted after a week because no one else had closed the discussion and the only activity keeping it from getting auto-archived by the bot was one editor or the other trading a barb every other day, until both asked for a close (but then continued to bicker over who was actually asking for it...) Here, for the record, is the entirety of my comments in the close (which I marked it as a non-admin closure):
"At the behest of both parties, I am closing this. There has been no consensus as to whether canvassing took place and the only activity in the thread for a week has been the two parties trading broadsides as to who has more failed to assume good faith on the part of the other (which, if I am to be frank, makes both look something less than self-aware). Regardless, there seems to be no administrative purpose for keeping the thread open longer, especially in light of the fact that it is just encouraging both to entrench further.
- I have previously offered to administer an RfC on the content issue as a neutral third party and that offer stands. Said RfC will be broadly promoted in appropriate community spaces by me, to attempt a large turn-out to offset any lingering canvassing concerns and to keep as much of a buffer between Tenebrae and Pyxis Solitary as may be managed as the issue is debated. Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."
- Pretty neutral and uninvolved, I'd say. I didn't (and do not) favour either party to this dispute (I think both departed early from AGF in their difference of opinion and neither made much of an effort to find their way to to it at any point that I saw). My advice in the close was plainly just that: the best advice I felt I could give the parties moving forward, and I don't see any flaw in it; I advised them to avail themselves of our dispute resolution processes and (failing their doing that), I advised that they avoid eachother or at least kept their comments focused on the content/policy issues and to avoid speculating on eachother's motives. I certainly never phrased my comments as anything but advice, and I believe it would take a very inexperienced editor to see them as anything more binding than that.
- Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of that short thread, for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes WP:involved behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. Snow let's rap 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, by "involved" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, by "involved" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of that short thread, for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes WP:involved behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. Snow let's rap 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. Snow let's rap 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- The main point of such advice is surely the hope that editors it's directed at will take it on board and we won't have to implement any formal sanction. However as advice, it's clearly not binding so it can't be violated as such. This doesn't mean it's impossible to sanction someone partly as a result of advice. Harassment is a problem and it's possible someone could be sanctioned for it in some way, and any advice offered beforehand is likely to be considered when the community (or in those cases where it applies, an admin) considers sanctions to protect wikipedia, if they find there has been harassment. In this particular case, I don't think a block or community ban is likely. A formal iban could be considered, but I'd suggest you need more evidence. In particular, has there been anything else since March to now? Because if there's only this one edit involving you from then until now it sort of looks like Tenebrae belatedly got the message with only minor slipup. I'm reluctant to even call it that, since a single edit challenging you, if the edit was good, after about 4 months is IMO not necessarily a problem when there is no formal iban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? Does a noncompliance need to happen every month? Every-other-month? Is doing it periodically acceptable? Is it not enough that two editors are told to stay away from each other ... in an ANI closure ... but one of them doesn't? The word "avoid" means "keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, refrain from". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary:
Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance?
It depends what kind of enforcement you want. Technically, for the reasons I outlined above (non-admin, involved closure, explicitly stated as non-binding advice), the advice cannot be "enforced" to begin with, but assuming you want to propose some kind of new sanction, and use the fact that one user had earlier advised Tenebrae to step away as one piece of evidence, you have the following options:- If you want a mutual interaction ban, then you need to either get the Tenebrae's consent for a mutually voluntary ban (which is sometimes the easiest path if neither of you like each other and you would both rather build an encyclopedia) or demonstrate a pattern of harassment that has no reasonable policy basis. Whether or not you think your edits that Tenebrae reverted or challenged were good, Tenebrae did cite apparently rational, non-"I don't like you" reasons for doing so in all the diffs you linked above, so you have not demonstrated a pattern of harassment as of yet.
- If you want a one-way interaction ban ... well, I will tell you that the burden of proof would be much higher and you would probably not get what you want even with a tremendous amount of evidence of a long-term, consistent pattern of stalking. I have never seen a one-way IBAN imposed off the bat, and this recent discussion should tell you what the likely outcome would be.
- If you want a page ban or topic ban for Tenebrae, you need to demonstrate that their edits were unambiguously disruptive and/or were only made to get under your skin. Again, I've looked at the diffs above and that does not appear to be the case: if you think MOS:FILM or some such disagrees with his edits regarding italics, you should prove it, and his arguments against the use of the phrase "make love" in place of "have sex" seem fairly reasonable. Note that if you propose a PBAN or TBAN against someone based on their being consistently wrong on article content, and the evidence actually suggests you are the one who is wrong, you open yourself up to yourself being sanctioned instead. I am not saying I think you should be sanctioned (I honestly have no idea); I am just pointing this out as a caution.
- If you want Tenebrae to be blocked, the same criteria for immediately above apply, although I will tell you that editors normally aren't blocked solely for being wrong on content issues. You would need to demonstrate that Tenebrae was deliberately making up "rules" solely to harass you, that he violated our BLP policy, or some other serious issue like that.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary:
- Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? Does a noncompliance need to happen every month? Every-other-month? Is doing it periodically acceptable? Is it not enough that two editors are told to stay away from each other ... in an ANI closure ... but one of them doesn't? The word "avoid" means "keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, refrain from". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on Hijiri's behavior in this ANI regarding other editors (and his history in other ANIs) ... can this ANI please be addressed by WP Administrators?
Either a directive in an ANI closure has validity ... or it doesn't. Admins accepted the closure of the ANI by a non-Admin and the issuance of advice to both parties to avoid each other, with a warning that it was the "only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone". If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? I don't have any articles Tenebrae edits on my watchlist. I don't go out of my way to undo or tinker with Tenebrae's edits. I don't respond to his comments directed at me (regardless of how he interprets my non-response). Unless something is done now, this will continue to become a lose-lose situation for me — the only one of the two parties that took the ANI advice seriously. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not PA. "Extremely uncivil"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: As I said above (
At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner
), it's open to interpretation whether the above remark is a personal attack or just a WP:CIVIL violation. The former view is in line with the definition at WP:WIAPA:Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable].
Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)- In my opinion, asking for admin attention on the administrator's noticeboard is fine, period. No reason should be required, and perhaps they were in error for giving one, I don't know. If so, it's a minor distraction from the main issue of this thread. The user's reasonable question,
If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made?
was not addressed, and instead you seized on a perceived slight, interpreted it in the most negative light possible, and blew it out of proportion. Nobody has spit in your face in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)- My god this thread is like a black hole of drama. It keeps sucking new people in to cause more drama than before. Can I suggest that this be closed because absolutely nothing good is coming from it? --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose closure without admin attention to the OP's questions, which appear (to me) to be made in good faith. If "nothing good is coming from it," maybe that's because that attention has not yet been forthcoming. If an admin considers the OP's position and deems it without merit, that's as much due process as the OP should expect; but I would expect that much in their place. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that the person who opened the "black hole" be closed (or whatever WP calls it) from this topic? Because all you have to do is go up ^ 16 signed comments to see who set the drama into motion.
- I deserve to have my voice be heard by Administrators and my petition addressed by them without any one individual derailing the discussion. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- My god this thread is like a black hole of drama. It keeps sucking new people in to cause more drama than before. Can I suggest that this be closed because absolutely nothing good is coming from it? --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, asking for admin attention on the administrator's noticeboard is fine, period. No reason should be required, and perhaps they were in error for giving one, I don't know. If so, it's a minor distraction from the main issue of this thread. The user's reasonable question,
- @Mandruss: As I said above (
You are conflating advice with directive. I view a directive as a statement requiring some action or inaction, that if contravened will result in a sanction. "Advice", on the other hand, doesn't carry quite the same weight. It isn't meaningless — if someone is advised to stay away from someone else and they do not, they are less apt to get the default assumption of good faith if the interactions are problematic. The closing statement clearly used the word "advised" which is not a directive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary Unfortunately for you, I believe that S Philbrick is correct that the crux of your problem lies in the closer's choice to give advice rather than direct you and Tennebrae to stay away from each other. Of course, that choice was really the only option available to them, since the closer was a non-administrator, and really can't give out such direction because they don't have the wherewithal to back it up with a block if it's not followed - this is the downside of a NAC close of a interpersonal dispute on AN or AN/I. This highlights two things: (1) More admins need to get involved in closing that kind of thread on the administrator boards, and (2) Non-administrators should have second (and third) thoughts about making a close that requires admin capabilities to be enforced.As for the trouble between you and Tenebrae, I think that your only option is to re-open the issue as a request for a formal Interaction Ban between you, if you have the stomach for that, and if you think the evidence is sufficient to support such a request. Just be aware that the existence of this thread will have sapped much of the community's interest in pursuing this matter, and that the closing of the previous discussion may be an indication that no admin sees the problem as being as dire as you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- (1) If Administrators allow non-admins to close ANIs: they should stand behind what they allow non-admins to do. (2) If non-admins close ANIs with unenforceable "advice": Admins should edit the closure statement to state that the advice is "not enforceable". (3) As well-intentioned as non-admins may be, Administrators should be the only Wikipedians that close interpersonal ANIs. (4) If someone wants to be an Administrator: prepare to do more than just wear the hat. (5) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you've covered a lot of ground there, and only you can decide where you want to put your energy. If you want an IB with Tenebrae, or a Topic Ban for them, you've got to do what has to be done to get it, and you've been told what that is. If, instead, you want to tilt at windmills in an attempt to change Wikipedia's culture or standards or procedures or processes by simply complaining about them, nothing's going to happen - I can pretty much guarantee that. It's your choice, the ball's in your court. This thread? You should really consider dropping the stick, because it's extremely doubtful that anything you're looking for is going to come from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, thank you for pulling so much dead weight here and managing to do so eloquently what I somehow failed to do in my much longer comments. Hopefully the OP will listen and this mess can just be closed. I'll add that I don't necessarily think an IBAN or some such is a bad idea. Softlavender is right about most things, so if she says Tenebrae has been hounding that's at least enough to raise an eyebrow; I just don't think there is enough evidence of that here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you've covered a lot of ground there, and only you can decide where you want to put your energy. If you want an IB with Tenebrae, or a Topic Ban for them, you've got to do what has to be done to get it, and you've been told what that is. If, instead, you want to tilt at windmills in an attempt to change Wikipedia's culture or standards or procedures or processes by simply complaining about them, nothing's going to happen - I can pretty much guarantee that. It's your choice, the ball's in your court. This thread? You should really consider dropping the stick, because it's extremely doubtful that anything you're looking for is going to come from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Since this ANI is related to the previous interpersonal ANI closed on 03:34, 2 February 2017, this ANI ... this time ... should be closed by an Administrator. The support expressed by editors who have taken an interest in this situation has been greatly appreciated. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is such an extremely long and involved thread, and I have barely if at all been on Facebook for days, so I'm going to repeat here, for convenience, what I posted above at 6:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC):
- If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??
- --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae: User:Softlavender has a sharp tongue and I've seen her be very wrong about some minor conduct issues in the past (requirement to specifically use diffs as evidence when other types of evidence are acceptable or even preferable, the appropriateness of bringing up an editor with whom one knows the person one is addressing has an IBAN, etc.), and I've seriously considered emailing her about this problem to find out how her interpretation can differ so radically from everyone else's, but I've never known her to consciously act in bad faith. "Hounding" is a complicated issue -- I first encountered the term in my interactions with JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), who claimed I was "hounding" him by feigning an interest in a certain topic and going around editing a bunch of articles he had edited just to get under his skin, but later community consensus was that he had been hounding me by reverting all of said edits immediately because I was the one who had made them, and that his having the pages on his watchlist was not an excuse since doing so because of one's watchlist was functionally the same, in terms of our harassment policy, as doing so by means of monitoring my contribs -- so it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you, and Softlavender could be, in good faith, going by the assumption that Pyxis's edits are not disruptive and your reverting her more than once indicates "hounding". Assuming this is the case, Softlavender would still be very much wrong on this point, but saying
I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when ... Softlavender deliberately introduce[s] grammatical errors into an article
is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- "it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you"
- Carol is the article where Tenebrae and I first disagreed about an edit. It was my contributions to it and in related List of accolades received by Carol (film) sub-article that led Tenebrae to file the unsubstantiated ANI of canvassing against him. Find one article in Wikipedia where I have "hounded" Tenebrae. Provide the evidence ... or stop inventing scenarios. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you revert Tenebrae's constructive/good-faith edits solely because Tenebrae was the one that made them ... well, it might technically meet the "criteria" defined at WP:HOUND, but only because it took place on one article rather than many. By the same token, if your reverting/challenging Tenebrae's edits is not hounding because it was localized to one article, the same is true for Tenebrae's "hounding" of you. I don't need to provide evidence -- the diffs in your first post here clearly show Tenebrae making rational arguments in favour of not using italics or the phrase "make love" in the plot summary. If you revert those edits because you don't like Tenebrae, without any policy- or guideline-based rationale, that is at the very least WP:BATTLEGROUND, even if not WP:HOUNDING. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, your nitpicking a single sentence in a cautionary message addressed to the user with whom you are in conflict and taking it out of context as an "accusation" against you for which I should provide evidence (again, even the text you quoted included the words "it's entirely possible") is just more evidence that you are more interested in picking fights than in building an encyclopedia. You are not making any friends with comments like the above, and are in fact rapidly losing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae: User:Softlavender has a sharp tongue and I've seen her be very wrong about some minor conduct issues in the past (requirement to specifically use diffs as evidence when other types of evidence are acceptable or even preferable, the appropriateness of bringing up an editor with whom one knows the person one is addressing has an IBAN, etc.), and I've seriously considered emailing her about this problem to find out how her interpretation can differ so radically from everyone else's, but I've never known her to consciously act in bad faith. "Hounding" is a complicated issue -- I first encountered the term in my interactions with JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), who claimed I was "hounding" him by feigning an interest in a certain topic and going around editing a bunch of articles he had edited just to get under his skin, but later community consensus was that he had been hounding me by reverting all of said edits immediately because I was the one who had made them, and that his having the pages on his watchlist was not an excuse since doing so because of one's watchlist was functionally the same, in terms of our harassment policy, as doing so by means of monitoring my contribs -- so it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you, and Softlavender could be, in good faith, going by the assumption that Pyxis's edits are not disruptive and your reverting her more than once indicates "hounding". Assuming this is the case, Softlavender would still be very much wrong on this point, but saying
- You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You chose to involve yourself in this ANI.
Yes, I did. I was working under the flawed assumption that making a neutral comment to the effect that "You have not provided evidence of hounding. The previous ANI close was not an enforceable sanction. I need to see evidence before I support a sanction." would not lead to this one-editor abuse campaign to which you have since subjected me. I will probably make the same mistake again, but abiding by the fourth pillar is not a flaw for which you have any right to condemn me.You talk smack about other editors.
Evidence? The quote you gave above was taken out of context. I said at the top of this thread that "if hounding [...] has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution" in response to your claim that Tenebrae had been hounding you, and I said essentially the same thing to Tenebrae. None of this is "talking smack".You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it.
What "crux"? Literally every uninvolved party has told you the same thing I have -- that there is no basis to this thread, since you came in assuming that the non-admin close in February constituted an enforceable sanction.for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6
Yeah, check it out. The OP's vicious string of attacks against me began immediately after I posted my first neutral comment in this thread, and within a few hours I was sick enough of it that I was begging her on her to talk page to stop.You make accusations about me [...] and allegations about my editing history
I think you're projecting a bit. You've talked a lot more about my "editing history" than I have about yours, and none of it has been accompanied by diffs or any other kind of evidence. Nor, naturally, is your claim about me making accusations against you.But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there.
Umm ... what? I don't get it. Are you just making toiletry references now because grossing me out is the only thing you haven't already tried? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's a region-specific metaphor, but still.Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol.
Well, yeah. And I'll bet you know his, too. But neither of you have provided a whole lot of evidence on the matter. The burden of proof is on you because you opened an ANI thread and requested sanctions for Tenebrae, while he has done neither.Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when.
I'm sorry, but that's not how ANI works. You need to gather specific evidence of disruption and present it in an easily comprehensible manner. I'm sorry if no one told you this before your coming here, but that's just how things work around here. BMK told you the same thing here. You really should just let this thread get archived, and then start preparing a report supported by concrete diffs (perhaps in your sandbox) and come back to ANI once it is ready.Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him
I'm sorry, but once again the burden of proof is on you. You chose to open this ANI thread on Tenebrae and ask for sanctions against him. If he had opened an ANI thread on you and asked for sanctions, I would say the same thing to him.and your allegation that I probably have.
Please re-read my comment. I (very deliberately) said "possibly", not "probably. I said the same thing to you further up: it's possible he has been hounding you, but I'd need to see evidence of that.Or else ... you're just a troublemaker.
Believe what you want, I guess. You've wasted a lot more of my time over the last two or three days than I have of yours, and (in the other thread Amaury started about you further up the page) you somewhat callously forced me to remember one of the most traumatic experiences in my life (something for which you have yet to apologize, mind you).- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Drame, 戏剧, dramma, नाटक, драма, ドラマ, دراما ... in any language ... by any Wikipedian ... still equals = drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not only is it 100% clear you didn't read a word of my above carefully-reasoned and polite response, you clearly don't know anything about linguistics. I don't speak a whole lot of those languages, but I can tell you with certainty that ドラマ most often refers to TV miniseries (and also applies to longer foreign shows like Friends and Game of Thrones that don't tend to be produced in Japan at the same rate), and 戏剧 refers to the theatre. I am not just having a laugh at your expense here -- I am seriously questioning your competence to edit Wikipedia if you don't realize that the English word "drama" has a number of completely different meanings and the one you are referencing is recent slang and is not likely to come out when you type the solitary word into an MT program. If you don't understand that "drama" as you are using it here is slang, then are you writing slang into Wikipedia articles as well? That would support Tenebrae's assertion that your article edits violate MOS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Drame, 戏剧, dramma, नाटक, драма, ドラマ, دراما ... in any language ... by any Wikipedian ... still equals = drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- "And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??"
- I make this clear to you and anyone else reading this: an ANI is the only area where I will respond to a comment from you directed at me.
- You and I were told to "avoid each other" in the interpersonal ANI referenced in the first sentence of this ANI. Translation: avoid Pyxis Solitary = stay away from her edits. You change and/or undo an edit by Pyxis Solitary? Translation: you're not staying away from her. You leave a message or comment for Pyxis Solitary in a Talk page? Translation: you're not staying away from her.
- There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. Translation: find the ones where you will not feel the uncontrollable temptation to change and/or undo edits made by Pyxis Solitary. Find a way to connect editing with personal boundaries.
- As for that ANI (Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning) you alluded to? It, too, was about the same matter of this ANI: your not staying away from me.
- Today, tomorrow, this month, next month — two, three, or four months from now ... "avoid" = keep away from, stay away from. Tenebrae: stay away from me. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
User TalismanOnline
TalismanOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing copyright violating text [59](source) and images [60] (deleted), and poorly edited WP:MACHINETRANSLATIONS of other wikis [61] (Google translation). He has previously been warned about copyvios, and does not appear to be a fluent speaker of English. His latest edit is to revert a grammatical correction. Any solution short of a CIR block? Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- A spot check is quite discouraging. I'd like to hear from the editor, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- He is continuing to edit. I just reverted this edit because it introduced a factual error in the date. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I left a final warning that the editor should contribute to this discussion before doing any other editing. If I see such an edit or someone points out to me I will unhappily block the editor. I hope they voluntarily join this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- This user has significant competence/language issues that extend beyond copyright. I first noticed him a month ago when he used the translate tool to create the article ‘lays chips’ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lay%27s_chips&oldid=778514899 from a foreign article ‘Lay’s’ without checking to see that we already have an article Lay's. Recently, I've seen him marking nearly every edit minor including dumping a ton of poorly translated content into Festa da Uva. If TalismanOnline is not blocked, I suggest a restriction on not adding translated content.Dialectric (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- He is continuing to edit. I just reverted this edit because it introduced a factual error in the date. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Petergstrom's repeated violations of his topic ban
Can we have some editors look at this and comment on what should be done? As seen here, back in late February, Petergstrom was topic-banned from editing medical and religious topics for six months. From what I see, that topic ban is not yet over. Despite this, he recently violated it here and here, and two times before that (as seen in this link). I ignored it the first two times, although two other editors did not and warned Petergstrom about it. Sure, Petergstrom's topic ban is almost up, but it's clear to me that he's never respected it anyway and is biding his time until it expires. Other editors and I recently brought the Human brain article to WP:GA status; Petergstrom's editing regarding this article is one of the things I cited in the aforementioned topic ban thread. I find it odd that he would show up and edit it a few days after it's been brought to WP:GA, and especially when his topic ban is not yet over. I would have taken this matter to 5 albert square, who closed the aforementioned topic ban thread, but he hasn't edited since June 18th. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was TBANNED from medicine, and religion, neither of which are related to the human brain edits. I find it odd that you find it odd that me editing the page had anything to do with you, or the WP:GA status. In fact, until now I had no idea it was nominated. Whatever, if you want to believe everything that happens has some sinister cause that is related to you go ahead. In fact, what if I am really a government agent/and or alien that spreads mind control nanochips via chem trails? While I admit the Bipolar disorder edit was a violation, it was removal of spam. The human brain was not a violation.Petergstrom (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- You described your edit on the Bipolar disorder article as the removal of spam. Can you explain how this edit by Masterlet is spam? Cjhard (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- This was spam because it was a whole new section for one sentence from psych new central. Psych News Central. Furthermore, the [62] cited by the article was WP:Primary and WP:OR. Petergstrom (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- The Human brain article falls within the WP:Med and WP:MEDRS scope, which is why it is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles at the top of the talk page, stating, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles." I'm not sure how you figure that the Human brain article, which is a WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience topic, is not a medical topic. The only reason that it is not tagged with the WP:Med banner is because it is already tagged with the WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience banners, and because WP:Med wants to limit what shows up on its medical articles list, since that list has been overpopulated before.
- So the reason you stayed away from the Human brain article for this long is not because you thought that it falls within your topic ban? I don't think so. And the Bipolar disorder article also falls within your topic ban. As for your edits having anything to do with me, a number of editors were clear that some of your edits did have something to do with me. In any case, I did not focus on your edits in relation to me, other than the fact that the Human brain article was noted as a point of contention on the topic ban thread about you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- And for anyone wanting quick access to that previous thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I stayed away from the human brain article for so long, because I was avoiding you and wikipedia in general. Don't even assume to know my motivations as you have consistently done in the past. The human brain article is not a medical article, even though it may be tagged with MEDRS, it is still not part of wikiproject:medicine, just anatomy and neuroscience. My TBANN does not apply there. The bipolar article is within my TBANN, but was nonetheless a removal of spam. In retrospect bringing it up in the talk page so another editor could do it would have been better. Furthermore, one of the two pages(the other being OCD) I am accused of violating my TBANN by editing is the Lactic Acid page. This has nothing to do with wikiproject medicine, or religion, so I don't know why that was reverted.Petergstrom (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care much about why you were avoiding the article. I do care about you respecting your topic ban, which you have disrespected four times now. The topic of the human brain is a medicine topic, as anyone can see from looking at what the article entails. It is indeed why the article is tagged with the aforementioned template. It is why the GA lists it as a "Biology and medicine" topic. If it were not a topic that falls within medicine, we would not require WP:MERDS-compliant sources for that article. It currently not being tagged with the WP:MED banner does not make it any less a topic within the medical scope. I already noted why it's not tagged with that banner. Furthermore, your ban is "broadly construed" to combat the very "it's not a medical topic" defense you are using now. As for the Lactic acid article... So when the editor reverted you on this, the editor did not know what he was talking about? The material you added does not fall under the medical scope? Should I ping the editor to make their case on why they reverted you? And either way, the point is that you keep violating your topic ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was unaware that articles that were not of interest to wikiproject medicine are still medicine. I was under the impression that a chemistry article and an anatomy article were free from my TBAN, however given my little experience with wikipedia, I guess "broadly construed" is broader than I would have guessed. Petergstrom (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your topic ban states, in part, "6 month topic ban for Petergstrom for medicine and religion with a warning that it will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues." Even if we were to state that the Human brain article is not a medical article (which, given the overwhelming medical material in that article, I don't see how anyone can state such), you are not to edit anything that is under the medical scope. This also means that if the Bicycle article has some medical content in it, you are not supposed to edit that medical content. The edit that Jytdog reverted you on (yeah, I've gone ahead and pinged him) is medical material. All that stated, we all make mistakes. As long as you continue to adhere to your topic ban, I am willing to drop my complaint on this matter. Your topic ban is almost over, as you well know; I simply do not like how you seemingly did not take it seriously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- And, for the record, anatomy articles are commonly of interest to WP:Med; it's why WP:Med lists WP:Anatomy as a related project, and includes anatomy at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. It's why anatomy discussions are sometimes held at WP:Med. Some WP:Anatomy editors are also WP:Med editors, and that includes me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Petergstrom, and now you are at Talk:Psychopathy again. Why do you think that the Psychopathy article, including its talk page, is outside of your topic ban? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is simply not credible for an experienced editor such as Peter to claim that edits to Obsessive–compulsive disorder, Bipolar disorder, and Talk:Psychopathy fall outside a topic ban from medicine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Am I not allowed to go to the talk page? Really? I thought an edit ban meant a ban from editing pages. Not from taking part in discussion. Would I seriously have done that if I knew it violated a TBAN? Right after we had a discussion here to. Petergstrom (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh my bad. I read the WP:TBAN topic, and it contains talk pages. I don't really have much to say...oops?Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- At least you checked the policy and show recognition of the error. Should we assume that same recognition applies equally to the OCD and bipolar edits? If that is the case, then I suggest that this thread could easily be closed if you could commit to voluntarily extending your non-involvement with the medical topic for another few months. It shouldn't be much of an issue, since you've edited very little since February until this month. There's lots of other topics for you to contribute on, after all. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I would be lying if I said that at the time of those edits, I didn't know whether there could be controversy or ambiguity. I knew I was pushing it. I now recognize that it was in clear violation of the TBAN. Petergstrom (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- At least you checked the policy and show recognition of the error. Should we assume that same recognition applies equally to the OCD and bipolar edits? If that is the case, then I suggest that this thread could easily be closed if you could commit to voluntarily extending your non-involvement with the medical topic for another few months. It shouldn't be much of an issue, since you've edited very little since February until this month. There's lots of other topics for you to contribute on, after all. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Think of it like this: With a talk page for a medical article, you are discussing medical content, which can lead to changes being made to the article per your suggestion(s). Although you are not technically making the edits, you are making them by proxy. Another reason to avoid the talk pages of pages you are banned from is because these bans are also often due interaction with others, which was part of the problem. In this case, editors complained about your interaction with others; it wasn't solely about your editing of articles.
- Take a look at the branches of medicine noted in the Medicine article; you can see that anatomy and neuroscience are branches of medicine. You don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it; you can Google it. A lot of WikiProjects limit their scope; it makes sense for WP:Med not to focus on anatomy or neuroscience articles when WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience exist. This obviously doesn't mean that these topics do not fall under medicine simply because WP:Med is not focused on them.
- I'm still not convinced that you should be editing medicine or religious topics, but you will get another chance to prove yourself soon enough. It will not take another few months until your ban has expired. Just another month and some days. We can close this thread if it's the case that you won't violate your topic ban again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young (Input Requested; see this discussion, too)
As of recently, a well-known and respected vandalism fighter has just been blocked for socking as User:My Royal Young. Apparently, they had made an LTA page on User:My Royal Young (themselves), likely in order to avoid detection, scrutiny, etc. Now that the account that created this LTA is blocked, there is currently a discussion on whether or not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young should be deleted per WP:DENY (deny recognition) or to keep it since others have edited it too (though at the time, they obviously had no idea that the user who created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young was actually a sock of User:My Royal Young). If anyone would like to join this discussion please do so here. Thanks. 98.223.4.183 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Immediate attention needed on CNN blackmail controversy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:DraKyry has engaged in a lengthy edit-war on the aforementioned current-events article to insert wholly-unsourced libelous claims about a living person, to wit, that a particular person "blackmailed" another person. The claim has no basis in fact and is unsupported by any reliable source. Further, the editor is edit-warring to misrepresent what reliable sources say about the particular issue. No admins appear to be paying attention to AIV or RFPP, so I'm going to have to go here and ask that some admin step in to block the user in question, or at the very least protect it on a version which does not contain libelous unsupported claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've applied full page protection as a less-bad alternative to just blocking everyone involved. Duration is three days and this is an arbitration enforcement action (which I shall log shortly) under AP2 DS. I'm expecting that User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:DraKyry, User:Politrukki, User:Grayfell and... anyone else involved in the past couple-of-hundred edits on that page can have a productive discussion on the article talk page in that time. Everyone involved needs to AGF and not repeat eg this discussion. As far as I can tell, a lot of the problem is that everyone involved is reverting 3k+ edits over a couple of words, where a more detailed edit would sort out the concerns to both parties' satisfaction, so I'm hopeful. We'll also see what happens in the related merge discussion.
- I'm frankly itching to hand out a swag of 3RR blocks to go with this and anyone who also feels so inclined shouldn't see my AE action as an impediment to it. But for the minute I'm personally content to leave protection in place and see how things go on the talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fully protecting the article so that even established editors can't edit it, all because a suspicious account with just a few edit edit warred against six or seven established editors, making something like 12 (twelve) reverts in less than two hours, these reverts involving BLP violations and highly POV content based on junk sources, then that account went on to start edit wars on other articles, and that account consistently ignored notifications and warnings and then promised to continue edit warring, and protecting it to a version full of BLP vios... yeah, that's about the dumbest action an admin could've taken here. And oh yeah, also the merge discussion which suggests turning this steaming pile of garbage into a redirect is pretty much a SNOW "merge" [63]. Sheeesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- GoldenRing, I appreciate the protection, but the fact of the matter is that essentially the entire edit was BLP-noncompliant. It introduced entirely-unsourced libelous claims, misrepresented the content of a number of reliable sources in a way which negatively depicted a living person and included an array of patently unreliable sources (Breitbart and random Twitter accounts) making libelous claims about living people. There was no alternative but to revert entirely. I laid out the issues in some detail on 331dot's talk page and I'll do so again here:
- Firstly, DraKyry's version stated,
In the article published by CNN, the author Andrew Kaczynski explains the process that allowed the organization to discover the real identity of the user. After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology.
This is a defamatory falsehood — no reliable source has said anyone was blackmailed by anyone. This alone is a flagrant, screaming BLP violation — it's almost but not quite stating that Kaczynski is guilty of a crime. - Secondly, DraKyry's version included a number of entirely-unreliable sources making claims about Kaczynski, including Twitter posts by random people and a story from Breitbart.com, which is categorically banned from being used as a source for living persons articles by dint of its long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes.
- Thirdly, DraKyry's version misrepresented reliable sources, specifically where it states, based on a NYMag article,
Kaczynski could have avoided the Internet vigilantism if he hadn't written the line
— the reliable source explicitly does not use Kaczynski's name and instead puts the responsibility on CNN as a whole. Using the source in this way is introducing a deliberate factual error which depicts a living person in a negative light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)- I see you've decided to start a new dicussion at ya et another page. Okay. I've spent last 10 hours arguing about that - I am not going to spend any more time on that. The case is crystal clear - just read 1. Several discussions of my talkpage. 2. This page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DraKyry reported by User:Volunteer Marek .28Result: .29 . 3. Edit summaries on the page we are discussing right now. 4. CNN Controversies talk page.
- I am not going to repeat my self 15th freaking time, everything is on these pages. If you have specific questions - feel free to contact me. The post above, made by northBysouth, is blatantly misrepresenting the whole situation, which, no doubt, you'll discover once you visit one of the pages I've just mentioned. Goodluck --DraKyry (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I invite interested administrators or onlookers to observe the user's repeated inability to provide reliable sources for their defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Refusing to cooperate here after refusing to cooperate on those other pages won't make this issue magically resolve in your favor. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @DraKyry: Your edits contained unambiguous BLP violations and I think a lot of administrators would have just reacted with a longish block. Continuously reverting without listening to the valid BLP concerns of others is no way to behave here and I strongly advise you to go carefully in the future. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @NorthBySouthBaranof: So, your first and third concerns could have been sorted out by replacing the name of a person with the name of an organisation, yes? I'm not sure I see the problem in using twitter as a source for what someone said on twitter. Sure, it's a primary, self-published source, but it was being used as a source for what those people said, in their own voices, not Wikipedia's. And the Breitbart source was being used to cite a Twitter trend - the whole sentence could have easily been removed. My point is that you have a lot more nuanced tools at your disposal than the revert button. I know it's easy to get into a back-and-forwards revert war, and you might just technically have policy on your side because the edit contained a BLP violation (and yes, a gross one not supported by the sources). But you're supposed to be collaboratively editing an encyclopaedia, not repeatedly hitting the revert button until they get it exactly right. I think a more nuanced edit that still resolved the BLP violation would have defused this situation without a stupendous number of reverts, without an ANI report and without the page being subject to full protection. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- And, now that I look, reports at ANEW, RFPP and RFM. Have I missed any? GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Gotta run but this editor is more trouble than he's worth; he's here, clearly, with an agenda. Look at how much time this nonsense is taking, and all to get some Tweets and posts into an encyclopedia article. A topic ban is the least. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- This edit summary is seriously out of line. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Right. User DryKyry, an account with just a few edits and suspicious edit history, makes highly POV edits based on non-reliable sources. They make 12 (twelve!) reverts within less than two hours. These reverts include edit warring against six or seven established editors. They ignore warnings and notifications or explicitly state they have no intention of observing Wikipedia's rules. They go and start additional edit wars on related articles. Simultaneously there's obvious consensus against the users edit [64] (not surprising since most of them are obviously WP:NOTHERE). The user also makes personal attacks in edit summaries and their comments. And... the admin fully protects the page and suggests that they are "content to let it go for a minute", rewarding the extremely disruptive behavior of the user and leaving behind an article full of BLP violations, false allegations, ridiculous fringe theories and other POV nonsense. Ball. Dropped.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Drakyry blocked indef. I'm sure the article and talk page have more problems that bear admin action, but I don't have the stomach for it. But this was an easy call, so I figured I'd at least get the low hanging fruit and leave the harder work for others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, you people got nothing better to do? He was a poor minority kid under the age of 10. Let her be please. She was just posting a joke that got blown out of proportion. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- Yes, that's right, a ten-year-old wrote
Okay, so I've already explained my position in: my talk page, the CNN controversy talk page, and the edits summaries I provided with each of my edits. I am kinda tired of arguing about this, so here are just two screenshots of just some of the edits I've reverted: http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb . Also, notice the nickname of the guy I was reverting, and compare that to the nickname of the guy who made this post. Thank you. P.S. Here's the history section of the page we were arguing about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&action=history . I believe that the first thing you should do is look at this page. Also, I was not going to say this, but since my counterpart claimed that my account is 'suspicious', because it was created in 2010, I advise you to visit my counterpart's talk page (User talk:Volunteer Marek). He literally has dozens (I am not even joking - dozens) of warning about starting edits wars on Trump-related articles. I looked at just some of his edits of said articles - they are mostly disruptive editing/vandalism (just look at those edits!). Now, I withdraw from this discussion - whatever decision you make, I don't think that spending 2 hours of arguing with an obviously politically motivated editor to make a correction that costed me 5 minutes of my time is worth it. My faith in Wikipedia is destroyed, thank you.
EEng 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC) - Obvious troll is obvious. 162.245.150.3 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right, a ten-year-old wrote
Lana Rhoades article has been deleted entirely without even a discussion template on the reasons to keep or delete the article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure who did it, but someone just deleted my whole Lana Rhoades article!! She is an adult entertainer and film star. The reason she was added for inclusion was because she won an XBIZ award for Best New Starlet. This is the highest award given from a major adult entertainment outlet. It is basically the equivalent of an award from the Golden Globes for best new actress or actress of the year. There was another award given, by another adult entertainment outlet, but not one of the top awards. Under the wikipedia guidelines, it says a major award given is fine for an article of inclusion, in regard to any adult film star. I'm not sure where to locate this, but it can be verified. AVN, XBIZ, and XRCO for Best New Starlet from one or any of these meets that requirement. I put verifiable references and some editors were also involved in making the Lana Rhoades page. I'm unable to bring it back up. It seems as if it was completely wiped out. As an example the Mia Malkova page has one award listed. The AVN award for Best New Starlet. Again, this is just one award from a major adult media outlet, yet she has her own article page that has not been deleted. I'm not experienced in all this. Is there someone able to retrieve and put her profile or article back up? This is vandalism at the very least. There was no discussion template requested for deciding whether to keep the article up or not. She apparently won penthouse pet for one month back in 2016 and when you type in her name, that is where it leads to, but if you click on her name there, nothing appears. The article itself does not even mention the penthouse pet award. It was added later by another editor, but she had significant achievements already in her profile, as I mentioned above. The penthouse pet award for a single month was not even a major part of the article at all. Someone took it upon themselves to just delete entirely what took me long hours to create with the help of other editors who contributed later on. Now there is no photograph of this significant and popular performer, no information about her career, no information in regard to her past, nothing about her personal measurements, nothing, all wiped out by some vandal that took it upon themselves to wipe out the article without any template discussion first. If anyone can retrieve and bring her article back up and protect it, I'd appreciate it. Also, if you have any thoughts about this or why it occurred, then you may also join in this discussion. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- That "vandal" was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and they didn't delete it. They made it into a redirect. This appears to be a content dispute though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There is nothing to dispute. As I've mentioned, the Mia Malkova page is up, and she only won one major award. Nobody has deleted her article. It may have been redirected, but if you type in her name, a Profile with information and photograph should appear. Instead, everything about her has been deleted. It's like listing someone who won Best Actress at the Golden Globes, but if you click on her name, nothing appears about her. The XBIZ award for Best New Starlet is an equivalent award, to some, as Best Actress of the year at the Golden Globes award. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- Have you tried to start a discussion on the talk page, rather than come here and claim that this is a vandal? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice. I'm not well versed in regard to wikipedia procedures. I've seen discussions in regard already to this particular vandal, or who I may think it may be. I'm not very certain of the person who did this however. It appears to be anonymous or it was done using the anonymous editor feature. I think I may know who it is, but I don't have proof. I've already emailed the wikipedia staff in regard to what happened. In regard to penthouse pet of the month, that was not even mentioned when I created the article. It was not even an achievement she is very well known for. Not to besmirch adult magazines in any way, shape, form, etc. since it was an honor she was given that award for the month. However, she is the fastest and one of the most popular rising stars in the adult film world, if you look at her statistics in various legitimate and well established adult online sites. Being in print media is mentioned, but it is not specifically what she is known for. Why would you take it upon yourself to completely delete an entire article about a person? Specifically is my question. If for instance an Actress Won for Best Actress at the Golden Globes and that was it, and there was an article connected with her picture and information about her and her career, etc. why delete a wikipedia article while leaving her name with the award she won only? It is vandalism at the very least. I'm also assuming it is a vandal because why would you delete an article on wikipedia without putting in a discussion template to decide by majority whether to delete or keep the article in question. Whoever deleted my article, did not contact me, or open a template. You don't just delete an entire article with information and a photograph, without notifying the editors of that article, and without their agreement. So if I put graffiti on your wall without first asking you, then that is not vandalism? Just because you delete something or add menacing things on the internet, that does not make it different than vandalizing by other means off the internet. If you get my convoluted message here. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- First of all, stop calling the user and their edits vandalism. This is purely a content dispute, and you need to take this to the talk page to discuss this. I've also notified the editor that created the redirect to this discussion, as you are required to do per the box at the top of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand. As I've stated, I'm not familiar with all the features or where to complain on wikipedia. It took me hours of creating and editing with the help of other editors. It just upset me that someone would just take it upon themselves to delete an article without first providing a discussion template. As I've also stated, The article in question has nothing to do with penthouse pet of the month. The person redirected the name and deleted my Whole Article on wikipedia out of spite or whatever you want to call it. Thank you for your help. I understand. Sorry, I was not aware of all this. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- Scenicview1, it doesn't appear that you do understand. You must quit attributing malice by another editor as their reason for their action. You are not in his head, how do you know? This isn't optional in any way; one of our most important policies is Assume good faith. You are not doing that and you've got to. This is a content issue, not a behavioral one. This board is for handling behavioral issues. You need to work this out with the other editor using the steps outlined in the dispute resolution guideline. To repeat one more time, no matter how hurt your feelings may be, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has done nothing wrong. It will not serve you here ever to take things personal. John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't about hurt feelings but about consistency. I also edited the Mia Malkova page. She has one Award but her page is still up. Same with Lana Rhoades. I'm just questioning, how one adult film star is allowed to have her page still up, while the other one is taken down. Why has no one taken down the Mia Malkova page then? I actually fixed the Mia Malkova page which had a lot of References that directed to blank pages and error messages. I replaced them with verifiable and adequate references. I also deleted nominations and minor awards that she didn't even win. I don't care about hurt feelings. What is it with Mia Malkova and her page still being up? It is the inconsistency that bothers me. Of course it is odd that one would take down the entire article of Lana Rhoades while leaving her highlighted name up for her penthouse pet of the month award. Just to be clear, I'm fine with including that category in her article as well, but now it is only her name under the penthouse pet of the month article with no article leading to her profile or photograph, along with information page. An award I didn't even put into her article as I was editing it, since I didn't feel it necessary to include. Again, there was no "discussion template" on whether to keep or delete the article. The person took it upon themselves to delete it without notifying those who helped create and edit the Lana Rhoades page. Something none of you that have written back to me, would like to discuss or explain to me why that happened. I guarantee that the next person writing to me will not answer that question and why they decided to take it upon themselves to ignore wikipedia rules on that entirely.
Scenicview1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
- I think you might be misunderstanding what happened. The page has not been deleted, but turned to a redirect. All of the page history remains, and the edits that you and other editors made are still in the page's history, so if the page were to be reverted, none of those edits are gone. This is indeed a content dispute, not behavior, and I am going to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect vs. article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've started a thread on Talk:Lana Rhoades to begin this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go. Nothing gone, just hidden from the public for the time being. Some content was recently removed, e.g. this, but as you can see it's also still available to editors via the page history. Go to the talk page and discuss. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think you might be misunderstanding what happened. The page has not been deleted, but turned to a redirect. All of the page history remains, and the edits that you and other editors made are still in the page's history, so if the page were to be reverted, none of those edits are gone. This is indeed a content dispute, not behavior, and I am going to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect vs. article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
revert in bad faith by User:Ozzie10aaaa
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On July 2nd there were two edits on the page Complement deficiency as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&action=history . First, I deleted a paragraph where somebody talked about "prevent cells". My edit ha the comment "there are no "prevent cells"", because, google it, there are no such cells. Second, User:Ozzie10aaaa comes along and reverts my edit. When I wrote on his talk page that he revert makes no sense, he replied that I "deleted a reference", which is an escalation of nonsense. There is no "reference" for non-sense. The deleted link was not a reference for the statement I deleted - because those "prevent cells" do not exist, and the "reference" page does not mention them.
I am an anonymous user, while User:Ozzie10aaaa is an established user, with lots of stars for his contribution, so could somebody more esteemed google "prevent cells" and fix that page?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2017
- this is the ref[65], ""At least 17 mutations in the C3 gene have been found to cause C3 deficiency, a rare condition characterized by recurrent bacterial infections beginning in childhood. The genetic changes that cause C3 deficiency lead to an altered version of the C3 protein or prevent cells from producing any of this protein. These mutations are described as "loss-of-function" because the abnormal or missing C3 protein prevents normal activation of the complement system. As a result, the immune system is less able to protect the body against foreign invaders (such as bacteria). and this is the text of the ref...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- [66] any edits(change in text) is fine but it needs to be reference, was left on IP /talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've made this edit to the page. I think Ozzie10aaaa reverted in good faith, believing that the original text was correct, but appears to have misunderstood the text of the ref, which uses "prevent" as a verb, i.e. C3 deficiency stops (prevents) cells from producing the C3 protein. This looks like simple miscommunication between these two editors - the IP attempting to correct a mistake while Ozzie10aaaa believed the correction caused a mistake. Can we agree to WP:AGF? Marianna251TALK 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- ok(and thank you for [67] which is an improvement for the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've made this edit to the page. I think Ozzie10aaaa reverted in good faith, believing that the original text was correct, but appears to have misunderstood the text of the ref, which uses "prevent" as a verb, i.e. C3 deficiency stops (prevents) cells from producing the C3 protein. This looks like simple miscommunication between these two editors - the IP attempting to correct a mistake while Ozzie10aaaa believed the correction caused a mistake. Can we agree to WP:AGF? Marianna251TALK 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Lack of apologies is consistent with bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2017
- I don't think Ozzie needs to apologise for attempting to protect an article, even if their revert was a mistake (which is arguable, since that ref was valuable and the article's text was easily fixed); they obviously didn't act out of bad faith and reverts are a thing that happens on Wikipedia. I think it would be a good idea to drop the stick before you run the risk of WP:BOOMERANG.
- Please also remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Marianna251TALK 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Marcocapelle emptying categories out of process
Marcocapelle (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the category Category:1448 treaties from Treaty of Prenzlau and is now making similar edits to Peace of Szeged, Congress of Arras, Treaty of Canterbury (1416). This user is a regular at WP:CFD and is not ignorant of correct procedure for deleting categories. Marcocapelle should be warned and if if still continues to make this type of edit should received a block if he fails to use the correct procedure in future. Tim! (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- With few exceptions, Category:15th-century treaties is subdivided by decade instead of by year. The replacement of year categories by decade categories, in these few exceptions, was merely to bring consistency in the categorization. I would presume this is allowed per WP:BURO. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Please nominate these for upmerging as normal. The year vs. decade vs. century thing has been controversial forever as pedants decide we must have categories for every year on every topic. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll do. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Esszet's repeated accusations of article ownership toward me
Esszet has made repeated accusations against me regarding Too Much Too Soon (album):
- On one occasion at ANI by filing a complaint against me in April
- Here in the aforementioned article talk page in April
- In an ensuing RfC at said talk page shortly after
- Back again at ANI filing a complaint against me in July, which was found to be "over the top" by the closer Basalisk.
- And again today here at the article talk page.
There's no assumption of good faith, NEVER HAS BEEN, all over some of the pettiest textual and stylistic minor changes to article space, considering the effort they've exuded. And I request admin intervention in case the user should revert again; there's a competency issue here when the user fails to understand the BRD process involves redirecting their efforts toward a discussion at the talk page and giving the other party a chance to respond, rather than using it as an excuse to restore their preferred revision again. Because I find it difficult to communicate further when every thing from this guy is accompanied by offensive ownership accusations. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- It looks a lot like you have reverted basically anything the editor has attempted to do on the article, down to very highly subjective and pretty much meaningless word choice, often without so much as leaving an edit summary.
- The most conspicuous thing missing from this conversation is you.
- Which is pretty much the issue from the last ANI you link to... lack of communication and a closer giving you advice about ownership.
- So... basically stop acting like you own the article and people will stop accusing you of owning the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wow! Literally everything you just said can be also be said of Esszet. But thanks! (for nothing:-) Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- You should probably consider yourself lucky if nothing is what you get instead of a WP:BOOMERANG, considering you've reverted dozens of times and barely acknowledged that the talk page exists. When you did it seems to have gone something like this:
You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS
why are you here? Go away.
He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick
How's the view from your high horse, Esszet?
- Besides that, I count... I dunno, a half dozen warnings on your talk page just in the last 50 edits ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) and that's not counting the close from the prior ANI.
- So I suppose I can try to spell it out more clearly: Welcome to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. Discussion is not an option, the talk page is not a suggestion, and ANI is not an alternative. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- You should probably consider yourself lucky if nothing is what you get instead of a WP:BOOMERANG, considering you've reverted dozens of times and barely acknowledged that the talk page exists. When you did it seems to have gone something like this:
- Wow! Literally everything you just said can be also be said of Esszet. But thanks! (for nothing:-) Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'll certainly give your attempt at researching me an "A" for an effort, guy. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're a prolific content creator, and I don't think anyone would detract from the valuable contributions you've made. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to be lulled into an isolated comfort when you find yourself churning away in a corner of the project that no one else is on, but I would suggest that you immediately watchlist something like The Teahouse, and force yourself to respond as helpfully as you can to a few honest questions a week from clueless good faith editors, to give yourself some perspective on how interconnected this whole thing is, and how we're expected to be cordial to one another, even when the edit seems silly, or the answer seems obvious. You pretty obviously need to get out of that isolated comfort zone, because when someone touches one of your babies, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that you've been in it for far too long. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- NOPE! Totally not lulled into an "isolated comfort" @Timothyjosephwood:, but rather entirely unresponsive or civil to those who have never to begin with assumed good faith and won't drop it in any messages my way since. Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Then you're going to have to do better than a comment in April, because it looks an awful lot like this has been mostly dead for months, until the user dared to post a comment on the talk page of your article yesterday, and a (totally exasperating I'm sure) discussion that lasted exactly three edits (during which you also managed to cut their comment in half with your reply) taxed your patience to the point that you needed an ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- NOPE! Totally not lulled into an "isolated comfort" @Timothyjosephwood:, but rather entirely unresponsive or civil to those who have never to begin with assumed good faith and won't drop it in any messages my way since. Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're a prolific content creator, and I don't think anyone would detract from the valuable contributions you've made. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to be lulled into an isolated comfort when you find yourself churning away in a corner of the project that no one else is on, but I would suggest that you immediately watchlist something like The Teahouse, and force yourself to respond as helpfully as you can to a few honest questions a week from clueless good faith editors, to give yourself some perspective on how interconnected this whole thing is, and how we're expected to be cordial to one another, even when the edit seems silly, or the answer seems obvious. You pretty obviously need to get out of that isolated comfort zone, because when someone touches one of your babies, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that you've been in it for far too long. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'll certainly give your attempt at researching me an "A" for an effort, guy. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- And round two! I suggest a ban of you two reverting each other. Second, I suggest that this article be fully protected for three days so we can sort this out. Third, I suggest that this ANI be closed as this will not help anything. And fourth, I think that it would be best if you two were not allowed to edit that article for a period of 6 months. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with RileyBugz completely. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Basalisk See what I mean? Esszet (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- And I hope his lack of civility here is also taken into account. Esszet (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with RileyBugz completely. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Christ almighty. So... Someone jog my memory, what is the civility restriction thing? It's been a few months since I've seen it, but whatever that is I propose that on Dan for at least six months as a boomerang. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Civility restrictions were once used frequently, but seem to have fallen out of fashion in recent years, probably because of the inherent difficulty in defining what is and isn't "civil". It's much easier, in my opinion, to make a judgment about what is or isn't a personal attack than it is to determine civility, mainly because what's "civil" is rather in the eye of the beholder and has a significant social and cultural aspect to it. Some editors also object to the "school ma'rm-ish" nature of civility blocks and restrictions, seeing the policing of language and attitude as not being the rightful business of admins. Whichever way you slice it, the entire civility issue is a can of worms, and I suspect that contributed to the fall off (to the point of practical disappearance) in the use of civility restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- They fell out of use because when any admin tried to enforce them against persistently uncivil editors, the editor in question would just get one of their pet admins to reverse it. There is also the problem that due to the Super Mario effect, persistently uncivil Admins could not be prevented in any reasonable way except by an arbcom case. So with the two pronged response of a)seeing favoured editors get away with it, b)seeing fellow admins get away with it, its not surprising no one much bothers with it. And why longterm uncivil editors end up wasting so much time - as the only way these days any action is taken is by raising enough noticeboard complaints that people end up tired of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- OID: That's one interpretation of a possible cause, but I don't believe I subscribe to it, since my experience is that the number of admins who are frequently uncivil is extremely low, and therefore is unlikely to have been a factor. No, I'll stick by my own evaluation that the difficulty of enforcing them with any consistency, and general pushback against incivility policing are the primary factors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of this seems to be unequivocal sneering (I'd be shocked if you could find a group of people, in any time and place, who don't think "Thanks for nothing" is rude and offensive), so I don't think there'd be much of an issue in this case, but it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to get him sanctioned for personal attacks instead. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you'll forgive me if I don't want to block someone with more GAs than I have article creations. You know, because encyclopedia. Maybe an indefinite 1RR that can be appealed in six months? TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe not six months, but how about two weeks to start, and then we'll take it from there? Esszet (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- And keep in mind that people unaware of the 1RR wouldn't know to report him for effectively violating it by undoing their edits without using the undo feature (as he almost certainly would). Esszet (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your only interactions with me have been regarding minor caption changes and your uncompromising stance favoring sentence fragments rather than complete sentences at Too Much Too Soon (album), which you have been so stubborn as to make a series of edit wars, an RfC, and ANI complaints resulting in no action in your favor. Please at least don't insult us with insincere concerns about my snarky remarks toward other editors or anything else. Your WP:OWN accusations have been desensitizing enough, seriously. Dan56 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you'll forgive me if I don't want to block someone with more GAs than I have article creations. You know, because encyclopedia. Maybe an indefinite 1RR that can be appealed in six months? TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have watchlisted the page. Any edit warring on that article from now on will result in immediate blocks for editors involved. @Dan56: you might get fewer accusations of ownership if you didn't act like you own articles. I tried to explain this nicely when I closed the last ANI and now I'm telling you straight - you don't own any of the articles on Wikipedia. Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation or discussion is disruptive and doesn't help anyone. You've received lots of very helpful advice on your talk page; it's time to adhere to it. If you can't do that then I suggest you take Too Much Too Soon off your watchlist and find another image caption to work on. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- What a crock. An image caption to work on? "Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation"?? What do you call this? And this attempt to reach out to the guy and this before it? As opposed to this unexplained revision to begin with? Don't be insincere. Yes, your "advice" sounds very persuasive and intimidating, but it's inaccurate too. Just telling you straight. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I queried this user about their edits to their userpage. In reviewing the history, I believe it's quite obvious what they are doing; for the sake of WP:BEANS, I'll refrain from going further. Home Lander (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- That reminds me. How about if the 30/500 criterion required that the 500 edits be specifically in article space (or maybe any combination of article and article talk)? Such edits being far more visible than any others, it should make gaming the requirement just a bit harder. Just a thought in passing. EEng 21:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Copyright Violation and Reverts by User:Pyrogrimace Comment
In my efforts to clean up Salute (pyrotechnics), I found that large sections of text were copy-and-pasted from this source and this source] by User:Pyrogrimace. I removed the most blatant copy-pasted content, left a message on Pyrogrimace's talk page and tried to reword/reformat a few things to match wikipedia style, but my edits were reverted with no explanation. This happened twice and is concerning because it involves copyright violations.
Sample Edit: [74]
Pyrogrimace has been editing this article heavily since 2011 and repeatedly inserting non-encyclopedic-style content despite the efforts of other editors to improve the article. Dlthewave (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- The article is an absolute mess of how-to, copyvios, and formulae. The edit history is one years-long edit war and probably sockpuppet play. The only part cited to a WP:RS is the introductory sentence. It should drastically cut back and put under page protection. (P.S., capitalization in article names can break links, so I fixed the wikilink in the opening). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, they've been editing this article since 2007. Literally, every edit since 9 March 2007 when they first registered, excepting a handful of edits to M80 has been to the Salute article. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment--I have drastically cleaned up and subseq. restored a much old ver. of the article (before the IP cum Pyrogrimace editing saga started) and have watchlisted it.Let's see what happens.I feel a semi-protection and/or a SPI would do enough good!I have warned the user about usage of multiple IPs. Winged Blades Godric 05:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Electronic harassment conspiracy theory
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have an ongoing problem with random editors editing our Electronic harassment article to support pseudoscience.
Note: only edits from the last 30 days are listed:
- Edit: [75] Revert: [76]
- Edit: [77] Revert: [78]
- Edit: [79] Revert: [80]
- Edit: [81] Revert: [82]
- Edit: [83] Revert: [84]
- Edit: [85] Revert: [86]
- Edit: [87] Revert: [88]
- Edit: [89] Revert: [90]
- Edit: [91] Revert: [92]
Might I suggest indefinite pending changes protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Not a fan of indefinite protection. This is just coming off a year of semi, so I've applied five years pending changes. ~ Rob13Talk 03:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Could I borrow those eyeballs again?
Oath Keepers and my talk page; what looks from my viewpoint a good deal like substituting warning templates for substantive discussions, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Anmccaff (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going into the irony of you opening this at ANI. You seem to have at least 3 reverts on that article. Your statements here suggest that you would like to discuss the article and the talk page of the article suggests that other involved parties also would like to discuss the article and they asked simply for you to get a consensus before making any further reverts. So why go to the articles talk page and get into that substantive discussion?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Anmccaff - I'm not following you here. Can you elaborate a bit more? What exactly are your concerns regarding these two pages? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Star Awards is publishing bus contracts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor User:Star Awards appears to be using Wikipedia to publish advertisements for multiple packages of bus routes. This violates the policy against promotion and Wikipedia is not a web host. The contribution history of this editor is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Star_Awards. So far this editor has created six pages. I am reporting them here for administrative action rather than tag them for speedy deletion or take them to a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I tagged Jurong West Bus Package prior to this ANI notice. I see a bot flagged the article's Talk page with a template indicating a previous article with this name was deleted after discussion. There is also an attempt to engage the article creator on their Talk page, with no response as of this posting. Jusdafax 05:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted Jurong West Bus Package as an obvious copyvio, after the previous version created by User:118 alex was similarly deleted. Both were substantially identical (having clearly copied the same source), the User:Star Awards account was created on July 6, after User:118 alex was indef blocked on June 25. User:118 alex has a very different history of article interest, but there may be some socky/meaty shenanigans here.
Also, all of the articles created by User:Star Awards may well be copyvios too.Sorry I can't investigate further myself right now, but it's early and I'm getting ready for work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)- I deleted them all as copyvios - my earlier update here was lost somehow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I nominated all six bus package articles for speedy deletion because of obvious copyvio. RickinBaltimore, being the previous editor to delete Jurong West Bus Package do you think there is "socky/meaty shenanigans here?" Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 06:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, you rang? I'm not sure if it's socking but it does seem very very odd that another editor would post the exact same material from the exact same website, and created after the original account was blocked. It may be worth a look at SPI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- He just submitted User:118 alex/BSEP as a draft, so I blocked him. Ugh. That's the third sock of his I've blocked today, and it's still early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seems like a SPI might be warranted for any possible sleepers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- He just submitted User:118 alex/BSEP as a draft, so I blocked him. Ugh. That's the third sock of his I've blocked today, and it's still early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, you rang? I'm not sure if it's socking but it does seem very very odd that another editor would post the exact same material from the exact same website, and created after the original account was blocked. It may be worth a look at SPI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted Jurong West Bus Package as an obvious copyvio, after the previous version created by User:118 alex was similarly deleted. Both were substantially identical (having clearly copied the same source), the User:Star Awards account was created on July 6, after User:118 alex was indef blocked on June 25. User:118 alex has a very different history of article interest, but there may be some socky/meaty shenanigans here.
Real History Man, Conflict of Interest editing and Personal Attacks
Real History Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Real History Man, a new editor whose sole interest seems to be editing to insert references to a self-published book [93] in 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, which makes a number of extraordinary claims about the invasion. Acknowledges a link to the author [94], where they attack other editors as trolls but be aware that you are wrong and that you are biased, prejudiced, bordering upon 'troll' if not already way past that mark. The editing seems to be more about book promotion and it seems clear there is a WP:COI, a suspicion shared by Hohum [95]. Bringing it here for further scrutiny. WCMemail 07:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I can see obvious signs of a conflict of interest, in addition to blatant personal attacks. Quick question: do the statistics presented in the self-published book contradict the other sources? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that matters. The user is probably at least capable of accessing the other sources, and if he wanted to cite them he would. This means he is essentially using Wikipedia to advertise his friend's book, rather than using his friend's book to help build an encyclopedia. The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms.
promoting and representing the historical truth
(in the diff above) is dead giveaway, and the scare-quotes around "claims" (showing a disconcerting lack of intellectual skepticism and dismissiveness toward those who do) are also concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)- In answer to DarthBotto, the book claims to completely rewrite the official history common to both sides increasing 1 killed and 3 wounded to >100 killed and many more wounded. It claims there was a cover up of the real number of Argentine casualties. The work is clearly an WP:SPS and can't be used as a source anyway. WCMemail 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: It's not really relevant to this case, but your last sentence is not technically in line with WP:RS. SPSes can be used for non-extraordinary claims (again, nothing to do with this) if their authors are reputable authorities (no idea if the author in question is a reputable authority on anything). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- In answer to DarthBotto, the book claims to completely rewrite the official history common to both sides increasing 1 killed and 3 wounded to >100 killed and many more wounded. It claims there was a cover up of the real number of Argentine casualties. The work is clearly an WP:SPS and can't be used as a source anyway. WCMemail 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that matters. The user is probably at least capable of accessing the other sources, and if he wanted to cite them he would. This means he is essentially using Wikipedia to advertise his friend's book, rather than using his friend's book to help build an encyclopedia. The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms.
"Wee Curry Monster" I myself am a historian of WW2 and especially D-Day and I do happen to be a friend of the author through his work. It is a work which you have not read. Having met his publisher I know the book is not self-published, however when that business was sold, he did take the opportunity to buy the rights to it, hence your constant changing to 'self-published' from 'published' is erroneous. The book is written effectively by all of the participants of that day and I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them myself and seeing so much of the evidence. Something you have not. The history on this page is riddled with inaccuracies and, as you will see, I have contributed to almost every single talk discussion to correct people or answer their questions...this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty" - The book in question. The author is absolutely a Military Historian and accepted as such by the entire Military History community. Indeed he is one of the best I have known. Qualifications mean zip in our industry. We write the books which the boffins study and then get their degrees and doctorates with. If your history is good, the rest is so much paper. Ricky D Phillips' history is outstanding. I truly fail to see how a faceless person who spends their days on Wiki can claim to know more than the men who were there, whose words are all in this book. I particularly like how Mark Gibbs was 'encouraged to think' he had blown up an Amtrac. Have you met him? How encouraged was he exactly, do you know? You don't. I know he hit it because I have held a big piece of it with a rocket hole through it, which the author brought to the book launch. I know he - and others - destroyed it because I have seen the photos, read the quotes from the British and Argentines who saw it during and after. I know the Argentinian forces lost an LCVP Landing Craft blown up that night with about 40 guys on it. I know the guys who blew it up and the guys who dragged it onto the beach later. It is still sat on its back as they found it in the narrows with a big rocket hole in its side. So please tell me, do, how being 'better at Wiki' makes you more qualified to pronounce upon a history you have no knowledge of? I have googled you and the words 'troll' appear everywhere next to your name so I feel that the tag was justified. You are more concerned with being 'right according to you' than in the truth. The truth is that if the other 'qualified historians' you espouse were as good as this guy, we wouldn't have waited 35 years for the truth. So please go ahead, be 'better at Wiki' and safeguard a tired old lie if that makes you feel better. Myself and the military history community shall keep on doing what we do until this sad old tale is consigned to the bin. You may now rest easy, I shan't change it back because doubtless you'll have a line of code for that. It doesn't make you clever or educated, indeed it makes you a block to what history is all about. A subject which, from a good look at your own work, you know a lot less about than you pretend to. I will now consider this at an end, having told you and your peers what a true know-nothing you are. If you wish to troll and malign someone whom I and so many others in our field hold in esteem, then that is on you. There's your resolution and you're entitled to it. I hope Wiki keeps you happy. In my industry it is our lowest denominator. You may consider yourself schooled by an old man who knows a few things. Real History Man (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The central problem is your statement that
this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty"
. If The First Casualty is the only source, then it's not accepted historical scholarship. It would be different if the author were an established expert in the field, or the book was published by a reputable university press, but that's not the case, despite your protestations. And we're not interested in your personal experiences – see WP:OR. The more you write, the more clear it is that you don't know how actual history is done. (For one thing, it's not an "industry.") EEng 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)- Actually, he gives the game away in his account name. He's the "Real History" Man, all the rest are obviously peddling fake history. This is on a par with all those account names with "True" and "Truth" in them, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or push WP:FRINGE theories. If Real History Man is only here to push the book he owns the rights to, that is to violate WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI, then he's WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. He should get an official warning to knock it off, and if he ignores it, he should be indeffed toot sweet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your personal experience contributes about as much historical credence as the talking mice at the beginning of The Legend of the Titanic. Even in this diatribe you left, you lay down a number of personal attacks and fallacies, as well as a professed conflict of interest that bars you from the page. I recommend that Real History Man receives an indefinite topic ban. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @DarthBotto: Is there any point in topic-banning an SPA? NOTHERE editors are generally blocked. It saves space in WP:RESTRICT logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: I suppose I may be clinging to some faith that the account has an interest in history beyond promoting their buddy? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @DarthBotto: Is there any point in topic-banning an SPA? NOTHERE editors are generally blocked. It saves space in WP:RESTRICT logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- The central problem is your statement that
User:Webmaster cc&pa username violation
UAA Filter 149 found User:St. Joe's Toronto in violation. He blatantly updated their own company's page (St. Joseph's Health Centre). When visiting the user's page I see it was renamed to User:Webmaster cc&pa which clearly violates WP:ISU as it denotes a position, not a person. Looked at Changing username/Simple but could not find a trace for the rename or who did it so I come here. The user still made the same edits to their company's page under the new name. Gave a warning to the user awaiting a reply but would like some input or a second opinion on this before blocking. -- Alexf(talk) 15:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since you gave the user a warning, Alexf, I think you should wait for the user to change to an acceptable name. Only if the user continues to edit without changing would a block be warranted, in my view, unless the promotional edits were enough to block for regardless of the username. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The user was renamed by Litlok who is a global renamer. I've notified them at the French Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- That explains why I could not see who renamed it and ask the question there. I am waiting for an answer before proceeding, due to the notice I left. Just baffled as to how that new name was allowed (not to mention they continue with a COI issue). We'll take it one at a time. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 18:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- They didn't continue with the COI. The edits, which are valid were made almost 2 hours before the name change. The fact that they made valid edits is why I didn't block right away. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see now. -- Alexf(talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the renaming, it was clearly a mistake. I've performed a few hundreds of renaming, and have already rejected renamings for this reason. I did it inadvertently :( (for my defense, the temperature was about 35°C in my office and I was melting away ;-) ). Should the renaming be reverted, and another username asked for? Litlok (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see now. -- Alexf(talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- They didn't continue with the COI. The edits, which are valid were made almost 2 hours before the name change. The fact that they made valid edits is why I didn't block right away. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- That explains why I could not see who renamed it and ask the question there. I am waiting for an answer before proceeding, due to the notice I left. Just baffled as to how that new name was allowed (not to mention they continue with a COI issue). We'll take it one at a time. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 18:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The user was renamed by Litlok who is a global renamer. I've notified them at the French Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly re-creating articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor User:GamingOnline User talk:GamingOnline is repeatedly recreating articles that have been removed via speedy deletion nominations. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. To disclaim, I have been one of the editors tagging the subjects articles for deletion. This is my first time posting here, apologizes for any mistakes. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked and articles deleted.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I will note that someone may want to review this editor's contribs to the Japanese Wikipedia.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I will note that someone may want to review this editor's contribs to the Japanese Wikipedia.
Looking for rangeblock on Alpharetta, Georgia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bunch of IP6 addresses from Alpharetta, Georgia, US, have recently been disrupting music articles related to the musical groups New Edition and Bell Biv Devoe, especially the biographies of Bobby Brown, Michael Bivins and Ralph Tresvant. Popular media says that Brown has a house in Alpharetta, as do some Tresvant and Bivins family members. None of the edits are referenced, and some are flat wrong such as this change in the artist name on an album, and this change to a birth year from 1959 to 1969. Can a rangeblock be applied to the following IPs? Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
IPs used
|
---|
|
- 2601:CB:4100:2541::/64 range blocked for two weeks.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quite appreciated, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
COI at Chris Packham
I reverted a series of edits by a new user who was mass replacing source material with unsourced at Chris Packham, he then posted a panicked message on my talk page thinking I had destroyed his work (he didn't know about the undo button). In this message he said he was Chris's agent and needed to have the new material up by tomorrow, he has since made major changes to the article, and I think somone more experienced than myself should check these changes for neutrality. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've added the {{coi}} template to the article and under your information on managing a conflict of interest advised the editor to take a close look at the disclosure section. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- The actions of this user have me concerned. Undisclosed paid-editing, serious conflict of interest and seems to be in a hurry with some spurious deadline, which is immaterial and should be of no concern. I left a detailed note in the user's Talk page asking to come here an explain before any more work is done on that article. Added to watchlist. User will be blocked if they disregard these serious issues, and do not come to explain/ask after reading the linked pages explaining the issues in detail. -- Alexf(talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did a quick read through the article and removed unreferenced content per WP:BLP, as well as addressed other issues. I share the concerns with Alexf in that the rate and manner of this user's edits to this article, as well as the manner in which this user has collaborated with others over this article and the content added - make me feel that there may be a conflict of interest and/or possible undisclosed paid editing occurring here. I hope this user participates in this ANI discussion and works with us to address these concerns. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- The actions of this user have me concerned. Undisclosed paid-editing, serious conflict of interest and seems to be in a hurry with some spurious deadline, which is immaterial and should be of no concern. I left a detailed note in the user's Talk page asking to come here an explain before any more work is done on that article. Added to watchlist. User will be blocked if they disregard these serious issues, and do not come to explain/ask after reading the linked pages explaining the issues in detail. -- Alexf(talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I have dropped my 2c onto the user's talk page, to try and explain things from a different angle. We'll see if it takes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
173.76.103.95
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
173.76.103.95 just came off a 31 hour block[96] for persistent vandalism,[97] went right back to vandalizing the same article[98] (DOS). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- And they are right back on a block for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Legal threats
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here and here. Looks pretty blatant to me. Thanks, GABgab 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hide these edit summaries
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hide these edit summaries and vandalism. Use revision delete. They say [REDACTED] - Oshwah and the edit summaries are vandalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:488C:74BF:13BF:EF9B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:A8BF:64A4:4366:5C99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:F180:0:97:97:7CC:C049:EF7F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.229.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the alert. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- As a note, the IP editor who makes these "hide this. use revision delete." requests on ANI often seems to use open proxies. It's usually worthwhile to check the range contribs when these requests pop up. Sometimes there's quite a bit of disruption coming from them, and they need to be range blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
User:MJ500: Vandalism-like contributions
Hello
I am here to report MJ500 (talk · contribs). Cursory examination of his contribution log does not suggest that this person is a vandal. Yet, he has performed edits that no sane editor with his level veterancy does. I propose his account might have been compromised.
It attracted my attention today when I discovered he had rolled back the Microsoft Windows article to an arbitrary past revision without an edit summary: It reverses recovery of many links, reverts both corrections, and returns an old faulty revision of the infobox. The editor is not a vandal, but this is definitely vandalism.
When I posted a notice in his talk page, he reverted the notice with a denial, then committed an act vengeance: He reverted one of my recent contributions to OneDrive article with a fake edit summary.
I have discovered other questionable actions in his contribution log:
- This edit has a fake edit summary and seems very much like the run-of-the-mill vandalism: [99]
- This edit is very suspicious and unbecoming of him: [100] It looks like something total Wikipedia virgins do.
I propose a temporary ban or block, until he changes his password and promises not to do any of these again.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- MJ500 has promised to stop edit warring on OneDrive. I'm not convinced this is a compromised account. Could just be a bad day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: I didn't even mention OneDrive edit warring here. (Just mention the first revenge action.) These edits are done on 1, 4 and 8 July; that'd be three bad days. Also, the Microsoft Windows revision I introduced the first? Experience tells me that it is no accident and no deliberate reversion due to a dispute. You can't let a cat on your keyboard and get a result like that. And then say I did nothing?
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- There's some suspicious activity on the account, but it could just be a new editor who's trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. I'd like to hear from MJ500, but it seems like we may have to wait. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know why you call the Farewall Baghdad edit run of the mill vandalism or having a fake edit summary. It looks to me much more like the editor noticed something which was only changing dates and reverted them asking for a source something which is often quite resonable except in this case they didn't actually look enough to notice these date changes were simply in the template and formatting of dates in the template. Completely stupid sure, and if this continues WP:Competence could come into play but not run of the mill vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: What you say could have been true if it has been an edit, not a revert. You see, sometimes, vandals revert something and pick a canned edit summary too. In doing none of these, active thinking has a role. In this case, simply the style of two access dates had been changed. The dates are the same. This isn't something for which someone asks for the source, unless he or she is just clicking pseudo-randomly. Now, if I had seen this change alone in one's contribution log, I'd have assumed good faith. One lone error like this could have easily been a result of multi-tabbed editing. But as James Bond would say "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is the enemy action." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, the date in a template had changed, as had the date style in the templates. Let me be clear, there were 3 changes and one did change an actual date from June 2015 to June 2017, not just a date style. The fact you apparently didn't notice this would seem to be a good sign that people do make mistakes when looking at stuff. Of course by the same token, someone could fail to notice that the dates in the later 2 cases weren't being changed per se, but simply had the style adjusted anyway so it's actually moot to my point. As I already said, if such mistakes happen too often, WP:Competence may come into play but I'm not seeing that yet. After all you've only presented 4 or 5 edits, and they aren't even that similar in style but rather seem to indicate a fairly careless and inexperienced (they have only been here a little over 2 weeks with fewer than 500 edits although they did immediately blue link their user and talk page suggesting some experience and yes a classic sign of a problem editor) editor.
I don't understand what you mean about an edit not a revert. The fact that it was a revert is precisely the point. As I already said, they saw someone messing around with dates and blindly reverted without properly looking what exactly was happening namely that a date in a template had changed, and also the date style in 2 other templates something which does not need a source. Clearly active thinking was involved, no one ever denied that, but they didn't look or think enough before reverting which as I've already said, is a problem, but doesn't seem to be an indicate of vandalism nor am I seeing any signs of a fake edit summary.
The edit summary makes sense when you consider what they apparently thought they were reverting, i.e. an unsourced changed of dates even if they weren't. It's something I've done myself I'm pretty sure except if there is no source, I add a source tag or sometimes just remove the dates altogether, or when I can be bothered, looked for a source. If the dates do have a source, I do of course check the souce before reverting. But yes, reverting unsourced date changes is something that happens all the time, so again I don't understand why you think it's vandalism.
And actually there's a bad good reason why reverting unsourced date changes is so common, unfortunately changing dates is a common form of silly vandalism. Actually I'm pretty sure there's a edit filter which tags such edits. (Or maybe one of the vandalism bots automatically reverted them at some stage.) And it's such a common problem that I'm pretty sure some people aren't as careful as me, if they see an IP or inexperienced editor (not Lugnuts) changing a date, they simply revert, even for example if there's a source, they don't check it. I say this because I'm pretty sure I've come across cases when an IP or inexperienced editor is trying to fix a mistake or historic vandalism by adjusting a date sometimes even to what the source says only to be unfortunately reverted. I WP:AGF that MJ500 has encounter this before and so is trying to put it into practice but failing badly at it.
Clearly it was inappropriate here but that's possibly only because they didn't look at what the date changes actually were namely not something that required a source and only one of them was even a change of a date but that doesn't make it vandalism.
Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- So, you are saying that what MJ500 did was to ask a source for the change {{Use dmy dates}}? Let's compare: I said that no thought went into the revert. You are saying MJ500 did think, only he is such a ... (I apologize in advance for using these two words) ... retarded imbecile that does not know a maintenance template does not require a source? It seems I assumed a significantly better faith in this colleague of ours than you did. The have such low opinion of others is uncivil.
- But I say no. His collective contributions to Wikipedia shows his neither a retarded imbecile nor misinformed and misguided. He clearly knows what a maintenance template is. The sabotage he did to Microsoft Windows and OneDrive articles is itself the evidence of my claim.
- Like I said, third time is the enemy action. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Codename Lisa, it's a personal attack to refer to another editor as a retarded imbecile. You should say developmentally challenged imbecile. EEng 01:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: What you say could have been true if it has been an edit, not a revert. You see, sometimes, vandals revert something and pick a canned edit summary too. In doing none of these, active thinking has a role. In this case, simply the style of two access dates had been changed. The dates are the same. This isn't something for which someone asks for the source, unless he or she is just clicking pseudo-randomly. Now, if I had seen this change alone in one's contribution log, I'd have assumed good faith. One lone error like this could have easily been a result of multi-tabbed editing. But as James Bond would say "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is the enemy action." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Um, MJ500's user account was created on 21 June 2017 - they haven't even been on Wikipedia for three weeks. This looks a lot like someone who's made some mistakes trying to improve Wikipedia and has been met with a very WP:BITE response. I don't know why you believe this user is a veteran - maybe you've got them confused with someone else? Marianna251TALK 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
harassment and threatening
Wikipedia policy says "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."
We had no direct communication that time but the last part of this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789557396&oldid=789555727 ) is clearly directed to me since I was the one who did the wp:banrevert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789532029&oldid=789456750
wikipedia allows everyone to make edits and this user Kautilya3 is threatening a block over a content issue. these words show wp:ownership of article and are a form of bullying and the last bit is very threatening Anybody that wants to take responsibility for the sock edits better address this issue first. or risk getting blocked themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.76.131.160 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two questions: are you one of the IP hoppers Kautilya3 has been reverting for vandalism and did you plan to notice the editor in question about this ANI, as required?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
i am not hopping, i am just using a different internet connection from home and workplace. my ip is only the ones beginning with 81 and 46 ones. check the edit reasons of kautilya3, no where does it say anything about vandalism. and i am notifying him , i am trying to work out how to do the ANI template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.76.131.160 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- First things first. You did not do WP:BANREVERT. I did BANREVERT. The editor who wrote this content, Towns Hill, was indefinitely topic-banned from India and Pakistan topics for repeated POV pushing across a range of articles. The user created this content using a sock, for which he and all his socks are now permanently blocked. By reinstating this POV content, you risk being blocked yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Possible block evasion, and vandalism/WP:OWN after release from block
Hi, this report seemed a little complex for AIV which is why I brought it here. AlexWikiIDK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week on 20 June. The cited reason for the block was repeated uploading of copyrighted images, and for at least one of those images the user was rather unapologetic about it, going so far as to insist that he had the right to release an image to public domain when it was clearly copied from the website of a reputable source ([101]). If I recall correctly there were more similar comments on the talk pages of deleted files, but I don't have access to those. Since his block expired he has vandalized two different user pages ([102] [103]) and exhibited WP:OWN by making frivolous block requests for JustDoItFettyg (talk · contribs), who reverted his edits ([104] [105]). Alex also made a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry to the same user ([106]), though an SPI was never filed. I suspect that this anon edit was Alex evading his block due to a similar editing pattern. I'm requesting an indef block for abuse of editing privileges. Thank you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've looked at KuyaBriBri's diffs, and they have presented what appears to be an accurate case against AlexWikiIDK. Normally, a second block after a one week block would call for a two week block, but I think that because AlexWikiIDK began misbehaving almost immediately their block was up, a stronger sanction is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Promotional editing at Nelson De La Nuez
User:Artworldpro is a single-purpose account devoted to editing Nelson De La Nuez, a BLP. Artworldpro created the article five years ago, and has been its only substantive contributor. All versions of the article have included gross policy violations, including extensive unsourced content in a BLP (including some unreferenced quotations), unreliable and promotional sourcing, including PR Newswire pieces and sites hawking the artist's goods for sale, and an remitting stream of promotional prose, such as "As one of the world's most collected, significant pop artists today, Nelson De La Nuez has a great American story, having come from Cuba at age 7 with nothing but talent" (cited to a not-very-authoritative magazine piece that doesn't particularly support the superlatives); and "As of 2017, the artist's galleries that sell his work are located in the most prestigious, wealthy locations in the world and his documented art sales have soared up to $105,000" (wholly unreferenced). Artworldspro's most recent text can be seen here. Hardly a single sentence is both properly phrased and properly sourced.
I stubbed the article last week, and Artworldpro is edit warring to restore the obviously inappropriate material with edi summaries like "I have the copyright as proof on this-WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?" and "Replacing article-was deleted by a vandal-IT'S PROPERLY CITED-this is a well known, prominent respected artist-ALL INFO CAN BE PROVEN-NOT TO BE REMOVED-VANDAL TO BE REPORTED-WARNED-2ND TIME)", but not even a pretense of substantive discussion. When I posted a warning on their talk page, they responded with another rant about the wonders of the artist's work and career, but no attempt to comply with applicable policies (see User talk:Artworldpro#Edit warring, proscribed content). Their comments make clear Artworldpro has a COI problem, and may even be the article subject).
Artworldpro is clearly not here to write encyclopedic content, and their principal interest is promotional. I ask that, at the very least, they be topic banned from the subject of Nelson De La Nuez and his businesses, regardless of the article involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- While Artworldpro is probably an SPA with a COI, you stubbed the article much, much too deeply, and your identification of there being "BLP violations" in the article is incorrect. I've restored some of what you removed and cleaned, un-promoed and copy-edited everything. Since you are involved enough to have edit-warred with Artworldpro over this, I suggest you leave the article for other editors to work on, especially since in my estimation you do not have a BLP exemption from edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have dropped a note on Artworldpro's talk page, advising them not to edit war, that they don't own the article, they we don;t allow Wikipedia to be used for promotion, and that they appear to have a serious COI about the subject matter. I have suggested to Artworldpro that same thing I suggested to HW above, that they step away from the article and refrain from editing it. Both parties should allow neutral editors to work on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Crosswiki self-promo spam of Wanye2004
Wanye2004 (talk - contribs - CA) is using enwiki and commons for (crosswiki) self-promo (presumably of his band, see WP:YAMB). See this AFD page, and the 3 articles linked: this is a bio about himself, The Shine Season Billionaires (speedy deleted days ago) and Dreams Worth Much Than Money ar two albums by him. User has the habit to remove prod/afd notices (01, 02), and is probably using an anon sock (75.110.149.8, same kind of edits on the same pages edited by Wanye -just an example-, possibly static). On commons he uploaded 13 files (including .ogg) about his productions and was indef banned.
After my report at WP:AIV, he was warned by an admin. His edit after warning was this, another afd tag removal. And he was blocked for a day. Sufficiently warned, in write only and, btw, Draft:E.V.O.L. was deleted as blatant hoax. IMHO clearly WP:NOTHERE. Per crosswiki self-promo spam and, at this point, vandalisms in write only after repeated warnings, I request for an indef ban. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)