Thetruth16 (talk | contribs) |
That man from Nantucket (talk | contribs) →Unite the Right rally: new section |
||
Line 893: | Line 893: | ||
User 76.116.148.215 making unsourced edits to [[Disney's Animal Kingdom]] and [[Six Flags Great Adventure]], multiple times over multiple days, ignoring attempts to discuss on talk page, and ignoring subsequent disruptive editing warnings on talk page. Also request the two pages IP is disrupting be locked 24 hours at least. [[User:Rockypedia|Rockypedia]] ([[User talk:Rockypedia|talk]]) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
User 76.116.148.215 making unsourced edits to [[Disney's Animal Kingdom]] and [[Six Flags Great Adventure]], multiple times over multiple days, ignoring attempts to discuss on talk page, and ignoring subsequent disruptive editing warnings on talk page. Also request the two pages IP is disrupting be locked 24 hours at least. [[User:Rockypedia|Rockypedia]] ([[User talk:Rockypedia|talk]]) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
== [[Unite the Right rally]] == |
|||
Not an "incident" per se, but nevertheless I'm requesting that an administrator please add this page to their watch list, or preferably just slap the 1933 politics sanctions on the damn thing. Seems anything related to the alt-right or white nationalists deserves this sanction. Since I don't watch this page, ping me if you want a response. I'll show myself the door. [[User:That man from Nantucket|That man from Nantucket]] ([[User talk:That man from Nantucket|talk]]) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 4 September 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) |
|
Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have no doubt that User:Xenophrenic is a good and well-meaning person, but his passion for defending atheism as a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come has led to tendentious editing and accusing editors who disagree with him of having an anti-atheist agenda. To this end, Xenophrenic made 64 posts in the discussion regarding Category:Persecution by atheists, challenging virtually every editor who disagreed with him, and including unpleasant comments like "That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills", "please troll at a different discussion page", "You're agenda is showing, and I don't think a closing editor is going to take you seriously". Granted, there were provocations going both ways, but Xenophrenic was the most active participant in this conduct. It was also pointed out in that discussion that Xenophrenic has tended towards edit warring in attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively.
My involvement with this topic began when I closed this long-backlogged discussion (a very difficult close, due to the extensive discussion and numerous options proposed by participants), finding no clear consensus to delete, but renaming the category to a title with much narrower scope that was suggested by multiple participants in the discussion, Category:Persecution by atheist states. Xenophrenic appealed the close, which is certainly his right. The appeal was closed as endorsing the close of the initial discussion. However, Xenophrenic's conduct of confronting every disagreeing participant at length continued during the appeal. In a discussion with only about a dozen participants, Xenophrenic made 28 comments, often with the imprimatur that those who disagree with him just don't get it, aren't reading the discussion, or have an anti-atheist agenda.
I also sought to populate the newly refined category with clearly relevant articles and subcategories such as Category:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, as articles in these categories clearly describe efforts to impose state atheism through persecution of religious practitioners. The population of such a category is, in my view, standard operating procedure, the same as when I close a discussion as "delete", and then remove links to the deleted target from articles, or when I close a multimove request as moved, and then update the links to reflect the changed page titles. Generally, these efforts are uncontroversial. In this case, Xenophrenic reverted these edits, and has continued to edit war over these additions - he has, for example, removed the category from the subcategory eight times, and has been reverted eight times, by several different editors. Clearly Xenophrenic knows to time his reversions to avoid the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit of it. Xenophrenic's rationale continues to be the belief that the category should not exist at all, that atheism can not be a motivation for people (or states) to act negatively, and that any sources to the contrary must be biased and agenda-driven.
I have no further interest in this topic, but I feel constrained to seek some limitation on Xenophrenic's conduct in this area - even if only a break from this topic for a few months. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. This user seems to be on a very persistent mission, starting on July 5, to see that category deleted. They were clearly highly invested in that deletion discussion, and although the consensus and the Deletion Review consensus, were against them, as of today they're still on a mission to remove that category.[1] While the edit warring problem is obvious, especially given their block log, I'd say this crosses strongly over into tendentious editing. A permanent sanction would certainly seem to be needed here, but a block moreso. I've blocked them for 2 weeks. I think this would have been warranted based on the edit warring alone, and certainly for the underlying WP:RGW issues. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Since this thread seems to be about more than edit warring, maybe it would be best to conditionally and/or temporarily unblock in order for him to participate here? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Absolutely. If a community sanction is imposed, I will absolutely be in favor of unblocking in deference to said sanction. If such a sanction is implemented, any admin may unblock without any objection or input from myself. Swarm ♠ 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Swarm: hmm that didn't generate a notification for some reason. Regardless, what I mean is that since we're talking about Xenophrenic in the context of more than just edit warring, it seems a shame that he is unable to comment/defend himself. I could be wrong, but isn't it pretty common in such scenarios to allow for a restricted unblock (i.e. only to edit this page)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Absolutely. If a community sanction is imposed, I will absolutely be in favor of unblocking in deference to said sanction. If such a sanction is implemented, any admin may unblock without any objection or input from myself. Swarm ♠ 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Since this thread seems to be about more than edit warring, maybe it would be best to conditionally and/or temporarily unblock in order for him to participate here? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I. Given the fact that the only questioning of the block is escalation, I would certainly not support any unblock in absence of a stronger sanction. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ah. Perhaps I was confusing the practice with that at AE/ARB. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I. Given the fact that the only questioning of the block is escalation, I would certainly not support any unblock in absence of a stronger sanction. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban: I have conflicted with Xenophrenic on this topic, and I have not seen many of his edits elsewhere. Hopefully, he makes good content edits, and if so, hopefully, he can prove himself so he does not need a topic ban. However, Xenophrenic does appear to be on a mission to whitewash WP content on atheism -- this is seen in his edit warring even after discussions were closed against what he wanted, along with his accusations that user like myself have the bias. I make no apology for my personal religious/political beliefs, but I am not pushing them on WP -- I think the "persecution by atheist states" category is noncontroversial, as there were atheist states in history that engaged in religious persecution (this fact does not condemn all atheists, just as the Inquisition does not condemn all Roman Catholics -- and I speak as a Protestant). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Accusations like
a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come
andattempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively
should really come with diffs. That's not to say Xenophrenic has been a model of good faith collaboration, and it's likely he's stepped over the line edit warring somewhere recently, but his arguments are pretty solidly based on policy and sourcing.
- Adding context: This ordeal began in response to a category Jobas (now indeffed for sock puppetry) began as one of several anti-atheism editing projects. The first CfD attracted several SPAs, many poor arguments, and blatant canvassing. (As an aside, since BD2412 and I have disagreed on the definition of an SPA, I define it here as a user with few or no edits on enwiki outside of a particular topic or purpose [i.e. including users active on other Wikimedia projects with few-to-no edits on enwiki who happened to find this obscure projectspace discussion]).
- Xenophrenic has challenged the sourcing in several places, engaging with more or less the same group of editors, with arguments on both sides repeated ad nauseum. It's often about wanting sources establishing the concept "persecution by atheists" as opposed to a synthesis of something like "they were atheists" and "they persecuted religious groups" therefore categorize not just as "anti-clericalism," "persecution of communists," "religious persecution," etc. but also "persecution by atheists" (I've paid a little less attention to the new category's debates, though it seems to suffer from the same issue). But the content particulars aren't for ANI, of course.
- I'm sympathetic to Xenophrenic's position, if not his methods, and appreciate that this is an effort to demand better policy arguments and sources despite being outnumbered, but that in an effort to make up for being outnumbered his editing has gotten rather out of hand. An edit warring block is probably deserved, but I would oppose further sanction without evidence that extends beyond this particular mess. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am not unsympathetic to the fact that atheists are a much maligned group. I would note that a closer could have legitimately closed the original CfD as "no consensus" and left the category as it was. I would consider the category rename to be at least a partial "win" for those supporting deletion, since it no longer is directed at atheists generically. bd2412 T 22:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- In a way, it seems like you're characterizing this debate as one of atheists vs. non-atheists here and in the way you've described Xenophrenic (the objection I started with above). Neither Xenophrenic nor I have been arguing about the plight of atheists or that they aren't depicted fairly on Wikipedia. The problem has nothing to do with the treatment of atheists (or absolution of atheists, etc.) such that the category has now been improved by being less about atheists broadly... the problem is that it's a loss for Wikipedia to have categories based on WP:SYNTH, and that the substance of an editor's policy-based arguments are being misrepresented by characterizing that editor having "a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on all Religion/Atheism Articles Appears impossible for this user to accept that credible sources see things differently on this topic. desmay (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- What credible sources are those? People keep claiming their existence, but none were produced at the CfD. The closer found it too hard to reach a policy-based decision such as summnig up arguments about WP:OCEGRS, so the vote was counted. The category at CfD was empty at the time of its nomination and anyone wanting the renamed category included in articles would need to produce reasons based on sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have spent significant time looking at the case and Xenophrenic is not the problem. The fundamental difficulty is that several agenda-driven editors have been pushing the idea that atheism is evil by inserting connect-the-dots factoids in articles along the lines that persecution has occurred because of atheism. Atheists have committed persecution, but so have people with black hair, and secondary sources known to be reliable for the relevant historical period are required to determine which were the significant factors that lead to persecution. Discussions have been closed based on a vote without reasonable assessment of the policy-based information presented regarding underlying sources. For example, the Soviets used atheism to crush opposition—souces do not suggest Soviets crushed religion because they were atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- ^^ This. The claim is still problematic, even if there are a greater number of accounts supporting it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- We have categories like Category:Lawyers from Tulsa, Oklahoma and Category:Crimes committed by law enforcement. This does not imply that coming from Tulsa causes people to become lawyers, or that becoming a law enforcement officer causes people to commit crimes. These categories merely catalog overlap. bd2412 T 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- WP:OCEGRS is the problem because it would not be possible to write an article about persecution by atheists or atheist states that satisfied WP:N and WP:V. No one is pushing the idea that there is anything wrong with lawyers or Tulsa so advocacy does not arise. By contrast, advocates are using poorly sourced factoids and categories to POV push regarding atheism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with this user on the facts, but I'm having some trouble connecting his conduct with the need for a topic ban, and I'm not completely sure a two week block is fully justified. He's engaged passionately in a debate about whether a category should exist ---- and lost. He's also removed the same category from articles and has got overexcited with reverting. And... what else? Please could someone help me join this up?—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- For the record, I did not propose a block. However, I was unaware of Xenophrenic's block history, which includes a half dozen blocks for edit warring, most recently a one-week block in February of this year. Typically, blocks for edit warring are progressively longer. bd2412 T 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see. OK, the block's hard to argue with. Topic ban still seems a bit strong to me.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Looking through Xenophrenic's edit history, when he disagreed with the outcome of the previous debate on this category, he went ahead and removed that category from every article to which it had been added. I have nominated plenty of categories for deletion in my time, and when I have been on the losing side, I've never taken a step like that. bd2412 T 23:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a followup: I think the block was very reasonable, if not lenient. This would be a typical block for continued edit warring, without factoring in the strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present. Swarm ♠ 03:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't at all agree with Xenophrenic's 'methods', but I can share his frustration in face of demonstrable WP:SOAPBOXing and all the (seemingly networked) bad-faith 'in-group' behaviour required to 'push' it; wikipedia is obviously not prepared for such affronts, and those responsible for such behaviour are no doubt quite aware of that, too. And this is a problem that goes beyond this particular topic.
- Demonstrating unverifiability (in addition to the above behaviour) is not 'POV-pushing' (and it is disingenuous to call it so): even a cursory search should be enough to demonstrate whether something is commonly-accepted and widely-demonstrated fact (or a fringe-opinion created/promoted by one particular 'in-group'), but when pages of responses to that request by those pushing a claim (and even deciding administrators) do everything but that (and are deflection, vote-counting that doesn't add up, and 'let's find a behaviour fault' (often non sequitur) ad hominem accusations instead), that makes a situation that pretty well describes itself, and makes this look like an additional effort to remove opposition.
- I'm not sure whether we (or who) are supposed to even 'vote' here (and any rational decision should, again, consider more than that), but: sanctions for bad behaviour, yes, but topic-ban, no, especially when those seeking the ban are incapable of defending (by any demonstrable means) their this-topic-related claims that are the root of all this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- What's more, it should be further noted that the reporting admin (and the 'decider' admin in earlier discussions leading to this) is clearly siding with the WP:SOAPBOXers: this sort of behaviour (that has yet to address the verifiability of anything) has no place on Wikipedia, and I would really like to see this, upon further non-partisan examination, WP:BOOMERANG, and perhaps also against others supporting the same decidedly un-encyclopaedic goals. In any case, this entire situation requires further objective attention by those truely interested in Wikipedia's verifiablilty, as this misuse of Wikipedia, as far as I can see, is becoming a disquieting and increasingly organised trend. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I had no involvement in this matter, nor any interest in the topic, prior to my closure of the long-pending CfD discussion. The most substantial portion of the conduct noted above had already occurred by then. There is no conspiracy at work here, and no agenda beyond carrying out the best available consensus of the community. bd2412 T 21:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody's claiming any 'conspiracy', but I have full confidence in the ability of anyone deciding whatever here to judge that for themselves. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I had no involvement in this matter, nor any interest in the topic, prior to my closure of the long-pending CfD discussion. The most substantial portion of the conduct noted above had already occurred by then. There is no conspiracy at work here, and no agenda beyond carrying out the best available consensus of the community. bd2412 T 21:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- What's more, it should be further noted that the reporting admin (and the 'decider' admin in earlier discussions leading to this) is clearly siding with the WP:SOAPBOXers: this sort of behaviour (that has yet to address the verifiability of anything) has no place on Wikipedia, and I would really like to see this, upon further non-partisan examination, WP:BOOMERANG, and perhaps also against others supporting the same decidedly un-encyclopaedic goals. In any case, this entire situation requires further objective attention by those truely interested in Wikipedia's verifiablilty, as this misuse of Wikipedia, as far as I can see, is becoming a disquieting and increasingly organised trend. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I closed the first deletion discussion(here) as no consensus, but I did point out that the category as it was named was clearly WP:OR and needed to be renamed. I cannot defend Xenophrenic's edit-warring, but he's still correct that the category name as it exists is WP:SYNTH and clearly cannot be verified (or hasn't been as yet). Topic-banning someone for pushing a POV that's technically correct cannot be logical, surely, regardless of the edit-warring issue. I am becoming seriously concerned that there is a group of editors who are pushing for their "opponents" to be removed from the arena, as has already happened with QuackGuru in one of the sections above. I don't think letting them get their wish is a very good idea at all. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen many sanctions applied where the administrator explained that good edits don't justify edit-warring, or whatever other bad behavior. Now I see the opposite. Black Kite is even threatening the editors who had their consensus overridden by Xenophrenic's edit-warring with an "investigation" into offsite coordination. On what evidence?
- The message is clear: ignore policy and consensus if necessary to make sure your edits stick. And don't worry if you're reported, we'll protect you because we agree with your POV. Administrators don't get a super-vote on content decisions, especially after the fact. Enforce the rules consistently or not at all. D.Creish (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you've forgotten that if I was using a "super vote" then I would have closed the CFD as Delete, wouldn't I? Perhaps actually reading around the issue might be useful here; as Johnuniq and The Promenader amongst others say above, demnstrating unverifiability of an issue (and don't forget WP:V is policy) is perfectly good editing (it is not POV editing), even if edit-warring is not. Those who wish to see the category retained but have still not fixed the verifiability issues with it cannot hold the moral high ground here, sorry. Especially editors like yourself whose very short editing histories here seem to be characterised mostly by editing warring and POV editing themselves (how ironic, eh?). Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I read the deletion discussion (including all 61 of Xenophrenic's comments.) The majority were in favor of keep. Ignoring the canvassed votes the majority was even greater. You said the "keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy" without explaining what policies or why and closed as "no consensus", so I don't know what point trying to prove. If you'd closed as "delete" it would have been overturned. D.Creish (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Really? 99 article space edits and you're giving Black Kite grief on AN/I about how to close discussions? Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I read the deletion discussion (including all 61 of Xenophrenic's comments.) The majority were in favor of keep. Ignoring the canvassed votes the majority was even greater. You said the "keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy" without explaining what policies or why and closed as "no consensus", so I don't know what point trying to prove. If you'd closed as "delete" it would have been overturned. D.Creish (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on atheism/religion topics or Use 1RR restriction: Wow, now that others mention it, Xenophrenic does have a long history of being blocked [2] for constant edit warring through the years. Especially lately he has been engaged with many editors over religion, atheism and politics pages. I know that atheism/religion pages and politics are very hot topics and are controversial, but seriously, the fact that admins have had to step in to block him in the past few years over constant edit warring in these these topics says quite a bit. Clearly temporary blocking has not been effective at reducing his passionate, but unfortunately aggressive and impatient posting - especially when faced with editors with whom he disagrees with. For instance, like User:BD2412 has experienced recently about Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union in the talk page. The same behavior of constantly over-commenting to every other editor's post happened in the recent attempt to delete a category on atheism [3]. The same persistent behavior was active when Xenophrenic contested the decision [4] last week. Even before this, the same behavior was present in another attempt on the same atheism category back in January 2017 [5] with him even ignoring the other side's arguments and/or actually diminishing the points that the "other side" in a summary table (it was very messy). I had to re-summarize the points of the "other side" in order to keep objectivity and honesty intact - people made many points and to diminish their efforts looks condescending rather than trying to be fair what the others are saying. On another article Persecution of Buddhists I tried to expand on a source, almost verbatim and preferred the quote in the end, that was already there on theism, atheism, and repressive governments. I included both theism and atheism since that is what the source said in that section and he changed it to be about defending atheism in general, which was not the relevant part for that article. Instead of reaching a consensus (no one but him agreed with his proposed wording) it looks like he timed and spread out his + 10 reverts (he sometimes reverted manually, without hitting the revert button, to avoid detection) of 3 editors from April 29, 2017 to May 17, 2017 to avoid violating the 3 RR rule despite him not having a consensus favoring his edit after a pretty long discussion with him commentating on pretty much on every post.
- Like even User:BD2412 noted, Xenophrenic knows how to time his reverts to avoid detection of admins. When another user was around, Xenophrenic apparently did 43 reverts in less than 2 hours! - per User:Fram's comments at the bottom of his own ANI reprot found here [6]. This is just too much. That was a widespread edit war over atheism/religion too, over many articles. Its one thing to be a passionate editor, it is another to be undiplomatic and to constantly edit war and to be impatiently reverting edits one disagrees with. Filibustering or tiring out editors is not a good strategy to gain allies.
- Originally, when I saw this, I thought maybe a temporary ban for a few months would be enough, but seeing that such actions have not deterred such agressive and impatient behavior, I think it may be better for a permanent topic ban on atheism/religion pages OR a very long topic ban with restrictions after it ends such as strictly enforcing a 1RR so that he limits his edit wars and seeks consensus from all other editors. One has to accept the results. Many chances have already been given already to see if his behavior would change, but unfortunately it looks like it has not. I would have wished that it would not have come to this.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I really think if you're going to make a whole lot of new accusations you really need to back them up with diffs, otherwise you're just jumping on the dog-pile. You also probably need to address the point that whether or not Xenophrenic has been using the most collegiate approach, he has an entirely valid point about the appropriateness of the category in question at the root of all this, per WP:OCEGRS. Sure, edit-warring is not appropriate, but it takes at least two editors for there to be an edit war and at least Xenophrenic is trying to apply actual policy rather than some kind of WP:SYNTH. (Where are the actual sources that validate the category, you know as per WP:V?) - Nick Thorne talk 06:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the issue is not the category for me. I could go either way on it (I was middle ground on it). The issue that I brought forward was the reverts and the blocks that have resulted from edit warring and of course filibusting (some links are there). These are about behavior, not a category. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that we should ignore the context within which Xenophrenic acted and examine his actions in isolation? Because if that's the case then why do we have policy if a group of editors can simply ignore it and seek to get a lone editor trying to uphold that policy sanctioned for doing so? Like I say below, Xenophrenic probably deserves a trout for over enthusiasm, but his detractors appear to get a free pass to provoke without consequence and then get to jump on the dog pile here. Yes, very collegiate. - Nick Thorne talk 06:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Would anyone supporting a further sanction against Xenophrenic please identify whether they have a COI—Huitzilopochtli1990's (User:Ramos1990) first edit concerned religiosity and intelligence and mentions atheism six times. Regarding the substance of the above comment, what about the behavior of people who, without suitable secondary sources, sought to change articles to suggest that persecution has occurred because of atheism? I tried to clarify when the persecution category should be used here where the only comment supporting use of the category was from Desmay whose user page announces "Founder of the http://www.escapingatheism project". Secondary sources reliable for the relevant history should be used, but Xenophrenic is about the only editor referring to them. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, it appears that your claim about Xenophrenic being the only editor to provide sources is false: (myself: [7][8]; Desmay: [9]) --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- As standard in this discussion, those diffs show nothing but superficial obviousness ("The USSR praciced state atheism and had it as its goal"). The actual issue concerns a bunch of ILIKEIT votes concerning questions of history—did the Soviet government persecute religious figures because the politicians preferred atheism, or was it because the government persecuted all opposition figures and used atheism as a tool to remove alternative sources of authority. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, WP:COI doesn't apply to me since that policy is about making edits on behalf of "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". I am independent like most editors on wikipedia. Also, on my first edit I used 'theism' and related terms more than 5 times too. It does not really show much either way since new editors usually don't know how to write on wikipedia. The issue here is not Xenophrenic's point of view - everyone has one when it comes to atheism or "religion" since these are all volatile personal topics - controversial. The issue is behavior. Considering that Xenophrenic filed a complaint on an ANI report and was WP:BOOMERANGed by being blocked for edit warring by reverting 43 times in 2 hours across multiple pages with another editor a few months ago (see his ANI report here in the blocked section at the bottom [10]), do you think that something should be done? His block history is quite long too with 6 blocks since 2011 and at least 3 in the last year and a half over religion/atheism topics (meaning that independent admins have had to step in, including this time with User:Swarm and User:BD2412 taking action and filing this current ANI report). Sanctions such as restricting to 1RR is a decent option which I advocated already. Another option is a topic ban, which I would NOT have advocated if the constant and needless edit warring in recent years had not occurred - which User:BD2412 brought up.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, it simply doesn't matter whether the leaders in atheist states believed atheism or used it -- their states were atheist states either way. The atheist state persecution category we were discussing has NOTHING to do about the people, it DOES have to do with the governments those people led. There is a big difference. I don't care whether the people in charge of the atheist states were true believers or opportunists -- what I do care in this case is whether their governments officially made state atheism the official religious/theological view. The sources that at least I and Desmay provided prove just that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is only 'proof' that you're looking exclusively for sources (opinions) that 'agree' with you (and even presenting those 'require' your added 'interpretation'). If the claims you're WP:SOAPBOXing were true, any mainstream reference would echo them: by all means, please show us source that isn't an apologetic-opinion and/or anti-atheist hit-piece; even a cursory search is enough to demonstrate that 'state atheism' (and similar claims) is an opinionated concept purely a product of these.
- Again, the claim itself isn't the main focus of my criticism: it's the selective-reality, rather 'in-group' WP:GAME-er-ly denigrate-and-take-out-the-opposition behaviour around it; were any claim to fulfil WP:V, none of that would be 'necessary'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, it simply doesn't matter whether the leaders in atheist states believed atheism or used it -- their states were atheist states either way. The atheist state persecution category we were discussing has NOTHING to do about the people, it DOES have to do with the governments those people led. There is a big difference. I don't care whether the people in charge of the atheist states were true believers or opportunists -- what I do care in this case is whether their governments officially made state atheism the official religious/theological view. The sources that at least I and Desmay provided prove just that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, WP:COI doesn't apply to me since that policy is about making edits on behalf of "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". I am independent like most editors on wikipedia. Also, on my first edit I used 'theism' and related terms more than 5 times too. It does not really show much either way since new editors usually don't know how to write on wikipedia. The issue here is not Xenophrenic's point of view - everyone has one when it comes to atheism or "religion" since these are all volatile personal topics - controversial. The issue is behavior. Considering that Xenophrenic filed a complaint on an ANI report and was WP:BOOMERANGed by being blocked for edit warring by reverting 43 times in 2 hours across multiple pages with another editor a few months ago (see his ANI report here in the blocked section at the bottom [10]), do you think that something should be done? His block history is quite long too with 6 blocks since 2011 and at least 3 in the last year and a half over religion/atheism topics (meaning that independent admins have had to step in, including this time with User:Swarm and User:BD2412 taking action and filing this current ANI report). Sanctions such as restricting to 1RR is a decent option which I advocated already. Another option is a topic ban, which I would NOT have advocated if the constant and needless edit warring in recent years had not occurred - which User:BD2412 brought up.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- As standard in this discussion, those diffs show nothing but superficial obviousness ("The USSR praciced state atheism and had it as its goal"). The actual issue concerns a bunch of ILIKEIT votes concerning questions of history—did the Soviet government persecute religious figures because the politicians preferred atheism, or was it because the government persecuted all opposition figures and used atheism as a tool to remove alternative sources of authority. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, it appears that your claim about Xenophrenic being the only editor to provide sources is false: (myself: [7][8]; Desmay: [9]) --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the issue is not the category for me. I could go either way on it (I was middle ground on it). The issue that I brought forward was the reverts and the blocks that have resulted from edit warring and of course filibusting (some links are there). These are about behavior, not a category. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I really think if you're going to make a whole lot of new accusations you really need to back them up with diffs, otherwise you're just jumping on the dog-pile. You also probably need to address the point that whether or not Xenophrenic has been using the most collegiate approach, he has an entirely valid point about the appropriateness of the category in question at the root of all this, per WP:OCEGRS. Sure, edit-warring is not appropriate, but it takes at least two editors for there to be an edit war and at least Xenophrenic is trying to apply actual policy rather than some kind of WP:SYNTH. (Where are the actual sources that validate the category, you know as per WP:V?) - Nick Thorne talk 06:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Those sources may be necessary to support the proposition that the state in question persecuted religions because of the official religious position was atheism, but it is not sufficient. Otherwise the fact that the UK has an established religion would be proof that they persecute non-Anglicans. So, to the case in point, in order for us as Wikipedians to state that the Soviet Union persecuted religious people because they were atheist it is not sufficient to simply show that atheism was the official position, you also need to show sources that this was the reason they persecuted religious people, exactly as Xenophrenic has been asking per WP:V which is policy. - Nick Thorne talk 09:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- First, the sources I linked to are netural, reliable sources -- please stop labeling any source that disagrees with your position as "anti-atheist apologist sources" and the like, because they are not. This position and these sources do not attack atheism. At least two admins have found the sources and arguments legitimate enough to keep the category (with a better and NPOV title). The sources linked make clear that it was because of the official state atheist ideology of these nations that they persecuted religious people. State atheism is a real concept, as numerous RSs show at State atheism, it is not synonymous with communism, and it is not an attack on all atheists just like other religious persecutions do not condemn all people who happened to hold the same religion as the persecutors.
- (edit conflict)Those sources may be necessary to support the proposition that the state in question persecuted religions because of the official religious position was atheism, but it is not sufficient. Otherwise the fact that the UK has an established religion would be proof that they persecute non-Anglicans. So, to the case in point, in order for us as Wikipedians to state that the Soviet Union persecuted religious people because they were atheist it is not sufficient to simply show that atheism was the official position, you also need to show sources that this was the reason they persecuted religious people, exactly as Xenophrenic has been asking per WP:V which is policy. - Nick Thorne talk 09:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- However, the more important point is that Xenophrenic disregarded consensus in trying to get his way in this dispute. Two admins found that consensus was against deleting the category and for renaming it and repopulating it. However, Xenophrenic continued to delete the category from various articles, even after the deletion review was not in his favor. As Huitzilopochtli1990 points out, Xenophrenic did 43 reverts in less than 2 hours, and he timed and orchestrated his reverts to avoid making it seem as if he violated 3RR (although he did violate it numerous times). He has a history of such behavior, as Huitzilopochtli1990 pointed out. As seen in his disregarding the established consensus, constant reverts, and massive commenting sprees, Xenophrenic is clearly on a mission to advance his point of view. People disagree on various topics, such as persecution by atheist states apparently, but having strong feelings on it is not an excuse to engage in the behavior that Xenophrenic did.
- Arguing about state atheism is besides the point (something I should have realized earlier) in this discussion. This discussion is about whether Xenophranic's behavior worthy of a topic ban, and I submit to the admins that it definately is. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Even a cursory examination of those sources demonstrates the point of view (opinion!) they originate from, and even a cursory search for 'state atheism' will not turn up anything outside of those 'type' of sources. Even fewer are those who would blame the actions of totalitarian regimes on 'atheism' alone. And providing sources that don't support a claim (eg: a source saying 'the regime did X' 'supporting' a claim that 'atheists did x') is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia.
- I can see how reverting the category back to its original state would be 'against consensus', but removing it in its 'new' form from articles where it doesn't apply... if the person doing that can demonstrate their reason for doing so, why are sanctions being called for as an 'answer' to that? Granted, Xenophrenic is persistant, and doesn't seem to realise when he is outnumbered (yet another thing a few have apparently learned to orchestrate), but this in no way merits a topic-ban, especially without examining his points of contention (the origin of 'all the fuss'): by all means, please do do this. Everyone involved seems to be doing (and calling for) everything but that, and upon further examination, the reason for this I'm sure will be quite clear. And I expect accusations to be examined with just as much attention before 'punishment' is meted out.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Arguing about state atheism is besides the point (something I should have realized earlier) in this discussion. This discussion is about whether Xenophranic's behavior worthy of a topic ban, and I submit to the admins that it definately is. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Should be noted that, while he didn't want it copied here, on his user page, Xenophrenic responded/rebutted some of the claims in the original post above. May be worth reading. I also want to note that the only ones supporting a topic ban here are those actively engaged with Xenophrenic in one or many fronts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I will only add that the same could be said of those opposing the ban. The only ones not supporting a topic ban are those who have aligned with Xenophrenic in one or many fronts. Of course other options are available.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can 'only' add that a 'they're doing it too (so we're 'equal')' accusation doesn't make a behaviour acceptable (or make any rational sense). I only see two votes opposing a ban so far (and mine is not even technically that), as, as a few seem to have a hard time understanding, voting is not the core of the consensus process, as voting is worth nothing if the WP:V (even behaviour-wise) of an accusation/claim voted on doesn't stand to testing. Again, those with reason and evidence on their side (or are 'siding' with the same) have no need for clan-minded tactics, so no thanks for that passive-aggressive accusation. ThePromenader ✎ ✓ 10:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are editors on both sides of this discussion (including myself) who were equally involved in the atheist states disputes -- it is not fair to only call out one side and not the other. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nowhere did anyone ask for any such thing. By all means, please please please examine all 'involved' parties (and hey, throw me in there, although the trail doesn't go far), and their contributions, too... perhaps that will make it clear where everyone is 'coming from' in their actions (here and elsewhere), if it isn't obvious already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are editors on both sides of this discussion (including myself) who were equally involved in the atheist states disputes -- it is not fair to only call out one side and not the other. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can 'only' add that a 'they're doing it too (so we're 'equal')' accusation doesn't make a behaviour acceptable (or make any rational sense). I only see two votes opposing a ban so far (and mine is not even technically that), as, as a few seem to have a hard time understanding, voting is not the core of the consensus process, as voting is worth nothing if the WP:V (even behaviour-wise) of an accusation/claim voted on doesn't stand to testing. Again, those with reason and evidence on their side (or are 'siding' with the same) have no need for clan-minded tactics, so no thanks for that passive-aggressive accusation. ThePromenader ✎ ✓ 10:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. I oppose the imposition of sanctions on Xenophrenic as proposed here and to the best of my recollection I have never edited nor expressed an opinion on the talk page of any Wikipedia article about state atheism. I am only involved in this because AN/I is on my watch list and sometimes a discussion thread here piques my interest. I do not appreciate being painted in this manner by the provocatively broad brush being wielded by 1990'sguy. Far too much weight is being given in this whole discussion to counting iVotes and far too little to evaluating arguments. I wonder why that is? - Nick Thorne talk 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I guess no one caught the sarcasm in my comment, which was a throwback of the clan-based accusations others were making. I did mention other options were available (temporary ban + 1RR or 1RR only ) since a permanent ban is one option, not the only one. To me it looks like all individuals here are independent of each other with quite a bit of passionate interest on the topics at hand (why some on both sides keep on popping up in these kinds discussions). It seems that the views on the category is where much of the lines are being drawn, not over Xenophrenic's behaviors such as edit wars and blocks by admins in dealing with hot button topics with other editors. As section title emphasizes, this discussion is about the conduct of an editor, not a rehash of arguments on a category (already been dealt with twice + an appeal already). What for instance, do you guys think about Xenophrenic last block involving 43 reverts in less than 2 hours across multiple pages in a wide edit war (per User:Fram) [11]) just few months ago (February 2017)? Is this acceptable behavior?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Discussions here are archived automatically every three days without modification, not two. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I guess no one caught the sarcasm in my comment, which was a throwback of the clan-based accusations others were making. I did mention other options were available (temporary ban + 1RR or 1RR only ) since a permanent ban is one option, not the only one. To me it looks like all individuals here are independent of each other with quite a bit of passionate interest on the topics at hand (why some on both sides keep on popping up in these kinds discussions). It seems that the views on the category is where much of the lines are being drawn, not over Xenophrenic's behaviors such as edit wars and blocks by admins in dealing with hot button topics with other editors. As section title emphasizes, this discussion is about the conduct of an editor, not a rehash of arguments on a category (already been dealt with twice + an appeal already). What for instance, do you guys think about Xenophrenic last block involving 43 reverts in less than 2 hours across multiple pages in a wide edit war (per User:Fram) [11]) just few months ago (February 2017)? Is this acceptable behavior?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose topic ban Frankly, at most Xenophrenic deserves a trout for not tip-toeing around the sensibilities of those quite blatantly seeking to impose a POV against policy. I took the time to read through all this and check out the diffs provided, really, there's been a fair amount of bear poking going on. Xeno, you know these guys will not play fair, just cool it man. - Nick Thorne talk 06:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, some admins, such as Ad Orientem have supported a topic ban for Xenophrenic on all atheism/religious persecution topics in the past for edit warring and POV pushing: [12] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose topic ban - Making my position clear, for reasons demonstrated (but don't take my word for it, check these) throughout this discussion. The situation is so evident here that this should not be yet another 'let's ignore the obvious' case of (seemingly convenient) 'counting votes', but leaving it just in case. (PS: I predict the appearance of a 'counter-vote' brigade... but I wouldn't mind at all being wrong) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I just want to make it clear that I would have initiated exactly the same process here if Xenophrenic had exhibited the same conduct on the opposite side of the issue under discussion (that is, if Xenophrenic had engaged in the same discussion badgering, snideness, and edit warring in favor of the category rather than against it). bd2412 T 04:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So what is arguably the most important Wikipedia policy, WP:V, counts for nothing in your opinion then? Nowhere have I seen you address this point, which is that Xeno was quite rightly asking for those in favour of the category to provide reliable sources to back up the claims made. I understand his frustration at the lack of engagement on this issue. - Nick Thorne talk 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your criticism doesn't follow from my comment, which was an evaluation of the behavior at issue. Many other participants in the discussion raised the same questions that Xenophrenic did without making demeaning remarks or carrying out dozens of reversions against multiple editors without support of a consensus to do so. Where sources in print have been presented in the discussions on this topic, Xenophrenic has asserted that the authors of those sources were merely pushing an agenda, but Xenophrenic continued with his conduct even after his argument to this effect failed to persuade the community. bd2412 T 13:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So anyone can 'enforce' any claim if their numbers are greater and they 'agree'? Xenophrenic extensively demonstrated that their sources, when they weren't apologietic or anti-atheist hit-pieces expressing an opinion (and 'concept') unshared by historical consensus or any mainstream reference, didn't confirm the article claim. That's pretty damn important. And when a very in-group-behaviour tag-team of contributors (clearly having the same opinion and goals as their 'sources') do their all immediately following the 'authorisation' (that wasn't) of the category judgment to put it in even demonstrably non-related anywhere, that in itself is worthy of examination and completly open to opposition, and that's what User:Xenophrenic did. You can't just pick 'convenient' face-saving bits of reality and 'interpret' them in a way supporting your actions, you have to look at the whole thing. No, you can't just ignore WP:V, and if you ever do go there, you will see that Xenophrenic's actions were justified, as that 'in-group' is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to present to the world a narrow, agenda-laden anti-other 'interpretation' of history as widely accepted fact. This is strictly forbidden by wikipedia. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Are there neutral and reliable sources describing the referenced sources as "apologietic or anti-atheist hit-pieces expressing an opinion (and 'concept') unshared by historical consensus or any mainstream reference"? bd2412 T 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Don't deflect. When you search for the claim-term used, and find that it is utterly absent from mainstream references, that pretty well explains itself. And when the only places you find it are of apologetic or anti-atheist authorship, that explains it even more. And when you look at the user pages and contribution history of those pushing that as 'fact', that will explain even more. Have you done any of this? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not deflecting, I am asking for proof that the "only places you find it are of apologetic or anti-atheist authorship", and that the concept is absent where it would be expected to be found in mainstream references. There were sources that were pointed out by participants in the discussion. The sources speak for themselves, and are sufficient to support an article. If there are countering sources, those too can be provided in such an article. It is very much the norm to present notable disputes this way, and we have topics like this on some quite narrow fields. bd2412 T 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are deflecting, as you're the admin who should be doing the verifying here, and it is evident that you haven't done anything beyond take 'arguments' that only sound like they are that at face value. Declaring 'this is a reliable source' does not make a source a reliable one.
- But here, I can google for you: state atheism. That's even before the 'captain obvious' that the goal here is to paint 'atheism' in a negative light... and who else makes the 'atheism has killed more than religion' apologist-accusation-claim? That is exactly what's going on here: claiming that all the evils done by dictator-despots were done 'because atheism'? Apologist/anti-atheists, and the authors of those results, when followed up, prove to be opinions overwhelmingly of those categories, and, again, if you examine the contributions of those trying to 'get rid of the opposition' (or: an application of WP:V and tamping of WP:SYNTH (and other policies)) are of the same. There's a few on a real 'mission' to use wikipedia to misinform by painting an 'out-group' they don't like in a bad light, and that has to stop. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the results of your Google search do not support your premise. If you have specific examples of sources that do, please feel free to provide them. bd2412 T 01:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're asking to prove a negative (when you should be the one providing justification for your actions - you opened this). So 'state atheism' is a commonly used term in mainstream references and history books? Those results clearly shows that it is not. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the State atheism article. It is filled with reliable sources -- not anti-atheist apologitic sources (unless Oxford University Press and other similar publishers have an anti-atheist agenda). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're asking to prove a negative (when you should be the one providing justification for your actions - you opened this). So 'state atheism' is a commonly used term in mainstream references and history books? Those results clearly shows that it is not. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the results of your Google search do not support your premise. If you have specific examples of sources that do, please feel free to provide them. bd2412 T 01:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not deflecting, I am asking for proof that the "only places you find it are of apologetic or anti-atheist authorship", and that the concept is absent where it would be expected to be found in mainstream references. There were sources that were pointed out by participants in the discussion. The sources speak for themselves, and are sufficient to support an article. If there are countering sources, those too can be provided in such an article. It is very much the norm to present notable disputes this way, and we have topics like this on some quite narrow fields. bd2412 T 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Don't deflect. When you search for the claim-term used, and find that it is utterly absent from mainstream references, that pretty well explains itself. And when the only places you find it are of apologetic or anti-atheist authorship, that explains it even more. And when you look at the user pages and contribution history of those pushing that as 'fact', that will explain even more. Have you done any of this? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Are there neutral and reliable sources describing the referenced sources as "apologietic or anti-atheist hit-pieces expressing an opinion (and 'concept') unshared by historical consensus or any mainstream reference"? bd2412 T 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So anyone can 'enforce' any claim if their numbers are greater and they 'agree'? Xenophrenic extensively demonstrated that their sources, when they weren't apologietic or anti-atheist hit-pieces expressing an opinion (and 'concept') unshared by historical consensus or any mainstream reference, didn't confirm the article claim. That's pretty damn important. And when a very in-group-behaviour tag-team of contributors (clearly having the same opinion and goals as their 'sources') do their all immediately following the 'authorisation' (that wasn't) of the category judgment to put it in even demonstrably non-related anywhere, that in itself is worthy of examination and completly open to opposition, and that's what User:Xenophrenic did. You can't just pick 'convenient' face-saving bits of reality and 'interpret' them in a way supporting your actions, you have to look at the whole thing. No, you can't just ignore WP:V, and if you ever do go there, you will see that Xenophrenic's actions were justified, as that 'in-group' is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to present to the world a narrow, agenda-laden anti-other 'interpretation' of history as widely accepted fact. This is strictly forbidden by wikipedia. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your criticism doesn't follow from my comment, which was an evaluation of the behavior at issue. Many other participants in the discussion raised the same questions that Xenophrenic did without making demeaning remarks or carrying out dozens of reversions against multiple editors without support of a consensus to do so. Where sources in print have been presented in the discussions on this topic, Xenophrenic has asserted that the authors of those sources were merely pushing an agenda, but Xenophrenic continued with his conduct even after his argument to this effect failed to persuade the community. bd2412 T 13:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So what is arguably the most important Wikipedia policy, WP:V, counts for nothing in your opinion then? Nowhere have I seen you address this point, which is that Xeno was quite rightly asking for those in favour of the category to provide reliable sources to back up the claims made. I understand his frustration at the lack of engagement on this issue. - Nick Thorne talk 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral on Xenophrenic But I'd like to point at the wide ranging aspersions, veiled attacks, and "I'm not saying it, but..."s that have been thrown around by THEPROMENADER. A block for disruption and personal attacks may be in order, or at least a brief topic ban.--v/r - TP 22:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- What's funny about this is that I have never to my recollection, beyond adding a single [who?] tag, contributed anything to any of the articles in question. And I'm not 'veiling' anything at all: a presentation of fact is not a 'personal attack'; we have a clear case of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SYNTH going on here, and a blatant one, too, and this abuse (that goes on well beyond this topic) is the focus of my concern. By all means, test all claims, but it seems that everything but that is being done here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- CommentThis is about User:Xenophrenic, but all it takes is a cursory glance at the user pages and edit history of 'those who would have him removed' (one of them [13] hosts an 'atheism is bullshit' blog[14], and another announces quite brazenly on their user page how 'wrong' Wikipedia is (compared to 'God's word') [15], another's edit history clearly shows their efforts to whitewash Christianity and paint 'Atheism' in a bad light [16]) to see what he's up against. And the charges against him are a very selective 'interpretation' of events: accusations against User:Xenophrenic abound, but as we can see even in this discussion, no-one can substantiate them. All this amounts to a 'stop him complaining' drive, without, oddly, ever addressing the elephant-in-the-room he's complaining about. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- So now you are throwing WP:PERSONAL attacks at the opposing side? WP:PERSONAL states that "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is considered a personal attack. If the same lie is repeated enough times, people will start believing it. It has been demonstrated that many reliable sources exist about atheist states -- just look at the State atheism article and the links I provided above. Yet, you still reject all the sources as somehow being anti-atheist apologia when they are clearly not the case.
- Xenophranic's behavior speaks for itself. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well,[17][18] and it is persistent behavior, nothing new.[19][20] Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). So, ThePromenader, it is true that this discussion has to do with Xenophrenic, and we should keep the focus on him rather than sources, which is irrelevant to this discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Topic Ban on articles concerning Atheism/Religion for Xenophrenic This editor has been blocked a total of three times for editing in a POV manner on atheism/religion topics (not to mention countless other blocks). Not only does Xenophrenic contest sources that don't fit his paradigm, he also edit wars after consensus has already been reached on talk pages. Allowing Xenophrenic to continue to edit is only going to waste the time of other editors and cause other articles to be biased with his POV edits. These findings of fact, coupled with Huitzilopochtli1990's research, provide a strong reason to topic ban Xenophrenic. -Plaxie (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Convenience break
This thread is now roughly 1/4 of the words on ANI. Having read through this discussion and the CfD that prompted it, it appears to me that the majority of the former is a continuation of the latter, with a side serve of argument about whether being Right excuses behaving Badly. So unless someone proposes a concrete action, backed by evidence supporting that action, in a coherent form, I propose to close this with a warning against edit warring in 24 hours time. Otherwise it is a time sink that is very obviously going nowhere. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Can't really disagree with any of the above. I'll add that it's disappointing that Xenophrenic raised several specific objections/rebuttals to claims in this thread on his user page following his block. He also made requests for clarification on the block in light of those claims and later made an unblock request -- none of these look to have received much of a response from either involved or uninvolved admins. Thus the subject of this thread has tried and been unable to respond to defend himself for the entire duration this has been open, and a warning for edit warring seems pretty redundant (presuming you intend it for Xenophrenic). The big open questions, to me, are about numeric majorities pushing OR (whether in good or bad faith) in multiple venues and the behavior of the minority of editors persistent in asking for better sources. We see pretty often editors "behaving badly" in a way that reflects the numeric imbalance. Eventually the user(s) in the minority are blocked or other people notice and get involved. Of course, it can be hard to tell that scenario from one in which the roles are reversed. Anyway, the rest can wait for a separate thread and a separate diff collection if necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with User:GoldenRing that this discussion has wasted too many words that have spilled over from category discussions which have already been dealt with already in two separate discussions + and appeal already. There really is no need for people to still argue over a category here in this ANI report since that is not the reason for the ANI report.
- To help bring an end to this ANI report and to adhere to User:GoldenRing's plea for a coherence on this whole mess, lets keep focus on the scope of the ANI report - "conduct" of User:Xenophrenic from the issues User:BD2412 brought up. Since User:Xenophrenic's editing patterns are not new, recent and past behavioral observations (including his block log [21]: the last block from his block log [22] where he got boomeranged over the same topics earlier this year and also the block from July 2016 over the same topics) should be the most relevant factors to decide for an action, if any should be taken.
- It seems User:BD2412 had never interacted with Xenophrenic until he closed a category discussion and following that, User:BD2412 experienced persistent disruptive edits and edit warring. User:Swarm seemed to have never interacted with User:Xenophrenic directly either and felt the necessity to block User:Xenophrenic for that type of disruptive conduct. These two admins independently felt the need to somehow sanction User:Xenophrenic for his behavioral patterns recently.
- Throughout this discussion numerous editors have commented on User:Xenophrenics behaviors or editing methods and whether or not sanctions are needed. Interestingly, a good chunk of editors who both agree and disagree over sanctions have expressed some concerns or reservations over behavior. Technically, no one has formally defended User:Xenophrenic's behaviors or editing methods as appropriate for how to deal with other editors. Anyways an attempt at a short summary:
- User:BD2412 made the ANI report on User:Xenophrenic's persistent edit warring, timed reverting, and filabustering editors who disagree with him and suggested some type of sanction, at least temporary topic banning
- User:Swarm made the block on User:Xenophrenic for edit warring and tendentious editing and suggested some type of permanent sanction was needed
- User:Rhododendrites commented that though User:Xenophrenic's editing has gotten out of hand recently, no further sanctions are needed aside from the block, given the situation he was in
- User:1990'sguy commented that User:Xenophrenic has edit warred even after an unfavorable decision on a category was made so a sanction like topic banning is viable
- User:S Marshall commented that though User:Xenophrenic seems recently prone to reverting a category on multiple articles, he does not see a reason to extend a block sanction further
- User:desmay commented that it is difficult to see eye to eye with User:Xenophrenic with respect to sources and interpretation of the sources on polarizing topics so sanctions like topic banning is viable
- User:ThePromenader commented that though he does not agree with all of User:Xenophrenic's methods, sanctions for bad behaviour are viable, but not a topic ban
- User:Black Kite commented that though he cannot defend User:Xenophrenic's edit-warring, topic banning someone for a POV that is correct is illogical irrespective of edit warring
- User:Huitzilopochtli1990(Ramos1990) commented that given User:Xenophrenic's recent block history over the past year and a half (last block earlier this year involved User: Xenophrenic doing 43 reverts in 2 hours) and constant edit warring over these topics, sanctions like topic ban or topic ban + 1RR are viable
- User:Nick Thorne commented that User:Xenophrenic does not deserve sanctions like topic banning since he is arguing correctly policy-wise
- Throughout this discussion, some sanction options have been suggested:
- 1) "Topic ban on atheism/religion pages" not clear on long or short topic ban, but this would provide some restraint on edit warring. However, considering recent blocking history, short blocking or banning may not do much as that has already been tried at least 2 times in less than a year and a half (this would be the third time).
- 2) "Temporary topic ban on atheism/religion pages with 1RR restrictions" to limit the amount of disruptive edits with some time off of wikipedia on these volatile topics and then to restrict potential edit wars with multiple editors by limiting the amounts of reverting that can be done.
- Sorry if I missed anything.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- That very this-is-how-it-is-sounding but "look over here, not over there" selective interpretation of events and positions (I said (too) much more than that!) still isn't what GoldenRing asked for. Johnuniq [I have spent significant time looking at the case and Xenophrenic is not the problem. The fundamental difficulty is that several agenda-driven editors have been pushing the idea that atheism is evil by inserting connect-the-dots factoids in articles along the lines that persecution has occurred because of atheism. Atheists have committed persecution, but so have people with black hair, and secondary sources known to be reliable for the relevant historical period are required to determine which were the significant factors that lead to persecution. Discussions have been closed based on a vote without reasonable assessment of the policy-based information presented regarding underlying sources.], Rhododendrites [I'm sympathetic to Xenophrenic's position, if not his methods, and appreciate that this is an effort to demand better policy arguments and sources despite being outnumbered, but that in an effort to make up for being outnumbered his editing has gotten rather out of hand. An edit warring block is probably deserved, but I would oppose further sanction without evidence that extends beyond this particular mess.] and Black Kite [I closed the first deletion discussion(here) as no consensus, but I did point out that the category as it was named was clearly WP:OR and needed to be renamed. I cannot defend Xenophrenic's edit-warring, but he's still correct that the category name as it exists is WP:SYNTH and clearly cannot be verified (or hasn't been as yet). Topic-banning someone for pushing a POV that's technically correct cannot be logical, surely, regardless of the edit-warring issue. I am becoming seriously concerned that there is a group of editors who are pushing for their 'opponents' to be removed from the arena, as has already happened with QuackGuru in one of the sections above. I don't think letting them get their wish is a very good idea at all.] have made observations similar to mine, and this is my stand on the matter. It would be unethical to carry out further sanctions without examining the underlying cases, claims and references (thus my 'is not this case' which meant 'not for here', not 'don't look at it'), and for some reason, a few here seem quite worried about that happening. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- PS: A reminder that Xenophrenic, due to his (still unanswered!) block, has been unable to defend themselves in this, which is also unfair and unethical. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The issue raised was conduct, not a rehash of arguments over a category (this rehashing being way too long is what User:GoldenRing was referring to). So people wasting time arguing over a category here is not the issue - it has already been dealt with in an OPEN discussion + an OPEN appeal on that discussion already so why rehash? The issue raised in the whole section is, is the conduct User:Xenophrenic appropriate? Most editors just try to make their case and settle for the outcome and move on but the amount of disruptive and persistent editing caused by User:Xenophrenic throughout the category discussion and afterwards (including previous blocks over the same behavior in the past) was apparently disturbing enough that 2 admins took the initiative to block him and write an ANI report on his conduct.
- In his last block in February 2017 User:Xenophrenic did 43 reverts over multiple pages in 2 hours over atheism/religion pages - is this appropriate behavior? Seems a bit excessive, no? If the atheism/religion topics ignite such persistent disruptive behavior by an editor as it also did on the category discussion recently + after the category discussion had ended + after the appeal to overturn the decision had ended, then should some sanctions like a topic ban and/or 1RR (to stop and/or prevent future disruptive edits) be implemented? This discussion is way too long and really needs to end.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Several involved here (including myself) do not agree with your 'behaviour only' desires, or even think such self-imposed 'blinkering' even possible.
- But while I'm here, you neglect to mention in your 'revert spree' tale that the closing admin stated that the category was 'clearly WP:OR' [23] but, now that I've looked into this further, that didn't seem to bother you and your 'put it everywhere now now now' tag-team in the least, using a convenient-interpretation understated excuse that an admin had 'authorised' the category; they did no such thing. So what you all were doing was tag-team spreading what you knew was demonstrably WP:OR... and, again, Xenophrenic was not alone in removing the contested category (outlined in talk-page link above).
- What's most maddening about these no-new-developments but 'look over there' convenient-interpretations-of-partial-reality accusations is that they're clearly made with the intent of keeping this open (and making this, because of the 'that's not how it is' rebuttals such accusations engender, so long and complicated that some beleaguered tl;dr admin just might make expeditive sanctions).
- What's going on here is clear to me (and others, as per my previous comment): I really, really, really (really) think that this merits further investigation an arena outside of (and above, even) this already-mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I reiterate: I would have raised exactly the same concerns about Xenophrenic's conduct if he had engaged in the same kinds of badgering, snideness, and edit warring on the opposite side of the issue. bd2412 T 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:ThePromenader, you keep on talking about OR on this discussion in an obsessive manner as if your view is the ONLY one that matters, which again is YOUR view on a category. The fact that there was an OPEN discussion on the category with a lot of time for inputs from many editors and many did not agree with you and on top of that there was also an OPEN appeal on the discussion afterwards and even then people did not agree with you means that you had 2 chances to make your points and try to convince people of your views. It was fair chance. What more could you ask for? Wikipedia is community based. Keep in mind that I voted for a delete too (I was leaning towards YOUR side) with a condition to keep fairness so I did not get what I wanted either, but at least I respected whatever decision came about. The fact that you cannot defend Xenophrenic's behavior on this and your acknowledgement about sanctions for his behavior (but no topic ban), means that the behavioral issue is acknowledged even by you. Actually nearly all the editors opposing a topic ban mentioned issues with his behavior too (edit warring, going overboard on reverting, etc). No one defended it. The end does not justify the means.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I reiterate: I would have raised exactly the same concerns about Xenophrenic's conduct if he had engaged in the same kinds of badgering, snideness, and edit warring on the opposite side of the issue. bd2412 T 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- In his last block in February 2017 User:Xenophrenic did 43 reverts over multiple pages in 2 hours over atheism/religion pages - is this appropriate behavior? Seems a bit excessive, no? If the atheism/religion topics ignite such persistent disruptive behavior by an editor as it also did on the category discussion recently + after the category discussion had ended + after the appeal to overturn the decision had ended, then should some sanctions like a topic ban and/or 1RR (to stop and/or prevent future disruptive edits) be implemented? This discussion is way too long and really needs to end.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Reporting a User for Abusing their 500/30 For Their Bias - User: Bolter21
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report a user User:Bolter21.
Please check the user's Wikipedia History. He is editing anything with the name "State of Palestine" or "Palestine" and is replacing it with "Palestinian territories" in order to de-legitimize it. Palestine is recognized by 136 countries as shown here which is obviously more than a majority of countries. In his talk here about Palestine, he ends off his sentence with "Regardless of what you have to say, "State of Palestine" is completely unacceptable" which basically shuts off any discussion as the user does not wish to accept.
The user clearly resides in Israel and it looks like, by their edit history, that just because Israel does not recognize Palestine, that doesnt mean majority of the world does not recognize Palestine. Back to the talk page, he even tries to say that even if 193 countries recognize Palestine, it still "does not exist". He is seriously violating Wikipedia's rule on Point of View. This is not the first time this user has gotten into fights or edit wars, there are many such as here, here, here, here, here (This shows his POV side instead of staying neutral on the political party Fatah), here, and alot more.
Ohh yea, and then apparently anything that is in favor of Palestine, even if its correct, is POV, and another member also tells him this by "not feeding the trolls" here. Not to mention this "very professional" response to an edit he replies here.
I would like the moderators to investigate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisIsAgain32 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to report me, but be aware I am here only for the weekends. Anyway, I gave plenty of source-based-explanations for my edits. It is quite stupid to report me without mentioning them, let alone the fact the reported hasn't engaged in any discussion with me before reporting. The admin who will waste his time on this matter can go to the relevent talk pages and read my reasoning but generally my main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist. the "establishment of a free and independent State of Palestine". If a state needs to be established, it doesn't exist. I hope this will go back to the relevent talkpages without wasting the admins' time, since this is no more than a content dispute.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bolter21:
"Anyway, I gave plenty of source-based-explanations for my edits. ", Really? Because after I just showed the links. They dont seem like it. In fact you literally swore at a member and was not civil or did you skip that in my statement?
"Feel free to report me, but be aware I am here only for the weekends." Ahh okay so according to you, breaking rules are okay on weekends. Got it.
"The admin who will waste his time on this matter" No, admins dont 'waste their time here', they check over people who get reported.
"main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist." Which you are WRONG. Majority of countries and even the UN are against your point. Deny all you want but its a real place. Im sure they didnt teach you that in military.
"If you want a quick proof, look at the fact the "President of the State of Palestine" called for..." - The magic word is INDEPENDENT. Crimea is owned by Ukraine but occupied by Russia just like how Palestine is a country but has alot of illegal Israeli settlements. Of course, you can go ahead and tell me what the military said but that does not change anything.
"I hope this will go back to the relevent talkpages without wasting the admins' time, since this is no more than a content dispute." - Backing out i see? You are good at that.
- I am not going to argue with you on content disputes in the Administrators' noticeboard. If you want, move that discussion to my talkpage or to the relevent article's talkpage and please don't make it a WP:FORUM.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually I am just going to go straight in with a request for a topic ban from the IP area for Bolter here. Anyone who seriously argues the State of Palestine does not exist cannot be allowed to edit in the IP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Only in death and Godric on Leave: Feel free to read this article and this article and understand that my edits and views are not based on mere POV. In my opinion the State of Palestine doesn't exist, but it is indeed a subject of debate. While this is all nice and good, when a state's existence can't be confirmed, Wikipedia cannot claim that a university is located in that state. I understand the problems you see with my edits and I will respect your reverts and comments, as I will not break the wiki's policies to prevent a discussion. If you have a problem with my edits, revert all of them, but instead of demanding a topic-ban with a poorly-written reason, debate, bring sources, offer solutions and help the project. I keep believing in my way, as I see that even the less controversial edits I make, like this one, which claims the State of Palestine, whether it exists or not, administrates anything, are being reverted, so I know that while you claim I push a POV, it is clear that the other side is no better, and the best way to solve that, is with discussion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- In general Bolter21 is a good editor, and this report is quite poorly presented, so it pains me to say that the complaint has merit. Bolter21's attitude to this issue is one of pure arrogance. He knows perfectly well that sources differ on the question of what the "State of Palestine" is, but as far as he is concerned "only a dishonest person, an ignorant, or an innocent reader of Wikipeida would think that, yes, there is an actual state called Palestine, that exists at this very moment" [24] That is, Bolter21 knows best, everyone else knows nothing, we must all do what Bolter21 wants. Bolter21 has to be taught that collaborative editing doesn't work like that. I propose an indefinite topic-ban on the concept of "State of Palestine". I'm expressing that as narrowly as possible because, with this inexplicable exception, Bolter21 is capable of excellent contributions. Zerotalk 09:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have been editing about this topic for almost three years now and while my attitude has changed a lot, my opinion on the matter hasn't changed a bit. I was yet to be presented with a proof that the State of Palestine exist beyond the papers. If a state hasn't yet been established, a university cannot be located in this state, and a state with no government, cannot administrate cities. Since late 2012, when a the UN accepted the PLO under the name "State of Palestine" as a "non-member observer state", a handfull of users has stuck the term "State of Palestine" every where, to the point of replacing the original terms "Palestinian Territories" for the land and "Palestinian Authority" for the government, with "State of Palestine", while completely ignoring the reality expressed by the hundreds and thousands of sources out there, who were not influenced by that insiginificant symbolic event. This topic was handled poorly throughout the years, with democratic polls and rush to ANIs. I am far from the only one supporting my edits. Suggesting a topic-ban after two broken discussions is not going to solve anything. Handle it in the relevent talk pages rather than going to ANIs. Last time I said such thing, people tried to ban me from Wikipedia, but I will remain stubborn on this matter, as long as the State of Palestine is not existing de-facto. My edits are no more POV pushing than the edits of the other side, which happens to have far more supporters in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just a comment, absent from my admin tools right now, on the following:
- "...The admin who will waste his time on this matter can go to the relevent talk pages and read my reasoning but generally my main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist. the "establishment of a free and independent State of Palestine". If a state needs to be established, it doesn't exist...." (my emphasis).
- I'm really quite disturbed by an editor who sees "the State of Palestine" and "a free and independent State of Palestine" (my emphasis) as being synonymous. To reduce to simplicity, the absence of a red balloon does not imply the absence of a balloon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to discuss that with you on relevent talkpages.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really quite disturbed by an editor who sees "the State of Palestine" and "a free and independent State of Palestine" (my emphasis) as being synonymous. To reduce to simplicity, the absence of a red balloon does not imply the absence of a balloon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- "...The admin who will waste his time on this matter can go to the relevent talk pages and read my reasoning but generally my main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist. the "establishment of a free and independent State of Palestine". If a state needs to be established, it doesn't exist...." (my emphasis).
- Bring a T-ban:--Per Only in death.Incompetent editing in a narrow area.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Boomerang Why is an editor with fewer than 500 edits -- who is obviously aware of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 -- editing articles about Israel, Palestine, and the status of Jerusalem? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, the complainant shouldn't have been allowed to start this discussion per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you think 500/30 prohibits editors who have not reached the threshold from reporting problems in the area at a relevant noticeboard, you are sadly mistaken. If a complaint has merit, it is not ignored because the filing editor has not reached a specified edit-count. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 prohibits any editor from filing a complaint at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, the complainant shouldn't have been allowed to start this discussion per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on I-P areas for Bolter21. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per OID. Agree with
"Anyone who seriously argues the State of Palestine does not exist cannot be allowed to edit in the IP area."
That should be a "no-brainer". -- Begoon 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC) - Comment: The I/P area is a large area, suggesting a topic ban for a content dispute in a very spesific topic in that area seems radical to me. And still the users have not elaborated really on why should I be topic banned. OID said that becuase I think the State of Palestine doesn't exist? Becuase this claim is supported by sources. The user who filed the complaint , The new user who filed the complaint seems to have something personal against me as he made some sarcastic comments on my military service and began investigating my talkpage archives searching for every single confrontation I had since early 2016. It should be noted that I was put under mentorship of Irondome in April 2016 so most of the links before that are not relevent anymore and most of these 2016 allegations on POV pushing or 1RR violations were either solved or wrong.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Its a non-argument. The only countries that deny Palestinian statehood are Israel and its allies. Even the UK which has not 'officially' recognized it as a state, recognizes it as a state observer in the UN and has passed non-binding motions in parliament endorsing its statehood. Past experience shows that anyone who starts editing the IP area to deny/remove Palestinian statehood is either a)Israeli, b)pushing the Israel POV. Its a completely time-wasting exercise to engage with such people as they do not accept Palestine as a state, it causes almost instant edit-wars, its pretty much basic trolling. And frankly if you cant see why attempting to remove Palestinian statehood is a *massive* issue, this is a WP:CIR issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that you refuse to accept any opinion other than your's, even when presented with a source. Maybe you should be topic-banned? So far, we have been discussing about content, and not actual reason why should be banned from creating things such as the "1948 war" section in the "Katamon" article, or the "End of the first phase" in the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" article and other expansions I made in the I/P area. Can you give me a valid reason why I should be banned from writing on the 1948 war, the Palestinian local elections, 2017 or Palestinian workers in Israel, both articles I've created?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- And let me note that I do not deny the broad recognition Palestine has, but the recognition is interpreted in different ways. In 2014, France's foreign minister said France will not recognize Palestine as long as it is not more than a "symbolic gesture.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Its a non-argument. The only countries that deny Palestinian statehood are Israel and its allies. Even the UK which has not 'officially' recognized it as a state, recognizes it as a state observer in the UN and has passed non-binding motions in parliament endorsing its statehood. Past experience shows that anyone who starts editing the IP area to deny/remove Palestinian statehood is either a)Israeli, b)pushing the Israel POV. Its a completely time-wasting exercise to engage with such people as they do not accept Palestine as a state, it causes almost instant edit-wars, its pretty much basic trolling. And frankly if you cant see why attempting to remove Palestinian statehood is a *massive* issue, this is a WP:CIR issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Only as a comment, it would seem that we should have some page related to P/I that asserts how WP writes/treats Palestine (without any other context, and if not otherwise clearly specified by sources) and expects all editors to follow that. It seems from the above that we generally respect that Palestine is treated as a nation-state, but I don't follow the area enough to know if this is a truism. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- We have a number of articles in various places (State of Palestine, Sovereign state, List of states with limited recognition) that go into it in detail. The State of Palestine has de jure recognition from pretty much everyone (including the UN) of importance except Israel and its closest allies - a lot of whom abstained rather than opposed in the last major recognition vote. It exerts de facto authority/control over portions of the territory claimed by the State of Palestine, with the remainder still under the control/occupation of Israel. So any claim that it is not a state is largely spurious at this point, and is a giant red flag when someone starts altering multiple articles to reduce/remove mention of statehood. The 'its still disputed' argument is posturing. So while on articles which *describe* the dispute (or historical etc), explaining the lack of statehood may be appropriate, or using the relevant descriptors at that point. The current international recognition however is clearly that it exists as a state. What is guaranteed to piss a lot of people off and be completely disruptive to collaborative editing in possibly the most contentious editing area we have, is going round a bunch of IP articles altering the wording claiming its not a recognized state. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- OIC explained why he thinks I am wrong, but not why I should be topic banned.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Zero's judgement. Bolter is a promising editor. Bolter works hard, he casts a wide net for sources and is collegial. The pattern of serial reverting of some phrasing or sourcing is serious. But in the I/P zone the basic problem is it is plagued by sit-around and revert editors, with no constructive work in their record. There are numerous editors who keep erasing sources that have never been dismissed as unusable at the RSN board. His views may well be diametrically opposed to my own, but precisely for that reason, I think I can say with some insight, since we have worked collaboratively together, that harsh measures are inappropriate. Therefore, please ease up on proposals for a general I/P ban, and, as Zero suggests, just give him a 'no-go' ban for the topic in question, 'State of Palestine'. Shabazz may be technically wrong, but seeing an I/P breaking an ARBPIA rule, and then trying to get a lad like Bolter punished is ugly.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- What WP:ARBPIA rule is the IP breaking? Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. 'All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.'
- I can't see he has qualified in those terms. Yet as malik observed he is editing in the area proscribed:here,here andhere.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not only that, but the decision has an exemption to allow ineligible editors to use the talk pages to discuss such articles but says "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." So shame on you, Begoon, for writing without knowing what you're talking about. I don't know you, but I assume you're usually better than that. And you, too are mistaken, Softlavender. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I missed the text that reads "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.", but it is unclear what "this exception" refers to: the preceding sentence, or the sentence before that one? That certainly needs to be re-worded for clarity. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not only that, but the decision has an exemption to allow ineligible editors to use the talk pages to discuss such articles but says "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." So shame on you, Begoon, for writing without knowing what you're talking about. I don't know you, but I assume you're usually better than that. And you, too are mistaken, Softlavender. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with Zero's judgement. Bolter is a promising editor. Bolter works hard, he casts a wide net for sources and is collegial. The pattern of serial reverting of some phrasing or sourcing is serious. But in the I/P zone the basic problem is it is plagued by sit-around and revert editors, with no constructive work in their record. There are numerous editors who keep erasing sources that have never been dismissed as unusable at the RSN board. His views may well be diametrically opposed to my own, but precisely for that reason, I think I can say with some insight, since we have worked collaboratively together, that harsh measures are inappropriate. Therefore, please ease up on proposals for a general I/P ban, and, as Zero suggests, just give him a 'no-go' ban for the topic in question, 'State of Palestine'. Shabazz may be technically wrong, but seeing an I/P breaking an ARBPIA rule, and then trying to get a lad like Bolter punished is ugly.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- OIC explained why he thinks I am wrong, but not why I should be topic banned.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Concur with Nishidani. A complete I/P TB isn't needed, just one on this very narrow subject. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I, too, concur with Nishidani.I also think this is a groundless witch hunt. Virtually every editor who edits articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict has a strong point of view, and singling out one of the better editors in the area is outrageous. Bolter21 is frequently correct -- I challenge any of the editors calling for his head to point to a single article about something that can be said to exist in the State of Palestine. Where is this state? If you wish to pretend that it has a physical presence, go ahead and deceive yourselves. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Clarified below
- Um, Malik, that looks like a bet, even if thrown to the decapitators. As someone who wishes young Stav to keep his head and help us consolidate an intelligent community in the I/P death zone, I can't help note that Rami K. Isaac, C. Michael Hall, Freya Higgins-Desbiolles,'Palestine as a Tourism Destination,', in Rami K. Isaac, C. Michael Hall, Freya Higgins-Desbiolles (eds).The Politics and Power of Tourism in Palestine, Routledge, 2015 pp.15-34 p.26 tend to think it has a physical presence, 6,000 sq.kms, with no borders (a large part of Israel has no border) but whose entry and exit points are controlled by 2 foreign states. That said, I'm generally wary of pressing the issue one way or another: there's more important editing to be done than squabbling over the Kafkian-quarkish-Schrödinger state of Palestine. It should neither be affirmed nor denied, erased everywhere or plunked everywhere. If a strong source for an article has it, it can go in. If no such source relevant to a specific article topic exists, you stay with Palestinian territories etc.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that I have blocked ThisIsAgain32 for 48 hours as an arbitration enforcement action to enforce the 500/30 rule, and have made very clear on their talk page that they must not participate in this discussion or any other editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until they reach extended-confirmed status. Although this report could be dealt with as an arbitration enforcement matter, I do not intend to do so (though I think any other uninvolved administrator could, if they so wished). I do not consider my block of the OP grounds to dismiss this complaint (though I take no position on its merits, and, again, I think any uninvolved admin could close it as an AE action if they wish). GoldenRing (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The complaint is clearly valid, and 7 people so far have supported a topic ban of some sort on the reported editor (even Nishidani is advocating a topic-ban on the "State of Palestine" issue). The reported editor's behavior is going to have to be dealt with one way or another, so the fact that this particular report may (or may not, the wording of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is unclear as to what "This exception" refers to) have been filed in violation of an unclear ruling is not cause to close the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nishidani have opposite bias from Bolter so no wonder he support the topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- But Shrike opposed a ban because he is totally impartial! ;) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- No one said that but a phrase "even Nishidani is advocating a topic-ban" implied that bolter and nishidani share the same POV.--Shrike (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Shrike: You misread Softlavender's point. The "even" refers to the point that most of the people weighing in so far, do support some kind of topic ban. The spectrum ranged from a broad topic ban, to a narrow topic ban. Of course, the spectrum is now widened because I and you have opposed sanctions altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- No one said that but a phrase "even Nishidani is advocating a topic-ban" implied that bolter and nishidani share the same POV.--Shrike (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- But Shrike opposed a ban because he is totally impartial! ;) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nishidani have opposite bias from Bolter so no wonder he support the topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- The complaint is clearly valid, and 7 people so far have supported a topic ban of some sort on the reported editor (even Nishidani is advocating a topic-ban on the "State of Palestine" issue). The reported editor's behavior is going to have to be dealt with one way or another, so the fact that this particular report may (or may not, the wording of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is unclear as to what "This exception" refers to) have been filed in violation of an unclear ruling is not cause to close the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose any sanctions on Bolter. From what I can see, the discussion on the talk page is good-faith and civil. The OP has simply not made the case for any sort of generalized misconduct, edit-warring or otherwise flouting consensus. Most of the diffs are in the "throw mud and see what sticks" category. The only incivil diff in the OP is this one, which is over a year ago.
I now come to the content dispute. Bolter is making a case that the State of Palestine exists de jure, but not de facto. This can probably be solved with careful phrasing, ideally with a clearly stated RfC. A long time ago, I closed an RfC on Kosovo, which could be helpful here.
Finally, about bias: all editors in this area have a bias, and people are not required to be unbiased on Wikipedia (not that it is possible anyway). What is important is whether people, by and large, behave properly: advance good-faith arguments, are amenable to compromise and follow consensus. And the violation of these standards has not been demonstrated to have occurred. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- So the recent diff I brought, in which Bolter21 chararacterised people disagreeing with him as "dishonest" is "good-faith and civil" in your opinion? Zerotalk 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: The diff was not in the OP, but I did read the comment when I read the talk page discussion. To be clear, Bolter says:
...dishonest person, an ignorant, or an innocent reader of Wikipeida...
. The comment is needlessly inflammatory and is not the way I would have phrased it, for sure. But, and this is crucial, the point which Bolter is making is the difference between de jure and de facto state. Whatever one might think about the validity of the point, it's a reasonable and good-faith argument. In my opinion, occasional incivility in this area is virtually inevitable, especially as the length of the discussion grows longer. As long as the overwhelming thrust of the discussion is in good-faith, I usually counsel overlooking the slip-ups.Again, I suggest that the matter be resolved by careful phrasing, preferably by using an RfC. I recall the Judea and Samaria/West Bank case which was eventually settled by an RfC. One could work on that model. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Probably a waste of time. As Nathan Thrall, the most intelligent commentator on these things, argues, it is in Israel's rational interests to maintain a stalemate in negotiations so that a 'State of Palestine', recognized by most of the world, is denied recognition by the major Western powers. It is in the interests of the Palestinian people (but perhaps not their Quisling government in Ramallah - they're doing well for themselves) to assert that sovereignty has been partially recognized - there are parts of the territories Israel can't enter, except at gunpoint, unless permission is granted by the 'national authority' of Palestine, and Israeli officials deal with the 'enemy' or 'foreign power' that is the PNA on a day to day basis, according to formal accords - an undisputed form of diplomatic recognition. They just refuse to call it that, because it would have legal consequences for their pretensions to wrest eventual hegemony by sheer attrition. Bolter's point of view toes his government's line, which is his right, but he can't insist that the Israeli POV be the default one for Wikipedia. This is his error, as it is also flawed to press the opposite view, maintaining that State of Palestine define every article re Palestinian villages right up to the Green Line. Editors should not toe government or ethnic lines: they should evaluate the complexity of the evidence in RS on a case by case basis. Bolter hasn't done that, and that is why Softlavender has a point, though any sanction should be a light reminder. I would suggest a time-limit on a sanction which states he is not to edit State of Palestine material for 3 months or the like.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: The diff was not in the OP, but I did read the comment when I read the talk page discussion. To be clear, Bolter says:
- So the recent diff I brought, in which Bolter21 chararacterised people disagreeing with him as "dishonest" is "good-faith and civil" in your opinion? Zerotalk 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I too oppose any sanctions on Bolter.This content dispute but the filer has no right to participate in it as he doesn't meet the criteria per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bolter21 is a good editor. This is a Content dispute. While it is not a question that a Palestinian State has been recognized by many (though not a UN member state, yet) - the question raised in the example cited above regards to the territorial extant of said possible state. Stating that Jenin (area A) is inside the State of Palestine (as opposed to the Palestinian Authority) is perhaps a bit agenda-pushing (there has been some of that) but really just a POV flavor - there is no strong factual problem. However when referring to Area C (West Bank) where the Palestinian Authority has no de-facto (we can argue the de-jureness per Oslo....) control or Gaza Strip which de-jure is part of the PA, but de-facto is controlled by a separate government (with a separate foreign policy, trade, and activities in military conflict (e.g. - 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) - even if you accept that the state is recognized (again - not fully) and lays claim to the territory - you have a very strong issue in that de-facto this isn't the case.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose tban, not enough attempt to sort out content dispute at articles first, before escalating here.
- Boomerang - ThisIsAgain32 also broke 1R on Foundation for Defense of Democracies after being being given correct DS warning. From level of sophistication of editing, with newness of account, I suspect they're a sock of a blocked editor (which they've denied), and they're borderline disruptive/useful NETBENEFIT / NOTHERE. Would support longer block / indef to prevent disruption. Widefox; talk 14:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Zero0000, I agree my statement wasn't worded in the nicest manner, but I think the problem wasn't the uncivil words, but the message which was not properly delivered. Kingsindian did understand it. While this isn't a very good excuse, returning from a week of training in the desert, sleeping on bare soil wearing a vest and a helmet after conquering hills doesn't make you more polite, I'll try to work on that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - A sanction is nothing more than a humiliation. But this remains true : Bolter's point of view toes his government's line, which is his right, but he can't insist that the Israeli POV be the default one for Wikipedia. (Nishidani). Just here above, Bolter21 finds as an excuse that he was just coming back from a traning in the desert. Is he serious ? That's not what should have been expected as an excuse! Well, unless he clearly states he will comply whit Nishidani statement and that he understands that Palestine is a de jure State for wikipedia, he should be topic-banned. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- You did a good job in bad reading. "While this isn't a very good excuse, returning from a week of training in the desert, sleeping on bare soil wearing a vest and a helmet after conquering hills doesn't make you more polite, I'll try to work on that". This wasn't an excuse for me speaking in an uncivil manner, but I promis to work on that.
- Secondly, I am starting to get sick of people who have no knowledge on my views and edits, demanding sanctions against me becuase what they think I believe and what they don't know I write. Of course I acknowledge Palestine is a de jure state, I was the one who wrote it in the lead section of the SoP article. This discussion is really going no where, mainly because of people with an extremely very fast judgement.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Bolter21. As I wrote yesterday, I think this is a witch hunt. It's relying more on the personal prejudices of the editors calling for blood than facts about what Bolter21 has written. He is a realist about the State of Palestine -- it exists on paper and in the halls of diplomscy, but not in the real world. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn't write about it like there are cities and universities located there. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose any topic ban. Firstly I am concerned about the legitimacy of the OP to be commenting on the I/P area at all, as it appears from Malik's observation above that this person does not satisfy the criteria fror ARBPIA 30/500. I think Kingsindian makes excellent points in his general comments, as does Malik and Nick, with their usual intelligence. By the way, I would argue that the attitude in Israel on this is not some monolithic and mindless groupthink. There is much debate and wildly differing views in the Israeli body politic. The Israeli Government's stance and the Israeli intelligensia are not the same thing. Do not attempt to hang out a good, cooperative and highly constructive editor out to dry on this. There are many nuances regarding the status of Palestine as a state, which is too often used as a political football by nations and entities to score points, more aimed at disconcerting Israel than to help the Palestinian cause. The legal and on the ground realities have been demonstrated in many comments above and I think this actually quite minor issue can easily be resolved using Kingsindian's technique of using well-thought out phrasing, with copious use of the RfC tool. Some of you may know me, and I know Bolter and many of you. If necessary, I am willing (with Bolter's permission) to assist in finding acceptable wordings when editing this very narrow subject comes up. A sort of very light sub-mentoring. I strongly recommend no action is taken if B agrees. If others still push it after that, then it is basically a witch hunt which has no place here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- No one actually working in the I/P area wants Bolter topic banned. He's a valuable and scarce resource. Most of this complaint stinks: IPs are the bane of the area. But Bolter has to adopt a less proselytizing position, that's all, and a very narrow ban, on State of Palestine text, for a few months can be useful. Of course he could just say: Message received. I'll neutralize that bee in my bonnet, and Robert would be a close relative. My only reserve about this very light sanction, is that some dunce might cite it if and when he comes up for administratorship. He would fit that role well, and if a sanction on his log might prejudice that future promotion, then I'd be happy to just see this complaint die on its feet. My judgement may have been affected by the fact that I have had some harsh measures thrown my way after bullshit complaints over p's and q's were made, and we had a squad in here yelling for the guillotine on each occasion. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanction against Bolter21 harsher than a strict warning. It seems to me that some of the editors most active in the Israel-Palestine topic area, with a wide variety of viewpoints, are in virtual agreement that Bolter21 is a valuable contributor who needs to moderate his tone, while editors who have never contributed to any article related to the subject are calling for his head. Something isn't right about that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the above: none of us "regulars" in the IP area wants a full topic ban of Bolter. (Which is rather remarkable, as the "two sides of the divide" rarely agree on anything….) Seriously, Bolter is a valuable editor in the area, (and I say this, even though I don't think anyone in the area will accuse me of having much sympathy with Bolters present employers). Having said this, I would Support a limited topic ban, only, relating to anything w.r.t. "State of Palestine", and "Palestinian territories". etc. (But a strict warning might also be enough) Huldra (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Warning is sufficient. I trust the sense of "regulars" in the area that Bolter21's contributions to it are generally constructive, even though they're often in disagreement as to some of the edits' particulars. I agree with concerns that the nature of these "Palestinian territories" edits is political PoV pushing, and thus that a warning is actually in order. Also agree that the complainant isn't on good footing, even if the complaint isn't to be ignored pro forma. However, the WP lingo and process know-how of the ostensibly new user could be because of a long-term anon IP editor creating an account, not a banner user return via sockpuppet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I too would oppose a topic ban on Boulter, even though we have clashed sharply in the past, and particularly when, as a new editor, he made unacceptable comments to and about me. It is perfectly clear to me, as it seems to be to others who edit in the I/P topic area, that Boulter has made significant progress since those early days, and now, in general, tries to edit in a non-POV and collegial manner. We clearly have differing views on the issues here, but we have at times collaborated constructively, and I have found very little untoward behaviour in his edits. I have no sympathy whatsoever with his current situation, and would not be disposed to accept this as an excuse for poor editing; but in a topic area where we have seen sockpuppets and truth-warriors galore, Boulter stands out as a reasonable and honest editor who respects and engages with, rather than dismisses and denounces, those he disagrees with. A sharp warning should be sufficient here, with the clear understanding that, if such behaviour recurs editors will not extend such good faith as we do now. RolandR (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose any topic ban other than a very strict one on changing between mentions of "State of Palestine" and "Palestinian territories" or related terms although a warning would seem to be sufficient. Malik Shabazz et al have articulate my opinion exactly. While I don't edit the area, it seems clear that the vast majority of people involved in the I/P topic area whatever their viewpoint don't want Bolter21 banned from the area. If it were a one sided affair (let alone supported by everyone) then it would be worth considering depending on the circumstances and behaviour but not in a case like this. Nil Einne (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with the esteemed members of the Ministry of Love that Bolter21 is obviously guilty of thoughtcrime. Only a fool would think that banning him from saying a few words is enough to encourage crimestop, though. I think we all know what needs to be done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again, sneering at good will ain't productive, and the link to Orwell, as if Bolter is being subjected to some torture chamber, is particularly unfortunate to eyes that are familiar with the facts of the area, those set down by the impeccably right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris:
- 'Israelis like to believe, and tell the world, that they were running an enlightened or “benign” occupation qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily humiliation and manipulation.’ Orwellian indeed. Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- SOAP moar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No. It is a quote from an honest historian, in tone with your innuendo. If you disagree, this is not the place. Drop an email to Benny Morris and remonstrate with him for 'soapboxing'. It's a distraction here.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Does anyone actually bark at your dog whistles anymore? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No. It is a quote from an honest historian, in tone with your innuendo. If you disagree, this is not the place. Drop an email to Benny Morris and remonstrate with him for 'soapboxing'. It's a distraction here.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- SOAP moar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose any form of topic ban. As Malik has pointed out, Bolter is one of the better editors in this topic area. Very worrying to see how quickly a rather baseless ANI report (which should have been handled at WP:AE and has already seen the OP blocked) can end up with multiple editors supporting a topic ban. Number 57 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Notice the reasoning the supporters of a topic ban are giving. Quite interesting to see systemic bias in action, promoted by people who are ignorant of the academic debate on the topic. Although you are perhaps an "Israeli or Israel supporter" so can safely be ignored, according to the same people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again a personal attack on editors ('ignorant') who don't agree with you. Disruptive. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- You should at least put in the effort to read what I say carefully if you're going to police every comment I make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is no personal attack in NMMNG's comment. Ignorant in this context means lacking knowledge. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. - Nick Thorne talk 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Check again, and read the whole statement, not just that adjective, but the insinuation that editors who thought Bolter should be sanctioned 'safely ignore' 'pro-Israeli editors'. Bolter turned out (see also my page) 'ignorant' of the relevant academic literature, just as some above were ignorant of other aspects. Ignorance is characteristic of this area, and understandable. But to single out one side as ignorant, and in their ignorance, promoting WP:Systemic bias in what has been, to the contrary. a civil moment is quite pointy, other than being hilarious. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not everything I say is about you. For example, someone explicitly said in this thread that pro-Israeli editors can be ignored. As an exercise in reading comprehension, see if you can find that comment. Keeping both those things in mind, read the discussion and my comments again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Check again, and read the whole statement, not just that adjective, but the insinuation that editors who thought Bolter should be sanctioned 'safely ignore' 'pro-Israeli editors'. Bolter turned out (see also my page) 'ignorant' of the relevant academic literature, just as some above were ignorant of other aspects. Ignorance is characteristic of this area, and understandable. But to single out one side as ignorant, and in their ignorance, promoting WP:Systemic bias in what has been, to the contrary. a civil moment is quite pointy, other than being hilarious. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- oppose for procedure at the very least. This should have been closed right away, once it was determined the op can't post here. Oppose then on reason as well. Nothing shown here is actionable. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- oppose a topic ban. Also oppose the repeated efforts of certain I/P editors to use content disputes and/or relatively minor rules infractions to vote editors with whom they disagree on political questions off the island.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I find this man quite ignorant when he lacks education and the history of the State of Palestine Also oppose the repeated efforts of certain I/P editors to use content disputes and/or relatively minor rules infractions to vote editors with whom they disagree on political questions off this area and the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the claim, implicit in many of the comments above, that some editors here are seizing on "minor infractions" in an attempt to remove an editor with whom they politically disagree. What is evident here is that several editors who might be expected to have an opposed political analysis to Boulter are nevertheless opposing a topic ban or harsh sanction, recognising that he is a net positive to this project, who edits in a collegiate manner. Some of those who would seem to share his political analysis could learn from his behaviour, and might be more helpful to his case if they desisted from their antagonistic comments. It would be a benefit to everyone if an admin could take any appropriate action and close this case, before the discussion becomes even uglier. RolandR (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Echo RolandR's points completely. The calls for a broad topic ban, by and large, came from people who don't edit in this area. People who do edit in this area either opposed or called for a very narrow topic ban. This is the exact opposite of what one would expect if people were trying to "bump off" their opponents. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- A small topic ban now can be leveraged later. If they think he's a good editor, why do they agitate for this kind of blot on his record? Would they ever, in a million years, support even a small topic ban on someone they agree with politically? But you know all this, of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Right: so according to you, any sanction, no matter how small, on a "political opponent" is incontrovertible evidence that the real reason is to bump off the person due to their political views. By the same reasoning, all the "oppose" votes by the "political supporters" here can be discarded, since they are "really" protecting the person on their side. Be careful what you wish for.
As to your question: "would they ... support even a small topic ban on someone they agree with politically": the corresponding and relevant question here is "would they ... oppose a topic ban on someone they disagree with politically". And the answer to the latter question is yes.
I do not claim that myside bias does not exist, just that it is not the only or determining factor. If you want a system without myside bias, it would have to exclude human beings, or put very strict limits on their behavior. ANI is not such a system. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're saying here. You agree there's nothing worth sanction here. If you look at the justification for a "narrow topic ban" (as if that's a small sanction) given here by opposing editors, they do not even pretend to be about protecting the encyclopedia, citing "arrogance", "a bee in his bonnet", and nothing whatsoever in Huldra's case. They deserve a prize for not going directly for the throat in this case? I doubt anyone's buying that. The only person here who voted against his political position is Roland. Good job Roland. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Right: so according to you, any sanction, no matter how small, on a "political opponent" is incontrovertible evidence that the real reason is to bump off the person due to their political views. By the same reasoning, all the "oppose" votes by the "political supporters" here can be discarded, since they are "really" protecting the person on their side. Be careful what you wish for.
- A small topic ban now can be leveraged later. If they think he's a good editor, why do they agitate for this kind of blot on his record? Would they ever, in a million years, support even a small topic ban on someone they agree with politically? But you know all this, of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment I recall once reading a comment somewhere to the effect that the main problem with the I/P tragedy was that both sides had a bloody good point. This may well attract the highly sophisticated editors who work in the area, who implicitly or explicitly recognise this. It leads to almost (sometimes literally) theological debate about the most arcane and subtle points. This seems to create an almost perverse group loyalty which rejects outsiders unless they can quickly come to grips with this reality. I was disappointed that I did not support Nick in a recent scrape he was involved in which led him to ordeal by board. I was unwell due to R/L stresses. I take positions on a purely case-by-case basis based on the conduct of the colleague and quality and sources provided. It is a paradox that the regulars of the I/P editing community, who hold diametrically opposite POV's, often support each other, out of intellectual and personal respect for sincerely held beliefs, no matter how much it may clash with POV, providing such disagreements are thrashed out through consensus, and not on the drama boards. Imaginative solutions to issues are very often found on talk pages before resort to this kind of situation. It may come as a shock, but the I/P area is not the worst area to edit in on WP. Stav has gained respect on all sides entirely due to his positive contributions and ability to discuss. He had a few early issues in his editing career, but they were quickly resolved, with a little minor help. As a Zionist, I would support any colleague of whatever POV, if they were being harassed, which usually happens by I.P's and those who do not edit this area except to visit the boards with a pitchfork attitude. I would agree strongly with the comment by KI above. The reality is far more nuanced. Since 2012 I have seen the same names, the same colleagues plugging away. I have never witnessed any mass purges or WP assasinations on any scale. Compare that to some other contentious editing areas, where they appear commonplace. Irondome (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note I've decided to remove pages such as "Palestine (region)" and "State of Palestine", as well as Jerusalem from my watchlist. With or without my involvment, these articles are very contested, and I don't have much to contribute to them beyond the debates. I ain't happy with what goes on in these articles, but I guess I'll just let it be.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose/Boomerang The Kingfisher (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment (I don't edit this topic and don't follow it in the news very closely): This dispute sounds like it's about the use of the WP:Wikivoice to reference the State of Palestine, rather than about its actual status. With the big disclaimer that my impressions come from the US mass media that have their own biases, I thought it was nowhere near being a settled matter, so describing it as disputed sounds more neutral under NPOV. International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#No_diplomatic_recognition doesn't look like a list of close allies of Israel to me. Bolter's claim about where the references came from could be relevant. We have an NPOV noticeboard, but content disagreements about I/P have historically been intractable so I don't know if it can help. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The international/UN/136 countries recognizing the legitimacy of the Palestinian state and Israel's claims to that land and their current recognition of the Palestinian Authority are both facts for which reliable sources can be found. There's no reason for contentious editing on the part of the original complainant or Bolter21 to continue. Both nations' assertions belong in these articles. Bolter21 has announced his intention to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If the original complainant does likewise, and any future editors on those pages seek consensus, this doesn't have to be the hairpull that, say, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is. Of course, renaming or making contentious edits to articles without any attempt to seek consensus is evidence that one or all contending parties are WP:NOTHERE on that particular topic. In that case topic bans on any contentious editors on this range of topics are indicated. loupgarous (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest closing this thread, with no sanction. The aim of these arbitration discussions is to sort out problems, and sanctions are only necessary when one encounters intransigence. Bolter has undertaken to avoid the problem, and that is enough. Take his word for it. As to him delisting pages like Jerusalem, I would advise him not to overdo it. One doesn't have to edit pages one keeps an eye on, and he should consider that at least his comments are welcome anywhere, the SoP excepted because we all know that just leads to a stasis, and a waste of everyone's time. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I concur 81.98.14.109 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest closing this thread, with no sanction. The aim of these arbitration discussions is to sort out problems, and sanctions are only necessary when one encounters intransigence. Bolter has undertaken to avoid the problem, and that is enough. Take his word for it. As to him delisting pages like Jerusalem, I would advise him not to overdo it. One doesn't have to edit pages one keeps an eye on, and he should consider that at least his comments are welcome anywhere, the SoP excepted because we all know that just leads to a stasis, and a waste of everyone's time. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Systematic spam linking on articles of Slovakian sportspeople and clubs
Well, this is extraordinary… Svk fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user predominantly editing articles on Slovakian sportspeople and clubs has been inserting dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of spam links. Specifically, he is using a porn site as a reference. This has been going on at least since June (edit from June), perhaps longer (?). It appears the user in question has received warnings for unsourced additions. It does not seem, however, that anyone has reported this systematic spam linking. More examples: 1, 2, 3. I've been trying to go about removing them but there are far too many. Furthermore, most recently the user tried to create a Wikipedia article for the porn site. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, those cites are wildly inappropriate. I've gone through and removed them all. I don't know why the user would do that unless they had an interest in bringing in traffic to the site. — nihlus kryik (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe take this to a technical team also. From looking at your links it seems that this may be a bot that creates links by mimicking the last few words of a sentence. If so, and if released into the wild, that type of bot could tie advertising into reference links on any page at any time, and would need a counter-bot to find it. Make sense? I'm code-illiterate, so taking a guess here. Have to assume good faith, as, in taking a quick look at some of the history, the editor seems quite productive. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The site needs to be added to the blacklist. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reported to WP Spam. — nihlus kryik (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brief comment - DailyXvideos seems to be acting as a sporting news aggregator - sourcing content from various sites and translating to English, sometimes combining (e.g. a transfer-list for the season). The text content itself contains actual news. Now, I don't believe anyone believes people who say they buy Playboy magazine for the articles, but it is possible to source on-line for a source in English and make a mistake (I presume this source fails due to lack of an editorial board, for instance) - but this is not straight up porn (though it is there on the side and top). It is quite obvious the site is doing this to generate traffic (as the sporting news is not accessible in any reasonable way other than searching on-site or externally (google)), but this doesn't mean the editor has the same goal as the site.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've raised it on the blacklist [26]. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi all, I used this site (dailyxvideos.com) as source, because it provide slovak sport news in english, all others sites provides news only in Slovak, and I thought that in EN version of wikipedia would be better using english sources... Svk_fan (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Then maybe 'assume good faith' worked well in this instance. Thanks for the reasonable explanation Svk_fan (although from the looks of it the site may not be allowed as a source anymore?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good question, please somebody provide clarification if it´s mentiond site allowed as source or not. I can post sources in Slovak, but for me it doesn´t make sense (in EN version). So my quesion: Is website for men (sport articles and porn) in English better source as sport site in local language (slovak in this case), or not? Thanks Svk_fan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2017 (CET)
- Should probably be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can use Slovak sources. This particular source - does not seem to qualify as WP:RS (not because of the porn, because these news items don't seem accessible from the top of the site and because it doesn't seem there is an editorial board or editorial oversight (or if there is - it isn't stated anywhere obvious) - which would make the site fail as a source even prior to checking its reputation, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good question, please somebody provide clarification if it´s mentiond site allowed as source or not. I can post sources in Slovak, but for me it doesn´t make sense (in EN version). So my quesion: Is website for men (sport articles and porn) in English better source as sport site in local language (slovak in this case), or not? Thanks Svk_fan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2017 (CET)
- Then maybe 'assume good faith' worked well in this instance. Thanks for the reasonable explanation Svk_fan (although from the looks of it the site may not be allowed as a source anymore?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi all, I used this site (dailyxvideos.com) as source, because it provide slovak sport news in english, all others sites provides news only in Slovak, and I thought that in EN version of wikipedia would be better using english sources... Svk_fan (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've raised it on the blacklist [26]. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brief comment - DailyXvideos seems to be acting as a sporting news aggregator - sourcing content from various sites and translating to English, sometimes combining (e.g. a transfer-list for the season). The text content itself contains actual news. Now, I don't believe anyone believes people who say they buy Playboy magazine for the articles, but it is possible to source on-line for a source in English and make a mistake (I presume this source fails due to lack of an editorial board, for instance) - but this is not straight up porn (though it is there on the side and top). It is quite obvious the site is doing this to generate traffic (as the sporting news is not accessible in any reasonable way other than searching on-site or externally (google)), but this doesn't mean the editor has the same goal as the site.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reported to WP Spam. — nihlus kryik (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The site needs to be added to the blacklist. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe take this to a technical team also. From looking at your links it seems that this may be a bot that creates links by mimicking the last few words of a sentence. If so, and if released into the wild, that type of bot could tie advertising into reference links on any page at any time, and would need a counter-bot to find it. Make sense? I'm code-illiterate, so taking a guess here. Have to assume good faith, as, in taking a quick look at some of the history, the editor seems quite productive. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Just for the record... A quick google search gave me multiple hits to English language websites that have news and stats for Slovakian sports. So the idea that we have to use this one (and turn a blind eye to the porn) simply does not hold water. I would say there is no need to ever use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies
A person appears to be using open proxies to rapidly vandalize numerous times. Some of the IPs include:
- 211.109.219.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 183.109.75.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 211.133.41.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 201.6.142.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Edit summaries are often "copyedit", "minor fixes", "fixed typo", "fixed grammar"
All have been blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 125.207.83.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) active as of now Jim1138 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Also 109.98.171.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 58.124.220.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also 128.189.173.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) –72 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better to just let the anon vandalize on one IP? Then he can be easily reverted. Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, because we can't guarantee you will be around to instantly revert them every time without anyone ever loading up an article in a vandalised state. You have to block to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not such a bad approach really. The only we're going to stop this vandal is through boredom. So the choice is whether to constantly undo every edit stemming from one IP, or rely on finding all the other IPs they are using. And if they're more dispersed there more chance that vandalism will remain. Ultimately though, I think the easiest way to make them bored is by reducing the pool of available IPs, even if it's going to take a lot. Speaking of which, having just blocked the last 40 or so IPs, I'm now going to take a break. Someone else can track them down. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, because we can't guarantee you will be around to instantly revert them every time without anyone ever loading up an article in a vandalised state. You have to block to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 85.159.227.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 190.72.251.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) –72 (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's a heck of a range of IPs - how on earth can we get a long-term solution for this lot? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- You can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just waiting for the vandals to change IPs with every edit or so. Jim1138 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, these are VPN Gate proxies - they are usually quite dynamic and there's quite a few of them. A long term solution is to find a bot or another way to scrape the IPs so they can be blocked. Their availability should get diluted if we block enough of them. This user is operating off recent changes, so if you're reverting them please also check the prior changes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just waiting for the vandals to change IPs with every edit or so. Jim1138 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- You can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 153.185.172.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
As a vague heuristic to discuss, does anyone know what proportion of anonymous edits with canned edit summaries and more than 500 bytes of change (in either direction) are good faith? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- This seems to be a good feed, every IP on this list has been recently blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's some more of them:
- 1.176.51.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 124.104.238.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 60.238.238.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 190.207.251.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 67.190.248.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 151.237.12.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 217.83.114.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 121.175.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 220.77.156.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 211.15.119.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I was at wp-en IRC reporting some of these with some help from Jon Kolbert. k6ka and TNT were very helpful in stopping them before Zzuzz took over and did an impressive amount of cleanup - TNT also created a test edit filter here: Special:AbuseFilter/1 (the recent few IP's in the log are relevant here) and then moved it to Special:AbuseFilter/684. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is a dedicated filter at Special:AbuseFilter/819 that we've used in the past. I've enabled that and disbaled the temporary one. Also, you should know they are definitely reading what you're saying here. — MusikAnimal talk 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- A "virtual reality" mode should be setup where a vandal such as this can be "VR blocked". Their edits would appear to be made, but unknown to the vandal, they would not be. Then the vandal would happily be working away without any damage on Wikipedia. One option might be as simple as their edit appears to be saved, although this one was occasionally reverting their own edits. Another that their edit being only visible to the vandal for a period of time minutes to hours. This would prevent the vandal from easily checking; one could use a different browser to watch. Another might be that the edit is automatically reverted after a short period of time. It would get complicated for a sophisticated vandal. Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note I've taken the liberty to merge the two reports, for convenience. GABgab 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm noticing an odd pattern of vandalism with 178.87.139.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 223.206.42.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 153.230.136.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): all use three-character edit summaries but none seem to evince a single pattern of vandalism; it's all over the place. Admins have been blocking these but I'm wondering if some sort of stronger response is called for. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- here is another example. A completely innocuous minor comment on a T/P of a (relatively) obscure article reverted with a strange edit summary. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Some more information on this is right here on ANI: just scroll up till you see the section titled "Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies". That should give you some context as to what's going on. The vandalbot has already done hundreds if not thousands of edits. If you notice a similar pattern (recurring/strange edit summaries and rapid reversion of recent edits) on recent changes, rollback all of their edits and report to AIV. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is surely someone using proxies and these should be blocked for a year on sight (in fact, Zzuuzz has blocked two of them for one year, the other is blocked only for 48 hours). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've reblocked the third IP for one year as a proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is the "derp vandal". Someone has been running a vandalbot for days on end. It reverts recent changes at random. The IP's do seem to be proxies. Sro23 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- All I've seen are undo-s of recent changes, e.g. this to RFA immediately succeeded by this to an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Curious if 190.79.25.143 could be this vandal as well. Materialscientist blocked for a month as LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Almost certainly is. The "derp vandal" did have an "edit summary-less" phase and looking through my contribs, it was on 31st August. There is no other way the IP could've undone an edit less than a minute after it was made without going through recent changes and that too, on such random pages. And that is precisly the MO of the "derp vandal". Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 06:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. The things that turn some people on! Internet sociopathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Almost certainly is. The "derp vandal" did have an "edit summary-less" phase and looking through my contribs, it was on 31st August. There is no other way the IP could've undone an edit less than a minute after it was made without going through recent changes and that too, on such random pages. And that is precisly the MO of the "derp vandal". Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 06:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Curious if 190.79.25.143 could be this vandal as well. Materialscientist blocked for a month as LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- All I've seen are undo-s of recent changes, e.g. this to RFA immediately succeeded by this to an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Does this have anything to do with 39.115.84.173 (talk · contribs) and 14.38.169.187 (talk · contribs)? GABgab 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @GeneralizationsAreBad: Not just anything, but it is exactly that vandal we're talking about - rapidly reverting recent edits and having repeating/random/no edit summaries. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Taeyebar
Taeyebar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been following my edit history, Wikistalking, or to use the current term WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for years, but it has gotten much worse in the last month. He continues to edit war over subgenres, putting in his preferred version in film article leads. He has been repeatedly warned about this.
His announced intention to stalk me can be seen here. A number of his reverts of my work were immediately reverted by other editors, like this one and this one. Others have had run-ins with him as well, like Betty Logan. Last June User:TenTonParasol warned him here As a third and uninvolved party, I'm going to firmly warn: systematically undoing Gothicfilm's edits as part of an announced vendetta sparked by an unrelated issue is unconstructive battleground behavior (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). She backed up the warning here. But still, he persisted. He restored a phony credit I had deleted here. In one case he damaged a table, restoring bad formatting when he reverted my fix, as seen here. He created a red category link here, which he repeated twice. If you look at his edit history, over 90 percent of his edits since August 18, 2017 have been reverts of the last edit I did at certain pages.
I posted another warning on his Talk page as seen here. He has lately taken to saying things like They both mean the same thing don't they? So whats the point and But i told you it can fit in one sentence. How is this change necessary? after repeatedly undoing my fix to a very long run-on sentence. Since being warned by DonQuixote yesterday regarding The Wicker Man (film series), he is now demanding discussion over my edits, trying to present himself as a responsible party watching over my activity. He has gotten away with this behavior because he usually spreads his reverts out over days, sometimes weeks or even months. I am asking for a block for a period of time to be determined by an admin. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, my dispute with Taeyebar involved his genre-warring, which mostly involved him replacing sourced genres with his own original research. However, this is surely unacceptable, regardless of whatever circumstances preceded it. That was posted almost two years ago so I think it is rather telling that a couple of years later Gothicfilm edited The Wicker Man (film series) and Taeyebar turned up and made his first edit on the article by reverting Gothicfilm. Two years is a long time to put up with that kind of harrassment. I think it would be appropriate to ban Taeyebar from reverting Gothicfilm, at least on articles he has never edited before where there can be no possible motive for him to be editing the page in such a short time span. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
ANi does a very poor job of protecting users from WP:STALKING. This report strongly supports the assertion that stalking is occuring [27] I'd like an explaination from User:Taeyebar for this editing pattern. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That report is very telling. Last June when warned by User:TenTonParasol, Taeyebar gave an explanation that can be seen here. Note her response to Taeyebar. He claims I am stalking him. Try to find any example of me undoing a useful edit of his. There are none. All were edits he had done against WP:FILMLEAD or other guidelines. A number of them were also reverted by other editors beside me. His reverts of my edits were not constructive and sometimes even caused damage, as shown in the links above. He has been reported many times. He has made repeated promises to behave better. But weeks or months later he is back to the same disruptive patterns. Note on June 22, 2017 alone Taeyebar did over 20 reverts of my edits. On five of them he left the edit summary you have been stalking me for years without consequence. until you seize i will continue. See two examples here and here. This kind of harassment needs to be met with a concrete response, not just another warning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Taeyebar doesn't seem to do much except engage in genre warring and wikihounding. Or am I missing something? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposed One Way Interaction Ban
The evidence presented above and User:Taeyebar's own words in edit summaries shows long term intentional WP:STALKing behavior. This warrants a standard 1 way indefinite interaction ban be placed on User:Taeyebar in favor of Gothicfilm. Violations will lead to blocks of increasing length.
- Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support An explanation from Taeyebar isn't necessary. The evidence is clear cut that their behavior is disruptive and intentionally so. A I-ban is the least of the corrections we could take.--v/r - TP 22:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support The interaction report is very damning. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked, and also support I-ban. After studying Tayebar's conduct in this, I don't think an I-ban alone is sufficient. The edits + edit summaries on June 22 2017 that Gothicfilm points to are outrageous, and this strong warning by an another editor the next day doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. And it's been going on for years! I have blocked them for a month for persistent disruptive editing which interferes with another editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia. I'll support a one-way I-ban also — an indefinite I-ban, of course — though I don't have much faith in I-bans in general: they tend to cause a lot of timewasting borderline problems, especially if the editors involved edit in the same area. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC).
- Support I-ban and current block. The adding of unsourced genres is bad enough but T's declaration that they will stalk GF's edits flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I was thinking more along the lines of an indefinite block, but a month-long block and interaction ban are OK, I guess. No more warnings, though – the next time Taeyebar reverts Gothicfilm, he should be indefinitely blocked for harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nobody should have to put up with this level of harrassment. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support indef block, but failing that, support iban. I'm surprised no-one's mentioned WP:NOTHERE or WP:SPA yet. This user's reverting pattern and general behaviour is tendentious and pointy. LinguistunEinsuno 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the discussion has focused on the harrassment to the detriment of the other behavioral problems but that said it allows us to take decisive action on the most immediate issue. It will also serve as a warning to Taeyebar that he must change his ways. I am a big believer in sanctions before indefinite blocks anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Indef one-way IBan to be in place when editor comes off their 1 month block. Next step should be indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Indef I-ban and current block. If that isn't sufficient enough, then the next step should be indef block. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 20:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Indef 1-way-IBAN - I don't favour 1-way-IBANs under normal circumstances but this level of harrassment needs to be dealt with immediately. I agree with others to leave the current block in place, though I have no opinion on any infraction escalation. I think that should be dealt with upon infraction when it can be reviewed standalone and separate from this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning
Bot seems to be working fine. Nobody else has said they got spam emails, including me. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
spam emailing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.49.203 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit warring
Over the past month the Manny Pacquiao page has been subject to edit wars even with discussion on the talk page. Now information that is being kept is potentially libellous with a whole section being dedicated to it and now it has been added to the lede. Steroid allegations are a very serious claim and Pacquiao has already settled a lawsuit with Floyd Mayweather regarding these claims and should definitely be removed per WP:BLP as no criminal or sporting body has ever accused him of this and as the section says "there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Naue7 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Even if this is a BLP issue, I don't see a reason to deal with it here. Either take it to the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Especially since this seems to be only a dispute over the lead as the content is well covered in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I should clarify when I say 'take it to the article talk page' I mean continue to deal with it on the article talk page, and if necessary use some method of WP:dispute resolution such as taking it to WP:BLP/N. I also see you seem to be proposing to remove the entire content. While I'm not commenting on the merits of including the content in our article, the BLP page itself clear that well sources allegations can be included so simply saying they are just allegations and very negative is not necessarily sufficient under BLP. In other words, even with the BLP issues, I don't see any reason for this content dispute to be on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- The allegations are well documented and notable so WP:NPOV requires including them in the article (see also WP:WELLKNOWN). The section contents look fine to me, though people who follow the topic more closely might be better attuned than I am about what constitutes due weight in the context of rest of the article. As Nil says, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to ask for outside examination, or an RFC or mediation (if that's still a thing) might help. I don't see anything approaching an admin incident report here. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Despite the content dispute, the disputed content is being discussed on the article talk page. There are no current BLP issues on the article, the steroid allegations are well known and well sourced. Unless someone has something new to add here, then I suggest this report is closed and we get back to improving the article in question. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a real BLP issue as the "allegations" were presented in Wikipedia's voice, and are properly removed as violating policies and guidelines. Reinsertion of them clearly requires a clear positive consensus in accord with Wikipedia rules. Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Persistent BLP Blake
I'm not quite sure what's going on with this BLP or who should be held responsible if anyone, but the disruption is off the charts and we need some relief. I will list the diffs, and hopefully an admin or editor who has more experience with this sort of thing than I can advise as to the best course of action.
It was determined that Jameson Blake aka Jameson Andrew Gibson Blake did not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (person) and the result of the 2nd AfD was a redirect to the program they appeared in. The reason I'm listing all the diffs is to demonstrate the disruption caused by over this one BLP. I did not include all of the user names or IP #s with each diff but I did include some. I did post notification of this discussion on the respective TPs (where I could, but not going back in time too far):
- Jameson Blake AfD - The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 7:20 pm, 12 December 2015, Saturday (1 year, 8 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−6)
- January 2017 AfD again The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737 (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 6:26 am, 22 January 2017, Sunday (7 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−6)
- January 2017 An IP redirect to BLP
- Feb 2017 Same IP redirect backto Pinoy BB 737
- Feb 2017 Redirect removed
- May 2017 Back to redirect Pinoy BB
- June 2017 Back to BLP Blake
- June 2017 Back to Pinoy BB
- July 2017 Blanked by User:Kent.dioso98
- July 2017 Blanking reverted byUser:Dw122339
- July 2017 Back to BLP Blake by Kent.dioso98] Perhaps there's a connection between User:Dw122339 and Kent.dioso98?
- July 2017 Revert to Pinoy BB
- Aug 2017 Redirect Blanked
- Aug 2017 IP created name change
- Aug 2017 revert of Pinoy PP redirect
- Aug 2017 IP reverted
- Aug 2017 New user Lokoloko12345 restored Blake BLP
- Aug 2017 - Redirect BLP to Pinoy BB 737
- Aug 2017 - User:Lokoloko12345 Blanked
- Aug 2017 Revert blanking
- Aug 2017 Lokoloko12345 blanked redirect
- Aug 2017 Atsme's A7
- Aug 2017 Lokoloko reverted A7
- Aug 2017 Lokoloko restores Blake
- Aug 2017 Revert to Redirect Pinoy BB 737
- Sept 1 Lokoloko Reverts to BLP Blake again
- Sept 1 Revert to Redirect Pinoy BB 737
- Sept 1 Lokoloko reverted redirect 19:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The following are wp:SPAs, having only edited Jameson Blake article and info:
- Lokoloko12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kent.dioso98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited List of Pinoy Big Brother: 737 housemates#Jameson (Jameson Blake section)
Jim1138 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I've gone ahead and edit protected the redirect page for a period of two days. Maybe a little overkill, but that should address some of the disruptive activity. I JethroBT drop me a line 23:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Edit-warring to insert violations of BLP, V, and NPOV
An editor, Spacecowboy420, has appeared on the Manny Pacquiao page, inserting material that violates BLP, V, and NPOV, and edit-warring to keep it in; and is disruptive all round. To show why their edits are in violation of policy, I'll have to describe the content of those edits. They have been reverted multiple times by different editors.[28] [29]
- Editors inserts into the lead [30]: "Former two-weight world champion Paulie Malignaggi has consistently expressed his opinion that Pacquaio has used PEDs, noting that Pacquiao's run of dominant performances and knockouts stopped after Floyd Mayweather Jr accused Pacquaio of using PEDs." This is heavily undue for the lead, for one person's allegations to be inserted into the lead. Some of the sources are also questionable. The editor also uses the edit summary, "considering the huge amount of sources and content later in the article, this is highly relevant and worthy of the lede" - the reality is that the "steroid allegations" part takes up one paragraph, in a huge article, so is a false claim and disruptive behaviour.
This edit [31]:
- Editor inserts: "At the peak of his career until 2012, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time". This was based on a source published in 2010, whereas the added content discusses events at least until 2012 (and beyond really, because to know someone reached a peak at a certain time, there needs to be time afterwards for a decline). The editor added a source to support claims that happened after the publication date. Needless to say, this addition clearly fails WP:V.
- Editor inserts into the lead: "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate." Among other things, this uses this source [32]. What makes this a reliable source? From that website:[33]
NowBoxing.com is a boxing fans news blog and forum, where you can get the latest boxing news updates and share your thoughts on sport of boxing. We allow fans to get involved and have their opinions heard by giving them the opportunity voice their views through originally written articles.
This nowboxing is a website that anyone can contribute to; it appears to be a self-published group blog, and is clearly no way a reliable source. To use such a source to make claims about the reputation of a living person is a clear violation of WP:BLP.
- Editor inserts into the lead [34]: "While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn"." Editor inserts into the lead the opinion of one contributor in 2017, making claims about the reputation of a living person, which was published in an unreliable source - BLP violation.
- Again regarding "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate", this source is used: [35]. This is a sourced published in 2011, used to make claims about events happening in 2012-2017. Again, this is a violation of verifiability.
- Editor claims they have consensus when it appears consensus is against them - misleading behaviour that is disruptive
- Editor deleted "In 2016, Pacquiao was ranked number 2 on ESPN's list of top pound-for-pound boxers of the past 25 years". This is an actual ranking by a reputable outlet, and is precise the kind of source we need if we are to discuss a boxer's 'greatness'. For the editor to delete it, tells me they have no interest in developing a proper article.
Those are the main type of edits the editor has made on this article. I've tried my best to discuss with the editor, but they have avoided discussing those edits, and they have instead talked about side issues. It's abundantly clear that the editor is here to push an agenda on that article, and isn't afraid to edit-war and violate policy to do so. I only know the editor from the Pacquiao article, but a quick glance at their other edits tells me the pattern is there too. HampsteadLord (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- The related article Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao has also been the location of this dispute. A report on AN3 was considered a bad faith report by a known sockpuppet with the history of that page showing 7 reverts within 24 hours. @Spacecowboy420: was reverting a sock of an indeff'ed user so these reverts fall within 3-revert exception #3. However, the information being added has the same issues identified above. For one editor violating WP:SOCK and WP:NPA to be reverting another possibly violating WP:BLP obviously greatly clouds the issue but it does not justify adding poorly-sourced information to a BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Attempt to block a valid revision about Isopanishad.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am trying to add a very simple addition to the body of knowledge on Wikipedia. However, some users have teamed up and are suffocating the edit due to their bias. Particularly, User:William M. Connolley is starting a edit war with me and calling the discussion boring. This editor has had a history of being warned and blocked. Please see their talk page.
Please see my edit below:
In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||
Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |
Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||
which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4].
The users are unnecessarily making it a Europe vs. India issue and are calling me names and using bad words.
Please render Justice.
Regards, Wilkn (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Satyananda, Kaulacharya (March 1958). Isopanisad with a New commentary by Kaulacharya Satyananda. Ganesh & co., Madras Ltd. p. 39.
- ^ Radha Krishnan, Sarvpalli (1953). The Principal Upanishads. Allen & Unwin; Harper India; others. p. 564. ISBN 81-7223-124-5.
- ^ Aurobindo, Sri (1996). The Upanishads. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-914955-23-3.
- ^ Swamy, Sri Poorohit; Yeats, W.B. (March 1938). The-Ten-Principal Upanishads. Faber and Faber limited. p. 15.
- This has nothing to do with justice... This just seems to be a content dispute in which you have been blocked for edit warring. You failed in your mediation request and now are forum shopping it here. You need to gain consensus on the talk page of the article. If you can't, then you need to accept the fact that whatever you want to add does not belong in the article. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)You have started multiple talk-page discussions on the same topic. That's disruptive to the discussion and attempts to improve the article because it makes it hard to know which is the "current" discussion and leads to the same editors making the same points without progress. You have claimed there is consensus for your preferred article content when there is not. That's disruptive and impolite. Much of the talkpage discussion seems fairly well-mannered and focused on the article content, and pointing out what aspects of your suggestions are (in others' views) against which specific content policies/guidelines. Please provide specific links to certain comments you find objectionable and we can give some specific feedback. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Among other things, they are using words like 'damned' and making fun of me saying I do not know 0 - 0 = 0. They are threatening me with blocks and calling me boring. However, that is not important. What is important is how they are ganging to prevent a perfectly legitimate addition because of their prejudice and bias. Specifically, I have posted my addition above. Kindly, inform me what is wrong with that addition? I did not get a response to this question on the talk page as well. In both the discussions, my comment is the last without any answer. The editors are just equivocating and citing of non-relevant Wikipedia policies. What policy is being violated by the above addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
An unhelpful digression from the topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Proposal
Wilkn has not learned anything from their edit warring block and continued to try to argue their incorrect inclusion across multiple boards, to the point of exhausting multiple experienced editors. Since they seem incapable of understanding consensus based editing, and instead are dead set on righting great wrongs, I request that Wilkn be topic banned from the Infinity article. This seems like the last step before a competency block.
- I don't think there's a need for this, I've already warned Wilkn re to WP:ARBIPA sanctions and if this behavior continues then any admin (or I) can impose a topic ban from the Upanishads/Indian philosophy topic area (which is covered by the sanctions and is applicable here), unless of course someone decides to block before that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Bizarre vandalism from a 30/500 user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Had to bring this up here as no one seems to have taken notice on this guy. I am talking about Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena, who has been on Wikipedia for at least two years, yet his contributions consist of bizarre vandalism adding implausible "See also" links to unrelated articles, exhibit A being this edit on a Marian image, linking an article for a Pentecostal church to it for whatever reason. Same goes for this edit on Shopkins. The user apparently admits that he has a condition, but while he may have meant well his behaviour is causing nothing but disruption to the project. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- What do you mean about having a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- He mentioned it on his user page, i.e. a "special child". Blake Gripling (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- how does this mean he has a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh for heaven's sake, that's some religious reference or something. Let's get off that particular aspect before more silly things are said. I do believe there may be a CIR English-competency problem. EEng 02:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe some weird obsession with his interests in toys, professional wrestling/MMA or something being juxtaposed to religion for no plausible reason. I also forgot to mention that a "special child" in Filipino parlance refers to special needs people, i.e. a politically-correct term in place of the now-offensive terms being formerly used for them. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The assertion that he has a condition is a total jump to conclusions, his talk page is completely indecipherable, which I do think may be a sign of CIR issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't my intention to label him or anything, it's that I was more or less basing from previous experience as I've encountered similar users before. I initially assumed good faith as what was suggested in his user page (since I wouldn't want to end up insulting or upsetting him or his relatives anyway) but his long-term pattern of disruption definitely needs to be addressed, once I found out that even articles on Marian images and other Christianity-related stuff are being (unwittingly) vandalised. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The assertion that he has a condition is a total jump to conclusions, his talk page is completely indecipherable, which I do think may be a sign of CIR issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe some weird obsession with his interests in toys, professional wrestling/MMA or something being juxtaposed to religion for no plausible reason. I also forgot to mention that a "special child" in Filipino parlance refers to special needs people, i.e. a politically-correct term in place of the now-offensive terms being formerly used for them. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- He mentioned it on his user page, i.e. a "special child". Blake Gripling (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The only issue I'm seeing here is adding a link to his church to a few pages. It seems all his edits are being reverted, but I'm not sure if all of them merit reversion. All warnings issued were made after the user's final edit for that same day, indicating to me that the warnings issued may not even merit a noticeboard discussion in the first place. Has the user ever been warned about this prior to the last 24 hours? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some of them have been outright inexplicable, particularly linking Yey! to an unrelated Christian network, or the aforementioned Shopkins edit. The problem here is he's been doing this wholesale, devoid of explanation or summaries, and thus is hard to track down one by one. He has also been violating MOS:NOTSEEALSO and a few other policies from what I can tell as well. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Without diff links to both the alleged vandalism and the warnings, it's hard to scour these edits and make any judgment. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's on my original message. That being said I am leaving this up to you to decide. The user doesn't seem to be cooperative, and at most has been blanking out warning messages meant for him to refrain from making further vandalism. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Without diff links to both the alleged vandalism and the warnings, it's hard to scour these edits and make any judgment. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some of them have been outright inexplicable, particularly linking Yey! to an unrelated Christian network, or the aforementioned Shopkins edit. The problem here is he's been doing this wholesale, devoid of explanation or summaries, and thus is hard to track down one by one. He has also been violating MOS:NOTSEEALSO and a few other policies from what I can tell as well. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging @WayKurat: as I bet he might be familiar with this guy, considering his history of reverting and dealing with problem users editing Philippines-related articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Well, your message didn't work either, and neither did my notices. He simply blanks it and goes on without any care given. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've taken another stab at it, posting a new message that reiterated the essence of the previous one. If the editor refuses to discuss or collaborate, I see no other option than an indef block, although I wouldn't be adverse to a shorter attention-getting block (even though these have fallen out of fashion these days). Let's see how things develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Nope, still no dice with this guy. He apparently doesn't like to play ball with us. *rolls eyes* Blake Gripling (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- So I see, he deleted my second message one minute after I posted it. Ah well, he can hardly claim now not to have been warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Nope, still no dice with this guy. He apparently doesn't like to play ball with us. *rolls eyes* Blake Gripling (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've taken another stab at it, posting a new message that reiterated the essence of the previous one. If the editor refuses to discuss or collaborate, I see no other option than an indef block, although I wouldn't be adverse to a shorter attention-getting block (even though these have fallen out of fashion these days). Let's see how things develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
Because of his unwillingness or inability to participate in discussions on his talk page when concerns are raised there about his editing, and because of the odd, unexplained, and irrelevant nature of many of his edits, and, in addition, his apparent refusal to take part in this discussion to explain or justify his editing, User:Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena should be blocked from editing for a time to be determined by the blocking admin, either to encourage him to take seriously the need to collaborate and discuss with his fellow editors (a short block), or to protect Wikipedia from his quasi-vandalism (a long or indefinite block).
- Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Considering his long-term pattern of subtle or quasi-vandalism (five years at most) and how administrators seem to have overlooked him, I'd say a disciplinary action is necessary. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support CIR block, this is a collaborative project. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support: For someone who never responds to attempts to discuss his behavior, he sure is quick about deleting attempts to discuss his behavior.[37][38][39][40][41] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support and recommend an indefinite block. These edits are not constructive and the lack of communication does not give me hope for change. If the user requests an earnest unblock, I would entertain this and give a second chance. Malinaccier (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
User:MilwaukeeHD repeatedly adding erroneous information
User:MilwaukeeHD's sole edits have consisted of adding erroneous information to List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee and Northwestern Mutual Tower and Commons. He's been reverted by two different editors and received several warnings. 32.218.34.191 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours by Malinaccier a couple of hours ago. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- And opened an account as Raymonda18 minutes later. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Please note the difference between asking the question "Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?" and making the accusation "This a violation of WP:POLEMIC." I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer.)
The material in question is at User:Malik Shabazz, in the section titled "Don't Give HBO's Confederate the Benefit of the Doubt". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that I did post a notification as required, but it was reverted with an inaccurate edit comment.[42] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- AFAICS, it's a 98% COPYVIO of this, and a WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, but for my own education and to allow me to better understand what is and what is not a violation, is it also a violation of POLEMIC? For example, it seems to me that the "Inspiring Quotes" section on the same page lacks even a hint of polemicism, but I am not so sure about the link titled to "Does This Flag Make You Flinch?" I am hoping for some guidance on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see a violation of WP:POLEMIC. It seems a considered review of a forthcoming tv show, and although it makes social and political points, I don't see it as "Very divisive or offensive material" with an emphasis on "very". It may offend some people but then many, many things offend a minority of people. It's skeptical and anti-racist, but those are not bad things. It isn't "far-left" or "far-right". However, it's far too many words copied from a copyright source and needs to be trimmed. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also note that to get his full editing history you need to check User:Malik Shabazz and identified alternate account User:MShabazz. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Guy, please give it a rest. You got him to remove the material you didn't like; time to move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, "I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer." You have successfully annoyed me by assuming that my question was in bad faith (it wasn't.) I am further annoyed by your ham-fisted attempt to read my mind (I neither like or dislike the material; I just wanted to clarify the policy). If I wanted him to change or delete the material I would have asked him to do that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs (again)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that E.M.Gregory, just cannot help themselves. A previous and very lengthy discussion was had, here regarding their behaviour. The bahaviour is still continuing in the same fashion unabated. There needs to be some form of control on this behaviour. The promise, of I understand and won't do it again has not worked. More formal action is required.
Here are some of the reasons why I an unfortunately raising this issue again so shortly after it was recently closed. [44], [45] These two are a reptition of the same point on two different AfD's, which would be better suited to a user talk page. [46] This is a purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page. [47], [48] Here are accusations of bludgeon coming from E.M. Gregory which is ironic.
There is also a general trend to respond on AfD's multiple multiple times, and to every single comment which is disagreed with. This is making those AfD's once again very hard to follow, and very crowded. This is the exact behaviour which was raised previously as the of concern, and it is still continuing unabated. Sport and politics (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Whilst E.M. Gregory's use of BLUDGEON on those discussions after a single comment is utterly ridiculous, I also have to ask why you are adding the {{notavote}} template to these AfDs. As EMG says, these are normally used where canvassing or off-wiki meatpuppetry are an issue, which they're not - at present - on those AfDs, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- There appears to be a missing here.I am happy to discuss things with E.M. Gregory in an appropriate place, such as my user talk page. I am happy to do so with this point. It appears as if there is little foresight to make comments in the correct place. Personal comments are for personal user talk pages, not the general AfD discussion. If there is a discussion and agreement on the appropriateness of the inclusion of this template on a personal user talk page, that is better than having that discussion on the AfD. It also seems as if there is a latching on by E.M. Gregory to anything they disagree with, and then sprinting to make it a big issue. When simply talking in the appropriate place is better. Posting the same comments verbatim on multiple AfD's over the template seems to me to be less about the use of the template itself, and more about simply making noise. There are appropriate places to have discussions. These places are simply not sough by E.M. Gregory. I am happy to discuss this on my user talk page or on the user talk page of E.M. Gregory. Here and the AfD's are not the place to be having that discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) I don't see a problem with the first two diffs – it's a valid question to ask and it's strange that an answer hasn't been given. Number 57 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is the wrong place to be making the comments, the comments should be made on user talk pages, and not spread out over multiple AfD's verbatim. Doing so does not demonstrate a willingness to address the issue at hand, and is more about making noise. If a specific user is doing something which is disagreed with or to be challenged, it is better to address it with them directly, than by posting the same question on multiple AfD's. That is not going to resolve the issue, it is simply going to cause unnecessary duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- When I see someone accused of bludgeoning AfDs, I expect to go to his contribution history and see lots of edits to a single AfD, not one or two. And the "purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page" is nothing of the sort. It looks to me like E.M. Gregory has taken the previous ANI discussion to heart and is editing productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not accusing them of bludgeoning, they accused me of it. The comments are though getting very volumous very quickly over numerous AfD's. Sport and politics (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment First of all, note that I supported the viewpoint of User:Sport and politics at the recent hearing regarding E.M.Gregory. However, the current situation is considerably different. Unless this discussion moves to discussing the clogging of AfD with ill-considered but verbose AfD event nominations by User:Sport and politics, some posted in as little as 17 seconds, this discussion can be closed. Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- As little as 17 seconds, misses the fact that the issues are created at similar times using show preview, and doing multiple nominations and using show preview, then saving when all of the editing is finished is standard editing practice. it is not practical to say oh it only took x seconds, that misses how an AfD could have been created. That is though beside the point. What does it matter when a save button is pressed, as opposed to a show preview button? Sport and politics (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It appears as if there is a bespoke and unbelievable missing of the point of this referral. It seems that the issues are not willing to be engaged with. I am therefore required to withdraw this referral, as users do not seem to be getting the point here. It is pointless continuing with this, when there is now a minutiae discussion of when a Show Preview or a Save Changes button is pressed. This is a complete and total misunderstanding of the show preview function. As a result it is just a focusing on something which is a complete and utter misunderstanding of how previews work. I do not see what 17 seconds is supposed to be a comment on.
In Summary referral withdrawn. --Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- comment - just a comment, Sport and politics: you might want to think about the practices that lead you to making multiple AfD nominations that repeat an inappropriate template, before you criticize repeated objections to that template use (one per AfD nom) as "bludgeoning". Just a thought. Also, the whole philosophy of ANI is that the referrer does not get to define "the point" of the referral, q.v. WP:BOOMERANG.Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
User:109.153.185.33 on Liberal Democrats article
User 109.153.185.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unreferenced in formation on the Liberal Democrats article. Their contributions have been reverted by another editor and myself, but have been ignored and change back by the IP. I have also left a warning on the IP's Talk page to no avail. David J Johnson (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The addition of unsourced membership figures has now spread to Conservative Party (UK). David J Johnson (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for a short time. It is however a dynamic range (BT) so I have watchlisted the articles concerned. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for a short time. It is however a dynamic range (BT) so I have watchlisted the articles concerned. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose temporary block from making AfD nominations for Sport and politics
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Parramatta shooting
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016 Magnanville stabbing
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Endeavour_Hills_stabbings_(2nd_nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Brighton_siege
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot_(2nd_nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2005_Sydney_terrorism_plot
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rafik_Yousef_(2nd_nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Islamic_inspired_bomb_plot_on_Australian_aeroplane
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Australian_counter-terrorism_raids
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Norway_terror_threat_(2nd_nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hanover stabbing
This series of rapid nominations were created by User:Sports and Politics this weekend by cut-and-paste copying User:TheGracefulSlick's nominating edit at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/June_2017_Champs-Élysées_car_ramming_attack_(2nd_nomination) by User:TheGracefulSlick (an article that itself was kept at AfD just 2 months ago). These articles were created by Sports and Politics with a canvassing template already in place. All of the articles are reliably sourced, several are longstanding articles that have been covered in books and scholarship, and revisited by mainstream media years after they occurred. Some, however, are articles about recent attacks and, as most administrators will already be aware, a shooting war has flared up in recent weeks in which a small number of editors have been actively nominating terrorism-related pages for deletion. One or two of the AfDs created by Sports and Politics are nominations on which reasonable editors might disagree. But as a group they are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
- A couple of these are valid AfD nominations, even if they were done with a boilerplate rationale; for example, as far as I can see we don't even know if there was a bomb involved in 2017_Islamic_inspired_bomb_plot_on_Australian_aeroplane. 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks looks somewhat NOTNEWS as well. I may close the ones that are heading for SNOW Keeps later on if no-one else objects. A discussion on an AfD restriction should continue here, however. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I iVoted to redirect the 2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids. But the 2017 Bomb plot looks solid, the IEDs were shipped to Australia by ISIS, would-be suicide bomber is under arrest, Lebanese security tipped the Aussies off, one of the IEDs was inside a Barbie doll. A quick WP:BEFORE would have revealed all. Target was one of those immense Etihad flights out of Sydney. Reasonable people can differ on the 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- So why isn't that information, which would of course change how people !vote in an AfD, actually in the article? At the moment it reads like a news article saying that someone is suspected of doing something. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just added it. But I didn't write that article; I discovered it at AfD. I have been working on expanding several of these articles that I did not write, but surely the point here is that Sports and Politics brought the badly-named 2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane without WP:BEFORE (that Barbie doll bomb came up on a quick search).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to add to the list above the deletion nomination for August 2017 Brussels attack and the deletion nomination for 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. The language on both is copy-paste. On both pages, the nomination proposes the page should be deleted for the following reasons:
«Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism...».
The words "extremist", "religious extremist", and "radical islamic terrorism" simply do not exist in either article. I question the WP:NPOV of a nomination which goes into loaded verbiage which is inapplicable to the article itself.
Additionally, both nominations complain about WP:OR. Is the AfD process the right venue for handling WP:OR issues, or is this an abuse of the process?
Full disclosure: I have argued for a "keep" on both cases, so I am an interested party. XavierItzm (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- WP:OR as a reason for deletion is WP:DEL6, but WP:IAR may be needed for the proof element. It is not a common, but I made such a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amonetize. Unscintillating (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I shall only make this simple comment on this discussion. Why has no one attempted to talk on my talk page to me about any of these issues? I have made requests for this to happen with the nominator and this has simply not happened. The nominator wasn't even bothered enough to sign the notice of this discussion my talk page. I find it incredible that simple discussion on user talk pages is an alien concept. The simple question is are user talk page discussions dead? --Sport and politics (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment While I don't support the mass serial nominations, there are other resolutions available; and I don't choose to overlook that E.m.gregory has made a commitment to comment on the contributions not the contributor at a recent ANI discussion, here. As reported two threads ago, he has twice made accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, [49], [50], which is a tactic I identified at the previous ANI discussion as a tactic used to shut me down at the AfD on WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress). I don't think he is getting it. Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Can we not make this a list of AfDs we personally disagree with XavierItzm? We get it: you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable. Those two AfDs, however, are seperate to the template and copy-and-paste Gregory expressed concerns with. More seriously, this ANI has once again displayed Gregory has not learned from the previous case brought here; behavior is still an issue and AfD discussions are a catalyst for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @User:TheGracefulSlick:Please make no WP:PERSONAL. You offend me by calling me a racist on this edit immediately above. XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't recall calling you a racist. And I thought OR was only limited to articles!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- «you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable» is an accusation of racism. Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONAL. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I apologize XavierItzm, I did not realize referencing your take on notability could possibly be construed as an accusation of racism. Perhaps if I used words like "prejudice", "discrimination", "hatred", or -- I don't know -- "racist" in that diff you provide, it could be considered an actual accusation of racism. Wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- «you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable» is an accusation of racism. Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONAL. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't recall calling you a racist. And I thought OR was only limited to articles!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @User:TheGracefulSlick:Please make no WP:PERSONAL. You offend me by calling me a racist on this edit immediately above. XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Sport and politics
SAP is continuously using bad words in her discussion and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with her. Check here where she wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. She seems to continue her sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- The point trying to be made here is? The Load of horse shit was on my user talk page. You posted a hollow and false accusation, providing no diffs or evidence for it. I am going to call you out on that. If you don't like play somewhere else. It is beginning to feel like I am being trolled over the past couple of days, first E.M Gregory and now this. I hope I am wrong in that feeling but it does feel mighty mighty suspicious. Also sign comments when they are made, and post a courtesy notice to the person being complained about, of the existence of this discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- The courtesy notice has now been posted. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) While personal attacks and incivility are forbidden by policy, naughty words are not. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is trawling for issues at its worse. I propose the person who bought this here be given a warning for wasting everyone's time, and process abuse. Sport and politics (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Sport and politics
Sport and politics (talk · contribs) is continuously using bad words in his discussing and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with him. Check here where he wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. He seems to continue his sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way
- 24.253.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A few diffs [51], [52], [53], [54]
- Despite several attempts to explain what personal attacks are, about reliable sources, etc.
—PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [55], [56], [57]. 2 September: [58]. 3 September: [59]. Those are ones on my talk page.
- On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [60], [61]. 31 July: [62], [63].
- On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [64], 1 September [65], [66].
- On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [67]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [68], 3 September [[69]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Additional note: It appears however that the POV edits to Nephilim have ceased for now so I didn't ask for protection at RFPP yet. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Matter Involving me and Alpehb
To whom it may concern,
I thought I would give you some data to consider.
1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.
2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.
Again, as stated, I would not have gone any further then the edit and the matter would have been dropped, had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.
You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, then don't message me and I will not message you. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).
This was said and meant.
I give this to you to show where I stand.
On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.
The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"
This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).
I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim were already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?
Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.
I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2017
Commons:File:Mumbai Rail Map
- File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.jpg
- File:Mumbai Rail Map - Hindi.jpg
- File:Mumbai Rail Map - Marathi.jpg
were deleted at 01:18, 3 June 2017 by Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs) because they were clear copyvios. Today Jaikishanpatel (talk · contribs) recreated the English version as a wrapper for File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.pdf. Because the old history is only visible to administrators, I can't tell if this is merely a coincidence, or if there's some sock-puppetry involved. Useddenim (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is a Commons issue as all files and deletions are there, admins here can't view that. You'll have to post at Commons:COM:ANU or hope for someone like Nyttend who is an admin here and there to take a look at it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Clear legal threat by 108.49.83.212
108.49.83.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31h, the account behind this is already blocked indef as a VoA. —SpacemanSpiff 01:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Tendentious behaviour of Nfitz
Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a series of tendentiously clueless and/or mischievous discussions on a variety of subjects, one aspect of which led to this thread at User talk:Bishonen. They then transposed an edited version of that thread to their own user page in what might be a breach of WP:POLEMIC. Certainly, providing that edited version without any means for the reader to see the full context via a diff etc is disingenuous, especially given that they re-opened a closed thread etc. Aside from just ignoring them, which doesn't seem to work because they just spread the same type of commentary to other pages, what can be done to minimise the time-sink effect?
I'm limiting my WP activity due to some meds playing with my head but will try to provide more diffs later. I'm pretty sure other people, such as Johnuniq, can add to this. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- The "edited" version was simply, as I clearly stated, the part of the conversation with the admin, without the unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwanted contributions from the peanut gallery. I'm not sure why anyone needs to looking at my seldom-edited user page to even notice such an edit. Anyone can go look at the full conversation; I fully admitted that it was edited; I stated clearly what was cut out. And I left every time-stamp intact, that someone can very quickly click on my contributions, and see the full discussion; not that I ever expect anyone to see something that I have put on my own user page, so I can remember it 6 months or a year from now. I fail to see why this is coming to ANI ... again ... without any attempt to communicate with me first. Sitush was only extremely peripherally involved with the entire discussion (which was never about what Sitush once said ... I can't even remember who said it without his reminder, but simply my failure to understand why that community consensus is that WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and other key parts of WP:5P4 are no longer considered very important. If Sitush had simply posted on my talk page - from which not only are they quite welcome (I've previously noted I'd quite interested to hear their thoughts on caste versus race, an area which they have much knowledge, and I have little), I'd have simply added a link - which I will do now. Please stop dragging people to ANI and try and communicate with them first; this appears to have become a habit of yours. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nfitz's extended commentaries are indistinguishable from trolling. A quick scan of User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and the immediately following User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows a gnawing compulsion to continue digging without any expectation of a benefit to the encyclopedia. People are allowed to disagree and there is no requirement that someone explain issues over and over and over. At this ANI archive, Sitush complained about a personal attack from someone unrelated to this discussion. At an AfD, that person clearly implied that Sitush's comments were motivated by antisemitism. The accusation was blatant although more subtle than a direct attack. The issue of the accusation is not relevant here, but its background is important because Sitush responded with one expletive to the accusation, and a lot of subsequent navel-gazing concerned whether implying someone is an antisemite is a worse CIVIL violation than using a bad word. Nfitz's first comment was diff at ANI with a cheery edit summary that started "
perhaps for once, someone got the better of you!
". That is, the person who accused Sitush of antisemitism had got the better of Sitush and had won the argument with their brilliant accusation of antisemitism. For some reason, Nfitz pursued the discussion at User talk:Johnuniq#ANI sit and then at User talk:Bishonen#Proofing and the F word. After ten days of back-and-forth, Bishonen closed the section, but Nfitz continued with diff. That last comment is a classic although childish debating tactic to say that Bishonen is failing to engage with Nfitz's good-faith desire to understand why everyone else is wrong. Nfitz then recorded the discussion at permalink where they essentially complain that Bishonen is at fault ("Attempt to engage in dialogue with neutral admin"). Can anyone point to positive contributions from Nfitz? At some point, their inability to drop the stick has to be confronted and it is unclear whether their presence at Wikipedia is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coming to an Admin's page, who was generally uninvolved in the discussion, out of respect, and politely asking some simple questions to gain better understand, and avoid pitfalls, is not only not trolling, but it is the recommended procedure first step here to deal with differences of opinion. Bishonen DIDN'T close the section, a third-party did; and I never reopened it (other than fix a typo). The "last comment" was simply an apology for having intruded - anything else you detect was perhaps bafflement on why what to me looks like a simple polite exchange, has created any animosity with me (rather than the peanut gallery). Everything else you say here is some bizarre attempt to connect the dots, and make 2+2 = 5. No, I never thought that other editor was was suggesting that Sitush was antisemitic, nor was accusing Sitush of being antisemitic - perhaps I'm once again guilty of AGF, seeing the glass as half-full, and always assuming the best of people. But a simple disagreement on an obscure comment weeks ago, is not reason to continue this. What have I done? Well, most recently, I've been working on the very page that started the whole thing, quietly adding the sources that were never there to demonstrate that this was not just a small town newspaper, but showing extensive state-wide coverage over a significant period of time. No one else seemed to give that article any love once the AFD drama was over (I'm not done yet, I was going to try and research from a non-Louisiana perspective still). I continue my never-ending task to properly research User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team to determine if it is notable or not (I've been waiting weeks for library access, which I just received notification of yesterday), I've looking at Wikidata and how we might be able to use that data to create references using templates like "Cite Q" [70], and continue, as I have for over a decade, to work on certain local topics, et même éditer un peu dans l'autre langue. My time is very limited, I'm never going to spend hours every day working on the project. I can easily spend days or weeks without even appearing. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Johnuniq's summation above reflects my experiences with Nfitz on this noticeboard: seemingly automatic contrarianism, an apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend the arguments of others, repetition of the same points ad nauseum (only going deeper and deeper into a hole), and a complete inability to drop the stick.I have not looked into Nfitz's substantive editing, but it would have to be pretty darn good to balance out their commentary and produce a net positive. What, I wonder, is Nfitz's purpose in being here, and -- assuming they have positive content edits -- would a topic ban from Wikipedia space (which takes up over a third of their edits) [71] encourage them to participate more in actually improving the encyclopedia instead of treating the project like a glorified debating society? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I really have little interest in responding to someone whose modus operandi is to get under someone's skin, and as the other person comes to your talk page, and points out your error, to "ban them" from ever appearing on your talk page, or pinging them. I've never seen anyone work so hard to only surround themselves by yes men. You've "banned" more people than I expect you can track of - so many you had to write a template to make it quicker to do so. BTW, yes a lot of my edits are in WP space - I've been contributing significantly to AFD, particularly in the Football area, for years. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it's no coincidence that their single most edited page on the project is... this one. — fortunavelut luna 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, Fortuna|, that didn't work, you apparently need to put it differently — I don't think you meant X's tools is Nfitz's most edited page. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
- D'oh! -yes, of course. — fortunavelut luna 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- And yet you and Edmund both have far more edits here than I do. You mean, you are going to violate WP:AGF and make an unfounded speculation. Unlike some, I don't adopt an article, and guard it from any changes with my life. And I respond to most queries on my talk page, on the other persons talk page. So it's no real surprise that a page like this has got the most edits. Even though I can go years without commenting here at all. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm simply going to take the advice others have given me, and withdraw further from this conversation - and try not even to read it; though I'll return if an admin feels it necessary for me to do so, and summons me on my talk page. Or if I fail to ignore and there's a particularly egregious mistruth or exaggeration. Personally, if you'd all simply do what I do, and AGF about what a person does, and their actions, we wouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, please don't ping me; I don't really want to read this. Twice in four minutes? Come on ... Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Who's Edmund? — fortunavelut luna 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just one of Ken's various sock-puppets, from before they turned over a new leaf. Presumably named from the famous and obvious Lightfoot classic ... I hope at least ... been a while since I read their block history (oh gosh, it wasn't Bobby McGee was it ...). But really, I just asked not to be brought back here; couldn't you ask this on my talk page? No ... don't answer. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- OMG this makes me so tired. I'll make this comment and no more. After Nfitz has been recently allowed back from an indefinite block, you'd think we wouldn't get all this nagging and poking and these potshots from them. I agree with Sitush that the way Nfitz has posted a steeply abbreviated thread from my talkpage on their own userpage doesn't suggest they're here for any good. Notice (now that Sitush has supplied a link) especially that the original thread contained eight posts by Nfitz, which the shortened version on his userpage has reduced to three. That reduction makes my tired final comment, "Nfitz, I really want you to go away and leave me alone", look unexpected and impatient. A minor point is that that comment of mine riffed on this one by MjolnirPants — Nfitz unmoored it by removing User:MjolnirPants as representing "the peanut gallery". AFAICS, what Mjolnir had posted was a kind-hearted attempt to answer the question Nfitz has asked so many times, and which I too had tried to answer without getting through. I thought Mjolnir's was the best attempt so far, and that perhaps light would dawn on Nfitz after reading it. Apparently not. I try to avoid referring to WP:CIR issues wrt individuals, but if the way Nfitz carries on lately isn't a CIR issue, I have to call it trolling. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
- You are tired. I not four minutes ago, asked to be left out of the discussion, and you couldn't wait four minutes to ping me back? This has absolutely nothing to do with the block, which not only didn't involve ANY of the people involved here, had NOTHING to do with WP:CIVIL and was entirely about my misinterpreting something in WP:BLP which I admitted fully, apologized profusely, and haven't repeated - absolutely shame on you for approaching this with that prejudice! I have linked the full discussion on my page, as I said I would do above. You completely ignore my comments above, where I noted that I clearly stated that I had edited them, and what I had left out. My questions to you were simple, and in good faith, based on your admin comments earlier. You then chose to ignore this simple question for over 6 days. When I tried to get a bit more clarification (because I still honestly don't understand why you and the rest of the community thinks it's alright to call people fuckwits) you tossed WP:ADMINACCT out the window. Instead of calling you on that abdication of responsibility, I very politely apologized, and moved on. And for that, the now disappointed peanut gallery, who also thinks it okay to call people fuckwits, drags me and you here, to have a rematch. There were not eight comments to you. There were three; anything else was responding to unnecessary comments from the peanut gallery - which for some bizarre reason you have no problems with, despite them only trying to stir up shit. The first, which was very respectful and polite. A polite reminder 6 days later, as you had not replied at all. And then after your reply I politely responded. And again you fail to reply - and I have actually given up on you ever replying and left - when 5 days later, you suddenly pop back with a bizzare response that you don't want to discuss it. So I simply apologized and moved on. Not being able to leave the issue alone, you suddenly discover timeliness and within 3 hours you blank my apology, pretend I've posted inside a closed thread, ban me from your talk page, and are rude. And now you've the gall to come here, ping me not 4 minutes after I asked to be left out of it, and make out like I'm trolling or have a CIR issue, despite YOUR inability to understand WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and WP:ADMINACCT. Sorry, I'm no longer being polite ... but you can't both try and avoid the discussion, and then run here as fast as you can to join the peanut gallery in sticking an extra knife in the back. Okay, really done now. You asked to be left alone. Then kindly leave me alone, and not ignore what I wrote only 4 minutes before you pinged me. I'm no longer interested in your unending quest to be rude when only approached with kindness, politeness, and civility. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose block of Nfitz per the nominator's original complaint, which has been nothing if not copperfastened by continuing WP:STICK, WP:IDHT and a healthy dose of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not only have they just re-WP:OUTed BeyondMyKen (or at least deliberately pushed the envelope on whether they could do so), but, having claimed they are withdrawing from the thread, they return with a wall of text accusing Bishonen of all sorts of calumnies. Someone mentioned trolling above- this behaviour has, I agree gone from tendentious to trolling. — fortunavelut luna 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I withdrew until an Admin pinged me. There's no battleground, the debate was over, and Sitush continues to stick straws in the ant-nest. I'll happily never mention again. Perhaps you can tell me why it's okay to call another editor a fuckwit, simply because you disagree with them? And again I've reappeared, because of the "outing Ken" comment. How can I re-out Ken. I've no idea they was outed, let alone in. They identify their previous accounts and that they was blocked for sock puppetting on their own user page User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory. The public sockpuppet investigation is listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyond My Ken/Archive. And the name in the Gordon Lightfoot song I mentioned above is listed in there as one of their socks. I'm not sure how idly mentioning his sock puppetry that he documents himself, and we publicly document to the world, is outing him. And since when was being a former sockpuppet a secret? Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support block Who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? The effect is that other editors are drowned in Nfitz's snide commentary that is totally unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. Saving a false account of a discussion (see "edited version" in the OP) is bad enough, but smearing Bishonen with fake mentions of WP:ADMINACCT is unacceptable—the link states the obvious, namely that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, yet Bishonen is absent from Nfitz's block log and has posted a single message at Nfitz's talk. I don't know the OUTING background but clearly Nfitz's references to BMK above are an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on. WP:ADMINACCT is not just about tools. That's the first sentence of the first paragraph. Keep reading, onto the next line where it says Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think 6 days to reply to a simple, polite, civil, question is prompt, when the editor has been very active. And even then, I didn't raise it, until they came here, and started twisting the truth. And hang on, people unnecessarily discussing my background and calling people fuckwits isn't a personal attack, but very subtle mention that no one else would probably even get of someone else's past is an attack? Seems to be, if you don't agree with someone, and want to get rid of them, anything they say is an attack, and you can call them a fuckwit as much as you want, but it's never an attack. The hypocrisy here is stunning. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Could you please either provide a diff for someone calling someone a fuckwit or strike the claim? I thought the controversy was over telling someone to "fuck off". GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did, somewhere recently. That's in part why I have more or less stopped editing - the meds are messing me up. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- My diff was caught in an edit conflict. I previously diffed several comments the last time Sitush dragged me to ANI. On that note though, I won't diff the vulgarity in question. Sorry to hear Sitush ... I've been there. Heck, with the insomnia I have currently, meds are still playing with me - but a bit differently. On that note, a couple of quick real edits, I've been meaning to do for a while, and off to bed. Nfitz (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- And after that act of kindness, they double down. @GoldenRing: Here's a recent diff. I previously diffed several similar the last time they dragged me to ANI. I focused on the fuck off because I felt it was worse (and was more recent). But similar comments aren't unusual such as this. But as I've stated before Sitush is a good editor ... however they have a battleground attitude that crosses over to the point that they can't accept even minor criticism. Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support So, despite even this thread being in part about posting in a closed talk page thread, Nfitz not only posted unnecessarily to my talk page but attempted to continue that via edit summary after I reverted them & asked them to go away. And their edit summary here bears no relation to the post and appears to be some sort of snide commentary in itself. This sort of behaviour has been going on for some time now, not merely in relation to the anti-semitism issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how asking you to simply discuss something with me first, rather than going to ANI is unnecessary. Also you DIDN'T ask me to go away. The second edit was simply fixing the Reflist you damaged when you reverted me; it was only after that you asked me to go away. And I did. What's wrong with the edit summary? My position is that that people need to be WP:CIVIL and you call that tendentious? In what way is asking people to be civil, being tendentious? How did being civil, somehow become controversial? Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Block The exchange on Bishonen's talk page (and the subsequent "archiving" of an edited version) is the epitome of tendentiousness. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief, I simply put it there, to read and understand the discussion between myself and Bishonen, without the peanut gallery comments, because otherwise, even I was having a hard time following it. It was never for public eyes, I kept it off my talk page (well I tried) just so no one would make a fuss, and I've now removed it. I didn't change a word of text, nor a date stamp of the comments between us. That's not the epitome of anything other than someone trying to understand what the heck happened. I have no idea why anyone ever even came across it - that page has gone many years with nary an edit. Tendentious behaviour would require me to put it somewhere prominent, not try and hide it away somewhere. Tendentious behaviour wouldn't also have waited weeks to get 2 responses, and would have pointed out the clear WP:ADMINACCT fail, rather than simply turning a blind eye for it, and graciously apologizing. What does a block accomplish here? Whatever issue there is, has been dealt with. I've never been accused of such a thing in the dozen or so years I've been here, despite having more than one disagreement during that time, so I'm hardly a danger to re-offend on this issue anytime soon. Though I still don't understand Bishonen's position that it's perfectly fine to call people names, like fuck off or fuckwit. Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose block. I see unfortunately heated exchanges, and I don't see any one individual as being the 100% baddie here. There have been some unfortunate overreactions (to some unacceptable insults, certainly), but I'd stop short of labeling anything as deliberate trolling. I don't see how any blocks now would be preventative, and I recommend chilling, cooling and generally relaxing all round - if everyone can just put this behind them and move on, wouldn't that be lovely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and just a suggestion for anyone who really wants to help defuse all this - take the high ground and be the first person to stop talking about it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose block. At least for now. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee, I don't see anyone being particularly at fault here. A block here would unlikely be helpful and blows this out of proportion unnecessarily. May I have some time to ask Nfitz on his talk page to drop the discussions that are being perceived as tendentious? If that fails, then perhaps an editing restriction can be implemented. Alex ShihTalk 14:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:Civility is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let cooler heads prevail. Nfitz is already on thin ice with the recent indef block and they know it. They are trying to withdraw from the conversation at this point. However, if something borderline tendentious happens again this should be considered - good faith can't be assumed every time. Garchy (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- They haven't withdrawn from it in three weeks, despite numerous explanations and requests to do so. And they were still in the same vein here and elsewhere only a few hours ago. Why will it be any different this time? A block until they demonstrate an understanding seems entirely preventative to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- You could be completely correct - but I view a block here as punitive, not preventative. Not blocking in this particular incident would not prevent a block in the future, if an issue arises again. Based on their behavior once this came to ANI I don't see a block being preventative. Garchy (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support wikispace topic ban if an indef block is not feasible. As someone who has actually come to Nfitz defense on some things they said which could very easily be construed as a BLPVIO, only to be personally attacked for not defending everything they say, my first impression of this editor has been formed, baked and sealed; and it is not good. It seems to me that 12 years of editing aught to be enough to teach someone what a BLP vio is, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems that 12 years of editing should be enough to teach an editor when to drop the stick, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems to me that 12 years of editing would be enough to teach an editor how assuming good faith is something that only needs to be done when you really don't want to do it, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. Nfitz has gotten plenty of slack from the admins so far, and it seems to me that it's about time that slack ran out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Lots of silly new pages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin please take a look through the new-page feed? There seems to be a mass-vandalism attack, or something, going on. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah it is getting crazy-I have marked some myself, take it you have also. Might need to see these guys/girls blocked also. Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also see those new accounts who edited MCC, pretty sure these are related. Already opened an SPI case but still need to add the new page spam accounts. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. 🖉← 04:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah it is getting crazy-I have marked some myself, take it you have also. Might need to see these guys/girls blocked also. Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Several other pages have been edited as well by them-one guy edited NCC a couple times. Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Scor140399
Scor140399 (talk · contribs) continues to inappropriately add non-free content to articles despite being advised multiple times not to do so. The non-free uses of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png were previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png, and the files were subsequently removed the file from Brazil national football team and Iran national football team respectively with this edit by administrator by Explicit and this edit by adminstrator Graeme Bartlett as a result.
Scor140399 first added the logo to the Brazillian team article here despite there being a hidden comment advising that the image had been removed per the aforementioned FFD discussion. The image was removed again with this edit explaining why. Further explanation was added to User talk:Scor140399 here and here. Scort140399 subsequentally re-added the image again here and once again here even after being advised for a third time not to do so on their user talk with this post. Similar re-adding of non-free content to the Iranian team article here and here despite edit sums explaining why the file was removed.
I realize that Scort140399 has only been editing for little over a week (at least the account has only be editing for about that long) so it not totally unexpected that they would not be familiar with WP:NFCCP and the aforementioned FFD discussions. They have, however, been advised of these things and yet still continue to re-add the files. While it's true that even a FFD consensus can change, there is a proper way to go about doing so and Scort140399 has been advised (at least with respect to the Brazillian team logo) to discuss things with the closing admin and see what needs to be done. A short block might seem a bit harsh in a case like this and mistakes are to be expected (especially from new editors), so perhaps one final warning from an administrator might help the situation and avoid anyone getting blocked. At some point, however, repeating the same mistake(s) over and over again starts to move into WP:IDHT territory and may require something stronger than a warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Concerned about a question and responses from an editor on the RD
I would like to ask for User:Plasmic Physics either be blocked or topic banned from the WP:RD. They are trying to emotionally blackmail people into answering questions on the RD to help them with their plans to carry out experiments which could be risky, apparently without competent supervision. I removed the nonsense once and gave them an only warning that that crap wasn't welcome on the RD, but they reverted. I've removed again but in the absence of an assurance from Plasmic Physics that they will never try to such nonsense on the RD again, I think they either needed to be blocked or topic banned from the RD. You can see the question and responses here [72], my second removal. My first removal was [73] and it was added back here [74]. To be clear I don't know enough of the chemistry to say, how risky these plans are and most likely wouldn't comment on the issue even if I did, but another editor has expressed concerns and one of their responses was what brought this here:
If other users are abstaining from giving advice because of safety concerns, then they are actually doing me a disfavour, as come 2018, I will go ahead with this experiment, with or without their advice. If the safety issues are as severve as you suggest then, I think we can both agree that I would be better off prepared than not.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, I did briefly consider notifying WP:Emergency even though it wasn't urgent but although I know it's normally better to notify than to not, I decided this was definitely not the sort of thing that would get any action. Likewise although I live in NZ and I believe the editor does as well, I'm not sure there's any real authority I can contact who will be interested. (That said, if anyone does feel there's someone to contact, feel free to let me know.) Ultimately if the editor wants to carry out potentially risky experiments without competent supervision or knowledge we can't stop them. But people on the RD should be free to choose not to answer questions because they fear the consequences if their advice is wrong, misunderstood or misapplies, and therefore should not be told their refusal to answer is wrong because someone plans to be reckless regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's OK Nil, he's in New Zealand. He'd have to go full China Syndrome before it affects the rest of us. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and my warning is here [75] Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16
Over the past year, User:Thetruth16 has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his subsequent downfall:
- Ferdinand Marcos
- Benigno Aquino Jr.
- Corazon Aquino
- Jabidah massacre
- Conjugal dictatorship
- Martial law in the Philippines
- History of the Philippines (1965–86)
- Philippine presidential election, 1986
- People Power Revolution
He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:
- In the Philippine presidential election, 1986 article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see 1)
- In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see 1)
- In the People Power Revolution article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the Moro National Liberation Front, and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see 2)
- In the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see 4)
If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the WP:Reliable sources as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See first and second ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.
There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to WP:NPOV and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
- It was Marcos who said that the opposition party collaborated with the enemy when they questioned his records in fighting the Japanese during WWII: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-23/news/mn-28079_1_war-record. Benigno Aquino Sr., Ninoy's father, and José P. Laurel, VP candidate Laurel's father, were leaders of the KALIBAPI supported Japan during WWII, as you can see in the KALIBAPI article.
- I didn't state that as a matter of fact, I said some believed and I cited this Manila Standard editorial: http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015. It would be better if the contribution is attributed to the author, still this warrants rewriting and not deletion.
- In the article Rashid Lucman, you can see that Rashid Lucman issued the passport named Marcial Bonifacio and the same person founded the Muslim separatist group. Rashid Lucman's son himself said that his father sent young Filipino Muslims to train in Malaysia and these guerillas formed part of the MNLF: http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao
- I addressed the issue on Aquino's father being a Japanese collaborator during World War II above. And there was a picture[1] of him being arrested by the Americans which you deleted /censored. Ninoy's links with the communist rebels are supported by multiple verifiable sources and definitely not my point of view: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/ and http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included
- Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
- We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)
References
- @Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
76.116.148.215 disrupting two pages
76.116.148.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User 76.116.148.215 making unsourced edits to Disney's Animal Kingdom and Six Flags Great Adventure, multiple times over multiple days, ignoring attempts to discuss on talk page, and ignoring subsequent disruptive editing warnings on talk page. Also request the two pages IP is disrupting be locked 24 hours at least. Rockypedia (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Not an "incident" per se, but nevertheless I'm requesting that an administrator please add this page to their watch list, or preferably just slap the 1933 politics sanctions on the damn thing. Seems anything related to the alt-right or white nationalists deserves this sanction. Since I don't watch this page, ping me if you want a response. I'll show myself the door. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)