SportingFlyer (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 650: | Line 650: | ||
I was about to start an RfC regarding Shadowowl and the insane amount of cut-and-paist AfDs with clearly no iota of [[WP:BEFORE]] nor the policy [[WP:DEL-CONTENT]]. Nobel Prize winner [[José Saramago]]'s book [[Journey to Portugal]] is just an example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journey_to_Portugal&type=revision&diff=851309366&oldid=706811527] The AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smyčka]] is another. '''All of the current Shadowowl-generated AfD's need to be speedy closed''' as these AfDs are a gigantic time-waster to editors and admins alike. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 03:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |
I was about to start an RfC regarding Shadowowl and the insane amount of cut-and-paist AfDs with clearly no iota of [[WP:BEFORE]] nor the policy [[WP:DEL-CONTENT]]. Nobel Prize winner [[José Saramago]]'s book [[Journey to Portugal]] is just an example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journey_to_Portugal&type=revision&diff=851309366&oldid=706811527] The AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smyčka]] is another. '''All of the current Shadowowl-generated AfD's need to be speedy closed''' as these AfDs are a gigantic time-waster to editors and admins alike. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 03:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
*{{nacc}} I agree with power's second comment above. Most of these appear to be garbage, one-sentence content-forks that provide less information, less succinctly, than the corresponding sections of the articles from which they were split. Per overwhelming consensus at several discussions going back to 2014, AFD ''is'' the appropriate venue to request community input where one suspects the proper solution is "redirect, not merge", but in this case SO's opening of AFDs just seems to be serving to bring out the usual "keepist" crowd, who would rather see these one-sentence sub-stubs give useless non-information to our readers on principle than redirect them to the only actual ''articles'' we currently have addressing the topics they are looking for, which is anything but helpful. Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rudá_záře_nad_Kladnem&diff=prev&oldid=851374032 this] was completely out of line. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |
*{{nacc}} I agree with power's second comment above. Most of these appear to be garbage, one-sentence content-forks that provide less information, less succinctly, than the corresponding sections of the articles from which they were split. Per overwhelming consensus at several discussions going back to 2014, AFD ''is'' the appropriate venue to request community input where one suspects the proper solution is "redirect, not merge", but in this case SO's opening of AFDs just seems to be serving to bring out the usual "keepist" crowd, who would rather see these one-sentence sub-stubs give useless non-information to our readers on principle than redirect them to the only actual ''articles'' we currently have addressing the topics they are looking for, which is anything but helpful. Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rudá_záře_nad_Kladnem&diff=prev&oldid=851374032 this] was completely out of line. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
**{{nacc}} '''Comment''' yes, but there are many ways to clean up garbage. Many of these articles should be kept as they pass notability guidelines, even if they are just stubs now. By performing a [[WP:BEFORE]] search before deleting an article, you show to the community you have started the process of checking for notability and you believe it doesn't meet that threshold. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|talk]]</span>'' 07:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS == |
== Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS == |
Revision as of 07:19, 22 July 2018
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) |
|
Aggressive POV pusher
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Ajackson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [1] or American politics [2][3] or both [4][5][6]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, the user's relatively short edit history reveals a pattern of taking breaks of several days, particularly when their edits are challenged, so it seems unlikely to me that they will respond here. (Maybe this suggests a sock-puppet? I don't have any solid reason to believe so, though.) I think administrators should act based on the already-available information. Also, FWIW, here is a ARBPIA 30/500 violation from them that has not been reverted yet. --2601:142:3:F83A:A53F:3EA1:283:8C27 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Not that I agree with all of Ajackson12's edits, but I don't see most of them as bad faith. This is a classic case of WP:DONTBITE. I would suggest a boomerang on the reporter for not assuming good faith, but we don't even know who that is. How does an IP address with virtually no edits come here and file this report and have enough knowledge of wikipedia to provide diffs etc?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the edits, a Boomerang is a bit ridiculous, and given how well we enforce WP:DONTBITE, I'd recommend starting elsewhere with proper enforcement of this policy. This user has rather carelessly edited a number of areas under discretionary sanctions; the alarm of the proposer is more than understandable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just saying given this edit history, we clearly dealing with someone who's hiding their identity. They should disclose who they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Considering they've responded in this conversation with two different IPs, their IP appears to be highly dynamic. Sure, they may very well be a registered user editing while logged out, but they could also be a long-term IP contributor on a dynamic IP—there's a fair few of those, including some who are quite active in the project namespace. AddWittyNameHere 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just saying given this edit history, we clearly dealing with someone who's hiding their identity. They should disclose who they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the edits, a Boomerang is a bit ridiculous, and given how well we enforce WP:DONTBITE, I'd recommend starting elsewhere with proper enforcement of this policy. This user has rather carelessly edited a number of areas under discretionary sanctions; the alarm of the proposer is more than understandable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) --46.201.252.32 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- You know that congressional candidates don't get offices in DC until after they win, right? --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I do rather like that someone has carefully used an IP with no edit history to make this accusation, though! Very chic in this post-truth era. --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Continued disruption by Mayerroute5
I request the admins to have a look at some of the following pages. Cricket246 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Template:2018 IPL match 58
- Template:2018 IPL match 59
- 2018 Indian Premier League
- 2017 Indian Premier League
- 2016 Indian Premier League
- 2015 Indian Premier League
The user had already made disrupting edits to the pages as an IP, that's why the templates are semi-protected.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Natureium: Extremely sorry for an incomplete message, that was due to disturbances in internet connectivity at that moment. Anaxagoras13 has listed all those concerned pages and the edit history how User Mayerroute5 is disrupting those pages even after being warned and blocked once. Messages were also left on his talkpage but in page. He is causing disruption and the management of it is becoming very difficult. I request a permanent block on him or some other very strong action as his contribution history will show only disruption in a variety of pages and absolutely nothing that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Cricket246 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Natureium: Extremely sorry for an incomplete message, that was due to disturbances in internet connectivity at that moment. Anaxagoras13 has listed all those concerned pages and the edit history how User Mayerroute5 is disrupting those pages even after being warned and blocked once. Messages were also left on his talkpage but in page. He is causing disruption and the management of it is becoming very difficult. I request a permanent block on him or some other very strong action as his contribution history will show only disruption in a variety of pages and absolutely nothing that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Cricket246 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I de-archived this because the user continues his behaviour now as IP:[7].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
He edited as 116.68.77.209.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Help needed at Trinity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An SPA account named Ctmv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in what appears to be a campaign of disruption at this article.
In the last week or so, they've added almost 25,000 characters to the talk page in the form of numerous walls of text, one atop the other (see for yourself), all in order to push that we refer to the concept as the "Holy Trinity" in the lede, despite an existing and remaining consensus not to. So far, they've started 8 sections on that page, including such bizarre threads as Who is C.S. Lewis ? and Why is he being spoken of in third person in the article lede?.
As of today, they're edit warring, with 3 reverts as I type this: 1 2 3. Also note that the original edit they're edit warring over is, itself, a manual revert of materials previously added by this editor (here, with a highly deceptive edit summary) and removed (here). Most of the responses they're made at talk to anyone else engaging with them have been insulting and focused on belittling the knowledge of other editors, without any basis whatsoever. This has included questioning my competence without reason and accusing me of "despising" the subject, again without reason.
When I warned them about their edit warring, they "warned me right back" and then edit warred it back onto my talk page.
I'm about at my wit's end with this editor and ready to tell them what I really think of their single-minded focus and utter inability to grasp even the most basic tenets of this project, objectivity or collaboration. So here I am asking an admin to intervene. I think this editor could benefit from an indef block, as their ability to communicate seems to be below the level required of editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Do you mean SPI or SPA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Trinity [8] Issue with an "also referred to as" phrase in an article. July 17, 2018 ONLY edits
the article Trinity is an article about a Christian theology, therefore it is an article about religion. the term Trinity is also officially referred to as Holy Trinity, therefore the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity[1][2][3]" was added. Not before a lengthy discussion in the section Talk:Trinity#Rename_to_Holy_Trinity saw the establishment of the terms "Blessed Trinity" "Holy Trinity" "Trinity" as of equal meaning but different form, therefore a concensus on something had already been established as per the references.
the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity[1][2][3]" was introduced with a corresponding (and already used) talk page entry (Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on) with the revision [9]. The users O3000 and User_talk:MjolnirPants have reverted the edit without making use of proper arguments in the aforementioned talk page section. What's more I was received with blatant profanity in the talk section of one of the users [10]. Before, a similar edit had been introduced with several "also referred to as" it was discouraged because they were deemed too many, also the references were pointing to a same religious congregation when the article is multi-confessional, therefore a shrinked to one "also referred to as" statement and rferenced the needed phrase with references from several religious movements so I'm compliant with neutral point of view. The users mentioned seem to be of areligious (namely atheism) as exposed in one of the user's talk page. The article does not contain an atheism view on the subject, and even if it did, the: "Trinity" "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" phrase would be needed as it is the term favored by religious congregations as noted by references in the Talk Page. Please weigh in as the user User_talk:MjolnirPants insists in not using the talk page but the revert button. Thanks. Ctmv (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I also had previously added an entry in the informal request for help board [11] that Board I think should be the preferred one since it is only about a "also referred to as" phrase, but since it is content related I also posted the request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs)
- This is not the place for content discussion. Also, an editor’s religion or lack thereof is not relevant and I would suggest you avoid mentioning such again, anywhere. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Looks like you added material, then when multiple other users Reverted, you did three reverts within an hour, then you tagged someone else with fewer reverts there than you for editing warring, and then when they removed the notice from their own talk page - which is their right - you reverted his removal, with a little lecture on respect as your comment? And then you come here to report them? I gotta say that the impolite comment you're complaining about does not come across (to these non-admin eyes) as undue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that MP had already weighed in with complaint above. So it shan't count as an Australian throwing-stick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the two editors above: this noticeboard does not settle content disputes, it deals only with behaviorial problems, and the behaviorial problem here is that you appear to be trying to force your own preferred version of the article into place against the wishes of a number of other editors. It does not appear that you have a WP:consensus on the talk page for your edits, and you are edit warring.I would advise you to stop edit warring immediately, and go back to the talk page and try to convince the other editors of the article that your version is to be preferred. If they agree, then you have a consensus and you can add the material. If they don't, they you cannot. It's fairly cut-and-dried. If you continue to edit war, there's every probability that you'll be reported on the edit warring noticeboard and will be blocked from editing for a time. I'm certain you would prefer that not to happen, so please return to the talk page and discuss, preferably without posting extremely long blocks of text which are difficult to read and comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page was used(Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on). the other editors refuse to use it, in favor of the revert button. no arguments used by the other users. check for yourself, as you undid over something that was referenced on the talk page prior to its introduction on the article page, and not challenged there but with a revert button, that's behavioral. Ctmv (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have posted seven comments on that page directed at you: six of which you have responded directly to. Every editor here is able to look at the history and current state of that page and see that you are lying through your teeth about me "refusing" to use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ctmv, this is simply not true. Other editors did engage in discussion. You failed to attain consensus and attempted, repeatedly, to force your additions. O3000 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ctmv After 7 years [12]] it’s probably time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page entry [13] introduced prior to the article edit [14] has not been adressed thus far. but the revert button was used. As per the other discussions it was agreed that several terms exist with the same meaning, and that references have to come from different religious movements, which was the case with the phrase: "also referred to as the Holy Trinity[1][2][3]" which is complaint with previous discussion and with WP policies. there's a talk page to challenge that with arguments, if arguments is what you decide to use for discussion. My request here is for the edit of the July 17, 2018 ONLY, do not merge my request with yours, you are complaining about talk pages carried out other days, I'm requesting weighin in about the reversions carried out on edits performed on July 17, 2018 with new relevant talk having been added. Ctmv (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- MPants came here with a behavioral problem, you want comments about a content dispute. Once more this board does not adjudicate content disputes, it only deals with behavioral problems, so please focus on explaining why you should not be sanctioned for your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page entry [13] introduced prior to the article edit [14] has not been adressed thus far. but the revert button was used. As per the other discussions it was agreed that several terms exist with the same meaning, and that references have to come from different religious movements, which was the case with the phrase: "also referred to as the Holy Trinity[1][2][3]" which is complaint with previous discussion and with WP policies. there's a talk page to challenge that with arguments, if arguments is what you decide to use for discussion. My request here is for the edit of the July 17, 2018 ONLY, do not merge my request with yours, you are complaining about talk pages carried out other days, I'm requesting weighin in about the reversions carried out on edits performed on July 17, 2018 with new relevant talk having been added. Ctmv (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ctmv After 7 years [12]] it’s probably time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page was used(Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on). the other editors refuse to use it, in favor of the revert button. no arguments used by the other users. check for yourself, as you undid over something that was referenced on the talk page prior to its introduction on the article page, and not challenged there but with a revert button, that's behavioral. Ctmv (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the two editors above: this noticeboard does not settle content disputes, it deals only with behaviorial problems, and the behaviorial problem here is that you appear to be trying to force your own preferred version of the article into place against the wishes of a number of other editors. It does not appear that you have a WP:consensus on the talk page for your edits, and you are edit warring.I would advise you to stop edit warring immediately, and go back to the talk page and try to convince the other editors of the article that your version is to be preferred. If they agree, then you have a consensus and you can add the material. If they don't, they you cannot. It's fairly cut-and-dried. If you continue to edit war, there's every probability that you'll be reported on the edit warring noticeboard and will be blocked from editing for a time. I'm certain you would prefer that not to happen, so please return to the talk page and discuss, preferably without posting extremely long blocks of text which are difficult to read and comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that MP had already weighed in with complaint above. So it shan't count as an Australian throwing-stick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we can add this and this to the list of diffs evincing a lack of competence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (2003). "The Mystery of the Holy Trinity". The Faith of the Church PART-I. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
{{cite book}}
:|website=
ignored (help) - ^ a b c Coptic Orthodox Church of Saint Mark - Fr. Abraam D. Sleman. The Meaning of the Holy Trinity (PDF). www.copticchurch.net.
- ^ a b c The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (1932). Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
On the basis of the Holy Scriptures we teach the sublime article of the Holy Trinity
I'm tempted to agree with Ctmv on the content dispute, but their comments here are problematic to the point of WP:CIR. The Holy Trinity is not to be confused with my beloved trinity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Contrary to their assertions, if you check the talk page, their arguments have been addressed. There's even an html comment on the article, right in the first sentence that reads
<!-- DO ''NOT'' ADD THE WORD "HOLY" -->
that's been there since . I'm not going to argue content here, so I'll leave it at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC) - Power-tilde, loved the Keats quote. All I care about here is process, not content. Process is more important than “truth”. Toward that end, thanks to Theroadislong’s comment about seven years as an SPA, and the comments by the editor here, WP:CIR is an obvious concern. In any case, this is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why am I not at all surprised that Power~enwiki would play devils advocate here... again... for no reason... --Tarage (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's a plausible argument that Holy Trinity is an alternate title for the article Trinity, which should be mentioned in the lead. Simply because a contributor has competence issues doesn't mean they can't be correct on the merits of some of their complaints. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a plausible argument that you had no business injecting here. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: There is, indeed an argument to be made, and it may even be a compelling one. That being said, the argument starts with the presumption that the existing consensus should be discarded. Also, Tarage raises a good point: This is not the place to discuss content. I would be happy to discuss the naming issue with you at the talk page. I would ask, however, that you wait until this issue is resolved before we start that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's a plausible argument that Holy Trinity is an alternate title for the article Trinity, which should be mentioned in the lead. Simply because a contributor has competence issues doesn't mean they can't be correct on the merits of some of their complaints. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposal regarding Ctmv as a POV SPA
Ctmv is, quite clearly, a Single Purpose Account. When I checked a few hours ago, they had 124 edits over 7 years, and 50% (exactly 62) of those were to Trinity and Talk:Trinity, while an additional 23% (29 edits) were to Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity. Add an edit to Jesus here and another to Yahweh there, and we have the clear picture of a tightly-focused SPA.
Being a SPA is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if the SPA is one with a specific point of view, and that is the case with Ctmv. They are here to make sure that the articles they're focused on strictly adhere to the doctrines of specific religions. This is abundantly clear from their discussions on Talk:Trinity, where everything is measured against Ctmv's understanding of what those doctrines say on that subject. The fact that other editors persist in pointing out to Ctmv that our articles are not vehicles for the dissemination of any particular religion's doctrine, but must instead present information about the totality of their subject matter clearly means nothing to Ctmv, because it is the doctrine, and the doctrine alone that they care about.
This is when being a SPA editor is bad for Wikipedia, when the SPA is not only tightly focused on a single subject, but they also hold to a strict POV about it, and will fight incessantly to make sure that the article reflects that point of view. POV SPA's are a danger to the encyclopedia, because they look like they're contributing in a worthwhile way, but, in fact, they are skewing our articles away from neutrality.
It is my opinion that, since Ctmv has not changed their behavior in 7 (intermittent) years of editing, and their editing is inconsistent with the needs and purposes of our encyclopedia, that Ctmv should not be allowed to edit here any more. Therefore I propose... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing
- Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please count this as a !vote for a topic ban if there is no consensus for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Editor very clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is for, and seems incapable of getting it. --Tarage (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Alternative A topic ban on Christianity, broadly construed. I do not object to an indefinite block if that is the consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support, per Beyond My Ken and Tarage. (Non-administrator comment)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) It may look like it, but this wasn't a quick vote where I just agreed. I read the comments here, on the talk page, and the user's edits on other pages. I just don't have anything new to add to what has been said... and don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support per my comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support - note although I haven't participated much, I've read through the various discussions more or less as they were taking place. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly foolish of me, but I will support a TBan from Christianity broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a pile on. Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. They should be given another chance to work a bit more collaboratively. An indefinite block shouldn’t be the first step. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia.
I just want to highlight this comment. I just want to point out that someone on ANI actually suggested with a straight face that an editor who's obsessive to the point of disruption, who can't be bothered to conform to WP norms and practices, who posts walls of text and then declares that they have the consensus to do whatever they want because no-one responded within an hour, is "good" for this project. Think about that, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)- Please point out where I have suggested any of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Two entries up !!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: I literally just quoted you, less than an inch away from where you said it on most monitors, and you're suggesting I'm lying (or possibly mistaken?) about what you said? You know that's not going to work, right? Literally everyone here can see right through that. It's less effective than hiding behind a flag pole and loudly yelling "I'm not here!"
- Or maybe you can start arguing that this editor hasn't been at all disruptive, is clearly not an SPA, has never posted a wall of text, and hasn't declared that they get consensus if no-one responds... Please do that, instead. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure let me be a bit more direct. You are absolutely lying if you claim I suggested any of what you wrote, with the exception of the quote regarding the editor’s passion. I certainly agree that the behavior you mention is not ideal, but I do not believe an indefinite block is the first step for this editor. This is a classic ANI pile on, with an indef block looking likely. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Waitasecond, so you agree that this editor's behavior is "not ideal" but at the same time, believe that their passion (the very thing that causes said behavior) is good for this project? And you don't see the contradiction in that? Or (more likely, IMHO) you just couldn't be bothered to read this thread, and just spouted off your opinion here thinking you'd be the "voice of reason"? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not sure why you think it is so necessary to twist my words and warp what I say. This editor is passionate about Wikipedia, which is a good thing. This editor has issues following the established procedures, which is a bad thing. Your comments on the talk page were of the same nature as here - somewhat belittling and assuming bad faith. I’m of the view that editors shouldn’t be immediately indefinitely blocked upon misbehaving, but offered chances at improving. Why not start with a topic ban? If you respond again please do not try to infer some ill motive in my comments. I’ve read everything and my voice has no more reason than anyone else’s. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've not twisted or warped anything you said. All I did was explicitly add on the context in which you said it. I described what this editor's passion had resulted in and put that right next to your claim that their passion was good for the project. If you don't like that this reflected badly upon you, then tough cookies. You decided to show up to a thread in which an editor's passion has resulted in significant disruption in order to praise that editor's passion. You later even admitted (twice now) that they've been disruptive. Yet you're going to stand by what you said, and accuse me of dishonesty for having the gall to quote you.
- As for being blocked immediately: This has been happening on and off for seven years, Mr Ernie, and for something like a week even if you only consider the time I've been interacting with them. If you consider that "immediately" then you have a very warped sense of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not sure why you think it is so necessary to twist my words and warp what I say. This editor is passionate about Wikipedia, which is a good thing. This editor has issues following the established procedures, which is a bad thing. Your comments on the talk page were of the same nature as here - somewhat belittling and assuming bad faith. I’m of the view that editors shouldn’t be immediately indefinitely blocked upon misbehaving, but offered chances at improving. Why not start with a topic ban? If you respond again please do not try to infer some ill motive in my comments. I’ve read everything and my voice has no more reason than anyone else’s. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Waitasecond, so you agree that this editor's behavior is "not ideal" but at the same time, believe that their passion (the very thing that causes said behavior) is good for this project? And you don't see the contradiction in that? Or (more likely, IMHO) you just couldn't be bothered to read this thread, and just spouted off your opinion here thinking you'd be the "voice of reason"? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure let me be a bit more direct. You are absolutely lying if you claim I suggested any of what you wrote, with the exception of the quote regarding the editor’s passion. I certainly agree that the behavior you mention is not ideal, but I do not believe an indefinite block is the first step for this editor. This is a classic ANI pile on, with an indef block looking likely. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please point out where I have suggested any of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly not here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. The edit warring, IDHT, POV-push, trying to disqualify editors on the basis of religion... none of this is conducive to our goals. If not blocked, a topic ban seems in order. None of these need to be permanent, of course -- sometimes new users misunderstand how this place works. If they show they understand sufficiently, then some leeway/rope could be in order. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support I understand being passionate about a subject. I understand you want to make the project better on that subject. However you get to the point that you begin to exclude other editors, and push ONLY your viewpoint, that's when it becomes disruptive. The editor does not want to work collaboratively, and as such a block is justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support - As per Rhododendrites, et al. Editor apparently knows the “truth” and can’t be bothered with attaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- TBAN There are three behavioral issues which I see here. 1) Comments about fellow editors which arguably cross the line to personal attacks; 2) A complete failure to drop-the-stick and understand that their view is not the only view; 3) Edit warring. All of these seems to be limited in scope to Trinity and in time to the events which brought us here. I do not think these are bad enough to jump straight to an indef -- we seem to be jumping straight to indefs more and more often. In this case I would support a narrowly focused topic ban on the Trinity which, because of how seldome they edit, should be indefinite. Since they are an SPA this may end up being a de facto ban on editing but it leaves open the door to contribute in other areas where, hopefully, their evident strong beliefs may motivate constructive contribution rather than continued disruption. In short, a single episode of disruption on a topic of one's strongly held and central/defining beliefs does not necessarily mean it is not possible to be constructive in less personally sensitive areas. If, when given the chance, they can not find an area of interest where they can subordinate dogma to Wikipedia's content and behavioral requirements then an indefinite block can be made. Jbh Talk 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with an indef TBan on all religion broadly construed. You mentioned three problem areas. The fourth is an apparent discomfort with areligious editors editing religious articles; and the logic used indicates a possible problem with non-Christians editing these articles. That’s like saying you can’t edit Harry Potter if you’re not a wizard. As you say, that would probably amount to a de facto block. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a broader TBAN. Jbh Talk 18:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I'd also be satisfied with a TBAN. I would prefer an indef block because I only see three possible outcomes to a TBAN: CTmv stops editing entirely; Ctmv repeatedly violates their topic ban and gets indeffed; or Ctmv starts behaving the same exact way in some other subject and gets indeffed. (FWIW, I think the first one is the most likely outcome.) So from where I sit, we might as well save ourselves the possibility of having to deal with more drama and block now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a broader TBAN. Jbh Talk 18:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with an indef TBan on all religion broadly construed. You mentioned three problem areas. The fourth is an apparent discomfort with areligious editors editing religious articles; and the logic used indicates a possible problem with non-Christians editing these articles. That’s like saying you can’t edit Harry Potter if you’re not a wizard. As you say, that would probably amount to a de facto block. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per Jbhunley. I'd pick "theology and religion, broadly construed" as the topic area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, as above. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson and Doug Weller: Would you support a topic ban on religion in place of an indef? I'm asking because I think either one would accomplish the job, and I believe it'll be easier to convince editors who !voted to indef to support a topic ban than to convince editors who !voted to topic ban to support an indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not confident that it will result in the desired outcome, but it's worth a try.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson and Doug Weller: Would you support a topic ban on religion in place of an indef? I'm asking because I think either one would accomplish the job, and I believe it'll be easier to convince editors who !voted to indef to support a topic ban than to convince editors who !voted to topic ban to support an indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also pessimistic, but I've said above I will. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Since Ctmv has shown no interest is any other subject than the one a topic ban would cover, it would either be a de facto indef block, or Ctmv would find something else to edit, hopefully something in which he or she is not so invested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per above. If that goes south, then an indef is in order. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Tban for theology and religion, broadly construed, per Power Enwiki. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support block largely because I don't hold much faith that this sort of of behaviour won't move to a different area of articles. Support topic ban as second choice. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN on religion (broadly construed) in the first instance. Block if they fail to abide by it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This is not an accusation, but it looks like Ctmv may also be editing logged off, possibly accidentally. Simliar times, positions, animus toward areligious editors: [15]. Also another IP earlier from the same country: [16] [17] O3000 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's certainly the case, but Ctmv isn't trying to obfuscate their identity as the IP or pretend to be two people so I'm pretty sure these are just more gaffes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I’m sure it’s accidental. I only mention it as one may wish to include these edits as a part of the edit history. For example, this edit from a third, similar IP indicating a problem with those that don’t share their religious beliefs. [18] from this interaction timeline on another article [19] O3000 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's certainly the case, but Ctmv isn't trying to obfuscate their identity as the IP or pretend to be two people so I'm pretty sure these are just more gaffes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN Yes, one of those 3 thing will probably happen, but ROPE and all. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting activity from 'new' user.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last week I brought an apparent sock of ZH8000 to NeilN's attention following an unrelated problem. That account was SW1998, but NeilN determined that it was in fact Architect 134 who apparently has taken to pretending to be socks of other users to cause disruption.
Enter another new user, FL9499 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), just three days after SW1998 was blocked with a very similarly formatted user name. Now, some of the early edits were not particularly problematic apart from creation of unsourced draft articles but if it genuinely is a new user, they have to start somewhere.
However, the vast majority of more recent edits are simply the addition or removal of spaces from various Swiss related articles with no other content change or very minor rewords. It strikes me that whoever is behind this account is simply attempting to become autoconfirmed as rapidly as possible. There has been 120 such edits in the last 24 hours so maybe extended autoconfirmed?. It is the Swiss connection that makes this stand out. Any ideas as to what is occurring?
If this is the wrong place to post this, I apologise, but I am fairly new around here myself. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems likely they may be related to TZ master/Tobias Conradi based on the near identical recreations. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your message which I have just received. And I have come here to read it. I don't even know what autoconfirmed is and have not (yet) looked up what it means. Do I need to? The ZH8000 account is not mine. TZ master/Tobias Conradi is not my account either. The removal of spaces is because I have spotted double, sometimes even triple spaces in quite a few articles, not exclusively Swiss-related. I don't recall there being any addition of spaces, unless I came across a full stop immediately followed by another letter which started off the next sentence. I found several missing full stops and may have added those. FL9499 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing I can add is that I have nothing to do with neither the accused user FL9499 from supposedly Liechtenstein (FL) nor the paranoia by the user TheVicarsCat (TVC). This would be TVC's second wrong accusation in a few days against me. It is rather vice versa: The funny thing is rather that it is at least astonishing to me that TVC always pop up after I critiziced an IP user's wrong contribution. Given that (s)he has made only 200 edits so far (and a large part of them were directed against me!), this seems to be rather fishy to me. TVC even started to threat me (see edit summary!) ("Keep this up, and I will arrange for a more permanent arrangement."). Perhaps, FL9499 is even a socket puppet by TVC? I don't know, of course, but I am definitively bored about this. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you had a half decent comprehension of English, you would see that at no time have I accused you of anything here. TheVicarsCat (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Something is going on here, the similarities in username of the country code + 4-digit-number usernames are too much to ignore. It could be a school course, could be a joe-job by the resident noticeboard trolls, could be something else. It's probably too obvious to be plain sock-puppetry. More worrisome is TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs)'s contribution history, which is troublesome at best. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe they're license plates? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, you should ignore the coincidence. The ZH8000 account is not mine. TZ master/Tobias Conradi is not my account either. FL9499 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Obviously I have no idea though if those other various accounts cited are connected to each other. FL9499 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @sysops comment: Please take also into account the various new users which are popping up recently in the several discussions, such as CremeVertBeechBo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Or should I claim a socket puppet investigation request about the many IPs and newly created users? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ZH8000: I don't understand. CremeVertBeechBo is indeed a new editor. What discussions have they come up in? They made three edits to Schaffhausen. There's nothing on their Talk page. Who do you think they are a sock puppet of and why? And what other "newly created users" are there?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record FL9499 has been checkuser blocked as a sock of Dopenguins as has the apparently irrelevant CremeVertBeechBo. The only mystery is why ZH8000 felt a need to provide one distraction after another. Guess we will never know. This can be closed. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Follow up: see #Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sock-block needed
Sock bleached. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Warrinabetaplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real and is repeatedly adding "prophecy-spam" for Isaiah Ogedegbe, like countless other socks before him. I filed a report at SPI last night, but nothing has happened there, and filed a report at WP:AIV this morning, but no one there seems to want to touch it, but maybe there's someone here who is familiar with Ogedegbe and willing to block the sock (who is adding the spam over and over again, sample edits: [20], [21], [22]). If you're not familiar with Ogedegbe, check the archived reports in the SPI I linked to... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Checking... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
91.235.142.81
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP per WP:DUCK is likely a sock of Apollo The Logician. An investigation was opened, but later closed because it stopped editing just when the investigation started and the edits were too old. The IP was already dormant before when it was warned about disruptive editing, and since administrative measures are preventive, I want to request an action to prevent further disruptive editing, including WP:NOTHERE, edit warring and POV pushing. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like the editor was just waiting for the investigation to close to start POV pushing again. Diffs here: [23][24][25][26] --Jamez42 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Jamez42: why is your first edit here timestamped two days ago? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I originally filed the report in the NPOV noticeboard my mistake. Today the IP started editing again and when I wanted to see the comments I noticed and corrected it. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- IP blocked. It's clearly the same user as 80.111.179.171, and they were clearly watching the closed SPI to evade detection. Courtesy ping Bbb23. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Facebook threat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone sent me this SPI related threat on Facebook. I have saved their profile and a screenshot of their threat.
- Original In Hindi: Hi Dilpa, hum sab tuj se tang hai. Tera jo master hai Towns Hill usko SPI mein block mil hi jaye ga, saath tu aur uske baaki saray proxy editors bhi danday se jaye ge. Sudhar ja warna teri chudwai ka arrange karwana pare ga
- In English: Hi Dilpa, we are all annoyed from you. Your master Towns Hill will get a block at SPI and you and all the rest of their proxy editors will also lose work. Reform or we will have to arrange your f**k. Dilpa kaur (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Dilpa kaur: please see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. GiantSnowman 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I want my fuck to be properly arranged. It's been a mess for years. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. I hoard mine and arrange them myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Making jokes about threats of harm (even if the threat is in broken English) is in very poor taste, guys. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- So is publicly chiding people for subjectively interpreted impropriety, but that didn't stop you! ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh no... someone made an anonymous threat to someone else on the internet. Call the internet police! Seriously though, if you think that is a legitimately scary threat get off the internet now before you see what I've seen. --Tarage (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen scarier threats from LTAs. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've had people threaten me online and then follow through on their threats. Those threats didn't look like these. Or even like these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen scarier threats from LTAs. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Making jokes about threats of harm (even if the threat is in broken English) is in very poor taste, guys. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. I hoard mine and arrange them myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I want my fuck to be properly arranged. It's been a mess for years. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Harassed and Wikihounded by a Battle Syndrome
- Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Editor Interaction Analyser with DBigXray
- Editor Interaction Analyser with Adamgerber80
Dear Admins, I was forced to approach ANI because of being harassed and Hounded around on several pages by this editor who seems to be suffering from a case of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT syndrome and a disregard of WP:AGF. He has failed to WP:HEAR advice on several talk pages. His edit summaries [27] and nasty comments [28] [29] today, shows the disrespect he harbours for the fellow editors.
Proof of Wikihounding
Khalistan movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- His interaction with me first started at above page (being edited by me since 2012), Which is currently locked due to editwarring and inability to WP:HEAR advices on talk page.
- He then hounded me on Operation Blue Star (being edited by me since 7 June) to do (a first edit) a blind revert 23 June with an unreasonable edit summary. I pointed[30] him that he is following me in my comment on talk page.Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- He followed my edit at WP:3O to post against my request for a third opinion.
- He again hounded me to an Admins page where I was discussing an unconfirmed sock/SPA, So I warned this Editor to stop the hounding. And I had hoped matters would improve but sadly it has not.
- The warning did not stop him from wikihounding me Today again at Babbar Khalsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where he did his first edit.
I must clarify that even the Hounding at #5 Babbar Khalsa above did not trigger this report as I assumed good faith on my part, but the comment below is the final nail. If you take a look at the recent nasty comments[31] being posted by him today on
- Talk:National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland#Please_read_WP:INDICSCRIPTS and
- User_talk:Adamgerber80#A_word_of_advice
you can see that this problem has become serious and cannot be ignored anymore. By the tone of his comment today I feel this is only going to escalate going further (on more pages) due to the continued WP:BADFAITH allegations. Which brings me here on ANI.
- In his apparent ignorance [32][33] about the controversial topic he is editing and delusion of being righteous, he has been repeatedly edit warring and at times blindly reverting to add back rumours, [34][35] Source misrepresentations [36], using poor sources[37][38], and even edits against accepted Policies here
- Based on his edits, I also suspect he has a WP:COI related to the Pro-Khalistan Movement but WP:COI, ignorance, or immaturity cannot be an excuse for continued nastiness and slow but disruptive editings here.
- This is not a one off incident. I do not want to produce stale difs but I have been facing his bad faith accusations and battle mentality on these talk pages for past 2 months now.
- Volunteer editors do not deserve such nastiness and there is a limit to everyone's tolerance of WP:UNCIVIL behavior.
- Blocks and/or Topic bans are due now.
Kindly intervene. --DBigXray 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure looks like a content dispute to me. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Wikihounding, Bad faith and WP:UNCIVIL behaviour are not content dispute but User issues and hence this report. --DBigXray 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure looks like a content dispute to me. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment this doesn't look like WP:HOUNDing. It looks like a single dispute (about Khalistan) that has spilled over to other pages. DBigWiki seems to be under the impression that if they complain on other pages, that Elephanthunter doesn't have a right to respond. This is incorrect; if you're going to semi-accuse an editor of sock-puppetry on a different user's talk page, you should probably courtesy ping them to alert them to the conversation. You certainly shouldn't try to get them blocked for finding it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Having a dispute at a page, is not a justifiable excuse to give someone a right to follow an editor at 4 other pages (clearly using editor contribution page) to harass and make UNCIVIL comments.
- Further, per SPI Guide opening an SPI does not "require" you to inform the sockmaster. So discussing an unconfirmed SPA does not require you to inform the unconfirmed master. --DBigXray 20:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Response Interaction with both of these editors is nothing of note. Editor interaction analysis shows DBigXRay and Adamgerber80 have a long history together in a number of articles, specifically this particular topic matter [39]. They seem to have similar opinions, so disagreements with both users appears to be a common occurrence.
- It is not WP:HOUNDING for me to push for discussion of edits in controversial articles related to our pre-existing debate. DBigXray made a large (and in my opinion, grossly biased) overhaul of Operation Blue Star while our dispute resolution was underway for Khalistan movement. To me it appeared when DBigXray could not get the results he wanted in Khalistan movement, he made a large number of edits in related articles. And when I noticed, he accused me of hounding.
- I am not sure how to respond to allegations of WP:COI. I can provide evidence to administrators if necessary that I am quite far-removed from this topic matter. Given the aggressive behavior of DBigXray, I am uncomfortable with sharing details publicly.
- As far as the article National Socialist Council of Nagaland, I have been editing and watching that article since 2015 [40] To me it appeared as though Adamgerber80 removed [41] a useful translation provided by an administrator of the Burmese Wikipedia. It was a misunderstanding and Adamgerber80 went way too far in his response [42]
- I suspect DBigXray has some other channel of communication with several other Wikipedians. DBigXray seemed privy to more information about Adamgerber80 than Adamgerber80 publicly made available [43]. There was a similar strange incident in the RfC where DBigXray requested permission to move the comments of an editor who disagreed (the user Calthinus), but not an editor who commented in agreement (the user Orientls) See: [44]. DBigXray has previous accusations of sockpuppetry and admitted they were located in a shared-IP educational institution [45] --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- This response above further justifies my report of this editors BATTLE mentality, BadFaith and Uncivil behavior(Personal attacks). --DBigXray 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Elephanthunter: care to explain how you appeared on all these pages which I posted in the proof section. ? That may help your case. Falsely accusing others of POV with uncivil comments and Bad faith accusations like you did above surely wont. (This is out of topic but the SPI against me was initiated by another editor in bad faith against me, it was inconclusive. Are you asking me to defend why I went to that educational institute ? ) --DBigXray 22:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- My 2 cents of the entire situation. This is primarily a content dispute which has been turned into a an uncivil situation because of a lack of WP:AGF which is evident even here. My first interaction with Elephanthunter on List of active separatist movements in Asia and we got involved in this on Khalistan movement as well but this was on May 20 2018 and months ago. DBigXray had been editing Khalistan movement movement for quite some time since April 2018 and was drawn into the content dispute since Elephanthunter followed me there. There was a disagreement on the content which eventually went to WP:DRN and this was unsuccessful. Because of time commitments I dropped out of the DRN which was conveyed to them on my talk page under the DRN notice which Elephanthunter had himself posted ([46]) on 24 June 2018. Since then I have not been involved in the dispute nor I have edited any of the pages Khalistan movement, Babbar Khalsa, Operation Blue Star partially because I did not have the time bandwidth to get involved in the dispute with many pages on my watch list and secondary of the increasing uncivil nature of the dispute. I have occasionally chimed in on the talk page discussion (once or twice) suggesting that we take this to RfC since everything else was not working. Today, I reverted an addition of non-English script on National Socialist Council of Nagaland [47] (this is a pet peeve of mine and I have removed these scripts from multiple Indian pages). A few minutes later my edit was reverted by Elephanthunter with no explanation simply saying restoring script. IMO, Elephanthunter has made up his mind that some editors have a POV and any edits they do on these set of pages are against WP:NPOV and thus wants to revert them. The editor did not make an attempt to understand what the policy was or open a discussion. They later justified their edit (instead of apologizing for it) by claiming that they expect every edit to be WP:NPOV or a discussion over it [48]. I am confused as to how is one supposed to edit something which is not even content based but policy based and have a NPOV discussion about it. This prompted me to warn them that this behavior was not ideal and appeared troubling to me. I do believe that Elephanthunter in general wants to contribute positively to Wikipedia but is either unsure of some policies or assumes that everyone in disagreement with them is trying to forward their agenda which is not ideal and this might need some course correction as I mentioned here ([49]). Another important point to note is that though I might have recommended the RfC, I haven't yet commented on it since it is turning into a WP:VOTE which I dislike. I would prefer editors who participate in RfCs to make meaningful contributions instead of saying a yes or no. But this is hardly new and has been a theme of the Afghan-India-Pakistan area RfC's in general.
- A note to Elephanthunter, by insinuating "collusion" here when I myself have informed under the very notice you posted that I will be very busy until September, you seem to be violating WP:AGF. How did you reach to the conclusion that I was communicating with DBigXray offline and hence he knew more then what was conveyed when it was conveyed so on my talk page. Secondly, I have kept myself away from the entire dispute by and large after that communication. Can you show us instances or diffs where editors (him and me) seem like they have colluded? I was barely aware of the editor before April when they came back after a long break and left a bubble tea on my talk page [50]. On the contrary, I even reverted some of their edits on other pages like Talk:Para_(Special_Forces)#Bluestar_reference where we have disagreed. This only solidifies my point that you seem to have made up your mind that some editors are against you and you somehow have to oppose them where in fact the everyone is here to build this Wikipedia not battle over it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Analytics of your edit history makes it obvious you two are following each other. As a specific example, aside our three-way dispute resolution [[51]] in Khalistan movement? National Socialist Council of Nagaland. I have been editing that article since 2015. DBigXray's first edit to that article was in June 2018 [52], and your first edit was to revert to his edit [53]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Elephanthunter: I watch over many pages in the general area and have over 2000 pages on my watchlist. If you look at the edit, I was reverting removal of sourced content not engaging in a content dispute with you or supporting the other editor. Other editors have also reverted the immediate subsequent edits [54]. Are we all colluding with each other? I have watched over many separatist movements in South Asia (more than the two you have edits on) not just India. Am I colluding with different editors over all those pages? Plus, you had 2 edits on that page back in 2015 and then appear after a gap of 3 years with some edits in 2018. Even then, AFAIK, I have not reverted a single edit of yours on that page nor was that page ever in content dispute. Can you please explain to me how are you getting this collusion angle because this is deeply disturbing to me that you would think that. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Analytics of your edit history makes it obvious you two are following each other. As a specific example, aside our three-way dispute resolution [[51]] in Khalistan movement? National Socialist Council of Nagaland. I have been editing that article since 2015. DBigXray's first edit to that article was in June 2018 [52], and your first edit was to revert to his edit [53]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - If Elephanthunter is following other editors around by watching their contributions, he needs to stop. That is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING and we can see that they are feeling harassed. Apart from that, I see too little AGF on all sides. You people need to find ways to work together. Wait for the current RfC to close before you start raising temperatures elsewhere. If you keep throwing accusations at each other, you are likely to end up with I-BANs, which will not be pleasant at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- DBigXray's narrative of who is WP:WIKIHOUNDING who is reversed. This ANI request was instigated [55] by a single revert in an article that DBigXray and Adamgerber80 only started editing in June 2018, [56] [57] after my first direct interaction with either of them [58] I have been editing said article since 2015 [59] Given clear history of the circumstances, I find the accusations almost surreal. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ad hominem is the worst defence. Kindly respond to my Question above. ( As for reply to your Counter accusation, First read and understand carefully what WP:WIKIHOUNDING means. Please check the history [60] of 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar in my watch list since December before our any interaction. I had addded there [61] a section which I later on felt is also fit for the Parent org Article and added[62] the LEAD from there and watchlisted it. Further (as mentioned in the defintion of WP:WIKIHOUNDING) I never harassed you or blind reverted you on that article like you did to me in my proof section above. So kindly dont use this "everyone is guilty" rationale in your defence.--DBigXray 00:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest that you retract your accusations. Operation Blue Star was a repeated topic of discussion for us at DRN. So yes, I am watching it. And I've been watching Babar Khalsa since my recent edits in Air India Flight 182, Soft Target, and after emailing the staff at the Indo-Canadian Times for a correctly licensed photo for Tara Singh Hayer, who was potentially murdered by the group. The Indo-Canadian Times did not respond, but I can provide this email privately at the request of an administrator. My edits are all easily explained. Yours are not. With the thousands of edits over the years you two have been here, it's statistically improbable that you and Adamgerber80 became involved in National Socialist Council of Nagaland at the same time coincidentally. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I never claimed that I was hounded at Nagaland page. Please, see the proof again. However in your reply, you conveniently chose to ignore explaining how you appeared at #3 WP:3O Talk page and User talk:EdJohnston soon after my edits ? Are we to believe that whole wikipedia is watchlisted ? --DBigXray 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't find any of the mainspace edits cause for concern. But your appearance at EdJohnston's does make me suspect that you might be following them around. Anyway, as I said, if you are doing it, you need to stop it.
- The Nagaland page did not "instigate" this complaint, it only precipitated it. We can see that the tensions have been building up for a while. If you didn't know what "indic scripts" meant, there are any number of ways of finding out. But doing a revert is not one of them. Adamgerber was simply doing what he generally does, defending Wikipedia, and he has our thanks for it. Reverting him exhibits hostility in my view. His irritation is understandable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest that you retract your accusations. Operation Blue Star was a repeated topic of discussion for us at DRN. So yes, I am watching it. And I've been watching Babar Khalsa since my recent edits in Air India Flight 182, Soft Target, and after emailing the staff at the Indo-Canadian Times for a correctly licensed photo for Tara Singh Hayer, who was potentially murdered by the group. The Indo-Canadian Times did not respond, but I can provide this email privately at the request of an administrator. My edits are all easily explained. Yours are not. With the thousands of edits over the years you two have been here, it's statistically improbable that you and Adamgerber80 became involved in National Socialist Council of Nagaland at the same time coincidentally. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ad hominem is the worst defence. Kindly respond to my Question above. ( As for reply to your Counter accusation, First read and understand carefully what WP:WIKIHOUNDING means. Please check the history [60] of 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar in my watch list since December before our any interaction. I had addded there [61] a section which I later on felt is also fit for the Parent org Article and added[62] the LEAD from there and watchlisted it. Further (as mentioned in the defintion of WP:WIKIHOUNDING) I never harassed you or blind reverted you on that article like you did to me in my proof section above. So kindly dont use this "everyone is guilty" rationale in your defence.--DBigXray 00:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- DBigXray's narrative of who is WP:WIKIHOUNDING who is reversed. This ANI request was instigated [55] by a single revert in an article that DBigXray and Adamgerber80 only started editing in June 2018, [56] [57] after my first direct interaction with either of them [58] I have been editing said article since 2015 [59] Given clear history of the circumstances, I find the accusations almost surreal. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I find that multiple editors are interested editing the same subject which I don't really see as Wikihounding or harassment. I also agree that before continuing same disputes, they should wait for the result of RfC. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- #3WP:3O and #4 User talk:EdJohnston where I was wikihounded (see Proof section) isn't the same Topic area or Subject. His comments/editsummaries (added as proof) show his motive and harassment. Also It is not the same dispute, Please don't jump to conclusions on the face value of his comments.
- Anyway, the evidence speak for themselves and are further corroborated by his own reply. --DBigXray 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a clear timeline here:
- DBigXray informs me of his request at 3O [63]
- I protest, to say it does not meet 3O qualifications [64]
- We receive a 3O response anyway. When the 3O disagrees with DBigXray, DBigXray collapses the 3O's comment, claiming our 3O is a sockpuppet [65]
- EdJohnston's comment on the 3O's talk page [66] [67] leads me to his talk page, and DBigXray's "report" [68]
- The chronology shows that my involvement in each page is justified. In fact, I discovered that DBigXray had not pursued official avenues of uncovering sockpuppets and had simply collapsed our 3O's comment based on his own suspicions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a clear timeline here:
- I think you need to cool it with the accusations, because the tone of this thread is one of Elephanthunter neutrally and calmly explaining his edits and behavior, while you seem wildly over-aggressive and failing to assume any good faith. Even if you might be in the right, that behavior can cause other editors to question the motivations for this filing and result in the appearance of boomerangs. If your allegations are true, just list the diffs and demonstrate them, but railing against the other editor undermines your position and the notion that the other editor is the one with battleground or bad faith tendencies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that no admins have posted yet in this thread. If one of them were to suddenly arrive, and try to form a conclusion based on what's already here, they would probably be considering a block of both editors for disruptive editing. (An IBAN is not practical because we'd have another 10,000 words of complaint whenever either side did anything). I do have some previous knowledge based on my encountering these editors at WP:AN3, and noticing a DRN thread about the Khalistan movement. See also an RfC at Talk:Khalistan movement. To me, the simplest would be to be sure the RfC gets properly closed and the content matters settled. My superficial impression is that Elephanthunter is pushing a point of view regarding the Khalistan movement, and that DBigXray may be excessively personalizing the dispute. Both editors have been properly notified under WP:ARBIPA and any administrator who sees a good enough reason has the discretion to ban one or both of them from the disputed topics. I don't think this dispute will be allowed to rage on indefinitely, and I'd welcome any peace feelers from either side. If I had to compare the two, I'd say that Elephanthunter is the greater problem but that DBigXray easily falls into a pattern of reverting when he thinks it's up to him personally to correct Elephanthunter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Just both take a rest and let the RFC run its course. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- RFC is running its course no one is disturbing that. Other than that If both parties took rest then this report would not have been there at the first place. One party feels that A Content dispute at one page, is enough reason to stalk and continue wikihounding and harassment at other pages. The Wikihounding and the later comment showing "bad faith assumption" is the sole reason for posting this ANI report.
- @EdJohnston: Yes there was a content dispute at 1 page, but that does not approve the Wikihounding. Why should both be banned ? There has to be clear justification and reasonable cause before any block is issued. Secondly Am I to believe that ANI now takes cases wikihounding lightly. And complaining against wikihounding will be enough reason for blocks on both parties ? The whole point of me posting this thread was to stop "My Wikihounding" and harassment in the form of bad faith comments being posted at several talk page and edit summaries. I am not against discussing disputes at one or several places, but when there are clear conduct issues and brushing them under carpet citing a content dispute will only bring it back again.--DBigXray 16:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban needed for Codenamemary
Codenamemary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See Talk:God/Archive_22#Inconsistency, Talk:God/Archive_23#Picture_of_God, Talk:God/Archive_24#God_is_"usually"_thought_to_not_have_a_physical/visual_form?, and now Talk:God#Images. The user is either incapable of grasping the concepts of "abstract thought" or "symbolism" (both of which are kind of requisite to being of any use in articles relating to theology and philosophy) or trolling.
If this was their only area of contribution, I would have blocked them as a troll already. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Highlights from the threads linked previously:
Wouldn't it help if we could get a photo of him to run at the top of the article, establishing his (or her) identity for all to see?
God, however, is eternal and everlasting. So he is still around to pose for a wiki photo. I say we get one. I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it.
But if man was made in a (Christian) God's image, He must have looked like something to begin with...?
I still don't understand why we don't attach an actual photograph of God. It could clear up a lot of misconceptions.
I just don't imagine people think that should there be life after death, that their maker wouldn't be something they could SEE.
it's never occurred to me that people would think God did not have an image
- This is either a troll or a WP:CIR case. I've not examined their contributions elsewhere, which is why I haven't blocked them already. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Tempted to block them outright. Obviously a troll. Unsure whether to give a stern warning to either contribute some encyclopaedic content or just straight block them. Obviously not here. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Took a quick look through their contribs and they're generally fine. That being said, they can verge on WP:NOTFORUM behavior at times, especially on talk pages of bigger topics (e.g. Talk:God or Talk:Love), and they haven't made any edits outside of the former in over a year. Perhaps a page ban from Talk:God? ansh666 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This feels a bit WP:BITE-y. I agree some of their comments are trolling, but there are other contributors in those threads who are worse. A warning should be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Inclined to agree with Power~enwiki that a TBAN is perhaps unnecessary at this juncture. The editor has a very short contribs log despite having been here for many years, and has hardly made a single edit in the past year that wouldn't be covered by the proposed TBAN, so a block would be just as good and wouldn't clog up WP:RESTRICT. Ian.thomson's notification of this ANI thread was the first time the editor's talk page had been edited in seven years, so I think a warning should probably be issued before any serious sanctions (TBAN, block or otherwise) are considered, mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This comes across strongly as trolling, but in the context of their previous talk page conduct, it actually appears that they're seriously discussing the subject in good faith. Their few article edits have been unproductive but no indications of bad faith or disruption there, and no other indications of trolling on talk pages either. It doesn't necessarily seem like this person's here to contribute, but there's not enough to justify a block without reaching out. I've issued a gentle NOTFORUM warning, so let's see if it continues. Swarm ♠ 08:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
IP editor ignores WP policies, adds unsourced content, attacks others.
Hello, dear Wikipedians. Recently I was reading a number of Wikipedia articles about vintage cars and to my disappointment found out that an IP editor was adding unsourced and unverified content there without citing any sources whatsoever. As such additions are against WP:RS and WP:OR, I decided to intervene and reverted his edits, telling him that they were against the rules of the project. In response, however, he flooded the talk page with lengthy, aggressive and absurd complaints about how wrong WP policies and editors are, as they don't allow him to add whatever he wants, and resorted to personal attacks (which is against WP:PA): "damn fool", "a complete moron", "arrogant and fanatic", "an idiot", "big fool", "brainless idiot", "ideal character for running a site like this", "this freely gives me right to insult you", "spreading ignorance is obviously your goal" (all this came in response to my short message: [69]). His only arguments are like "it's obvious", "Google it", "if you need sources, go find them", "if you remove A, then remove B", ([70]). That anonymous person, who ignores the rules and attacks others in the most disgusting manner, uses different IPs but his current one is this: [71]. Here is another one: [72]. I'm sure behavior like that is completely inappropriate here and shouldn't be tolerated. Amiru1 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
IP blocked by @Cullen328:. See [73] AryaTargaryen (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
- Now he has changed his IP to add that "Wikipedia lost legitimacy by any normal person long ago" and other nonsense, again flooding the talk page and blaming others for his own personal attacks and insults: [74]. Amiru1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked the new IP for 48 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect and defamatory statement on the Wikipedia page about me
On the Wikipedia page about me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Brezsny, there is a statement at top that goes as follows:
"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."
It is absolutely untrue that there have been payments from me to anyone to create or edit this page. Please remove this incorrect and defamatory statement.
I requested that this be removed three days ago, and no action has been taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The statement does not say who made the alleged payments, it only says that payments were allegedly made, so why do you assume it is about you? If, for instance, you have a publicist, which seems likely given your profession, the publicist could have made those alleged payments without you even being aware of them. Hence, there is no defamation here -- but in any case, you should be aware of our WP:No legal threats policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I checked Inspiratrix's edits on that page, and while they have a few edits, they aren't COI type edits. It's clearly other editors that created the issues. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The implication is that the article is biased in favor of the subject and that he paid for this result. There is no reason to believe that. There is nothing in the article that is biased for or against the subject. The tags should be removed. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, the implication is that someone paid someone to write or edit the article. Your conclusion is an inference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the notice creates innuendo that the subject is associated with unethical self-promotion. It is a BLP issue. If merely conjecture, the notice should go to the talk page. If based on evidence, the tag should point to the evidence, and we should respond in a timely manner to resolve the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I think {{COI}} was a better template for this occasion, as despite of the promotional languages, it doesn't really have the hallmarks of the typical undisclosed paid editing in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If we don't have any evidence for paid activity, or at least some sound reasoning based on credible suspicion, then I think the tag should be removed. It is a BLP after all, and the tag does imply nefarious activity. If it is based on this, then I don't see that as justifying it at all - creating an account and making suggestions on the talk page is exactly what the subject of a BLP (or other editor with a COI) should do. If there's evidence that the BLP subject has been editing the article directly rather than via talk page suggestions, then I see it as a COI thing rather than PAID.Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)- Actually, having properly read the very recent contributions of Ronald Joe Record at the talk page, I take that all back - "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" along with the rest of their way of arguing really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm now neutral on whether the tag is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Foremost in the decision should be respect and the dignity of the subject, per the WMF resolution. The complaint here is a reasonable one, and a vague suspicion of paid editing is a matter for talk page discussion, not appear to be a public allegation in a large notice. I have been bold and removed the notice diff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse the removal of the tag as a courtesy to the article subject, but not as a validation of the user who was edit warring to retain promotional content. I have issued them a DS alert as well as lengthy advice on the talk page, including warnings against continued disruptive behavior. Swarm ♠ 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would assume - and I may be wrong - that if you're going to slap a "undisclosed paid" template on an article you should explain why you feel that this is the case on the talk page, particularly if it's not immediately obvious. Fish+Karate 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- AfD time? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This has been well handled by Jytdog and Melcous, appropriately, by editing the article and Fae removed the tag. I'm now having a crack at the associated World Entertainment War article. Nice work. Inspiratrix, if you do have a publicist, it might be worth mentioning to them that their best course of action is requesting edits on talk pages of any artists they represent, because publicists' efforts here often backfire, first on their client, and then, presumably, the client may get irritated enough to find a new publicist.
FWIW, I neither agree that the tag was defamatory (note the word "may") nor do I think your post here was a legal threat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- And FWIW on my part, I never said that there was a legal threat made, I merely pointed an editor who had used the legal term "defamation" towards our NLT policy so they would know the limits of what was allowed. A courtesy more than anything else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- From Inspiratrix: There has been mention of a supposed publicist here when referring to me. Maybe I should have a publicist, but I don't, and haven't had one since 2005, when I hired a publicist for three months to help promote my book "Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia."
- As for the music references, I'm not sure what you mean when you say one is an "op ed," and when you say that two are not independent. The articles in the Good Times, Popmatters.com, and Gnosis magazine are not op-ed and are independent in every way I can conceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
{{ping}Inspiratrix}}Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and makes it difficult to tell who is saying what. I've moved your comment (just above this) to the correct placement. Also, please "sign" your comment at the end by using 4 tildes, i.e. ~~~~. The system will respond to this by adding your account name and a date/time stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)- Damn! I can't do an f'ing ping correctly to save my life. @Insporatrix: Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- See what I mean? I give up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, You also wrote "Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes! Obviously I meant "do not" - thinking faster than my fingers can type. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Inspiratrix asks Beyond my Ken: Thanks for your note of advice. I'm not sure where to put my comments so that it's clear they're a response to someone els'e comments. Can you offer guidance? Inspiratrix (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just put your response directly after the end of the comment you're responding to. Use colons to indent: one more colon than the comment you're responding to is the norm. If there have been intervening comments from other editors, and you think it will be unclear who you are responding to, you can put the name of the editor at the beginning of the comment, as in: "@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your note..." And make sure you're posting in the correct thread - I rescued the comment above from a thread further down the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, You also wrote "Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll say what I think is obivious--that if the subject of the article contacted an editor, and if that editor starts editing, and if then another editor jumps on that bus, and if then a third editor say "not so fast", sees a poorly written, non-neutral article with absolutely lousy sources and a bunch of linkspam, if all that happens it would be a good idea for the first editor to explain what this contact was about, and for the second editor to not start throwing accusations around. As usual, though, I'm sure sunlight is the best disinfectant: my thanks to all the editors who took an interest in the article, first of all Kleuske. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I swore off engaging with User:Drmies but that seems to have lasted about 5 hours. The narrative he constructs here is orthogonal to the one I perceived transpire rapidly over the course of the last few days. First of all, the Rob Brezsny astrological empire is not paying people to edit Wikipedia. He's not Trump. He's not even Beyonce. He's a writer with an astrology column, a few very good books under his belt, and credits for a couple of songs subsequently recorded by Jefferson Starship. Drmies came in and made such substantive deletions to the article that I initially thought it must be vandalism. I said so in the comment to my revert, taking the page back to the last agreed upon revision. I opened a discussion on the talk page to resolve this. The editor, who I subsequently learned is on the arbitration committee, provided sparse replies on the talk page and completely disregarded the main issue which was his tag bombing of the page including an Undisclosed payments tag. Most of all this has been resolved and I am posting this comment here only for the record. The editor, in my opinion, was combative, aggressive, and most importantly adversarial. There was little to no attempt at collaboration. I opened several sections on the talk page attempting to engage and even added a comment on his talk page attempting to lighten the tone and give him some respect. But all these overtures were met with continued vitriol. There is no evidence and no indication that anyone is taking any money for editing this article. It's ludicrous. The addition of the Undisclosed payments tag in the absence of ANY evidence or indication of ill will is, in my opinion, a violation of the assumption of good will policy. There are a number of really odd comments and maybe misperceptions in this comment thread I would like to comment on but do not have the time right now. One of them, however, I would like to get some clarification on. User: Boing! said Zebedee said that my comment "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm trying to understand how my statement of intent to improve suggests promotional activity. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- (1) Long unbroken paragraphs are difficult to read online, and you should consider expressing your thoughts in smaller sections. If you don't, expect to see comments such as "TL,DNR", meaning "Too long, did not read"
- (2) It's not in any way "ludicrous". Paid editing is a problem on Wikipedia, it's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake, and we take that very seriously. That you were momentarily discomfited is hardly of paramount concern.
- (3) Drmies is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, they are a former member of the Arbitration Committee, having served out their term and choosing not to run again. Nevertheless, Drmies is an administrator, a long-term editor, and a respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a great deal of integrity.
- (4) Your comments here and on the article talk page show quite clearly that you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rob Brezsny, in that you are obviously incapable of adhering to a neutral point of view concerning them. Whatever the reason is for this, I have no idea, but the inability to edit neutrally is very apparent. I would suggest that you follow the recommended procedures in the WP:COI policy and do not edit the Rob Brezsny article again, instead making suggestions for edits on the talk page, and allowing other, unbiased, editors decide whether to implement them.
- Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- BMK, "integrity"? Ha! I appreciate it, though. As for Doctorfree--BMK, I have, on occasion, made fun of your BOLD and UNDERLINING, but I have always admired your paragraphing: a model to follow. I understand that Doctorfree is still having a hexagonal or orthogonal or diametrical issue with me, but I'm afraid it goes over my head. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I know that my bolding and so forth is idiosyncratic, and may put some people off, but as my son says, it makes the words on the page sound exaclty as I would say them, which is my goal: to avoid misinterpretation by providing in some small measure what is missing from words in print - tone of voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Doctorfree, whenever someone says "we", there will be suspicion due to Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts. I understand this is not the case, so naturally the next question would be, who are the other person(s) implied in your statement? Did the article subject (Rob Brezsny) ask you to improve the article back in 2008, and continued to ask you to monitor the article as of present? In either case, your conflict of interest should be apparent. Alex Shih (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply User:Alex Shih. Is it really the case that my use of the word "we" prompted other editors to reach the conclusion that the statement "really does suggest marketing/promotional activity"? The "we" I was referring to was the Wikipedia editors who were and are contributing to the article. No, the article subject did not ask me to improve the article back in 2008. No, the article subject did not continue to ask me to monitor the article as of present. Are we now in the inquisition phase? What the heck is going on? Look at my edit history. What do you mean that my "conflict of interest should be apparent"? How does one reach such a conclusion from the facts? Please point me to evidence that would support an assertion that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. Exasperating and disappointing, Wikipedia was such a wonder for so many years and has grown to become such a fine repository of information. What is happening to the editorial crew? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
From Inspiratrix: I have never asked anyone or paid anyone or even hinted around to anyone to edit or create anything on the Wikipedia page about me. On July 15, a few days ago, I put a notice on my Facebook page that the article was being edited back and forth after many years of staying the same.
There have been small inaccuracies on the page for years, but I let them alone, feeling it's not my place to intervene in any way. I don't even know who wrote the original article. I understand that this is a legitimate subject for Wikipedia editors to discuss and ask about any article on Wikipedia, so I'm certainly not angry about editors bringing up the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Someone isn't telling the truth apparently. Skyerise sounds like the subject contacted her but he has now denied that.
- "...about Skyerise. In fact, I did not contact him/her. (Not sure what gender he/she is.) He/she contacted me through my Facebook page. I certainly didn't offer him/her anything, and didn't even encourage him/her to edit the Wikipedia page about me." - Rob Brezsny Inspiratrix (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC) by Inspiratrix.
- This needs reconciled.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
From Inspiratrix: P.S. I'm sure that Skyerise would agree with my account of what happened. Please ask her/him if you like. On July 15, I made a post on my Facebook page saying that after many years, my Wikipedia page was being edited. Skyerise, who had never before commented on my FB page as far as I know, showed up and made some comments under my post, basically saying that the edits that had been made on my page were sensible and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We then had a brief back and forth. I never asked her/him to take any action at all in editing my Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Inspiratrix, as unlikely as this story is, I've heard stranger things and I'm fine with this. I wish that other user's tenacity was so easily explained. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposal
User:Doctorfree, who signs as "Ronald Joe Record", is editing disruptively here in this thread, on Rob Brezsny and, especially, on Talk:Rob Brezsny:
- He WP:Bludgeons the talk page constantly, questioning every edit by every editor except himself
- He insists on adding information to the article supported by sources that a child would know don't fulfill the requirements of WP:RS
- His fawning attitude towards the subject of the article - a barely notable horoscope columnist - shows that he is incapable of editing neutrally about the subject
- His editing and comments border on being WP:Tendentious editing
- His disdain for community standards hides behind the veneer of a WP:CPOV-pusher
For these reasons, I propose that Doctorfree, aka "Ronald Joe Record", be topic banned from the article Rob Brezsny.
- Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Still continued disruption by Mayerroute5 / 116.68.79.209
The user Mayerroute5 was blocked for a week by CambridgeBayWeather: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued disruption by Mayerroute5 Jul 14, since then he continued his disrupting editing as an IP: 2405:204:D287:B4A6:39E7:20E7:B92F:33AA, 116.68.77.209 and 116.68.79.209. It would be not approbiate if his ban ended tomorrow as scheduled and the pages he disrupts I think need to be semiprotected. That are
--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at the pages and protect them if it's necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Australian entertainment personality edits by (one?) IP/s
Caught my eye by insisting Joe Hildebrand's birth name of John should be replaced rather than incorporated in lede (name he is known by as per WP:MOS). I contacted User talk:2001:8003:445F:4C00:8CAC:8D72:7D98:7122 here [75] & also thanked IP for other edits many of which are very useful (as per [76]).
Recently noticed that 2001:8003:445f:4c00:3106:c03c:80e2:273d, with a similar edit history ([77]) has also received talk page warning ([78]) & continues to edit such as recent edits to Joe_Hildebrand [79]
IP is very constructive in many ways but, if it it the same IP, dodging warnings & returning is an issue. Could someone with experience in such things take a look?
I've notified both IPs on their Talk pages.
Thanks, AnonNep (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's someone with a dynamic IP address. You can see all of their contributions at Special:Contributions/2001:8003:445F:4C00::/64. This seems to be the same person as Special:Contributions/101.180.130.205, who was blocked for edit warring recently. See Talk:Hughesy, We Have a Problem. Apparently, that article was semi-protected because of this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Julio Puentes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.
For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:
- Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
- Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.
The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))
- (Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've commented on their talk page, linking WP:Communication is required, and explaining their options: either stop, communicate, or get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Reopening as this was auto-archived without resolution. The articles shouldn't necessarily be prodded, many are on notable topics, and draftifying them brings other issues - many of those who work on drafts are not happy so many on notable topics are moved there. I think an indefinite block would force them to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Blocks are to prevent disruption. I don't see this as rising to that level. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Violation of arbitration remedies at AR-15 style rifle
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Thomas.W: restored an edit I reverted, which appears to violate the "consensus required" rule there. I asked them to self revert, and they refused.
I posted about this on NeilN's talk page, as they have been active in arbitrating this page and I thought it might be less drastic than putting it here, but then saw they are on vacation until the 29th (as am I, so I will likely be slow to respond to anything here).
If it matters, my edit summary (on the initial revert) was terse because I hit enter by accident while typing it. When I had time I explained my reasoning further on the talk page here. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Since I'm in Europe I'll be going to bed now, and probably won't be back online until 12 hours from now, but I suggest you read what I posted on the talkpage of user NeilN, plus this thread on my talk page, and then take a good look at Waleswatcher's long-time tendentious editing and POV-pushing on articles about firearms and gun control. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to take it to WP:AE which is better suited to handle such matters. It does seem to be a pretty clear violation of the editing restrictions and Thomas.W's response is not encouraging.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I personally think user:72bikers was challenging an older edition, and user:Waleswatcher reverted 72's removal of the content. Which is against the sanctions placed on the article. I personally think this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. Afootpluto (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Close: Waleswatcher is WP:GAMEing the system. The change was relatively innocuous any way you look at it. WW, not for the first time, didn't offer a justification for the reversal and even now still hasn't offered a reasonable justification. To me this looks like an editor trying to be petty towards 72bikers or perhaps trying to goad them into breaking the DS limitations in order to seek a topic ban. Now Thomas.W is the target for stepping in to deal with the gaming. Several editors are active on the article talk page. So far only WW has complained about the removal of the material. This isn't the first time WW failed to understand things like Bold Revert Discuss. Other than an editor gaming the system, nothing to see here. Springee (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
User:QuanticNut, as their name (and edit history) seems to suggest, is a single-purpose account making disruptive edits (close to breaking WP:3RR) on Detroit: Become Human, which is undergoing a WP:GOODARTICLE review. The edits are without consensus, as stated on the article talk page. In fact, there is a consensus between User:Sebastian James and I not to include the writer in question because, according to the syntax guide, the infobox is for lead writers; Adam Williams did "additional writing", per opening credits. Cognissonance (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is largely a content dispute and better suited to WP:3RR or WP:3O. If you think it's disruptive editing, you could use the warning templates {{Uw-disruptive1}} in escalating levels, which could result in a block if they continue to edit despite not reaching consensus on their desired edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The guidelines don't rule out anybody but lead writers, they simply rule IN lead writers. We should ask ourselves why anybody would 'disruptively' want to credit the right people... I am active in the detroit community and we all know who the writers were as we've interviewed them together.
Incidentally I don't see how my username is pertinent to a specific edit, unless you're just playing an ad hominem? Please stick to the facts (QuanticNut (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC))
- @CaroleHenson: The editor has made disruptive edits to the point where they broke the three-revert rule and reached level three of your cited template. It is clear these measures are not taken seriously and I would suggest a temporary block. Cognissonance (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: The same could equally be said of Cognissonance who broke the three revert rule first, by definition... He doesn't want to engage on substance, just keeps undoing a legitimate edit. He has stopped even disputing the substance, and just keeps suggesting that he gets to decide what is on the page not anyone else. (QuanticNut (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC))
- QuanticNut, It is not equal. You are trying to make edits on your own without consensus and seem to have a vested interest in having this information included in the article. The reasoning for not including the information was given, but you are not listening.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Is the reason that william is not listed as a lead writer, or that i'm just a guy from a subreddit who isn't 'experienced' enough to make changes? Both were given...
The guidelines don't say it has to be a lead writer who goes in the writers box. so what's the reason?
i tried to find consensus by requesting an edit. was ignored (not disputed). moreover, how can you build consensus about a plain fact? he's credited, nobody disputes it. there was also no consensus to revert the original edit.
I do have a vested interest, I help out on the detroit subreddit where the two writers in question spend hours doing amas and giving us fans the time of day. i've watched them do interviewd all over the world. i wanted to get involved on here as i've gathered alot of knowledge collectively about the production process, creative process etc. i was so amazed at the reception of a valid edit that i couldn't believe it would be upheld... but Cog has made it clear people like me are not welcome editing 'their' page, even if the edit is correct and in the guidelines.
i can only assume you agree with cog on the substance of the matter? (QuanticNut (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC))
- Actually, no, I don't have an opinion at all about whether the information should be added. But, you are not getting any support to add the information and there is support to not add it. That's the way things work in consensus-based decision making.
- If you have a close connection with the subject, please read conflict of interest. If you want to create content that isn't subject to consensus-based decision-making or COI guidelines, have you thought about a blog?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Legal threats by a new user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In fact, to falsely accuse me of 'attacking' user Bangalamania, when I am clearly criticizing the deletion, not the user, is defamatory. I have been accused of defamation against Abc422 (talk · contribs). Don't see why I should put up with this even once.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Umm... where is the legal threat? Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the quote I gave. He claims "to falsely accuse me.....is defamatory", it's obvious. Why should I have to put up with the user claiming I defamed them? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- In WP:NLT it says "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue" That is exactly how I interpret this. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's solid advice, intended for things just like this. It was not a smart choice of words, but not actually a threat of legal action, despite your interpretation. From my perspective, the user is protesting a qualification of their edits being denigrating and against policy, not threatening to take someone to court. Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- And since the user is a new user in your interpretation, certainly not an experienced one, WP:BITE seems to apply, especially since you made no attempt to get them to clarify their intentions. Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- comment finding a legal threat there requires a certain skill. Well done. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Second reminder [80] that this board is for urgent and/or chronic problems, not minor stuff an experienced editor should be able to handle by himself. EEng 20:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Could we have some admin eyes on this article, please? There's an on-going AfD, but various editors have been removing the CSD, then AfD templates and moving the article to all sorts of odd places —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Page deleted by Alex Shih and account of same name blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
(Aizom block, I think) Moved here from my talk page
This is out of the scope of my knowledge base to deal with. I do believe this is in connection with this thread. I think it's best dealt with here. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Maile66:
- I'd like to explain to you what happened about Wikinger. Wikinger, as you probably know, is a Polish LTA, a person with psychic problems but quite clever. Lately he's been doing a lot of vandalisms and disruptions in lots of wikis, not just in Polish wiki. A part from generic disruptions, when he wants to add, remove or modify some text in a page he uses the following strategy: he edits the page with a proxy or a sock and makes his edit (which would risk to be reverted), then he comes back with another proxy or sock and makes some clear disruption, such as deleting the page or inserting insults, so that an admin reverts his edit back to the previous version (the version Wikinger wants to be kept), then he continues doing it with other proxies or socks until the proxies and socks are blocked and the page protected (protected with the version he wants). You can see that this happened in the Polish page about letter "J". And you can guess what happens when somebody tries reporting him to any admin, as I did: Wikinger disrupts the admin's page over and over, with different proxies and socks, and then he uses another proxy or sock just to report all the identities he used together with the user who reported him. In this way, admins are deceived and convinced that even the good user who reported Wikinger is Wikinger, and block him too (and obviously don't listen to what he reported). That's what happened to me when I tried warning Masti, a Polish admin, here in English wiki: I created the account "Aizom" to tell him what I told you, hoping that Wikinger wouldn't find me, instead he found me and my message before Masti could read it and started disrupting the page until I was blocked too and my message deleted. Have a look to Masti's talk page history and you'll see that's exactly what happened. I have no other interest than letting admins become aware of this behaviour of Wikinger's. At the beginning, because I noticed that he was disrupting pages from Italian (my language) wiki too (mainly about Greek alphabet and letters), now also because me managed to boycott my reports to admins and to have my account blocked (first by Favonian, who understood he made a mistake and then unblocked it, now by you locally and another one whom you called on globally). I don't really care about that account, I only would like that admins become aware of Wikinger's strategy to disrupt the pages he wants to be disrupted and to make block the users he wants to be blocked. I hope you trust me and my words, but if you have any doubts you're free to ask checkusers to compare my account's (Aizom) logs with all the other identities used by Wikinger: I have nothing to do with him, he's just trying making admins believe that I'm just another fake identity of his, and so far he succeeded in his purpose. Last but not least, it's possible that he'll find also this report of mine and start disrupting your talk page too: should this happen, please know it won't be me but Wikinger, behind another proxy or through another sock.
- 5.170.16.90 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to address a permanent defamation and persuit by a user which probably uses several socket puppets, though not easily recognisable as such as (s)he is probably using VPN/proxy techniques.
This is also an answer to @Bbb23:’s question in another thread above (#Interesting activity from 'new' user.)
- Since a few weeks (it started eventually with TWOQ (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on 15 May in article Davos, probably) I encounter more or less the same reluctant and disruptive "discussions" on several articles, such as Schaffhausen, Crime in Switzerland, Vignette (road tax), Davos.
- The main user involved is TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (TVC); (s)he behaves as (s)he would be a sysop, but is preferentially harassing me.
One of her/his most recent acts was an effort to complaint/attack against me on this page, but closed it after (s)he realised this could turn against her/himself; see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above.
But let’s start from the beginning. The pattern is relatively simple:
- An IP makes a rather small change I do contest. They are usually reluctant to explain their changes, at least in the beginning.
- For a while now they (the IP(s), TVC, and newly created user(s)) try to add a source in support of their claim, but usually it does not (fully) support the made change, as e.g. in Crime in Switzerland (my corrections.
- User TheVicarsCat (TVC) pops up in support of the IP(s)'s POV.
- And/or a newly created user pops up supporting the IP(s)'s POV. Such as CremeVertBeechBo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) most recently in Schaffhausen, or TWOQ (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) in Davos.
- Until recently with the exception of Schaffhausen, TVC comes in and behaves like a sysop, including threatening me.
Since I told TVC that this pattern might be too obvious (see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above), newly created users pop up instead (CremeVertBeechBo in Schaffhausen, or SW1998 in Crime in Switzerland). With SW1998 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), TVC tried to convince the sysops that SW1998 is a socket of me (it is not and was not approved)! But it resulted in a temporary block of me.
Finally FL9499 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) turned up pretending to support me, perhaps in order to defame me as a supposedly socket of me, but was not.
This is, of course, pure speculation, since the IPs are different over time and have sometimes even different ISPs, but IPs can easily be masceraded by the usage of VPN/proxies techniques.
The involved (probably not complete ) list of IPs so far were:
- Davos: 82.132.227.157, 82.132.219.224, 46.233.90.207
- Talk:Davos:: 82.132.219.224
- Vignette (road tax): 93.136.77.51, 93.139.89.201, 93.142.87.187, 86.153.135.111 (see also Schaffhausen, and Talk:Vignette), 78.0.246.100
- Talk:Vignette (road tax): 86.149.136.154, 93.136.66.22, 78.0.246.100, 86.153.135.111 (see also Schaffhausen), 93.142.87.187
- Schaffhausen: 86.153.129.164 (see also Crime in Switzerland), 87.245.121.26, 86.153.135.111 (see also Vignette),
- Crime in Switzerland: 86.153.129.164 (see also Schaffhausen), 86.145.213.201
- Talk:Crime in Switzerland: 86.153.129.164 (see also Schaffhausen)
The involved users were:
Possibly, not all of them might be part of a TVC socket. Yes, I also violated the 3RR policy. I am aware of that.
So far I tried to handle this by general WP policies, but got overwhelmed by the kind of attack.
Therefore, I would highly welcome some support by sysops on this personal attack. Thank you very much! — ZH8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please see also the most recent edits on my talk page by TVC and CremeVertBeechBo. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- TVC remains unblocked. If you have sufficient evidence that TVC is socking, why haven't you opened a WP:SPI? Checkusers won't link the IPs, but they will link the accounts if possible, and in any case, all may be blocked based on behavioural evidence. BTW, what is this "personal attack" or "defamation" you are referring to? (Incidentally, have you read WP:NLT?) You don't seem to have provided any evidence of anything close other than a sock accusation against you. But a single sock accusation, with sufficient reason, and dropped once it was decided there was insufficient evidence is not generally considered a personal attack. Discussions on talk pages about article content, and disputes over article content are neither personal attacks or defamation (well baring complexities from subjects of articles). You on the other hand have made very strong accusations of multiple socks, harassment etc with what looks to be flimsy evidence. Notably I don't know what you mean by "behaves like a sysop, including threatening me". Administrators do not have any special authority to rule on content disputes or anything of that sort. Nor do they have special authority to issue warnings. The only thing they can do is actual block you (or take other administrative action) but that ability is limited by our policies and guidelines. Also, if a administrator is willing to block someone for certain behaviour, perhaps after warnings from themselves; they should also be willing to do the same for the same behaviour after the same warnings from some other editor, after becoming aware of it e.g. by an ANI thread. (The only possible exception are the complexities of discretionary sanctions.) If you think that you have to take special care of administrators but can ignore warnings from fellow editors, you're seriously mistaken. Likewise if you think you don't have to discuss content disputes with other editors, we operate by WP:Consensus and you do need to engage in resonable discussion as required. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it's worse than that. All of the other accounts have already been blocked as socks of other editors, often by CUs. I don't know, and don't really care to know the details of the master/s, but it seems that whoever it is is just annoying you both intentionally or not. TVC seems to understand and accept this after a single incorrect accusation, so why are you still making serious accusations without any real evidence? Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, this is familiar story. "All these editors are opposing me so they must be sock puppets of each other." This is just a variation of the "I am right therefore the rest of the world must be wrong" argument. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that they are not agreeing with each other (well I suppose they are), but disagreeing with him. ZH8000 is a serial edit warrior and disruptive editor. There are many instances of edit warring before the most recent three events have been referred to WP:ANEW. For these recent three, ZH8000 was respectively at 7RR, 6RR and 5RR, the last with four reverts inside 24 hours. In several of the edit wars (notably the 7RR episode), ZH8000 was issuing 3RR warnings to several editors involved while he was well over the 3RR line. He seems to believe that the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. ZH8000 has never initiated a discussion on a talk page about an edit, but only to complain that others are reverting him.
ZH8000 keeps trotting out the possibility that the IPs are obviously using VPNs or proxies. I am actually tired of pointing out to ZH8000 that I have checked them out. the 86... IPs are most likely a single user on a dynamic IP (and as far as I can tell, they are not pretending to be different users). The two Tokyo IPs were likely a single user from two locations (work and home?). Everyone else is from different locations across the globe and are not VPNs or proxies. Also, he has slipped in an extra few IPs, since his last list, to bolster his argument. They have no editing overlap with him at all, ever, anywhere (e.g. 82.132.227.157).
And, yes I did threaten him. After he was blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing with a second stern warning from NeilN, he immediately returned to exactly the same disruption when he came off the block. This was where he was trying to claim that a sentence in an article was unsourced when it clearly and unambiguously was sourced. The threat was to arrange a more permanent block. In view of the strong wording from NeilN, I am confident that had I brought his attention to it, a block longer than 48 hours would have been the result as he certainly appears to be fed up with the disruption.
In the '#Interesting activity from 'new' user', from WP:ANI, ZH8000 launched in to an attack on me for accusing him of sock puppetry. In fact, if you read the thread that I started, you will see that I didn't accuse him of anything. Further, I even reinforced the point on posting the obligatory notice on his talk page. It said, "You haven't done anything wrong this time, but a new account has sprung up which appears to be related to the SW1998 account discussed above [in the apology discussed in next paragraph].". I suspect his English is not particularly good, because he frequently uses the wrong word, and anything of any length that he contributes is often clearly machine translated. Even his discourse above is not particularly good English. In the event the account activity was interesting as it was subsequently check user blocked.
I shall make this my last point in that ZH8000 is deliberately exaggerating in order to elicit sympathy. Above he claims , "TVC tried to convince the sysops that SW1998 is a socket (sic) of me (it is not and was not approved)! But it resulted in a temporary block of me.". The complaint was triggered by this post to the talk page where the poster clearly self identifies as ZH8000. Thus the belief was understandable. However, he is misleading you because NeilN immediately believed it was Architect 134 and ZH8000 was not blocked at all as a result (in any case he was already blocked for 48 hours for disruption). In order to be fair, I apologised to ZH8000 on his talk page. The apology was never accepted nor replied to, but the non existent allegation has been aired consistently ever since (see above!). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to remove this again because I see the case has been closed. But on second thoughts, I shall leave it for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVicarsCat (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
User has issues with copyright
Nuobgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of adding copyvio plot summaries to anime/manga articles, most recently here (copied from here). Other examples include edits on July 4, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), December 1, 2017 (copied from here), January 12, 2018 (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE from here), March 13, 2018 (copied from here), October 23, 2018 (copied from here), February 24, 2018 (copied from here), January 25, 2018 (copied from here), and August 15, 2017 (copied from here). This is not a comprehensive list, and other examples could be found with a bit of searching. I have warned them about this behaviour previously (see here and here), but they show no signs of stopping. They also are unresponsive to communications on their talk page (with a few exceptions) and hardly leave edit summaries. Additionally, they have a history of regularly adding unsourced information to articles (see warnings on their talk page) and sometimes remove parts of citations without explanation (I've seen them doing this in the past, so it's not an isolated incident). Given all this, it may be necessary to block them for at least a short while to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Shadowowl and AfD
Shadowowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shadowowl appears to have started 147 separate articles for deletion discussions on July 21st (yesterday). This is an unreasonable burden for AfD participants. Many of these have the deletion statement of Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG.
Can an admin please speed-ily close some of these? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Some of the unsourced articles may be best handled as "speedy redirect with no prejudice against sourced re-creation". Articles like Konec starých časů are not really stand-alone material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I have an idea about what's going on: This AfD for the French play "La Demoiselle de magasin", is probably the root of it (or at least it is to me).
Why Shadowowl is doing AfD instead of PROD, might be explained by PROD failing, see e.g. AfD for "Ne vous disputez jamais avec un spectre".
Saying: It's almost certainly all about Starzynka clean up.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I was about to start an RfC regarding Shadowowl and the insane amount of cut-and-paist AfDs with clearly no iota of WP:BEFORE nor the policy WP:DEL-CONTENT. Nobel Prize winner José Saramago's book Journey to Portugal is just an example. [81] The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smyčka is another. All of the current Shadowowl-generated AfD's need to be speedy closed as these AfDs are a gigantic time-waster to editors and admins alike. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I agree with power's second comment above. Most of these appear to be garbage, one-sentence content-forks that provide less information, less succinctly, than the corresponding sections of the articles from which they were split. Per overwhelming consensus at several discussions going back to 2014, AFD is the appropriate venue to request community input where one suspects the proper solution is "redirect, not merge", but in this case SO's opening of AFDs just seems to be serving to bring out the usual "keepist" crowd, who would rather see these one-sentence sub-stubs give useless non-information to our readers on principle than redirect them to the only actual articles we currently have addressing the topics they are looking for, which is anything but helpful. Also, this was completely out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Comment yes, but there are many ways to clean up garbage. Many of these articles should be kept as they pass notability guidelines, even if they are just stubs now. By performing a WP:BEFORE search before deleting an article, you show to the community you have started the process of checking for notability and you believe it doesn't meet that threshold. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS
On 30 January 2018Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". There are 25 entries in his block log.[82]
The battleground mentality and incivility has continued. Examples from the last three days:
- "Bug off"[83]
- "There's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge."[84]
- "The fact is, it's your continued personal/WP:OR interpretations of same that I've repeatedly objected to, when you're uninformed and wrong. But yeah, the fact "[you] don't care" has been repeatedly demonstrated by you WP:IDHT-style. "[85]
- "here you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again)... I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions."[86]
- "Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argumment."[87]
- "You dont' know what you're talking about... You, are dishonest here, harassing me once again. Your arguments have to be taken in that context, since you're repeating old arguments already refuted, without new argument, as though you haven't read the thread. You like to start more shit between us whereby I have to ask you to stop badgering me again, after all these years?? Don't pretend none of this is true. You have even documented elsewhere how to harass others and still be under the WP radar of 'policy'. Go blow."[88]
- "Since you're "into" making assumptions, there's plenty here to guide your assumption-making"[89]
- "And why aren't you put your xxx where your mouth is, by responding at Talk:Three check chess#Test your mettle? You are oh-so confident here in this thread, but strangely absent from replying Yes or No in that Talk sec. Lacking confidence much?"[90]
- "Your arguments are all bogus. Plus you're an insulting jackass... You know nothing what you're talking about... What a blowhard in-the-dark argument!... What an argument! Don't make me laugh so hard I throw up. "[91]
- "If you editors really had confidence in your assertions, instead of OR and bullying, and if you cared about encyclopedic value, then you'll agree with the following:"[92]
- "Gosh, such a real convincing argument, that! What a joke. You don't know waht you're taking about."[93]
- "Quit destroying articles."[94]
- "Your arguments are bull.... You have no idea."[95]
The above is just from the last three days. He has been doing this for years. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)