Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) m Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
|||
Line 528: | Line 528: | ||
::{{re|The Rambling Man|Davey2010}} Yeah, but if Andrew was forced to provide a terrible argument up-front, that would make opening the AFD a lot easier, as noms would not need to consider whether Andrew might have a decent rationale (he ''sometimes'' does -- I personally have no problem with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Alberts,_The_Bonzo_Dog_Doo_Dah_Band,_The_Temperance_Seven&diff=866955917&oldid=866720723 this edit]). Yeah, they could ask him, and when the answer is "I don't care" they can reasonably assume he doesn't have one and fire ahead with the AFD anyway, but it would be better if he was subject to an individual restriction requiring him to be more open about his lack of a good reason, no? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
::{{re|The Rambling Man|Davey2010}} Yeah, but if Andrew was forced to provide a terrible argument up-front, that would make opening the AFD a lot easier, as noms would not need to consider whether Andrew might have a decent rationale (he ''sometimes'' does -- I personally have no problem with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Alberts,_The_Bonzo_Dog_Doo_Dah_Band,_The_Temperance_Seven&diff=866955917&oldid=866720723 this edit]). Yeah, they could ask him, and when the answer is "I don't care" they can reasonably assume he doesn't have one and fire ahead with the AFD anyway, but it would be better if he was subject to an individual restriction requiring him to be more open about his lack of a good reason, no? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::No, it doesn't work that way. And as I've already said, this is just transferring the drama to a time when Andrew either forgets or provides something which a trigger-happy lame admin considers block-worthy. None of this is useful, and as many have said before and since, this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues. The effort wasted here now by far exceeds that which was required to deal with the last year's worth of AFDs that have come out of the de-prods. And given the fervour to see Andrew punished, this is just the beginning. Tragic misdirection of effort. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 08:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
:::No, it doesn't work that way. And as I've already said, this is just transferring the drama to a time when Andrew either forgets or provides something which a trigger-happy lame admin considers block-worthy. None of this is useful, and as many have said before and since, this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues. The effort wasted here now by far exceeds that which was required to deal with the last year's worth of AFDs that have come out of the de-prods. And given the fervour to see Andrew punished, this is just the beginning. Tragic misdirection of effort. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 08:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::{{tq|''this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues''}} Andrew's disruption was basically the only reason [[Korean influence on Japanese culture]] survived AFD; the shitstorm that occurred in the fallout therefrom played a key part in (CurtisNaito's ridiculous harassment of me at) the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case. An editor "in good standing" who is going around taking every opportunity he can to undermine one of our project's core processes (and all of our core policies while he's at it) is definitely more of a cause for concern that most of the stuff that gets brought up on this page. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Andrew can be a pain, but are we really having this discussion over 36 deprods? I'm a lot more worried about material that gets deleted via the PROD process without anyone really having done a decent BEFORE check. That material is almost always gone at that point. A bad deprod just results in an AfD. Now, if those numbers went up, I'd have a very different opinion. But it does look like a fair percent of his deprods end up making it through AfD. As long as that's at least 15% (and if I understand, he's well above that) I'd say he's doing us a service. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' Andrew can be a pain, but are we really having this discussion over 36 deprods? I'm a lot more worried about material that gets deleted via the PROD process without anyone really having done a decent BEFORE check. That material is almost always gone at that point. A bad deprod just results in an AfD. Now, if those numbers went up, I'd have a very different opinion. But it does look like a fair percent of his deprods end up making it through AfD. As long as that's at least 15% (and if I understand, he's well above that) I'd say he's doing us a service. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:08, 6 November 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) |
|
Kokborok language / topic ban for editor
Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [1]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [2][3]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum. Further clarification has been sought, the user has been made aware of this discussion. However, without response and participation, there has just been a new article creation on the same topic, Khorongma script. No sourcing, links to blogs as currently only external source. Essentially similar contents to previous soapboxing about a made up script. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess there's a competency issue here. It's always hard to decide what to do in these circumstances. Deb (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Deb: I tend to agree. I do see where the editor is coming from and he probably has good intentions, however the execution is defective. It's quite amazing: I did not even know this language and those tribes existed half a year ago and now I can almost give lectures from what I learned using the few sources that are online. I was thinking that maybe I could mentor the user, but the communication channels seem somewhat closed. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess there's a competency issue here. It's always hard to decide what to do in these circumstances. Deb (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Doncram
Over the past few months Doncram (talk · contribs) has developed a one-sided vendetta against me, stemming from a dispute over the proper title of Little Falls and Dakota Depot. The discussion is mostly at Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot; there were precursor discussions at User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations.
During this discussion, Doncram challenged the maintenance deletion of Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state). This was a simple maintenance task, but he forced an unnecessary CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 4#Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), apparently out of personal spite. At the same time, he challenged the notability of an article I'd just created (Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad)), and left a strangely-worded message on the talk page. I left several comments; he never responded.
Anyway, that was months ago and I'd put it out of mind. He randomly turned up on my talk page earlier this month complaining about another move I'd made at the same time as all the others. Today, Doncram created Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and linked it from Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (which is why I noticed, I've had it watch-listed for years and headed up the discussion that led to its current location). I determined from reliable sources that the correct name for the new article is actually Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway ("way" vs "road", it's a common issue), documented such on the talk page, and moved the article. I believe Doncram derived the name from the Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, which he also created. I made a few other changes:
- Recategorized the new article from Category:Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad to Category:Predecessors of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, as the company merged into the parent in 1948. This is a common practice and how this category scheme works.
- Corrected the name of the company in Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, and left an explanatory note that the names didn't match.
- Removed the NRHP banner from Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. I didn't see how it was relevant, and assumed Doncram copied it from Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and neglected to remove it. I've done that before.
I was surprised when Doncram reacted negatively to all these changes:
- He reverted the recategorization twice, first calling it "wrong" and then saying he was "removing stupidity". This last edit removed the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad categorization tree altogether.
- He reverted the explanatory note and the name change on Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, calling it "derogatory".
- He reinstated the NRHP banner on Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway, while removing the WikiProject Trains banner. His last edit summary explaining this action was simply "disrespect". I do not know what he means by this.
In addition, after all this, he removed the WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District. I have never edited this article. Inasmuch as the article is about a property which includes former Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad buildings, the banner seems appropriate. I cannot conceive of a neutral justification for this edit; it feels like retaliation, though for what I don't know.
I reached out to Doncram on his talk page, but his response (which weirdly refers to "the other editor", as though I'm not the same person), showed no indication that he was willing to back down: User talk:Doncram#Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, it's harming the encyclopedia, and I'd like for it to stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Umm, I created an article on a highway bridge over a railway right-of-way, and another about the railway that was missing from Wikipedia. I put in WikiProject Trains on one or both, because I thought they'd probably be thrilled or whatever, which perhaps caught Mackenson's attention and then they started. I reverted Mackenson where I perceived they were being derogatory in mainspace (my interpretation, but informed by interactions with this editor). I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I don't think there is anything for ANI here, unless to warn Mackenson not to follow closely and contend on new articles. --Doncram (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- If they have a content disagreement, like they want to continue to assert that a 1902 new subsidiary of an 1866 railway is in fact a predecessor of the parent, they should discuss at Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- This illustrates perfectly the mentality I'm describing:
I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree.
I've added NRHP banners in the past, where appropriate. Did a good deal of NRHP categorization on Commons as well. Note that Doncram ignored almost everything I wrote (including why I noticed the new article). Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)- This kind of quid pro quo proposal by Doncram, if it was serious, is not a replacement for editing based on Wikipedia:Consensus. It's concerning. I continue below. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also, Doncram retitled this thread to "Historic sites intersection with trains-related stuff". I changed it back, because this is a dispute centered entirely around his battleground behavior. As far as I know there is no broader problem with the intersection between these two subjects, which obviously have a good deal in common. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Adding this to the discussion since it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram
- Frankly the fact that there is another issue with Doncram in this area makes me wonder if the topic ban should have stayed in place. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think a complete topic ban would be the wrong approach. Doncram is one of the most productive editors in the NRHP Project, and the project would be worse if he could not continue to contribute. We need to find a way to curb his (occasional) BATTLEGROUND behavior, while at the same time encouraging his productive involvement. Perhaps a one revert limit? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes, yet another incident of Doncram being disruptive for absolutely no reason. The fact that he is a skilled content creator does not excuse his behavior whatsoever. His bizarre obsession with preserving certain names for no apparent reason - including NRHP names, which are widely known to be unofficial and often inaccurate - needs to be curtailed. I think two rules would suffice:
- 0RR for Mackensen's edits, given his demonstrated one-sided antipathy and history of attacking other editors
- No interfering with railroad-related maintenance and cleanup, including moving articles to names that match WP:USSTATION and other relevant guidelines, or perhaps a topic ban from railroad-related articles period. There are plenty of non-railroad-related NRHP articles out there.
- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes, yet another incident of Doncram being disruptive for absolutely no reason. The fact that he is a skilled content creator does not excuse his behavior whatsoever. His bizarre obsession with preserving certain names for no apparent reason - including NRHP names, which are widely known to be unofficial and often inaccurate - needs to be curtailed. I think two rules would suffice:
- I think a complete topic ban would be the wrong approach. Doncram is one of the most productive editors in the NRHP Project, and the project would be worse if he could not continue to contribute. We need to find a way to curb his (occasional) BATTLEGROUND behavior, while at the same time encouraging his productive involvement. Perhaps a one revert limit? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the relevant edits, I see Mackensen's use of the talk pages to try to discuss, but no use by Doncram. @Doncram: why wouldn't you have discussed any of these disputes on the talk page, or joined the discussion Mackensen initiated? An editor with an intransigence about discussing on the talk page to arrive at consensus ought to expect the possibility of XRR-type sanctions.
- This cuts both ways, as I think Mackenson should Wikipedia:Assume good faith of Doncram's removal of WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District and revert and discuss on the talk page. Though I understand that this may have seemed futile after what had already occurred. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bsherr:, your point is well-taken, but it's difficult to assume good faith in this specific instance given the behavior at the time and past patterns. I didn't want to take further actions which would exacerbate the situation, which is why I brought the matter here for review by external parties. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- This illustrates perfectly the mentality I'm describing:
- Bsherr, I have in fact opened numerous Talk page discussions, including:
- User talk:Mackensen#disaster with respect to Soo Line Depot disambiguation (2 August)
- User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations (2 August), which involved
- Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot#article name/move (3 August), in which Mackensen does not answer but makes an odd statement which in my view miscounts and mischaracterizes previous discussion, as if it justifies dismissing what I had to say.
- Talk:Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad) (9 August) I see no justification for Mackensen complaining about that, or any other discussion I opened, in their opening this ANI.
- User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations (2) (27 September), which IMO was quite reasonable and clear, yet Mackensen does not reply at all, instead leaving stand a blithe dismissal by Cuchullain that "Mackensen’s moves have all been perfectly kosher according to consensus and the guidelines", with no engagement at all about the general principle that disputed moves should not be inflicted.
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 4#Status as "guideline" disputed. By what authority is this labelled a "guideline"?, in which I feel I was harassed unfairly, with false accusation and threat by Pi.1415926535: "Domcram, drop the stick. You are acting in an incredibly hostile manner and making wildly baseless accusations. I'm about ready to seek a a topic ban from you and railroad stations because you're taking such a narrow-minded view of naming and creating chaos while you do it." Which they seek to accomplish, more or less, in this ANI.
- My experience from repeated attempts to engage about the issues, is that others mostly would just badger, verging on bullying. Upon re-reading the discussions, I think it is possible that later my memory was somewhat blurred and I did not distinguish between Mackensen's direct statements vs. the more incivil statements by others, in informing how I responded to Mackensen's later edits. However Mackensen condoned the more incivil statements, or at least did not disavow them. About the incivil statements, I mostly did not do anything much directly, i just took the hits, like probably an administrator should (i am not an admin; Mackensen and Cuchullain are). And then, when I respond a tad strongly to Mackensen's later edits but acceeded to their request to pause at the articles, I feel they should have just taken a minor hit from my reply to them at my Talk page, and responded to what I said, instead of running here unnecessarily. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bsherr, I have in fact opened numerous Talk page discussions, including:
- Chiming in (much to the consternation of the apologists) that this is not the first time that Doncram's actions with respect to National Register of Historic Places related content has landed them in the hot seat to the point of Blocks, NRHP Community bans, and many other sanctions. I posit that Doncram's repeated caustic brushes with other editors does not outweight benefit that they provide, nor should they (WP:VESTED). I therefore vote a '0RR restriction with respect to Wikiproject Trains, and a 4IM warning against caustic editing with immediate block for infractions. Doncram has been reminded previously about disruptively changing other projects banners over the objections of editors who can judge context. Hasteur (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Hasteur's proposal. The contrast between Mackensen's studied courtesy and Doncram's conduct is painful. I daresay a different editor would have brought this here far earlier, and made a bigger scene. In any case, the parallels with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram are troubling. AGK ■ 22:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think Hasteur's memory is faulty about disagreement back in 2012 or so. I think they refer to my objecting, back then, to editors not at all associated with Articles For Creation changing the AFC editors' "Start" ratings on new articles I had created, based on AFC standards. My objecting was justified. There was also disagreement within WikiProject NRHP about how "Start" vs. "Stub" should best be defined, which led to a consensus against my preference, which I have abided with forever. Ever since in fact I always use "Stub" rating on my own articles and I simply avoid ratings. I do object to "outside" editors from changing a WikiProject's banners against its own members' wishes, then and now. It was a mistake, which I apologize for below, for me to temporarily try out a "tit-for-tat" tactic in removing Trains banner after their editor removed NRHP banner, but I lost that anyhow because a Trains editor continued after I stopped.
- About studied courtesy, I frankly think I very much provided that in my interactions with Mackensen, besides in one brief spat, in which I think the worst thing was that i used the words "wrong" and "stupid" to describe the incorrect categorizing of a railway, imposed into a new article I had just created. I am sorry if those words stung too much at the time, for an administrator to simply let that go by, but really a lot worse is said at ANI and Talk pages and in edit summaries every day by a whole lot of editors, including swear words and including phrases directed personally at other editors. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Doncram and I have disagreed many times and he can be persistent, but he shouldn't be subject to zero revert restrictions on undiscussed page moves when the problem here is not one-sided. This is part of a larger clash between train people, who often see names in a cookie cutter fashion and NRHP people, who tend to look at the scope of history for a particular location, including the present name. Both have their places and there needs to be more discussion on talk pages, not just moving articles. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, the problem is the exact inverse. Doncram is attempting to enforce the NRHP names no matter how incorrect or ridiculous they are, and he completely ignores their actual use as railroad stations when considering naming, while the railroad-related editors seem to better understand the scope of history. It's also clear that most of Doncram's move-reverts are not based on any actual evidence that the NRHP names qualify as the COMMONNAME (and common names are specifically listed in USSTATION), but based on unjustified antipathy to a small number of editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely do not "attempt to enforce the NRHP names" as projected. See Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot#article name/move in which I provide balanced discussion about sources, and even lean to support a different-than-the-NRHP name which was supported by sources. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jonathunder: I'm sad to see this issue reduced to
train people...and NRHP people
; it's reductionist and inaccurate. I would note that in this instance I was editing an article to add the context that the name of the bridge differed from the name of the company it was supposedly named after, and was reverted by Doncram. I agree with you thatthere needs to be more discussion on talk pages
, and I wish Doncram would use them, instead of attacking people in edit summaries (such as here, also linked in my original statement). It's difficult to work collaboratively when one particular editor is so (in my view) needlessly obstructive. There's his behavior over the Northern Pacific category, which you don't address, unless that's your idea of someone being "persistent". The other CfD participants took a less charitable view. If you think his behavior in these matters is acceptable, then we part ways there. If not, how do you propose we move forward? Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, the problem is the exact inverse. Doncram is attempting to enforce the NRHP names no matter how incorrect or ridiculous they are, and he completely ignores their actual use as railroad stations when considering naming, while the railroad-related editors seem to better understand the scope of history. It's also clear that most of Doncram's move-reverts are not based on any actual evidence that the NRHP names qualify as the COMMONNAME (and common names are specifically listed in USSTATION), but based on unjustified antipathy to a small number of editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Right, again, I am sorry i used strong statement "remove stupidity" in that edit summary. At the CFD, I did not even "vote", i just explained why I had concern about a Speedy Deletion request, and expressed that I hoped others more knowledgeable about category naming would consider the situation and do the right thing, content-wise. That is not reason to open an ANI proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Noting to @Jonathunder: that 0RR is not the death penalty that they are moaning about. 0RR only requires Doncram to secure a consensus through discussion prior to reverting a Trains related item. It does not restrict their NRHP activities. I would also note that remedies from Doncram's previous brush with arbitration have been suspended or revoked by motion (with one case recently having passed the sunset provision). Hasteur (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm neither an "NRHP person" nor a "train person" but I've worked on articles relevant to both. I don't see much issue from the vast majority of people on either side, the current issue is certainly one-sided.--Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That would be perfectly fine by me if there is not in fact a cabal of obsessed editors. I myself have created and improved lots of trains-related articles, including adding Wikiproject Trains banner routinely, including by my (almost completely singlehandedly) taking on a reworking of List of railway roundhouses, with creating of a number of articles and with supporting discussion at wt:NRHP#Railway roundhouses.
- I don't know what "the current issue is certainly one-sided" is supposed to mean. The one proper discussion was a requested move where the name used in sources, rather than a made-up name, was supported. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm neither an "NRHP person" nor a "train person" but I've worked on articles relevant to both. I don't see much issue from the vast majority of people on either side, the current issue is certainly one-sided.--Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Hasteur's remedy. I've only encountered Doncram recently but the battleground mentality Mackensen describes is fully evident. When he sticks to the talk page rather than edit warring, as here, the issues can be worked around, and his point of view can be discussed and accommodated. However, when it comes to edit warring and obstructing uncontroversial changes, something needs to be done. The 0RR restriction will keep the dispute on the talk pages where it belongs.--Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Let me explain a bit and apologize somewhat here.
- I cumulatively got a bit frustrated and perhaps angry over others' editing, including about unjustified dismissals of National Register documents as sources, and including collective behavior that seemed like unjustifiable attempts to intimidate me for my views, in several discussions with Mackensen and what seems to be a group of other train stations editors at Talk pages. The discussions establish a deep disagreement, between train station editors asserting that their preferred names for stations should be used, based on their having produced a guideline allowing them to do that, vs. myself asserting that sources must be used and defending the use of NRHP documents as sources. It is hard to be completely polite because the content disagreement is so fundamental (in my view it is about whether coverage should be encyclopedic or not encyclopedic at all), and the quality of listening/discussion was in my view horribly poor.
- Some time later, unrelatedly, I happened to develop some new articles, and encountered what seemed to me to be obtuse and inappropriate editing consistent with the bullying type behavior, and I edited fast and furiously briefly. Mackensen posted to my Talk page at 22:03, 29 October 2018, suggesting that I pause, and i immediately did, completely. I have not edited at any of those articles since that moment, even though other(s) have, since, including someone again removing the WikiProject NRHP banner, perhaps to goad me. I replied to Mackensen at my Talk page, still a bit irked, challenging them about the use of a category which seemed simply wrong to me, and I expected that there would be some discussion. I was surprised and irked to see Mackensen open this, which is not conducive to discussion of the actual content disagreements, and which seemed consistent with the bullying type behavior, instead. It would be extraordinarily convenient to train station editors to shut me down entirely, as my views directly challenge their own. I have expressed that I think the wp:USSTATION guideline should be cancelled or heavily modified, and that the train station editors should be enjoined against making any further moves, and I (and them too probably) expected to get around to opening a big RFC. I perceive that editors highly invested in the naming issue consider my stance to be a real threat on some fundamental level.
- About use of Talk pages, I highly endorse that, and do use Talk pages politely and extensively all the time, and I seek to understand others' views rather than dismiss them. In the brief episode that Mackensen posted about to my Talk page, I was impatient and did not. I apologize for that. I think I had in mind that a little bit of tit-for-tat was justified, about removal of Wikiproject banners, as a matter of responding on same low level as I perceived others' actions to be, which is silly. In general, I don't have any settled view about when and where tit-for-tat treatment is justified or works in Wikipedia processes (although there is considerable academic literature supporting tit-for-tat treatment as often being appropriate/effective). Probably going high is usually better, and I did not try to sort out a better way at the time, during the brief episode. I think now that I miss-perceived Mackensen's willingness to act reasonably, and I apologize for underestimating them.
- I'll comment more later. --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
including collective behavior that seemed like unjustifiable attempts to intimidate me for my views, in several discussions with Mackensen and what seems to be a group of other train stations editors at Talk pages
Here abouts, that's called a consensus (especially in light of an invading external brigade). I could be wrong, but aren't almost all of these primarily Train entities first and NRHP entities secondary (i.e. If there was no train, the NRHP nomination wouldn't exist), therefore it would be prudent to yield to the primary specialty's naming convention when there's disagreement.I edited fast and furiously briefly
by that you mean WP:FAIT? The way to suggest a guideline be changed or modified is to challenge it at the talk page of the guideline, not to wage a "The guideline does not reflect the practice" campaign. I refer you to WP:NOTTHEM as again you've pointed out others perceived misbehavior as a shield for your own. Having been a significant editor it's expected for you to nearly always take the high road. Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not fair. There is apparently a local consensus at Mackensen's Talk page, and at wp:USSTATION, not surprisingly. I don't think there is any general consensus, i.e. I think that general consideration of the issue, based on fundamental principles of Wikipedia, will come down against the recent practice of editors merely invoking wp:USSTATION as justifying moves to names not supported in any sources. (Note the wording of USSTATION in fact allows for sources to be used, but practice has been different). The one relatively neutral forum where the topic was discussed properly is the move discussion, which went in favor of NRHP name rather than the name which i perceive to be simply made up. And it would be very unfair to paint me as knee-jerk in some way about NRHP names or the quality of NRHP documents (which often includes excellent sourcing and justification for names, but do vary in quality). I have been very clear about the limitations of them. On the other hand, there have been completely unjustifiable dismissals of NRHP documents, to the extent of asserting that because the NRHP document justifies a name for a place, that name must be ruled out. There has been extreme "I didn't hear that" and "I don't like it" type voting/assertions.
- It is unfair, here, to invoke wp:NOTTHEM "Do not complain about other people" automatically, because I speak of others here. There is no way to win in an ANI section named against one editor, it is automatically a vendetta against the one. And every critic is violating the dictum.
- That is unfair also to assert I was trying to subvert the guideline about naming of train stations or any other guideline. I created an article about a road bridge over a railway right-of-way, and I created the missing article about the railway. In the railway article I immediately, up front acknowledged existence of two names for the railway (one using "Railroad" coming from the NRHP document and one using "Railway" coming from a Texas handbook online source which I identified, for what is in fact was a new subsidiary, i believe a 100% owned subsidiary, of a "Railroad"). I objected to the insertion of negativity, in the mainspace article, about the NRHP, i.e. an unnecessary and deprecating statement saying the NRHP is wrong, when the "Railroad" term is in fact a common name that has been used. I also objected to another editor removing the NRHP wikiproject banner that I had put in. And I objected to the addition/modification of a category to assert that the new subsidiary was a parent of its parent.
- I did exactly what you ask for, raising a challenge at the Talk page of the wp:USSTATION guideline, in which I pointed out the guideline was drafted by Mackensen and promoted by Cuchullain in 2014. It has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 4#Status as "guideline" disputed. By what authority is this labelled a "guideline"?. It was not at all resolved and should not have been archived, IMHO, but a bot did the archiving. I also commented at ongoing Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations) in opposition to extension of the guideline. I am not at all asserting that I and others have achieved a different consensus than the local one. It would/will require bigger discussion involving more editors to rollback the moves already done. However, I do think that the objection stated by me and another editor at User talk:Mackensen, plus the wp:RM which was concluded, should have put them on clear enough notice that they should not make further moves without use of wp:RM, which they proceeded to do anyhow. Mackensen has been an administrator forever, and should know to abide by the imperative to not make disputed moves of long-stable articles. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your refusal to understand consensus is astounding. The discussion was archived because it was explained to you exactly why the guideline is agreed on, and you refused to acknowledge it because it doesn't agree with what you have decided names have to be. Your bizarre conspiracy theory that Mackensen and Cúchullain are somehow in violation of policy for taking normal administrative actions is precisely why 0RR and/or topic ban is necessary to stop your combative disruption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- What??? A bot archived the discussion. I call for sources to be used, per policy, in naming of articles. I have no conspiracy theory; I don't believe that Mackensen or Cuchullain took any administrative actions at all. I do perceive that you, Pi.1415926535, wish to shut me up, where i disagree in proper discussions about use of names not supported by any sources vs. names supported by sources. --Doncram (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your refusal to understand consensus is astounding. The discussion was archived because it was explained to you exactly why the guideline is agreed on, and you refused to acknowledge it because it doesn't agree with what you have decided names have to be. Your bizarre conspiracy theory that Mackensen and Cúchullain are somehow in violation of policy for taking normal administrative actions is precisely why 0RR and/or topic ban is necessary to stop your combative disruption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
User:JJMC89
User:JJMC89 is making a lot of unhelpful edits and is annoying a lot of individuals. As petty as this might seem, they are undoing a lot of good work by a lot of individuals. Littlemonday (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Can you give me some diffs? Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- This appears to purely be around the fact that JJMC89's bot (correctly as far as I can see) removed a non-free image from the page Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) that it didn't have a rationale to be used on, and the OP doesn't understand why. I'll grant the explanation on JMMC89's page wasn't hugely clear. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NONFREE enforcement strikes again. It's a hard concept for new and infrequent users to grasp, a hard concept for experienced users to explain. While I don't know JJMC89's work in particular, I've noticed that in general people who tend to enforce this are often not the most patient in explaining things. Which is unfortunate. That may or may not be a problem here. Surely someone has created a semi-decent, Goldilocks-like (not too confusing, not too oversimplified, but just right) explanation we can point to? WP:NONFREE isn't easy to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I guessing most people focused on this area burned out their ability to explain the issues after the first few hundred people ignoring them or blaming them for something that isn't their fault. Just a guess, but it can wear on you. zchrykng (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- My explanation works like this: "Unless you took the picture on your own camera, and thus own the copyright yourself, don't try to upload it. It is technically possible to do so, but you'll screw it up and someone will delete it and you'll get mad and it'll be a bad time for all. So only upload pictures you yourself have taken, on your own free time, using your own camera." If anyone wants additional instructions, I direct them to the policy page and say "If you can figure this out on your own, and want to try, feel free to, but be aware that someone will probably try to delete your picture without warning and it won't be clear why that happened." That usually works for me as an explanation. --Jayron32 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, yes User:JJMC89's response was unhelpful and uninsiteful. If you look at their edits/the edit's of their bot you'll see this is effecting a lot of people. The issue I had was regarding the photo of Jim Griffiths, which is already on Wikipedia, I added it to a second article and it was removed. I fail to see any logical argument (or rule on this site) that prevents that. There are plenty of photos which appear on numourous articles, and the inclusion of that photo on the second page added something to the article. It's also not helpful (or polite) when someone is so dismissive of something you are trying to help with.Littlemonday (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, since you've given us a specific example, I can help you understand the problem. The image in the infobox at Jim Griffiths is currently a copyright photograph. Normally, we do not accept copyrighted photographs, unless the copyright own releases the image in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. HOWEVER (and this is where people get all turned around), in a LIMITED number of situations, we can republish a copyrighted work under the guise of fair use, which among other things under U.S. copyright law, allows us to do so only when no other alternative exists, and even then we may only use it in highly restricted ways. By a combination of Wikipedia policy, Foundation-level policy, and U.S. law itself, that usually means that we can only use a single copy of such a picture in a single article, where the picture itself is illustrating the subject of the article. There are probably a few other exceptions, but in this case, the picture at Jim Griffiths can only be used to illustrate that one article. You can read more about these restrictions at WP:NFCC. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)@Littlemonday: JJMC89 basically gave a shortened version of the same response here that Jayron32 posted directly above. Not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed largely determines which Wikipedia policies it's subject to and, therefore, essentially how it may be used. All files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but those uploaded and licensed as non-free content are further subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (or NFCC for short). The NFCC is similar to the concept of fair use, but it has been intentionally made to be much more restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used. You added the Griffiths image to an article, but didn't provide the separate specific non-free use rationale required by criterion 10c for that particular use to the file's page; so, it was flagged as a violation and subsequently removed by a bot and this edit sum was left. The bot did what it was supposed to do according to WP:NFCCE, and the edit sum contained links to relevant pages where more information could be found or clarification could be requested. You did ask for clarification at User talk:JJMC89#Jim Griffiths photo, where more links to relevant pages were provided for reference, but apparently still don't understand why the file was removed. Relevant policy does allow a non-free image of a deceased person to be uploaded per item 10 of WP:NFCI pretty much only when the image in question is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question; it may be possible to use such a file in other articles, but these additional uses tend to be much harder to justify and require a pretty strong contextual connection between image and relevant sourced content about the image itself in almost all cases. A list article is "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK)" is basically a list of names with some short biographical information about each entry. The use of non-free images in such articles has long been considered to be something not acceptable per WP:NFLISTS. The other images used in the article are all "free images" (public domain or otherwise freely licensed), so they are not subject to the policy on non-free content use. This might partially explain why you see so many similar list articles using pictures, but which also have entries without images. You may have also come across some cases where a non-free image is being used in multiple articles, but that doesn't mean it should be being used in multiple articles or that the circumstances of each use are the same what you're discussing here. My suggestion to you for future reference is to first determine how a file is licensed before adding it to any articles; you can do this by clicking on the image itself. If it's an image from Commons or otherwise a "free image", then you can probably add it to any page without any problems; on the other hand, if it's licensed as non-free, then you are going to only be able to add it to articles if the way you want to use it satisfies relevant policy. If you're not sure about this, you can always ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion to you for future reference is to first determine how a file is licensed before adding it to any articles
– That's super-practical advice that editors won't have any trouble remembering to follow, even though not one in 100 times would that find a problem, so that the exercise is almost always a waste of time. An even more practical suggestion might be for the small fraction of nonfree files to carry NONFREE (or maybe FAIR_USE_ONLY) in their filenames. EEng 21:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)@Littlemonday: JJMC89 basically gave a shortened version of the same response here that Jayron32 posted directly above. Not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed largely determines which Wikipedia policies it's subject to and, therefore, essentially how it may be used. All files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but those uploaded and licensed as non-free content are further subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (or NFCC for short). The NFCC is similar to the concept of fair use, but it has been intentionally made to be much more restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used. You added the Griffiths image to an article, but didn't provide the separate specific non-free use rationale required by criterion 10c for that particular use to the file's page; so, it was flagged as a violation and subsequently removed by a bot and this edit sum was left. The bot did what it was supposed to do according to WP:NFCCE, and the edit sum contained links to relevant pages where more information could be found or clarification could be requested. You did ask for clarification at User talk:JJMC89#Jim Griffiths photo, where more links to relevant pages were provided for reference, but apparently still don't understand why the file was removed. Relevant policy does allow a non-free image of a deceased person to be uploaded per item 10 of WP:NFCI pretty much only when the image in question is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question; it may be possible to use such a file in other articles, but these additional uses tend to be much harder to justify and require a pretty strong contextual connection between image and relevant sourced content about the image itself in almost all cases. A list article is "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK)" is basically a list of names with some short biographical information about each entry. The use of non-free images in such articles has long been considered to be something not acceptable per WP:NFLISTS. The other images used in the article are all "free images" (public domain or otherwise freely licensed), so they are not subject to the policy on non-free content use. This might partially explain why you see so many similar list articles using pictures, but which also have entries without images. You may have also come across some cases where a non-free image is being used in multiple articles, but that doesn't mean it should be being used in multiple articles or that the circumstances of each use are the same what you're discussing here. My suggestion to you for future reference is to first determine how a file is licensed before adding it to any articles; you can do this by clicking on the image itself. If it's an image from Commons or otherwise a "free image", then you can probably add it to any page without any problems; on the other hand, if it's licensed as non-free, then you are going to only be able to add it to articles if the way you want to use it satisfies relevant policy. If you're not sure about this, you can always ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, since you've given us a specific example, I can help you understand the problem. The image in the infobox at Jim Griffiths is currently a copyright photograph. Normally, we do not accept copyrighted photographs, unless the copyright own releases the image in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. HOWEVER (and this is where people get all turned around), in a LIMITED number of situations, we can republish a copyrighted work under the guise of fair use, which among other things under U.S. copyright law, allows us to do so only when no other alternative exists, and even then we may only use it in highly restricted ways. By a combination of Wikipedia policy, Foundation-level policy, and U.S. law itself, that usually means that we can only use a single copy of such a picture in a single article, where the picture itself is illustrating the subject of the article. There are probably a few other exceptions, but in this case, the picture at Jim Griffiths can only be used to illustrate that one article. You can read more about these restrictions at WP:NFCC. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, yes User:JJMC89's response was unhelpful and uninsiteful. If you look at their edits/the edit's of their bot you'll see this is effecting a lot of people. The issue I had was regarding the photo of Jim Griffiths, which is already on Wikipedia, I added it to a second article and it was removed. I fail to see any logical argument (or rule on this site) that prevents that. There are plenty of photos which appear on numourous articles, and the inclusion of that photo on the second page added something to the article. It's also not helpful (or polite) when someone is so dismissive of something you are trying to help with.Littlemonday (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- My explanation works like this: "Unless you took the picture on your own camera, and thus own the copyright yourself, don't try to upload it. It is technically possible to do so, but you'll screw it up and someone will delete it and you'll get mad and it'll be a bad time for all. So only upload pictures you yourself have taken, on your own free time, using your own camera." If anyone wants additional instructions, I direct them to the policy page and say "If you can figure this out on your own, and want to try, feel free to, but be aware that someone will probably try to delete your picture without warning and it won't be clear why that happened." That usually works for me as an explanation. --Jayron32 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I guessing most people focused on this area burned out their ability to explain the issues after the first few hundred people ignoring them or blaming them for something that isn't their fault. Just a guess, but it can wear on you. zchrykng (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone is removing nonfree images with a bot? Anyone who remembers Betacommand should know that is a bad, bad idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- User:FairuseBot managed to remove nonfree images without trouble, at least until bugs in the Wikipedia API made it too much of a pain to keep working. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion distracts from the fact that this is unequivocally a frivolous and inappropriate complaint by Littlemonday. There was literally nothing rude or dismissive about JJMC89's comments to LM at User talk:JJMC89#Jim Griffiths photo. He just straightforwardly stated that the use of the image did not satisfy the NFCC, specifically explained which of the NFCC were not satisfied, and why, specifically, the image was removed. He literally just explained that there were policy violations, with links to the relevant policies. I understand that copyright policies are a nuanced concept that can be difficult to get a grasp of, but you don't immediately drag someone to AN/I because you don't understand the policies that are being cited to you. If LM actually took the time to read the policy pages that were provided to them, then JJMC's comments would have been understandable and reasonable, and if they were still confused about the concepts discussed in those policies, they could have easily asked followup questions. But instead of even making any sort of effort to collaborate reasonably, they went straight to AN/I to report JJMC for "making a lot of unhelpful edits and is annoying a lot of individuals". Unreal. Is it any wonder why these users are short on patience, Floquenbeam? Swarm talk 22:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- User talk:Swarm Three things, first of all Hello. Secondly I asked JJMC89 to explain in plain English why he/his bot removed removed some improvements I'd made, he was unable to do that in Plain English. Others have explained it to me. I think the rules are silly, and confusing to people but rules are rules. Thirdly and finally, I 'reported' him as there are lots of users who are upset/confused by his work and he was offering no explanation and just deleting people's work. If you look a little closer you'll see plenty more people like me. Littlemonday (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Littlemonday: JJMC89 did explain things in plain English. If you didn't understand the plain English explanation, you could have sought clarification. You did not do so instead started a pointless ANI. What you did is clearly not blockable, but JJMC89 seems to have done nothing wrong instead they've correctly enforced cornerstone policy which you violated, and then provided a plain English explanation when asked. Having done nothing wrong can't be said for you. And please provide examples of where editors are upset and confused and for which no explanation was offered. In all the examples I see on their current talk page except for a very new one, someone has responded when questions were asked. Some of these may not be JJMC89 themselves, but it's often pointless to respond if someone has already said precisely what you will say or at least offered enough of an answer that what you would have said is redundant. There is a long discussion in the "#Please Discuss Your Citation to a Subjective Policy section" but while it's clear not everyone is happy, it also clear it's way too complicated a dispute to suggest no explanation was offered or that JJMC89 is at fault. If you are unable to provide evidence, IMO you should withdraw the claim or it becomes a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked at User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/October and it's the same, actually even less of a case for any problems. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Littlemonday: JJMC89 did explain things in plain English. If you didn't understand the plain English explanation, you could have sought clarification. You did not do so instead started a pointless ANI. What you did is clearly not blockable, but JJMC89 seems to have done nothing wrong instead they've correctly enforced cornerstone policy which you violated, and then provided a plain English explanation when asked. Having done nothing wrong can't be said for you. And please provide examples of where editors are upset and confused and for which no explanation was offered. In all the examples I see on their current talk page except for a very new one, someone has responded when questions were asked. Some of these may not be JJMC89 themselves, but it's often pointless to respond if someone has already said precisely what you will say or at least offered enough of an answer that what you would have said is redundant. There is a long discussion in the "#Please Discuss Your Citation to a Subjective Policy section" but while it's clear not everyone is happy, it also clear it's way too complicated a dispute to suggest no explanation was offered or that JJMC89 is at fault. If you are unable to provide evidence, IMO you should withdraw the claim or it becomes a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- User talk:Swarm Three things, first of all Hello. Secondly I asked JJMC89 to explain in plain English why he/his bot removed removed some improvements I'd made, he was unable to do that in Plain English. Others have explained it to me. I think the rules are silly, and confusing to people but rules are rules. Thirdly and finally, I 'reported' him as there are lots of users who are upset/confused by his work and he was offering no explanation and just deleting people's work. If you look a little closer you'll see plenty more people like me. Littlemonday (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Leha Ovch adding unsourced material
Leha Ovch added unsourced material to Neon Future III here and here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but like there's no evidence of any edit warring or article talk page discussion. You threw up a templated warning and then went here pretty much immediately. Let's try not to WP:BITE too hard, OK? Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Reply @Simonm223:, Leha Ovch did so after two warnings by Ss112 and one warning by me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- 19 months ago? --Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Reply @Bsherr:, yes, 19 months ago by Ss112, and about 19 hours ago by me ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like there have been no edits subsequent to the most recent user warning. Why don't we assume that takes care of it for now? It doesn't seem to me to rise to being intractable behavior requiring action here yet. --Bsherr (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Reply @Bsherr:, yes, 19 months ago by Ss112, and about 19 hours ago by me ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- 19 months ago? --Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Reply @Simonm223:, Leha Ovch did so after two warnings by Ss112 and one warning by me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: bumping doesn't actually do anything except prevent the post from archiving. I've added in a DNAU tag to this post, which will extend this out for another 4 days without the need for bumping. --Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk page problems
Ouranista has been leaving hostile messages on my talk page at User talk:Lullabying#Civility in Editing (but removing them later on), some of them over edit warring over changes made to Free! (TV series). lullabying (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Messages left include the following:
- lullabying (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I admit to a short message that I tried to delete. I thought it was, but somehow it was reposted with a response from Lullabying. I have not left multiple messages nor have I engaged in editing wars. However, much of the editing that has stood in place for years has now been altered by Lullabying with the terms "Flowery" and "Fancruft" as justification. I have left lullabying's edits as valid, though personally deemed unnecessarily curt, but have made some factual edits since and reverted what seemed to be a retaliatory edit to include information critical to the protagonist of the series. I do not see my actions as hostile. On the contrary. I tried to correct an error I made and lullabying has escalated this into something else altogether. Please respond as to how I should proceed from this point as I wish to remain a contributor and positive member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. luxartisan 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)
- I have left lullabying's edits as valid, though personally deemed unnecessarily curt, but have made some factual edits since and reverted what seemed to be a retaliatory edit to include information critical to the protagonist of the series. Regarding this response, I did not make the edit with the intention of retaliating and have only gone out of my way to shorten summaries as I have been doing on other articles due to extra information already implied in the current text and WP:NOTFANWEBSITE.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free!_(TV_series)&oldid=866965839 This edit was also reverted without explanation. lullabying (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I see a couple of issues here, mostly on Ouranista's part.
- First and foremost, I'm bothered by the lack of unsigned or improperly signed comments from this individual. Messages are signed with four tides; even a beginner knows that. You've been here for 3 years, so there's absolutely no excuse for this.
- Secondly, you don't seem to understand that Wikipedia isn't a fansite. On a fansite, you could add as much info as you want; on Wikipedia, we keep things brief. Lullabying is doing the right thing by abiding by site policy, which you don't seem to see as important.
- Lastly, if this continues to be a problem, then you may have competence issues. Hopefully, you'll take this opportunity to read the policies Lullabying had linked to you. I do not think a sanction is necessary at the moment. And if you ask me, this shouldn't even be on ANI. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for a quick turnaround in responding. I agree that this should not have gone to ANI. I am now adding four tildes - hope they show up. luxartisan 04:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)
Recruiting, COI accusation and intimidation by User:R3ap3R
Evidence suggests that R3ap3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited Gab (social network) in response to a recruiting/canvasing effort from the entity in question.
This user added obvious marketing claims [4] to the first sentense ("that focuses on freedom of speech without censorship") despite the same content is already covered in lead with a neutral tone ("purported itself as an "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech""). The user then drive-by flagged [5] the page with COI, POV and tone templates, without providing any explanation on article talk page, as required by the Template:COI. The user has not contributed anything to the article or talk page previously, and has not been active in recent 2 months. When I reverted his edit and provided my reasoning, the user threated me with 3RR report and said "take it to ArbCom if you have a problem" which I perceive as an act of intimidation, and refusal to discuss with other editors to reach consensus. [6]
The user then added Template:Uw-tdel1 and Template:Uw-tdel3 to my talk page. [7] Replying to my question, the user used "been here for over 9 years" hinting they have more authority or ownership to edit the page, and again said "Any further issues with my edits should be addressed to ArbCom", intimidating that I should not change or question their edits. The user has not replied to my further questions. User talk:Tsumikiria#November 2018
The user seems to have a history in drive-by flagging controversial articles they don't like, accusing other editors of COI and intimidating other editors to go to ArbCom from questioning their edits: [8] [9] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive151#User:R3ap3R.inc reported by User:C.Fred (Result: 48h)
Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Except my history shows no evidence of ArbCom, no COI, a left-leaning POV bias when not cherry picked out of hundreds of old edits, and the accuser removed valid maintenance tags without making any changes. The article in question clearly doesn't meet POV standards, that simple, and an edit war with accuser hitting 3RR wouldn't go anywhere. Also, "drive by" is called being an RCP. 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R (talk • contribs)
- Can you explain why you keep suggesting people should take stuff to WP:arbcom? Arbcom is generally the absolutely last resort when the community has been unable to deal with a problem. (There are exceptions like de-admining which only arbcom can deal with.) I see absolutely no reason why any behavioural issues that may exist with your edits will need to be taken to arbcom. They could be dealt with at ANI some other appropriate noticeboard like ANEW. Ideally of course, if there are any they should be dealt with by listening to other editors long before it gets to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Except my history shows no evidence of ArbCom, no COI, a left-leaning POV bias when not cherry picked out of hundreds of old edits, and the accuser removed valid maintenance tags without making any changes. The article in question clearly doesn't meet POV standards, that simple, and an edit war with accuser hitting 3RR wouldn't go anywhere. Also, "drive by" is called being an RCP. 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R (talk • contribs)
Chris Janson
Lboullt (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet or closely related to Kibus1 (talk · contribs), a user that was previously removing content from Chris Janson back in 2012. The Kibus1 account claimed to be one of Janson's reps, and was constantly removing valid, sourced, and neutral content from the article. Much of the removal is the same -- such as the passage on Janson doing duets with Holly Williams, or arbitrary changing of chart peaks to charts other than Billboard. Note that at the time of the Kibus1 account's edits, two of his reps contacted me through outside sources. One found me via Facebook made legal threats, which I did not act on at the time because they backed down. The other was far more sympathetic and agreed that the material on Holly Williams was not harmful in any way. A friend of mine who was also my editor when I still wrote for the blog Roughstock.com, and said friend told me that he talked to Janson personally about his Wikipedia article, and that he confessed to both overreaction and ignorance on how Wikipedia works.
tl;dr: can I please get a few more eyes on this? I don't want a six-year-old edit war to flare up again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Range block request
Howdy, a range block should be in place for the Stauner sock-puppet. Its latest incarnation Die Stauner linked an inhuman video to the User page of a recently deceased editor. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user indef. A checkuser would be needed to look at anything else, and whether a rangeblock would be possible. Raising an SPI would be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Report of Intractable Behaviour over Article Content
I am writing to detail the hostile and intractable actions of @Ryanoo: against me on my user "talk" page, theirs and the talk page of Wikipedia's English "North Africa" article.
After editing the article, I did my best to include my reasons regarding to why I thought it was appropriate and added what Wikipedia defines as verifiable sources to support my doing so. The introduction to the page was a quote from an academic journal on what formed the Sahara and geographically related Sahel, who contributed in suggesting its boundaries (Arab geographers, European naturalist explorers) and how it all came together. After consistently reverting my edits with no verifiable sourcing to justify them doing so (they cited a governmental website of the United States, an online dictionary) they visited my page to add a sockpuppet warning accusing me of being a banned user "Middayexpress" and 3 block warnings with no proof or justification simply because we had differences on the topic of North Africa. I did try to at least explain why their sources were not verifiable besides Wiki's reasoning, explaining that all the organizations Ryanoo listed were interested in geopolitical lines and not the physical or historical geography of North Africa. I also asked that they provide verifiable ones to provide them a chance but every source did not meet Wiki's standards. A user @Roxy the dog: attempted to arbitrate between us on the article's talk page and both our user pages but they continued to insult, taunt me with blocking and accusations of vandalism. I also emailed Wikipedia on this topic and an admin Ron Jones was kind enough to provide suggested steps to take in a situation like this. I read over them and noticed that I had done most of the steps already as I genuinely wanted to engage in good faith discussion. So, I am escalating the situation to this admin board so someone can step in and do whatever they think is appropriate in this situation.
As I am new to Wikipedia, I'm unsure if I'm able to ask that a user be blocked from engaging with me or reverting my changes to the article with unverifiable sources but it is my opinion that this would solve the issue. I feel uncomfortable personally reverting the page back to my own changes as I do not want to violate the 3 revet policy. Below I will list diffs to the best of my coding ability for the use of the administrators here. I also would like to apologize in advance for any editing errors, like I said, I'm new here!
Thank you, Itaren (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Diffs:
1: these were my additions to the article with all my verifiable citations 1a: Ryanoo's edit comment for this is: "Removed totally wrong and misleading information, trimmed the article and returned to the encyclopedic text" 1b:Here I reverted the text back to my edits with the following comment: Reverted page back to my edits that were supported by verifiable secondary sources, all either academic or historical. Edits made to this page should include citations. The version this article was reverted to had little no sourcing. User Ryanoo should provide sources in their explaination of *why* they found this academic information to be "false" and "misleading." Otherwise the article should stay as is. Kept "Arab Spring" addition (it was cited) 1c:Ryanoo then engaged in an edit war without providing sources as can be seen here. Ryanoo also left this corresponding comment: Reverted 2 edits by Itaren: Removed misleading and poorly sourced information and returned to the enclyopedic text. North Africa is a geographical region located in the Northernmost of the African continent, it is not a political or ecenomic organization which needs to be defined. The definition is clear as the name itself, It is simply North Africa. Chad, Niger, ...etc aren't North African countries and they aren't considered by anyone as so . (TW) * this in fact contradicts the article version they formerly reverted back to because the article claimed there was no single definition of "North Africa" and leads one to believe they did not check any of my citations, many of which are viewable online. These would have contextualized my reasoning for the selected map, by which, I didn't list every state highlighted on the map in the 'sovereign states / disputed territory section as North African.
2: Here's one of the things left on my user page almost immediately after one of their reverts, accusation of vandalism, block warning re: editing privileges 2a: Sock puppet accusation 2b: First taunt, block threat 2c: Second block threat, third taunting template on my page 2d: third block threat, another taunting template on my page 2e: @Roxy the dog: attempts to intervene
3: Ryanoo is warned by Roxy and myself but does not change their behaviour
4: Proof I tried to discuss the content dispute on the article at its talk page, the next diff will show how the conversation went 4a: uncivil discussion
5: I warn them on their user page not to be so hostile and tell them not to disturb my page further 5a: User Roxy intervenes again, they do not express any willingness to change, I notify them that I'm bringing their actions to the attention of Wikipedia Administration 5b:Ryanoo suspiciously removes my notice from their user talk page
- There is some discussion of this at User talk:Ryanoo including Ryanoo receiving an NPA warning. Ryanoo in turn claims Itaren is a sock of Middayexpress, a banned user who Ryanoo has been battling for a while. I haven't looked into it and don't have a view about it. Itaren's diff templates aren't working properly but Ryanoo's big revert with the hostile edit summary is here. Ryanoo hasn't yet opened an SPI but supposedly intends to do so. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @173.228.123.166: Thanks for your input. I see someone was kind enough to fix the diffs so they should be working now. Also, you may be able to see what they've done to my user page here and here. As a side note, would I be justified in reverting the page back to my changes now (despite the 3 revert rule, only got to that number because of Ryanoo's disruptions and hostility) or would it be best to wait and see how the admins address the incident? Thanks again. Itaren (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Meat problems on Indian rail station articles
A number of IPs have been adding content which appears to be a complaint about the broad-gauge rail installation causing service problems. Example. Also addition of a number of twitter links. Example. Different IPs seem to be doing different tasks.
- Bahraich railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bahraich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bahraich district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kaiserganj (Lok Sabha constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would someone please PP the pages? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, as soon as I leave this post, all activity stops... Jim1138 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by IP
42.107.200.43, 42.107.217.211, 42.111.248.139, 42.111.228.171, 42.111.228.154, 42.107.196.46, 42.107.201.249, 42.107.201.105, 42.111.18.6 - Dynamic IP editor is repeatedly performing disruptive editing on certain Malayalam film articles - Harikrishnans ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), Mampazhakkalam ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]), Natturajavu ([22], [23]), Mr. Brahmachari ([24], [25], [26]), Poovinu Puthiya Poonthennal ([27], [28], [29]) and others (Fazil - [30], [31], MAS - [32], Hitler - [33], Kunchacko Boban - [34], [35], Oru Naal Varum - [36], Black - [37], T. A. Shahid - [38], Panchavarnathatha - [39]). Apparently, the editor is either trying to add his POV about box-office status of these films or rearrange cast and is insistent on that. Editor also seems to be a fanboy of actor Mammootty from the reordering of cast to give prominence to the actor. It has been days since this started. Requesting to please apply a range block as early as possible. Thank you. 2405:204:D28D:65D6:CC77:3DEF:52C6:CB5E (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
TBAN and Block Needed
Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This chap, User:Andrew_Davidson, constantly deprods prods without providing a rationale. Policy around this allows this deprodding without explanation, but editors consider this rather rude, as providing the reason for an edit is kinda meat and drink to all of us!
His MO is to find an article that has been prodded, and remove the prod. That's it - nothing more. He clearly does no due diligence checking before deprodding. Normally these articles are slam dunk deletes, the reason for the Prod in the first place is uncontroversial. This is of course the reason for having the PROD process. a simple way of removing uncontroversial rubbish articles.
He has performed this uncollegiate, disruptive trick three times since I complained to him a couple of days ago, and unless stopped will doubtless continue. His response when challenged is to wikilawyer, and never provide a rationale. Please block until this uncooperative fellow agrees to change his ways, or apply a TBAN preventing Davidson editing in any area related to Deletion of articles. (I would also like to see him TBANNED from attending any wikimeetups where he would be able to influence good faith editors to his disruptive behaviour, something that should be strongly discouraged. He appears to do a lot of wikimeetups where the influence of such a bad example should be curbed.)
Rather than provide diffs to his deprods, I have provided links below to entries on his Talk page complaining about this behaviour. At least two of those are since my own complaint a couple of days ago. -
This from January this year.
here from March this year, where the complainant stated "I am well aware that you don't have to explain. I was asking you please to do so instead of being uncollaborative. Your constant resort to lawyering is wearing and disruptive"
topic Two requests here, including my own, and slightly classier wikilawering directed at myself. At least I got his attention, but unfortunately without any positive results.
contains two complaints from the same editor made since my own complaint.
It may also be worth reading this village pump discussion where Davidson was roundly condemned for just this sort of uncollaborativeness.
In summary, stop this editors "IDHT, I know best" behaviour. Thanks. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The examples you have come up with are hardly 'slam dunk deletes'. While it would be preferable to explain in an edit summary why deletion via prod was objected to, it's probably safe to assume that the deproder believes the subject may be notable if they don't specify a reason. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of the requested admin actions are going to happen. You're free to WP:AFD nominate any page where a PROD is declined; if Andrew D. doesn't give a rationale there his opinion will be ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I had a similar interaction with Andrew regarding List of Batman storylines. His reason for keeping the article in the subsequent AfD made no sense. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see you complained here about User:Andrew Davidson's removal here of your PROD here. Was your prod rationale "See Rope" a valid reason for deletion or even any sort of reason at all? Was it unreasonable to remove this prod? Was your reinstatement of the prod here within policy? Why were you reluctant to submit your deletion argument to community scrutiny? What is your view about another editor removing your second prod? Are you satisfied with your editing of this article? Thincat (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, I consider Andrew Davidson to be an extreme inclusionist and sometimes I find him to be a bit irritating. He may feel the same way about me. However, there can be no doubt that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. He is not obligated to explain why he removes PROD tags. That deletion process is for uncontroversial deletions and if any editor in good standing removes a PROD tag, deletion is by definition controversial. You will not improve your communication with Andrew by dragging him to ANI without good cause. As for your proposal to ban Andrew from attending public Wikimedia events? In a word, absurd. Our deletion processes work best if editors representative of the full range of philosophies from deletionism to inclusionism can participate without being harassed by their opponents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You will not improve your communication with Andrew
- That would not be worthwhile endeavor. You've misidentified which end the failure of communication is coming from. He talks at people, not to them, because he thinks other people are contemptible, and he's figured out a way to irritate people with mass deprods and refusal to communicate. Nobody who remembers what he used to get up to under his Colonel Warden persona could think he's anything but a pompous, dishonest troll. Reyk YO! 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)- Andrew's recent comments on my talk page are the exact opposite of what you describe, Reyk, and your comments against him are personal attacks, in my judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, I consider Andrew Davidson to be an extreme inclusionist and sometimes I find him to be a bit irritating. He may feel the same way about me. However, there can be no doubt that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. He is not obligated to explain why he removes PROD tags. That deletion process is for uncontroversial deletions and if any editor in good standing removes a PROD tag, deletion is by definition controversial. You will not improve your communication with Andrew by dragging him to ANI without good cause. As for your proposal to ban Andrew from attending public Wikimedia events? In a word, absurd. Our deletion processes work best if editors representative of the full range of philosophies from deletionism to inclusionism can participate without being harassed by their opponents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I have found Andrew's tendency to make counter-policy arguments at AFD to be extremely frustrating, and his tendency to remove PRODs without explanation, apparently so as to prevent the subsequent AFD nomination from preemptively addressing his counter-policy reasoning, is definitely cause for concern. Indeed, when I tried to propose mandating explanations for deprods here, based primarily on my experience with Andrew, I was uniformly opposed with the main argument being essentially "Yeah, that editor's behaviour is problematic, but ANI is the place to deal with individual problem editors; don't change policy just for Andrew" -- in other words, even those who think providing explanations for deprods is not necessary think Andrew specifically should be required to do so. I've also found his tendency to create garbage sub-stubs like the atrocious Water roux troubling; I would have been justified in PRODding that page when I first came across it, as it was complete nonsense with absolutely no basis in the cited "sources", and I have no doubt that he would have deprodded without explanation, forcing me to go through the increasingly bureaucratic mess of AFD, which is made all the more difficult by his wikilawyering and counter-policy arguments (which work well on low-traffic AFDs where it can come down to 2-1 !votes more often than not), so I was left with really no choice but to essentially blank and/or rewrite the whole thing. (I keep a record on my user page of articles other people started but where almost all the content was written by me; I don't want to have to include pages where the article creator -- a problem editor -- left a completely bogus sub-stub in the mainspace without using AFC or the like, and I had to come along and blank/rewrite the whole thing, not to my normal standards but just so it meets the barest standards of inclusion in the encyclopedia. These kinds of messes should take place in Andrew's userspace, not the article space.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Andrew has been doing this for years, but knows that no-one will ever stop him from doing it (search "Colonel Warden" in the ANI history). It's completely disruptive, but we've never had a consensus to stop him doing it, so he'll carry on doing it. Just another Wikipedia failure, as Reyk mentions above. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- for the PROD system to work, we need to people using it, to act in good faith. De-prodding on the principle of inclusionism thwarts the intention of the community in putting the PROD system in place. The principle of PROD is that a) there is a valid reason for deletion and b) nobody is going to care enough to fix it, if that is even possible. Hence, tag, wait, and then delete. This sort of drive-by de-prod is exactly the kind of thing Andrew D does -- that was back in March and per his history there, he never made another edit, and had made none before that. Many of these complaints are like that - Andrew D thwarts the PROD and then community time (our lifeblood) gets wasted, deleting obviously deletable stuff (like the parks, back in January, linked above). The complaints have a hook. User:Cullen328 surely you don't support somebody thwarting the intention of the community? (real question)
- In any case I support TBAN from de-prodding. Gaming the system to thwart the intentions of the community is not OK and it is about time we stopped this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The "intentions of the community" are expressed through policies and guidelines, and through broad community discussions where consensus is achieved and the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor, Jytdog. Please provide links to policies, guidelines and community consensus that justifies sanctions on this editor. A bunch of people bitching and moaning is not enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't put scare quotes around important things -- the spirit (the intention) of the P&G are what matter. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I used quotation marks only because I was quoting you directly, and for no other reason. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is clearly disingenuous. No one writes
The "intentions of the community" are expressed through policies and guidelines
"only because [they are] quoting [someone] directly"; those are scare-quotes, and were clearly used dismissively. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC) - Your interpretation of my intention is incorrect. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is clearly disingenuous. No one writes
- I used quotation marks only because I was quoting you directly, and for no other reason. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't put scare quotes around important things -- the spirit (the intention) of the P&G are what matter. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The "intentions of the community" are expressed through policies and guidelines, and through broad community discussions where consensus is achieved and the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor, Jytdog. Please provide links to policies, guidelines and community consensus that justifies sanctions on this editor. A bunch of people bitching and moaning is not enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog is talking about the World Beer Cup – a substantial page which we have had for many years (285K accumulated by 152 editors over 11+ years). It's easy to find a good independent source for this such as the Oxford Companion to Beer. Peremptory deletion of this page would not be uncontroversial because the topic is far from hopeless. Andrew D. (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's now 7K, not 285K: I've deleted an unsourced and obscenely long list of "Beer awards" that's clearly promotional and likely added by a COI editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban unless convincing evidence of Andrew's failure to comply with policies and guidelines is presented. Andrew's position is clear and is stated quite politely. He believes that detailed discussion of specific deprods is neither appropriate nor wise. He believes that kind of discussion should take place either at the article talk page or at AfD, or both. His stance is entirely in line with our deletion policy. Those who think that rationales for deprodding ought to be mandatory are obligated to gain consensus for that. Once you have that consensus, then Andrew must either comply or be subject to editing restrictions at that time, but not now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- he should indeed not be TBANed for not supplying a rationale for de-PRODing. He should be TBANed for abusing the PROD process. The whole purpose of PROD is to get rid of deletable articles that no one cares about. Patrolling PRODs to strip them for the sake of inclusionism has nothing to do with why we created PROD or why we created the easy escape hatch, and nothing to do with building a high quality encyclopedia. Andrew D has shown a severe lack of self-restraint around de-PRODing, wasting a bunch of community time. So - enough already. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct that PROD is only for articles that no one cares about. No one. If Andrew (or any editor in good standing) cares enough to remove the PROD tag, then someone clearly cares, and then the next step for the tagger is clear: Either drop the matter or take it to AfD. It could not be more simple. Andrew has said that he is willing to discuss these articles at AfD, as part of a community discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- actually cares about. That is the spirit of the PROD process. Patrolling PRODs to keep stuff, and stripping the tag from pages you never edited before and never edited again, is gaming the process. I'm trying to articulate why so many people are annoyed with Andrew. This is right down at the core of it - this exploiting every loophole and saying anything and doing anything just to keep stuff. Its not about building a high quality, or even reasonable-quality, encyclopedia. Quality isn't in the picture - it's just about keeping stuff. Which is the wrong aim. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct that PROD is only for articles that no one cares about. No one. If Andrew (or any editor in good standing) cares enough to remove the PROD tag, then someone clearly cares, and then the next step for the tagger is clear: Either drop the matter or take it to AfD. It could not be more simple. Andrew has said that he is willing to discuss these articles at AfD, as part of a community discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I only count 11 deprods in the last 5 weeks. Many if not all of them need to be sent to AfD, IMO, but you could make the argument both ways. I wouldn't TBAN because I still think it's being done in good faith, but issue a warning and request a rationale in the edit summary for each deprod from this user. SportingFlyer talk 03:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- he should indeed not be TBANed for not supplying a rationale for de-PRODing. He should be TBANed for abusing the PROD process. The whole purpose of PROD is to get rid of deletable articles that no one cares about. Patrolling PRODs to strip them for the sake of inclusionism has nothing to do with why we created PROD or why we created the easy escape hatch, and nothing to do with building a high quality encyclopedia. Andrew D has shown a severe lack of self-restraint around de-PRODing, wasting a bunch of community time. So - enough already. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Tban from De prodding - - A IDHT behaviour and indulging in mass deprodding runs despite being requested several times to provide some reason behind the deProd.But, on lines of wot BK had sed, this will lead to nothing; people have a liking for invoking extremal process wonkery even if it is directly contrarian to a collaborative environment esp. whilst dealing with long term editors. ∯WBGconverse 03:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support tban from deproding as well. I don't have direct experience with his deprodding activity but I do recall very well the nonsense he posts every time we try to improve how we manage Drafts (G13 expansion for example). It appears Andrew D is intent on making clean up as painful amd slow as possible. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't often agree with Andrew, but in this case he's frankly 100% correct, and IMO there's absolutely no evidence of disruption here, let alone grounds for a sanction of any kind. This is how PROD is supposed to work. If you don't like it, try to change the process, not ban the people using it. ansh666 04:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Unless there are dozens of diffs showing a pattern of deliberately disruptive de-PRODs or deliberately targeting one editor's PRODs (neither of which has anyone provided), there is no reason for a TBan or a block. PRODs are merely one option for deletion and are a deliberately low bar to decline (no explanation needed). If someone disagrees with a de-PROD, even numerous de-PRODS, all they need do is escalate to CSD or AfD, as desired. It's really very simple. Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Striking this because dozens if not hundreds of diffs over the years are most likely unavailable because the article in question was subsequently deleted. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)- @Softlavender: few things on Wikipedia are truly gone forever. I looked at one full year's worth of de-prods in his deleted contribs. If you're curious:
That's about 36 deleted articles, most of which went to AfD. One was not eligible for PROD but got deleted anyway because it was a copyright violation. This is the span of 19 November 2017 through 5 November 2018. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, that proves my point. As Jytdog says, no one but an admin can see those redlink de-PRODs, and your list proves my point that the articles more than likely should have been deleted at the PROD stage, so AD's de-PRODs really are disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per my below reasoning for the PROD process not mandating a rationale and also for the fact the policy specifically permits any editor to remove a PROD tag. And 36 in a year is not a lot. Fish+Karate 11:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The list above is an evaluation of the PRODs that were removed and the articles are still in the encyclopedia. I looked back at all the deprods back to the beginning of September. Andrew made 42 deprops that have not been deleted. Of those 42, 2 are currently at AFD. An additional 19 were sent to AFD and the discussion is now closed. Results of 10 were keep, 7 redirect (with some including merge) and 2 were no consensus. Of those not sent to AFD, 1 was an invalid PROD, 1 was later redirected and 14 have no action taken. This is compared to the last year of 36 deprods that were later deleted at AFD. I oppose taking away his ability to deprod articles. ~ GB fan 12:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban and oppose block, essentially for the reasons explained by User:Cullen328. There's no policy breach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I find it weird that we're talking about whether Andrew is technically violating policy by engaging in behaviour that, by definition, is not a violation of current policy, but is perceived as being disruptive and so is the subject of a ban discussion. It's a truism that a number (I'd guess at least half) of Andrew's AFD !votes have been policy breaches (or ... "advocating for policy breaches", I guess?), and so if he were required to provide rationales for deproddings we can assume a similar proportion of them would be too; the problem is he never does provide rationales, even when specifically requested to do so on his talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose t-ban and oppose block - having faced similar issues working at NPP, I can certainly understand the frustration expressed by the OP and those in agreement but I also agree with Cullen and reasons others have given to oppose. Deprodding is a judgment call, and while some may find it to be annoyance, it is neither a policy violation nor is it behavioral disruption to the project. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose t-ban and oppose block - no policies have been violated. It would certainly lend itself towards collaborative editing if A.D. were to leave a reason, but by policy and years of practice he is not required to. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose t-ban and oppose block per everyone above and below (and per my comments below). –Davey2010Talk 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Require Andrew Davidson to provide a rationale with each de-PROD
A number of very experienced editors, including administrators, have had long-term problems with Andrew Davidson's behavior concerning PRODs and his apparent targeting of them merely to remove the PROD whether or not the removal appears warranted in any way to any reasonable person. Providing rationales for de-PRODs is not mandatory, but an administrator can enact a community-based sanction requiring Andrew Davidson to provide one with each de-PROD, if there is consensus for this sanction. Therefore I am proposing it. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support as nominator, since the editor's de-PRODding has, over a very long time, been widely viewed as deliberately disruptive. This sanction will not prevent him from de-PRODding, but it will require him to demonstrate good faith by providing a rationale. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. I think this is a good final step before a topic ban becomes necessary, though I suspect AD will try to game it somehow. Reyk YO! 05:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support as per nominator. I suspect the rationales will continue to be along the lines of "prods are for uncontroversial deletions, and this is controversial," as per the talk page. I don't necessarily read bad faith into them, as the synthetic rope deprod was correct, but would strongly recommend either further explanations in the edit summary other than "controversial" or improving the articles which are deprodded, as several of the ones I looked at were completely without references. SportingFlyer talk 05:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support per the smug disruption displayed with one foot in the doorway of a topic ban. Nihlus 06:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support but he will likely not provide meaningful rationals Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- NOTE for closing admin: I recommend that the sanction include a requirement to provide a rationale specific to the article in question, and specifically refuting the PRODer's concerns with specific facts, as opposed to a generic, non-specific rationale. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- How would this work if the PRODder's concern is not clear? For example, in the case of synthetic rope, their concern was just "See Rope". What specific fact is expected in such a case? Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The question proves the need. Other editors can clearly see that the PROD placer believes this topic duplicates an existing topic. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: In my mind, nothing wrong with a (removed prod) (rationale for deletion unclear). That was also the prod removal I'm least concerned about, though. SportingFlyer talk 09:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The question proves the need. Other editors can clearly see that the PROD placer believes this topic duplicates an existing topic. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, there's no policy that mandates a rationale, removing prod tags is not disruptive, just send the article to AFD if the prod is removed. Easy peasy. Fish+Karate 09:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Unwarranted, knee-jerk de-PRODs are indeed disruptive, especially if they are willfully done en masse over the years, because they place an enormous burden on the community via clogging AfD with unnecessary AfDs which could have been handled at the PROD stage if warranted. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- An "enormous burden"? Really? PROD is explicitly for uncontroversial deletions that nobody contests. If even one person contests the PROD tag, the article must go to AFD. I am not saying this is the best way to do things, I'm saying that that's the current policy, per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting - "You are strongly encouraged, but not required to also .. explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". If the policy is not reflective of how you feel the proposed deletion policy should work, then work to get the policy changed. Forcing a user to do something that is not mandated by policy, for no real reason other than "I don't like what he is doing at the moment", is not right. To be clear, I would very much support the idea that this policy should say that the removal of PROD tags without a rationale is potentially disruptive and such removals may be reverted, reinstating the tag. But the policy doesn't say that, it explicitly permits removal without rationale. Fish+Karate 10:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an "enormous" burden. It is a burden. Many of these deprodded articles don't have any references, and no one has touched them since they were deprodded. Adding a rationale is incredibly simple. I agree it should not be mandatory, but I don't see a problem with trying to mitigate a small community burden (11 deprods in 5 weeks isn't that disruptive) with a small individual burden where it's justified. SportingFlyer talk 11:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- An "enormous burden"? Really? PROD is explicitly for uncontroversial deletions that nobody contests. If even one person contests the PROD tag, the article must go to AFD. I am not saying this is the best way to do things, I'm saying that that's the current policy, per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting - "You are strongly encouraged, but not required to also .. explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". If the policy is not reflective of how you feel the proposed deletion policy should work, then work to get the policy changed. Forcing a user to do something that is not mandated by policy, for no real reason other than "I don't like what he is doing at the moment", is not right. To be clear, I would very much support the idea that this policy should say that the removal of PROD tags without a rationale is potentially disruptive and such removals may be reverted, reinstating the tag. But the policy doesn't say that, it explicitly permits removal without rationale. Fish+Karate 10:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Unwarranted, knee-jerk de-PRODs are indeed disruptive, especially if they are willfully done en masse over the years, because they place an enormous burden on the community via clogging AfD with unnecessary AfDs which could have been handled at the PROD stage if warranted. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: You're right, that is not a policy. I tried to propose it as a policy specifically because of the disruption caused by this one editor, and was met with "Yeah, that is pretty disruptive, but that should be dealt with by an individual sanction, not a change of policy". The whole point of individual editing restrictions is that they are meant to restrict more than the existing policies already restrict everyone, so
there's no policy that mandates [that]
is quite an unusual rationale for opposing a ban proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)- The fact you consider "editing within policy" to be an unusual rationale is more concerning than anything else in this thread. Fish+Karate 11:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Umm... all editing restrictions logged at WP:RESTRICT are expansions on policy. If any of them were simply reiterating what policy said, they wouldn't be editing restrictions; they would be policies. Not only is this not an unusual thing for me or any other editor to say, but it's a given; you're not seeming to understand that is far more concerning, let alone your condescending to me as you do above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- BTW: I can provide (and have provided elsewhere) lists of Andrew's counter-policy AFD !votes. His forcing other editors to nominate articles for AFD only for him to show up and make such arguments is highly disruptive (hardly "editing within policy"); demanding that he make these arguments up-front so the AFD nom can address them is quite reasonable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The fact you consider "editing within policy" to be an unusual rationale is more concerning than anything else in this thread. Fish+Karate 11:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: You're right, that is not a policy. I tried to propose it as a policy specifically because of the disruption caused by this one editor, and was met with "Yeah, that is pretty disruptive, but that should be dealt with by an individual sanction, not a change of policy". The whole point of individual editing restrictions is that they are meant to restrict more than the existing policies already restrict everyone, so
- Support Dear. God. Yes. Can we also ping in anyone at the discussion I linked above (namely MelanieN, HighInBC, Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere) as they were actually, indirectly, the ones to specifically propose this? (I pointed out to Andrew on his talk page that there was a growing consensus, even among those who think "Deprodding should require an explanation" is not a feasible policy, that he specifically should be required to do so anyway, and the OP appears to have noticed that message.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, I would also support a TBAN from de-prodding, broadly construed, as well. He should be required to appeal the one before the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was named here I will note that my comments were general and not aimed at Andrew D. Specifically I will (scarily) quote myself that being "considerate" in removing PRODS is the right thing to do. To apply it to this case, 36 dePRODs in the last year, if the correct number, aren't really disruptive to the encyclopedia, but it would be "considerate" if Andrew took the feedback here on board. Even though I agree with Hijiri about deletion discussions more than Andrew, I believe the encyclopedia benefits from us having to live with differing point of views what Wikipedia is and should be. I have to live with Andrew being more of an inclusionist than I think right and he has to live with me being more of a deletionist than he thinks right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: FWIW, when Andrew is advocating for the violation of copyright and NOR policy, it goes beyond editors having differing views. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: But this is a TBAN about PROD and so I confined my thinking and analysis to that. I am guessing I would find a lot to disagree with, and maybe even think over the line, if we started exploring his contributions at AfD. But since that's not the discussion it's not where I went with my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but since a large number of his AFD !votes are counter-policy, we can assume the deprod rationales he refuses to provide even when they are specifically requested are similarly non-compliant. Anyway, I would question whether requiring someone do something each time they engage in a process, but not banning them from engaging in that process, is not really a "TBAN" to begin with: yeah, I advocated for both, but the Softlavender proposal we are discussing here is not really a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: But this is a TBAN about PROD and so I confined my thinking and analysis to that. I am guessing I would find a lot to disagree with, and maybe even think over the line, if we started exploring his contributions at AfD. But since that's not the discussion it's not where I went with my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: FWIW, when Andrew is advocating for the violation of copyright and NOR policy, it goes beyond editors having differing views. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was named here I will note that my comments were general and not aimed at Andrew D. Specifically I will (scarily) quote myself that being "considerate" in removing PRODS is the right thing to do. To apply it to this case, 36 dePRODs in the last year, if the correct number, aren't really disruptive to the encyclopedia, but it would be "considerate" if Andrew took the feedback here on board. Even though I agree with Hijiri about deletion discussions more than Andrew, I believe the encyclopedia benefits from us having to live with differing point of views what Wikipedia is and should be. I have to live with Andrew being more of an inclusionist than I think right and he has to live with me being more of a deletionist than he thinks right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose As per above, he does not do a bad job of deprodding articles. Would it help editors to understand why the article was deprodded, yes, but that is across the board. I see no evidence that his deprodding is disruptive or any reason we need to put additional requirements on him that we don't put on the community. ~ GB fan 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @GB fan: Pointing out that some of his deprods are not all that bad (but neither are they all that good) doesn't actually invalidate the claim that a lot of his deprods are bad. Additionally, requiring him to provide a rationale would not actually affect the not-bad ones (he could just provide the good rationale) -- it would only prevent him from doing so when he doesn't have a valid argument, and would make it possible for either (a) the editor responsible for the prod to reconsider in light of a valid argument or (b) the subsequent AFD nomination to address his arguments. Given that Andrew went to the trouble to type out (multiple) comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (character), we can assume he would have deprodded it if ZXCVBNM had prodded the page rather than going straight to AFD; if Andrew had been required to provide a rationale, and his rationale was, like his AFD !vote, "I think we should be allowed WP:NOR in cases like this", then the nominator could have pointed out the absurdity of that argument in advance, and we could have avoided a lot of trouble. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can not support forcing a single individual to explain their DEPRODs unless there is clear evidence that their DEPRODS are disruptive. 42 DEPRODS in the last <2.5 months that are still in the encyclopedia compared to 36 that have been deleted in the last year in my mind is not disruptive. Should he reevaluate what he deprods, yes. Would it help if he adjusts his criteria for deprodding a little, yes. Do I see enough to force him to provide an explanation, no. On top of that what explanation would be good enough before his deprod is allowed to stand? Would it be acceptable for him to say, "I think there is enough here that this article needs to be discussed at AFD before being deleted"? ~ GB fan 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That depends. Clearly, with any article that I don't think should be deleted, any rationale that aligned with my personal reason for believing as much would be sufficient. I guess some valid reasons were probably presented in those AFDs you referred to that resulted in keeps? My experience with Andrew's detailed AFD arguments is that they are very poor and often show a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy, the topics in question, or both (the above-linked "Dark Lady", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination) are among the worst examples that come to mind; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the West Indies (Jamaica) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodflation were bad for a completely different reason); I think allowing such an editor to unilaterally overrule a valid means of deletion without even providing any explanation is problematic; requiring him to make his argument up-front so an AFD nominator can evaluate it in their nomination, rather than just forcing the nominator to wonder to themselves whether Andrew actually had a valid reason, would be better. Andrew's deprods don't come with a notice "Hey, this guy might have a valid point, or he might just be reverting you because he thinks he can get away with it"; most editors will just assume the former, which is a whole lot of extra work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can not support forcing a single individual to explain their DEPRODs unless there is clear evidence that their DEPRODS are disruptive. 42 DEPRODS in the last <2.5 months that are still in the encyclopedia compared to 36 that have been deleted in the last year in my mind is not disruptive. Should he reevaluate what he deprods, yes. Would it help if he adjusts his criteria for deprodding a little, yes. Do I see enough to force him to provide an explanation, no. On top of that what explanation would be good enough before his deprod is allowed to stand? Would it be acceptable for him to say, "I think there is enough here that this article needs to be discussed at AFD before being deleted"? ~ GB fan 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @GB fan: Pointing out that some of his deprods are not all that bad (but neither are they all that good) doesn't actually invalidate the claim that a lot of his deprods are bad. Additionally, requiring him to provide a rationale would not actually affect the not-bad ones (he could just provide the good rationale) -- it would only prevent him from doing so when he doesn't have a valid argument, and would make it possible for either (a) the editor responsible for the prod to reconsider in light of a valid argument or (b) the subsequent AFD nomination to address his arguments. Given that Andrew went to the trouble to type out (multiple) comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (character), we can assume he would have deprodded it if ZXCVBNM had prodded the page rather than going straight to AFD; if Andrew had been required to provide a rationale, and his rationale was, like his AFD !vote, "I think we should be allowed WP:NOR in cases like this", then the nominator could have pointed out the absurdity of that argument in advance, and we could have avoided a lot of trouble. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support the proposal that any "Deprodding should require an explanation" even though it is not an existing policy. The table of DePRODs is overwhelming. And appears to me as a blatant misuse of DePROD policies. We are simply adding unnecessary more work for the volunteers with allowing such behavior. I would also support a TBAN from de-prodding, broadly construed --DBigXrayᗙ 13:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose a pointless exercise. Andrew Davidson will simply add "covered in multiple published sources, including [YOUR BOOK HERE]" which is the usual opener at the myriad AFDs that fall out of these de-prods. Mandating he does the work he would do, just a few minutes or hours sooner, will not stop the de-prodding, and will not stop the frustration. 100% guaranteed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man you have explained why this will possibly fail. May we know what is the proposal you feel might work here ? Obviously if the above measures fail to achieve the intended purpose of reducing the number of frivolous dePRODs, then more stricter actions may be proposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for TRM but my proposal would be to either get consensus to change the policy to mandate a reason for de-prodding, or recognise that 36 de-prods in a year is not disruptive, leave it be, and find something better to do. Fish+Karate 13:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, there's no "possibly" about it. This is a non-starter. And I'm afraid "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Andrew believes his actions to be frivolous in any way, and that the small number of additional AFDs generated in the big scheme of things is really minuscule. This, I'm afraid, appears to be a very large waste of community time. The basic principle of "prod" is to blame, that should anyone for any reason decide they disagree with it, it makes it controversial, and hence prod no longer applies. Just changing the rules for one editor who can simply bypass the change by adding the first line of the AFD in his justification for the removal of the prod is going to achieve nothing at all. I think it'd be better to have spent all this time and energy working on articles rather than working on ways to stop a near-trivial number of puportedly frivolous AFDs being created. If de-prodding has saved one or more articles from deletion, then I suspect that somewhat validates Andrew's occasional actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see so many people saying there is a large number of deprods that shouldn't have been done. What I don't see is people actually supporting that with data. Looking at the information above there were 36 of their deprods that were deleted at AFD or speedy deleted in the last year. There are also 42 of their deprods from the last 2+ months that are still in the encyclopedia, that includes 19 that survived an AFD. If that time frame is typical of a year for Andrew, he would have around 220 deprods that are still in the encyclopedia with around a 100 of those that survived AFD. This tells me there are more frivolous PRODs then there are DEPRODs. ~ GB fan 13:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- This, I'm afraid, appears to be a very large waste of community time.
- Yep. And it's Andrew D. doing the time wasting. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's the usual drama mongers. This whole set of approaches is doomed, yet you're all racking up KB of chat, far more wasteful than anything Andrew Davidson has done, and I'm assuming good faith that he's doing it for reasons he believes in, while this is mainly a witch hunt designed to punish someone's extreme (but still legitimate) viewpoint who still operate within guidelines and policies. Some here should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, if I'm to be included among "the usual drama mongers", the reason is that I've been extremely busy in real life for the last month or so, have only come on to Wikipedia to deal with the affairs of the day that are kind of "limited time events", and have been unable to devote time to building articles. (I posted on WT:WAM before any of this came up that I would hardly even be able to participate this year, let alone judge.) I'm a little angry at the OP for, like the OP of the AN thread in June, picking a really stupid moment to open this discussion, and not consulting with me in advance as to the best way to go about it. If nothing comes of this thread, it'll be as much the fault of careless editors who agree with me that something needs to be done about Andrew but did so in an extremely sloppy manner, and if that happens there'll probably be an informal moratorium on drahma-board threads on Andrew for the next few months. He really needs a TBAN from article deletion, broadly construed, and I believe I've got evidence that would convince the community that this is the case, but it's impossible to present it when something like this keeps happening every few months and undercutting it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's the usual drama mongers. This whole set of approaches is doomed, yet you're all racking up KB of chat, far more wasteful than anything Andrew Davidson has done, and I'm assuming good faith that he's doing it for reasons he believes in, while this is mainly a witch hunt designed to punish someone's extreme (but still legitimate) viewpoint who still operate within guidelines and policies. Some here should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man you have explained why this will possibly fail. May we know what is the proposal you feel might work here ? Obviously if the above measures fail to achieve the intended purpose of reducing the number of frivolous dePRODs, then more stricter actions may be proposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose (edit conflict × 5) rationale requirement but support broad topic ban from PROD (may not PROD or dePROD any article for any reason, may not request REFUND of a PRODded article, and may not comment on the PROD process anywhere on Wikipedia), per evidence of a problem causing widespread editing grief, and per those who have said that AD would just game a requirement to provide rationales by providing generic rationales to satisfy the requirement and continue the disruptive behaviour. It's fairly obvious that AD is not dePRODding articles because he finds the individual deletion proposals controversial but because he objects to PROD in general (see the third bullet here) and is bringing the controversy to deletions which are otherwise uncontroversial. That's pretty much the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. As for requiring rationales generally, Roxy linked to where we had that discussion just a bit more than a month ago and it was soundly rejected; I see later in the same discussion it's been proposed again, and is being just as soundly rejected. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think the PROD policy was designed for wholesale DEPRODing without rationale to the point of disruption. We need to be careful not to live or die on what policy says.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose we currently have an open RFC about this at WP:VPP, there's no reason to apply it only to Andrew D. Well, there is one reason, which is that people find him generally annoying. But there are many things he does that are more annoying than dePROD without a reason, and several of the support voters are also generally annoying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- this is, in my view, a distraction from the key issue, and too easily game-able. We should just TBAN and be done with it. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - this mass deprodding is gaming the system and essentially enforcing a policy consensus of one. It is deliberate provocation of other editors, and It needs to stop. Unfortunately, I agree with Jytdog, that it is possible the editor will just scoff at this and provide a meaningless caption to satisfy these requirements. If so, we'll be back here to discuss a TBAN. Nevertheless, this at least gives the opportunity to show good faith!Jacona (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No policy rationale or such egregious disruption for either sanction. ——SerialNumber54129 16:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Clearly, his behavior is bad faith disruption, it seems clear his only goal is to game the system to disrupt the PROD process maximally. That's hardly a useful behavior at Wikipedia. The opposes do note there is no policy forcing him to do so, but at some point we need to look at WP:GAME and look at the clear intent of his actions. --Jayron32 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per opposers. Prodding is easy come, easy go. The rationales provided by many heavy prodders are often nonsense, and this would just get similar vague/standard rationales from AD. The statistics above show his deprods are kept at AFD far too often to justify personal measures. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support I guess but a topic ban makes more sense. This needs to say "a rationale backed up by multiple reliable sources" or something like that, in order to be meaningful. Otherwise, a bad rationale or simple rationale like "deprodded, he's notable" is still a rationale. A better answer is to have a complete topic ban rather than to try to invent a rule to solve the problem. --B (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose although I have a nearly opposite view to Andrew D about how much should be gotten rid of and how much should be retained. I am in general a deletionist, and I have been rebuked for PRODding unsourced articles without doing a BEFORE search to determine whether sources exist. However, if Andrew D wants to make a deletion controversial (that is, not non-controversial) just because he wants to make it controversial, so be it. Anyone whose PROD is deprodded can always take it to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- This editor is not tuned in to the expectations of the community. A scroll through their votes at AfD [40] shows they almost always vote Keep or Speedy Keep (with scores of pages deleted after these votes) and very rarely vote Delete (and a surprising number of those votes are on pages which end up kept). Therefore it is hard to trust their ability to determine a correct or incorrect PROD. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The problem here isn't whether the deproddings are correct. It's that they're perceived as being done in bad faith, with an aim to deliberately damage the deletion process rather than out of any desire to see the articles kept on their own merits. Voluntarily accepting this restriction would go a long ways toward showing that perception is wrong. Having it involuntarily imposed and then getting blocked when some trigger-happy admin inevitably considers a deprodding reason frivolous (complete with unblocking, wheel-warring, 100-kiloword ANI shitstorm, and arbcom case), or escaping that involuntarily imposition when so such a large percentage of the opposition is based in ruleslawyering, is going to prove just the opposite. —Cryptic 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's a discredit to Andrew. I'm hardly his number one superfan but he's an out-and-out inclusionist and never fails to put forward some kind of argument at every AFD he's caused to exist through de-prodding. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Rather than rob the community of its time discussing unnecessary AFDs, I would like to see Andrew take the necessary time to outline a rationale for every de-prod. Hopefully, a positive side effect will be that community time is also reduced in discussing Andrew's behavior. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It'll just be a touchpaper for more drama when, suddenly, an enthusiastic-yet-useless admin decides that one of Andrew's "rationales" is insufficient, and bang, here we'll be again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments in the section above, and per Fish+Karate, The Rambling Man, GB fan, Johnbod and power~enwiki. Those supporting this restriction have failed to produce evidence of significant disruption, and discussion of various AfD debates has nothing to do with deprodding. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose an imposition that is not required by Wikipedia policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- user:Softlavender would you please withdraw this and close it? It has no chance of gaining consensus, and ideally folks will comment on the tban which is the open question. thx Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, because it has wide support (13 Support, 9 Oppose thus far), and enough long-term editors and admins have had problems with AD's behavior that the overall situation is likely to go to ArbCom down the line if a solution isn't reached, and this is the simplest and most supported solution at present. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog whether you agree or disagree with chances of this proposal, enough people have already supported this to merit a closure by an uninvolved admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support topic ban, with Support providing genuine rationales as an alternate. And spare me the "not required by Wikipedia policy" garbage: policy evolves from practice on Wikipedia and always has. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This is a reasonable expectation for anyone de-PRODing, let alone someone doing it on a large scale. We're not mind readers. If someone wants to second guess other editors, they owe at least a minimal explanation. - MrX 🖋 22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose isn't this the whole point of PROD? If the community wants the policy changed, then change the policy Samir 22:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:PROD doesn't require a rationale. The policy would have to be changed first, would it not? Perhaps the latter should be a serious consideration so we're all on the same page and not admonishing a productive editor for simply following policy. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point, since the discussion here is not about changing standard practice, it's about whether this editor's behavioor, in particular, may merit a requirement that other editors do not have to follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Do you mean that the policy page doesn't requiring deprodders give a reason? My understanding is that PROD does require a reason but DEPROD does not. However, Andrew's deprodding is disruptive. By definition, editing restrictions are not simple reiterations of what is mandated by policy, but expansions thereof. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @BMK - I wasn't aware we had the authority to overrule policy here at AN/I. @Hijiri88 - I should have been more specific in that the policy WP:PROD#Objecting, editors are "strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. (and yada yada)." I'm of the mind that AN/I doesn't truly represent a fair and balanced "community discussion" since there are no notices that go out to the community that such actions are even being discussed. Doing it this way gives a handful of editors far too much authority in the decision making process, and would include editors who were not elected based on the trust factor of the community after enduring an RfA. Does that make sense? Atsme✍🏻📧 23:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's cool, and I respect your opinion, but it should also probably be noted that this ANI thread is a spin-off of a "discussion" (really a careful warning being followed by "I don't care I'm not listening lalalalala") that took place on Andrew's talk page, which spun out of a discussion on VPP, where the proposal to amend policy to require a rationale was shot down specifically because, while Andrew's deprodding is disruptive, it needs to be dealt with by means of individual sanctions, not changes to policy; and AN/ANI is the place to discuss individual sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @BMK - I wasn't aware we had the authority to overrule policy here at AN/I. @Hijiri88 - I should have been more specific in that the policy WP:PROD#Objecting, editors are "strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. (and yada yada)." I'm of the mind that AN/I doesn't truly represent a fair and balanced "community discussion" since there are no notices that go out to the community that such actions are even being discussed. Doing it this way gives a handful of editors far too much authority in the decision making process, and would include editors who were not elected based on the trust factor of the community after enduring an RfA. Does that make sense? Atsme✍🏻📧 23:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone above but mainly per TRM - I 110% disagree with Andrews deprods especially when there's no reason provided ... however (and no disrespect to Andrew) but it's not hard to make a bullshit reason to deprod .... which if he started doing he's still going to end up back here, I oppose any sort of block, topic ban or sanction. –Davey2010Talk 00:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man and Davey2010: Yeah, but if Andrew was forced to provide a terrible argument up-front, that would make opening the AFD a lot easier, as noms would not need to consider whether Andrew might have a decent rationale (he sometimes does -- I personally have no problem with this edit). Yeah, they could ask him, and when the answer is "I don't care" they can reasonably assume he doesn't have one and fire ahead with the AFD anyway, but it would be better if he was subject to an individual restriction requiring him to be more open about his lack of a good reason, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work that way. And as I've already said, this is just transferring the drama to a time when Andrew either forgets or provides something which a trigger-happy lame admin considers block-worthy. None of this is useful, and as many have said before and since, this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues. The effort wasted here now by far exceeds that which was required to deal with the last year's worth of AFDs that have come out of the de-prods. And given the fervour to see Andrew punished, this is just the beginning. Tragic misdirection of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues
Andrew's disruption was basically the only reason Korean influence on Japanese culture survived AFD; the shitstorm that occurred in the fallout therefrom played a key part in (CurtisNaito's ridiculous harassment of me at) the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case. An editor "in good standing" who is going around taking every opportunity he can to undermine one of our project's core processes (and all of our core policies while he's at it) is definitely more of a cause for concern that most of the stuff that gets brought up on this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work that way. And as I've already said, this is just transferring the drama to a time when Andrew either forgets or provides something which a trigger-happy lame admin considers block-worthy. None of this is useful, and as many have said before and since, this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues. The effort wasted here now by far exceeds that which was required to deal with the last year's worth of AFDs that have come out of the de-prods. And given the fervour to see Andrew punished, this is just the beginning. Tragic misdirection of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man and Davey2010: Yeah, but if Andrew was forced to provide a terrible argument up-front, that would make opening the AFD a lot easier, as noms would not need to consider whether Andrew might have a decent rationale (he sometimes does -- I personally have no problem with this edit). Yeah, they could ask him, and when the answer is "I don't care" they can reasonably assume he doesn't have one and fire ahead with the AFD anyway, but it would be better if he was subject to an individual restriction requiring him to be more open about his lack of a good reason, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Andrew can be a pain, but are we really having this discussion over 36 deprods? I'm a lot more worried about material that gets deleted via the PROD process without anyone really having done a decent BEFORE check. That material is almost always gone at that point. A bad deprod just results in an AfD. Now, if those numbers went up, I'd have a very different opinion. But it does look like a fair percent of his deprods end up making it through AfD. As long as that's at least 15% (and if I understand, he's well above that) I'd say he's doing us a service. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hobit: The 36 deprods is the tip of the iceberg. It's his disruptive comments at AFD that are the real problem. However, while dealing with the AFD comments probably also needs to be done, it's particularly problematic when we grant a user with such a low opinion of our content policies (and such a poor ability to cite them correctly when required to) the authority to unilaterally shut down a valid deletion process without even citing a policy. It's incremental: recently (since this AN discussion?) he appears to (forgive me if I'm wrong?) have shifted (relatively speaking) away from direct AFD participation, in favour of deprodding; this allows him to keep a lot more of his terrible keep arguments (see the Dark Lady AFD linked above) to himself, but he really shouldn't be allowed to do that given his record. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can you clarify his record? Of the articles he's deprodded in the last X time period (month, 3 months, year, take your pick) how many of them weren't deleted at AfD? 20%? 40%? I don't think there is a way for me to tell as a non-admin, and I'm not clear we know based on the discussion above. Help? Hobit (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Me neither. My problem is more with his comments at AFD: they are often ridiculously out of line with policy. If he were required to provide a rationale for deprodding, then he could be cut off at the pass with an AFD nom that points out how ridiculous his rationale was. There's a serious problem with articles he defends not getting deleted at AFD when they should be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture is perhaps the worst single case where, had he not shown up and made a bogus argument that looked educated to anyone who didn't read it carefully enough, the two or three others who !voted keep "per Andrew" may not have done so (yes, ideally they should have actually read his comments carefully enough to realize they were gibberish, but that doesn't make his original posting of gibberish any less disruptive). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can you clarify his record? Of the articles he's deprodded in the last X time period (month, 3 months, year, take your pick) how many of them weren't deleted at AfD? 20%? 40%? I don't think there is a way for me to tell as a non-admin, and I'm not clear we know based on the discussion above. Help? Hobit (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hobit: The 36 deprods is the tip of the iceberg. It's his disruptive comments at AFD that are the real problem. However, while dealing with the AFD comments probably also needs to be done, it's particularly problematic when we grant a user with such a low opinion of our content policies (and such a poor ability to cite them correctly when required to) the authority to unilaterally shut down a valid deletion process without even citing a policy. It's incremental: recently (since this AN discussion?) he appears to (forgive me if I'm wrong?) have shifted (relatively speaking) away from direct AFD participation, in favour of deprodding; this allows him to keep a lot more of his terrible keep arguments (see the Dark Lady AFD linked above) to himself, but he really shouldn't be allowed to do that given his record. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments in the above section. ansh666 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The community already decided that no comment is necessary when declining PRODs. That's the policy, like it or not. Drive-by PRODs should not expect much respect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Could you link to that discussion? I linked to a discussion where (a small portion of) the community decided that, but also decided that requiring individual editors whose deprods are disruptive to provide rationales up-front was valid. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 92#Require explanation before removing a PROD tag was the one I was thinking of (after Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 13#Should a reason be required when removing a PROD tag?) But I'm sure the old hands can remember further back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Could you link to that discussion? I linked to a discussion where (a small portion of) the community decided that, but also decided that requiring individual editors whose deprods are disruptive to provide rationales up-front was valid. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment only . I oppose this proposal, but thank Soft Lavender. We must remember that Davidson is an expert wikilawyer, and would inevitably find wiggle room. He has managed to do a Joe at the community for all this time, I see no reason to think that a behavioural sanction would work. At least TBAN please, though I see no groundswell of feeling supporting a block, and would withdraw that request if asked. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 02:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support required a PROD-removal reason being longer than the PRODer's "reason for proposed deletion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Although a rational might be nice, removal of a PROD implies that the removing editor believes that the PROD is not uncontroversial. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @I am One of Many: But what if it's only controversial because Andrew doesn't like article deletion and is working to undermine our deletion processes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
R.A Huston making personal attacks
User:R.A Huston was edit warring for which I opened a discussion at ANEW [41]. They have also repeatedly made personal attacks, insinuating and outright stating that anybody removing something about Liv Hewson being gay must be a homophobe.
The edit warring has stopped (only after being reported). But they have continued to make personal attacks after multiple warnings.
- A direct accusation: "stop being homophobic" [42]
- An insinuation: "I am not sure what certain users problems are with gay people, but it sure is weird." [43]
- Defending their personal attacks: "The fact that you both seem so adamant in keeping this info off their page is very strange and telling, which is my base for calling out homophobia." [44]
- Once again defending their personal attacks: "Ok, then what is the problem with putting their orientationon this article?Because I'm not seeing any rational reason, hence my "personal attack" (which wasn't at all)." [45]
- Another personal attack: "boy you are really full of yourself." [46]
The last one was after the second time I gave them a (user talk) warning for personal attacks and civility (they were also warned in edit summaries and on Talk:Liv Hewson). The first warning they removed with the edit summary "please dont" [47].
They didn't stop edit warring until after they were reported to ANEW. Perhaps they'll stop the personal attacks after I report them here. Either way, I think a block would be appropriate after all this disruption. (I'll note that they also haven't acknowledged any wrongdoing whatsoever - they stopped edit warring but have defended their actions [48]).
Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"
— quoted from the top of this page, with the original bolding. I really don't think this disagreement qualifies. As for blocking the reported user, that won't happen. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: My apologies, but if not ANI then where do I raise the issue of a user repeatedly making personal attacks? WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE suggests that ANI is the correct venue: "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) ... If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would try to talk out the content isse on article talk in a friendly way, then if you really think his conduct is bad, on one of your own talkpages, or else take it to dispute resolution. AN/ANI should be a last resort, and accusations of disruptiveness, personal attacks, etc, should come last of all. It's a question of psychology: would you, yourself, feel inspired to continue discussion in mutual good faith, if the other party came out with things like "I won't engage with the arguments presented by somebody who's being uncivil, and you will probably get banned."[49]? (The fact is Huston probably won't be banned, and I don't think they have been that uncivil either.) It's better to defuse tensions than exacerbate them, and actually better to cite as few policies and guidelines as possible. Reasonable persuasion is simply more effective than lobbing policy shortcuts at the other person. Once you've tried the sweet reasonableness and it doesn't work (but you may be surprised to see how often it does) — then it might be time for ANI. In my opinion. I know you have read WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and are quoting from it "If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user." And now you have asked the administrators; it's just that I don't think you've given the "discussion with the editor" enough of a chance first. Nowhere near. But if you want me to evaluate the conduct of the user now, at this early point in your communications, I evaluate it as really not very heinous. Especially since they had some provokation. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
Rangeblock needed for block evasion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2601:1c2:4e02:3020:58b6:3bf9:1f74:9353 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2601:1c2:4e02:3020:1:d1ae:8321:edb7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An IPv6 user (2nd linked above) has been disruptive on Talk:Cultural appropriation. Looking at the /64 range, I noticed a single IPv6 (1st linked above) had been recently blocked and the block was still active. I'm requesting the entire /64 range be blocked.
Range: 2601:1C2:4E02:3020::/64
EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Range blocked for three months to match the IP block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Need more eyes at Rent regulation – the topic involving a big money political battle
The silly season of political fights is upon us, and the article about rent regulation is under fire. California is voting to determine whether local municipalities can enact their own flavor of rent control laws, or whether the whole state must follow the same guideline. A ton of real estate money has been spent to fight something called Proposition 10 which aims to return local control to cities and counties.
- "Big money pours into California’s rent-control initiative"
- "Big money already entering California rent control campaign"
Editor Avatar317 has expanded several articles to bring in text about the housing shortage in California, including California housing shortage, Plan Bay Area, San Francisco tech bus protests, San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation, YIMBY, Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area and rent regulation. All of the edits are non-neutral, bringing sources and text that promote the anti-regulation position of real estate developers. At no time does Avatar317 describe neutrally the reasons that municipalities and/or voters have historically chosen to limit rents, nor why some city planners have advocated rent control, or why it might be beneficial for a city to limit growth. It appears to me that Avatar317 is here to push a political agenda which is pro-development and anti-regulation. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's a rather biased description, don't you think? You are assuming that rent control is beneficial. Rent_regulation#Economists'_views shows several high-quality sources that don't agree with you. And the claim that municipalities and/or voters have historically chosen to limit rents is demonstrably untrue. Historically rent control measures have gone both ways - some places adopting them, some rejecting or repealing them. The latest polls in California show that 41 percent of Californians support the rent control ballot measure, 38 percent oppose it, and 21 percent remain undecided, so it could go either way. And the fact that corporations spend big money opposing laws that will hurt them financially tells us nothing about whether the laws are good or bad; they oppose what hurts them either way.
- Of course none of the above implies that either Avatar317 or Binksternet are violating NPOV in this area. For ANI to determine that, someone will have to post actual evidence in the form of diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- This really seems like a simple content dispute. This editor might be pushing an anti-regulation point of view, but that POV is supported by the vast majority of economists [50] and in California by the independent Legislative Analyst's Office [51]. Pushing a particular point of view is fine when expanding that point of view's presentation in the article is supported by its weight as presented in reliable sources.
- Additionally, article history shows that this editor has never once edited Plan Bay Area, and last edited San Francisco tech bus protests in June, and Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation in July. Your accusations of POV-pushing in those articles either impossible (how can an editor POV-push in an article they've never edited?) or clearly stale. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah the Plan Bay Area accusation is really weird. Are you thinking of another editor or another article? The only thing they seem to have done at all related is create the redirect Plan Bay Area 2040 [52] but they obviously aren't the one who added the 2040 mention in the article itself [53]. (And in any case, the official websites seem to use the 2040 name so a redirect seems fair.) I do hope you didn't just find a bunch of articles in their edit history and not actually at what they actually did to those articles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
User: Julian mrz1999
Julian mrz1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been consistently removing my comments on American Horror Story: Apocalypse talk page. Removal has happened approximately 3 times and only of my comments. I have restored but each time except for the most recent have they been removed.
Diffs of comment removal:
I have warned the editor three separate times using the multi-level template of Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments. Each time these have been removed by the editor from their talk page and replaced with a response, so one can safely assume the editor has seen these warnings. Most recently, the editor has responded with what could be interpreted as an ad hominem and/or personal attack (diff 6).
Diffs of warnings and editors responses:
Because of the editor's behaviour this may continue to happen in future, possibly to other editors other than myself.
Brocicle (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This will actually not happen in the future at all. You see, i'm a college freshman who just wanted to correct a mistake on the AHS Apocalypse. This user here has been continually harassing me and bothering me for the past couple of weeks. He is beginning to annoy me and i just want him to leave me alone. I know i am never going to do this to other editors. Just please tell this editor in particular to please leave me the hell alone. Sheesh. Julian mrz1999 (talk) 5:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please show me where I have allegedly been harassing you. Brocicle (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He has been nothing but deliberately disruptive, despite warnings, and look at his talkpage: [60]. Time for an indef. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- User blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You know, I wish people would be clearer in these kinds of comments. "This editor is clearly NOTHERE ... User blocked" ... Which editor is NOTHERE? Which user was blocked? Use their names, please. EEng 16:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Julian mrz1999 was blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You know, I wish people would be clearer in these kinds of comments. "This editor is clearly NOTHERE ... User blocked" ... Which editor is NOTHERE? Which user was blocked? Use their names, please. EEng 16:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- User blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Wait up, please. Unless I'm going gaga, there's been some biting going on here. Julian mrz1999, with his first edit, proposed a change to the plot section, with references, even. Brocicle objected to the length of the suggested addition, so Julian mrz1999 proposed something much shorter, modifying his own post - but also removed Brocicle's post objecting to the original proposal. Brocicle restored his objection; Julian pointed out he had changed his proposal. Brocicle makes a further comment objecting to Julian's removal of his first comment. The proposal was accepted and meanwhile Julian removes Brocicle's second comment. I haven't looked at when the templating started, and Julian obviously shouldn't have kept removing Brocicle's comments, but nobody welcomed him and Brocicle was being unduly truculent about what may well have started out as a misunderstanding about talk page etiquette. I'd have been a bit miffed myself had I been teh new editor, and his first few edits do demonstrate a desire to contribute to the encyclopedia—and responsiveness to an interruption. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- At the same time, they continued to remove comments on the talk page, after being told not to, and the responses were rather extreme to say the least. As with any block I give, I'm willing to unblock if they are willing to not do the edits that led to the block in the first place. I of course understand biting the new comers, but responses like on the talk page don't show me a willingness to work with others well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: In the first template warning, the welcome page was linked twice along with suggestion of looking at it, along with links to talk page guidelines. While it may not have been a specific welcome template, the links were there. It was up to the editor whether or not to read it, which I can safely assume they did not. May be the block can be reduced, that's not my decision, but if that is their response to warnings which are intended to help editors avoid further mishap then I have to agree with RickinBaltimore with their comment regarding not wanting to work well with others. Brocicle (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yingvy, I submit that not removing other people's posts on an article's talkpage is a pretty basic concept for any internet participation, especially when notified about it three different times. I also suggest you take a look at what sits atop the user's own talkpage:
I don't give a fuck
dude get a life leave me alone
Okay asshole i don't even fucking care. All i wanted was to fix someone's obvious mistake on here. Go find a hobby or something since you're so obsessed with being the wiki police. I mean seriously, do you even fucking take your eyes off this screen? You're such a weirdo.
Leave me the fuck alone you psycho
Does that sound like a good-faith editor who is here to build an encyclopedia? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Jan Arkesteijn and the misleading use of false colour versions of old paintings on Wikipedia transcluded from Commons
Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs)
I believe sanctions or a topic ban on this project are worth considering for the long term pattern of misleading edits by Jan Arkesteijn on Wikipedia, and in a slightly more complex way via Wikidata as infoboxes and reports may automatically transclude the (P18) image linked on Wikidata relating to the article subject.
The pattern of misleading use of images is under discussion at Commons:ANU, where anyone is free to add an opinion or provide further evidence.
As an example please refer to the multiple cases on the Commons Admin noticeboard, and the specific deletion request at Deletion_requests/File:Richard_Wilson_(1714-1782),_by_Anton_Raphael_Mengs.jpg where this diff shows Jan Arkesteijn replacing an official correct colour image of a painting from the National Museum of Wales with a false colour version on the article Richard Wilson (painter). Further research will show other examples of replacing museum quality images with misleadingly false colour versions, such as on Erasmus Darwin (replacing an official National Portrait Gallery image), these have not been researched for the discussion on Wikimedia Commons as that project's policies do not cover these types of rare inter-project disruption.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Nemo bis
- Nemo bis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nemo bis is a vocal proponent of Sci-Hub, the academic paper piracy site, see Sci-Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sci-Hub has a long-running legal wrangle with Elsevier, caused by Sci-Hub's use of university credentials to which it has no legal right, to access, store, and serve, Elsevier's copyright material in open defiance of copyright. Sci-Hub's operator, and many fans, repudiate the right of publishers to hold exclusive rights to academic papers. While this position is undoubtedly morally defensible (and I agree with it), it is the opposite of the current laws across most of the world.
Nemo bis has now stared adding "free to read" links to large numbers of articles, linking to zenodo.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . This site allows anyone to upload papers without checking copyright status. Some of the papers are copyright by Elsevier, Nature and other well known litigious publishers. Another, by OUP, Nemo bis asserts on his talk page to be public domain based on his own reading of (current) US government copyright policy.
I think this violates WP:POINT and WP:RGW. I have blacklisted the site per WP:C while we work out what the copyright status really is for these works. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed this taking over my watchlist. It's also a problem of making 2000 revisions faster than a human could. Natureium (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The links were checked and directed manually one by one. Also, I don't agree with the statement above that I'm a "vocal proponent of Sci-Hub". --Nemo 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note this came up just over a year ago[61]. This appears to be a continuation/amplification of the problem identified then. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- yep I asked that Zenodo be removed from OABOT's suggestion lists at WT:OABOT#Zenodo which they argued against. I have reverted many of their zenodo (and other links) over the past few days Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've also taken the initiative and ensured that Citation bot stops adding links to Zenodo, with User talk:Citation bot#Emergency blacklist and https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1029 (t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand why questionable open access links are being added [62] when the existing DOI will probably lead to this [63] which seems to already be open access. Is there something I'm missing? I'm not accessing from an institution or other subscriber or via any such proxy, just an ordinary NZ ISP connection. I even tried private mode to make sure there wasn't some stray cookie, or a referrer causing it. If the PDF is desired it's here [64]. If it's feared the DOI's target will change or will be different, wouldn't it be better to link to the Nature site directly in the URL field? P.S. Since Nemo checked each addition, I'm assuming they checked what the DOI did before adding. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I got the above by randomly clicking one of Nemo's recent contribs since there's been no examples of the what people were talking about in the earlier comments (well not counting the previous ANI). To see if this was a fluke, I looked at the other 5 most recent contribs. Without commenting on the copyright issues, the first 3 and last one at least seem to serve a purpose in that none of the links (either the DOI or link outs in PubMed) seems to lead to open access versions [65] [66] [67] [68]. But the fourth (fifth if you include the earlier case) [69] is another one where the existing DOI seems to lead to a full text link [70]. The PDF is also available [71]. So this is 2 out of 6. Again I'm using an ordinary NZ home ISP connection and tried in private mode. Have journals started to use region based pay walls and provide open access to only certain areas or is there something else I'm missing about the advantage of Zenodo over the journal site? Otherwise, considering the questions over whether they have sufficient systems in place to stop copyvios, I really don't see a benefit to adding these Zenodo hosted open access links when the journal hosted copy is already open access. If it's feared that the open access links may disappear wouldn't using archive.org or webcitation (if robots.txt allow) be a better solution? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see Wikipedia:OABOT#I am a publisher. How do I make sure OAbot recognizes my full texts? and Wikipedia:OABOT#What kinds of links won't the bot add? that there is already recognition that OABot should try and recognise existing full text publication links and not add other open access links if there's already one. While it's possible the publishers in these cases haven't properly complied with normal guidelines for making full text, which is unfortunate, since Nemo manually checked all their additions this isn't a problem since if the full text worked for them they would I presume have recognised it. (I mean it's pretty hard for a human not to notice it's full text especially since you don't have to click on anything in these cases.) So I really don't understand what happened here. I tried with a proxy, unfortunately my proxy doesn't offer Italy but both Ireland and Spain also gave the working full text version from the DOI. Has Nemo somehow been blocked from the full text or is Italy or wherever Nemo is accessing from not allowed the full text? Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I got the above by randomly clicking one of Nemo's recent contribs since there's been no examples of the what people were talking about in the earlier comments (well not counting the previous ANI). To see if this was a fluke, I looked at the other 5 most recent contribs. Without commenting on the copyright issues, the first 3 and last one at least seem to serve a purpose in that none of the links (either the DOI or link outs in PubMed) seems to lead to open access versions [65] [66] [67] [68]. But the fourth (fifth if you include the earlier case) [69] is another one where the existing DOI seems to lead to a full text link [70]. The PDF is also available [71]. So this is 2 out of 6. Again I'm using an ordinary NZ home ISP connection and tried in private mode. Have journals started to use region based pay walls and provide open access to only certain areas or is there something else I'm missing about the advantage of Zenodo over the journal site? Otherwise, considering the questions over whether they have sufficient systems in place to stop copyvios, I really don't see a benefit to adding these Zenodo hosted open access links when the journal hosted copy is already open access. If it's feared that the open access links may disappear wouldn't using archive.org or webcitation (if robots.txt allow) be a better solution? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that when we link to academic papers in journals, WP:ELNEVER demands that we should only link to sites that trace the provenance of each paper and for which that provenance can be unambiguously traced back to an author (e.g. arXiv, many institutional repositories, or direct links to the author's own web site) or to official published versions of the paper (on the publisher site or sites with the explicit permission of the publisher such as jstor). Zenodo doesn't appear to maintain this provenance data, so we should not allow links to it. Blacklisting links to it may be a somewhat drastic step, but given the magnitude of the problem (huge number of links, many of which appear to be either copyright violations or self-published materials) it may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
TBAN or indef
In light of Nemo bis' disdain for WP:COPYLINK which is policy this person should be a) TBANed from adding any URLs to citations or b) indefinitely blocked. It is one thing to advocate for OA and another to push policy violations into WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN. Since this was first raised here last year the problem edits have continued, culminating in this latest batch of thousands of URL insertions, a significant number of which appear problematic. The user seems completely oblivious to the harm of these (and indeed seems to think themselves judge and jury[72] in matters of copyright), but in other areas their editing looks productive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Mr rnddude
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mr rnddude has been granted rollback rights and therefore knows what it is and more importantly, what it is not and when never to use it. We have an ongoing problem on Liberland.
- This editor boldy asserted himself by blanking an amassment of edits including copyedits, all on the pretext of "last good version". If he believed there was a problem, nobody stopped him hitting 'edit' and making adjustments. As his summary is a clear fig-leaf for his own wikipedia:correct version, I felt vindicated in reverting him.
- Knowing he is welcome to use the talk page, this editor reverted content dispute under the guise of "vandalism".
- The editor was warned that what he was blanking was NOT vandalism. Content dispute maybe (not that he explained his demurrals) but vandalism, not a chance.
- The editor ignored TWO courtesy notifications explaining that it was not vandalism and abused Rollback[73].
- The editor was then informed that this was not the correct way to use Rollback, needless to say he was engaged in an edit war (as I too had been but have stopped), and he responded by flagrantly abusing Rollback a second consecutive time.
Please note that the terms and conditions of Rollback are clearly and prominently displayed at its article. To claim vandalism in one edit and then use it twice, one would expect the editor in question to have issued warnings and eventually reported me (or the IP to this very article). However, one look at this editor's activities and it is clear that he knows that to report me (or the IP I used as I got logged out involuntarily) for vandalism is without hope, and it is also clear that he doesn't give a monkey about WP policy as he is clearly slapping the admin to grant him Rollback in the face and looks like he has no intention of stopping. I strongly suggest a temporary block of this editor along with his unconditional withdrawal of Rollback. --Ishmailer (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- So you're also sockpuppeting. Well for one, the vandalism was reinstated by you editing as an IP (so I couldn't exactly report your account). For two, I am currently writing a request for PP, though your pinging me keeps diverting my attention away from that. Anybody who looks at my editing history can easily determine that I don't use rollback often, and that I don't use it for no reason. I have a solid editing history. Do I need to request a CU for Ishmailer and their IP, or has that been determined by the fact that an admin has revdelled their logged out editing.
violation of 3RR, btw: 1, 2, 3 and 4Strike reason: They've self reverted their fourth revert, that makes the 3RR issue moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)- OK as I have nothing to hide, you're welcome to request SPU in my name. But as the system goes, the socking has to be established first before the Rollback can be used. You're jumping to conclusions by putting the cart before the horse. And besides, you didn't say "rv sock", you said "rvv" which tells admins and observers that you're reverting vandalism, and you know there was no vandalism. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Ishmailer indicated above that the IP edits on Liberland were them and made accidentally due to being logged out. I don't see any need to file an SPI or have information "brought to light" that the editor has already brought to light themselves and openly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I hadn't noted their disclosure that the IP was theirs. I only noted that the IP had been revdelled, and that I was now suddenly receiving a notification from Ishmailer (rather than the IP who was threatening me). For the record, that 'amassment of edits were entirely Ishmailer's, continuing their editwar with another editor. I am not an involved editor at the article, and have not edited the article in any capacity other than to revert vandalism. E.g. this. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't WP:VANDALISM either. Even I admit it was disruptive because Liberland is not sovereign, but some look at it that way. That was just a POV issue. Liberland is a micronation but the edit war I had with Thomas.W was down to him constantly calling it a microstate as he clearly has no idea the difference between one and the other. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the edit war over this edit a couple days ago, in which you remove "micronation" from multiple places in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't WP:VANDALISM either. Even I admit it was disruptive because Liberland is not sovereign, but some look at it that way. That was just a POV issue. Liberland is a micronation but the edit war I had with Thomas.W was down to him constantly calling it a microstate as he clearly has no idea the difference between one and the other. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I hadn't noted their disclosure that the IP was theirs. I only noted that the IP had been revdelled, and that I was now suddenly receiving a notification from Ishmailer (rather than the IP who was threatening me). For the record, that 'amassment of edits were entirely Ishmailer's, continuing their editwar with another editor. I am not an involved editor at the article, and have not edited the article in any capacity other than to revert vandalism. E.g. this. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because Ishmailer indicated here that they edited the article while accidentally while logged out, the IP information has been suppressed for privacy reasons. Since Ishmailer edited while logged out during the time that is relevant to the issue they're reporting here, I'm listing the three edit summaries that Mr rnddude used while reverting Ishmailer's edits on Liberland with the IP information redacted as to make any relevant information available for scrutiny in this ANI report:
- (diff) 01:40, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Reverted edits by IP ADDRESS (talk) to last version by Mr rnddude) (Tag: Rollback)
- (diff) 01:37, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Reverted edits by IP ADDRESS (talk) to last version by Mr rnddude) (Tag: Rollback)
- (diff) 01:35, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Undid revision 867488442 by IP ADDRESS (talk) Rvv) (Tag: Undo)
- Please let me know if anyone has any questions about this and I'll be happy to answer them so long as they don't make any private or redacted information public. Regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a lot of overdramatic statements in one post Ishmailer. You might want to take a few deep breaths and have some coffee for you seem very worked up over a little editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not that Legacypac. A short time ago I got carried away in an edit war with Thomas.W and had quit my session when all along I was being reported and then I found myself blocked. Yet he was the one with the audacity to report me, and whilst I was in the editing wilderness, he expeditiously reverted me thus breaching 3rr himself. I reported it when my block was lifted but it was dismissed because we were "out of time". Now this is the second time an editor has breached policy over the same issue and I am rapidly concluding that rules don't mean anything when veteran editors with gold-plated reputations violate them, but only when those viewed as less favourable to the cartel overstep the terms. But thanks for your well-meaning sentiments. It's very kind. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Summary: Mr rnddude used Rollback in good faith once, and then used it again either in good faith or in the heat of the moment. The OP is advised to avoid editing logged out, particularly to edit war. The end. Are we done here, or does the OP need a boomerang for socking as an IP to edit-war? Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive editing from User:Vestapol
We have had a problem this last week with a number of disruptive edits from User:Vestapol. He keeps on bringing back content that has been reverted by multiple editors. I have attempted to open dialog with him on the talk page, which he has completely ignored, as well as leaving three warnings on his talk page, which he has also completely ignored.
At this point, after being told by another editor to attempt to have a dialog about his edits, and him completely ignoring any request for dialog, I think we are going to have to resort to temporarily blocking them from editing. Defendingaa (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the edits made to Alcoholics Anonymous by Vestapol have issues, and I also agree with the edit summaries left by other users when they reverted previous edits. I noticed some edits by Vestapol while patrolling recent changes, and I also felt that they injected commentary and opinionated thoughts as well as ideas and words that were absolutely not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and added information that appeared to me to be based off of original research. I'm going to apply temporary extended confirmed protection to the article so that the user will discuss the matter on the article's talk page as they've been repeatedly asked to do. This will hopefully resolve the issue as well as be helpful to the user and give them an opportunity to receive feedback and learn about some policies and guidelines they may not have been aware of. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Some of his contributions are positive and I hope this new user can become a productive editor. Defendingaa (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Can an administrator please look at this deletion discussion and at the sandbox in question, User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox? The sandbox is a hodge-podge, consisting largely of notes, which are appropriate in a sandbox, and apparently of soapboxing about what may be a plan by User:Mervyn Emrys to name, blame, and shame those who are causing climate change, “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” or may just be grandiose chatter. User:Guy Macon has proposed to delete it as inappropriate soapboxing, and has already deleted it from User talk:Jimbo Wales and User talk:Larry Sanger. (Knowing that Jimbo Wales intends his talk page to be a free-for-all zone, I think that Guy Macon was out of line in deleting it from Jimbo’s talk page.) User:Mervyn Emrys has requested, in the MFD, that the deletion discussion be put on hold for a case at WP:ANI, but deletion discussions are not put on hold due to ANI filings, and besides, as Guy Macon notes, he hasn’t actually filed at ANI. So I am filing, to say that some administrative attention is clearly needed.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:SOAPBOX: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to 'climb soapboxes', Wikipedia is not the medium for this." (emphasis added).
- We live in a time when a member of team red sent bombs to a bunch of people on team blue, and a member of team blue tried to murder everyone from team red at a baseball game, and yet Mervyn Emrys proposes that we "compile the names of individuals and their employers who share responsibility for stimulating global climate change... Each named entry will include a brief paragraph describing the role of the individual in stimulating global climate change. This will include individuals managing major energy production industries, such as coal mining and oil production, and major energy utilization industries, such as low miles-per-gallon automobile manufacturers and electric utilities. Most of the information given will be based on the office held by the individual and the role of the employer in the industry." That is a clear case of soapboxing, and if we actually allowed such a list on Wikipedia would be a massive BLP violation.
- (Full disclosure: I strongly agree with the current scientific consensus on climate change). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” portion is a misuse of Wikipedia. We are not a webhost. It would be better suited for a private website. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)