→Spamming Youtube-links in edit summaries: ...You will soon discover that when people make silly claims the WMF legal team ignores them. |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Proposal (Born2cycle): I should not be penalized for disagreeing |
||
Line 1,111: | Line 1,111: | ||
::::The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I '''''stopped''''' when I got to the '''''third page''''' of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Born2Cycle&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search this]. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it. |
::::The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I '''''stopped''''' when I got to the '''''third page''''' of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Born2Cycle&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search this]. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it. |
||
::::So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
::::So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::* I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
::* I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:29, 19 January 2019
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) |
|
Complaints with EurovisionNim
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the past 4 months I been going back and forth with user EurovisionNim. The problem I have with him is how he constantly try to copy everything I do. Things like, how I photograph, how I speak, what words I use.
I doubt that it breaking any official policies broken but it just isn't creative, it not real skills, it just mimicking somebody else. Other photographers which focus on cars have there own distinct style yet still valuable to be use in the articles. Nim just seem to piggyback on the biggest fish he could find for his own gain. This is fine if you are starting out because since I done it until I found my own way on how to photograph things. Nim was here far longer then me and had plenty of time to find his own creative field that isn't just cars but never has. He also have a tendency of bragging of things like "I been here longer then you" or "I started this trend before you" and go on about that he expect his pictures to appear in different media and etc like it a game of which of our photos appear in the most.
Evidence to support this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=871445766&oldid=871445518 (When I recropped a photo I took of a Tesla Model X, since that edit, Nim done a wave of “less tighter crop” versions of existing images to try and make his use of image more justifiable, any other photo he took or updated before the 1st of December had little to no relation to cropping..)
Around June I started to photograph side shots of cars as a little extra but not intention of using on articles. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1992_Peugeot_205_Zest_1.1_Side.jpg (My first side shot)
After that, from August to October, he began adding side shots to articles. Again he never took side shots before until I did.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kia_Picanto&diff=863719283&oldid=862152307
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volvo_XC40&diff=855593190&oldid=855502294
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Cayenne&diff=861579492&oldid=860432902
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_Eclipse_Cross&diff=862140498&oldid=860852053
Times where he take words I said recently and use it to try and justified his reason.
Examples like this, is where I mentioned the term chromatic aberrations to address a issue with his image. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C5%A0koda_Fabia&diff=prev&oldid=862070333
Then a day later, he used the exact word as I did which I had little doubt he would understand what it means because I personally didn’t at the time, yet he still used the term as a reason why his photo should be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=862149241&oldid=861988612
Other things is that he like to taunt (bit blunt, but it the closest word I could describe it) with comments like these, knowing that I might respond to them:
It got to this point that me and EurovisionNim will continue with petty exchange with each other and from suggestion with another user, this is suppose to be the right place to go. This is the base evidence and problems, I can try and dig up additional one if needed. --Vauxford (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Vauxford. It seems that an editor is learning and is emulating the work of another editor (you) because they admire your work. Do I have it right? That doesn't violate any policies and guidelines that I am aware of. This is a collaborative project based on freely licensed content after all. If the issue is "petty exchanges", then the solution is easy. Don't engage in petty exchanges. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in [1], [2]. I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Wikipedia. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Going easy is always a good approach and ambitious photographers are commonly unable to be neutral when comparing their own work to photos taken by another editor. Aggressive pushing of one's own work into an article is disruptive, and photographers should always defer to the opinions of uninvolved editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in [1], [2]. I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Wikipedia. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Given the number of editors who insist that everyone else must do things their way, it's startling yet somewhat refreshing to see someone insisting that someone else must not do things their way. EEng 06:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- A good example of a discussion in relation to images is Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which focuses on uninvolved editors, between two images such as File:2018 Audi Q7 (4M MY18) 3.0 TDI quattro wagon (2018-11-02).jpg & File:2017 Audi Q7 S Line Quattro 3.0 Front.jpg. Editors except Vauxford think that the Australian example is far better quality than the other example. I understand that his DSLR image are better, but not the powershot examples. Again this is Wikipedia not a personal website, editors have the right to contribute in peace. Based on majority consensus, the Australian Audi is the much better example. I let go of the Audi A4 edit, as I admit I did request for the photo, so all good. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- It boggles me that you are so obsessed with the Audi Q7 article and it images. Stop with the rhetorical answers. My personal problem with you isn't the only problem I'm talking about, you being disruptive in other things such as taking the BRD page far too literally and almost every day you keep making these discussions where we have to pick which image is better and what not and you ping everyone that might've agreed with you on something unrelated in the past. You seem so determined to change images almost every week for your own gain and this is the problem I'm trying to point out. You said that you trying to be a better editor but to me and others you just became more annoying and tiresome to work with and what worst is that you simply can't grasp the concept of that. --Vauxford (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)'
- WP:BRD is technically an official policy. It is linked to WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:BOLD. I also have a problem with you too. Thats why I set out a compromise on Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which I would like you to see please. It is essential that we follow up on discussions and also have a fair share of images. You, on the other hand, have been trying to randomly replace perfectly good quality images with some of your ones. It doesn't matter, I relied on WP:CARPIX for a long time and this guideline has been told to me many times. Why do you need to be so difficult? Is it because you think your images are better than the guidelines? I am thinking of not continuing anymore. This, along with some of the concepts seem to be difficult. I think you aren't taking higher quality images enough, all you care about is your images, which in fair respects I understand, but if someone were to replace your image, don't you want to go into a consensus? I don't care much about the images, but my example is pretty decent. Why do you think your image is the better one. The majority have decided for the Australian image. If a third neutral opinion is given, then I won't make any further edits. You seem to treat Wikipedia like your own website. I suggested you focus on the big sellers in the UK, such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche etc. or cars not sold in Australia, such as Vauxhall, SEAT, Dacia etc. It appears either you want to only have your images, or you just are trying to bog me down. Besides I've set a compromise and to end this dispute, I suggest you take it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- But it the fact that you do this almost every day, JUST because it a official policies, doesn't mean you have to shove it in our face on a daily basis, you take every thing and what people say so literally, using a metaphor, what if someone told you in order to get better photograph you would have to "kill two birds with one stone", what the betting you would actually kill two birds in belief that it would improve your photos? That how your mind seem to take in things. That Audi Q7 discussion doesn't matter at this point, don't try and sway the point I'm trying to get across to you and the admins. --Vauxford (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me [3], and therefore it would be suggested by the community to utilise this guideline. If you followed that guideline and photographed exactly to the guideline, and if I replaced yours, and you reverted it, then I'd have no problems as you'd be 'following the books.' Again, you were the one when you first started to consult me, so I suggested I give you a list, but now you seem to take this liberty to picture every car on the road. Whilst its not a problem, you just replace images randomly. His edit summaries are completely bogus, suhc as "previous is fine" or something like that, which indicates he may have a problem with the quality of images on the site. I'm not sure if I'll be needed on Wikipedia as theres no point of me contributing if I cannot post high quality shots to replace the existing low quality example. Vauxford, its only the Audi image, why are you making this a big deal, I want to compromise and half the use of yours and mine as per this discussion. I will of course leave the foreign Wikipedias for your Q7 and I'll handle the English, Wikidata and Simple Wikipedia. That means its easier and to prevent further discussion. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but, "You take the foreign language wikis and I'll handle English Wikipedia" is not really a compromise. It's more like "get off my lawn." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" [4]. I don't see why he should be focusing on the Asian vehicles and let me focus on the cars not sold in the UK. Its Wikipedia, not a dictatorship, and you are expected to comply with guidelines and policies prescribed. If no one complies with these guidelines, then whats the point of them being there? You may as well delete them. If rules can be bent, then you'd be seeing users able to vandalize articles, which to me is absolutely not tolerated. I think if Vauxford followed CARPIX guidelines, then I wouldn't be starting these arguments. I suggest for all images taken by myself and Vauxford, before replacing, there should be a third opinion. It would be non-negoiable and this could resolve 95% of our problems. Also I know what the image guidelines on CARPIX pretty much off by heart (my memory isn't too good, but this has been concreted into my head), therefore its essential this policy is given to people. I'm strict about these policies and follow by the book as this is how I was told when I began in 2014. If I wasn't told about CARPIX, then I'd not follow these guidelines --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- EurovisionNim and Vauxford, perhaps you could both collaborate on writing a Wikipedia-internal Howto on how best to photograph cars? This would allow others to also learn and help contribute! —Sladen (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I hate to be a grinch Sladen, but we have different ways of photographing cars. Vauxford, why don't you add me on Facebook and we can use Messenger to share images. This way, we can work out our problems. I did the exact thing with SquiddyFish, and therefore we are working hard, and ensuring Wikipedia is at its optimum. However, theres no such thing as 'copying' photographs. Also he needs to understand something. I use two lens to photograph cars :). I like your suggestion, and I think Vauxford can edit up the Vauxhall articles to make it to the best quality. Use your books mate that you have and ramp up Wikipedia !! Its not all about photos. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- EurovisionNim Make up your mind! First you said your taking a WikiBreak which you ditched 3 days in. Now you made yourself "Retired" and then later "Semi-retired" and now you trying to sway other people who aren't fully aware of this situation as well as indirectly telling me to edit somewhere else. Well I'm not buying it. Just a reminder, "Retired" means one have stopped working permanently. Vauxford (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Remember, this is my right. I am allowed to do that if I wish. Remember the discussion we had with Oshwah. He explained I am allowed to retire from editing, then if I change my mind that I want to edit again I am allowed to return and continue. I am returning on a semi-editing plan. I've left a little note underneath explaining I have family issues, so I need the time to have a break, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard. I can't seem to retire, its just too hard. Its not like disruptive anyway, so why do you need to make such a big fuss. Theres bigger stuff to worry about. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nim - These semi-retired/retired templates are to be used when you're not really on any more or are taking long breaks away or are no longer editing here at all .... You added the template(s) to your userpage[5] and then 7-8 hours later removed them[6],
- It's also worth noting you say have family issues but here you say "I am not going to be continuing this argument. I think for the best of everyone here, its best I retire. I don't see how I can contribute much with the limits you are restricting me" - Ofcourse I'm by no means saying you're lying but it seems odd you would say the first comment and then 10-11 hours later say it's for a completely different reason (If I had family issues I would not only state this but I'd also not edit here)
- If you have family issues then you should stop editing and focus on your family - Please remember we're only a website - Friends and family are far more important. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to be brutally honest Davey2010, my editing style has been a little bit too much for you guys. I reckon as we discussed on my talkpage, I want to take a step back. This is one of my new years resolutions for 2019. Again I've explained to Vauxford based on the discussion with Oshwah, that users are able to come back when they wish. I do these, but actually I made a silly mistake, so I'm doing this on a part time basis, balancing my life. I think Wikipedia has got into my bloodstream. i know most to all of Wiki policies off my heart, especially CARPIX, so hence its why I've been making these edits. Vauxford should really be focusing on this. Again, you are one of my friends Davey, along with Oshwah and OSX, however my family issues I don't think have been the best realistically. I lost my grandfather on the 3rd of December, so this has really racked me, and he has been sick. It has come to people like Oshwah who encourage me to edit as much as I wish. I do not intend to lie but I do however change my mind a lot, which may be annoying, and I do apologise, however remember see WP:CHOICE. Users can feel free to stop editing permanently, or decide to come back. I have you guys for the last 5 years I've joined and most of you guys have been supportive whenever I felt down. I've used self-requested blocks in the past, but haven't been very effective to me. I think now Wiki is becoming too many opinionated, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard for me. I enjoy learning new things. Now Vauxford has shown me ways to better myself, but I note he is taking it a bit too far. Mate, i think for the better we need to work together and lets continue to build Wikis. My writing skills are extremely poor, so thats why I resort to photos. I can however supersed WP:CARPIX and Vauxford and I along with a few others can work on ensuring a unity of car image guidelines. That means we can prevent confusions. Look, see Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, I am described as a full-blown wikiholic. I am usually on the spot with my emails, however I haven't been out much, so I should now improve my exisitng photos. I hope Vauxford understands, because I mean no harm to Wiki at all. I've received not many barnstars, but I've worked hard to ensure Wikis. I guess I am too passionate, which I unfortunately don't know how to control. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Remember, this is my right. I am allowed to do that if I wish. Remember the discussion we had with Oshwah. He explained I am allowed to retire from editing, then if I change my mind that I want to edit again I am allowed to return and continue. I am returning on a semi-editing plan. I've left a little note underneath explaining I have family issues, so I need the time to have a break, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard. I can't seem to retire, its just too hard. Its not like disruptive anyway, so why do you need to make such a big fuss. Theres bigger stuff to worry about. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- For some reason things like this come up every so often regarding automotive images. I admit I'm not entirely familiar with this specific dispute as it seems to largely involve late-model European-market cars so I haven't seen most of the edits in question (although this decidedly unhelpful one is among the few).
- A large part of the problem is this: an image of a car spotted in a parking lot is rarely an excellent one. By nature, there's other cars, buildings, people, etc. as distractions in the background - and these images usually end up excessively cropped as a result. Sometimes one gets lucky and the car is in the right place and things work out (Vauxford has some very good ones), but generally the best photos come from the car's owner, who can position the car well against a good background and get the proper angle on it (many don't, but that's beside the point). However, most people aren't going to upload pictures of their personal vehicles, so that leaves the parking-lot ones. And most are perfectly fine for the purpose, but the result of that is what you see above - constant debate, and sometimes edit warring, over whose image is the most adequate. In a lot of the discussions I've seen, if the image were graded on a 100-point scale the debate would be over which is a 55 and which is a 56. While there is no "Don't change it if it's already good enough" rule, there does come a point where Wikipedia is not helped in any way by such an incremental improvement. It ends up being a revolving door of people wanting their own image showcased because there's not enough difference between the two to simply select one. Photography seems to attract the most eager ones; I recall in the past prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same. The taunting noted in the above diffs is going much too far though - that sounds like some sort of grudge.
- EurovisionNim, your comment of
I can...supersede WP:CARPIX...
is cause for concern. That guideline is (or was, until the massive back-and-forth changes over the past month) the product of consensus. Nobody gets to throw that out in order to fit their own photography. --Sable232 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have told Vauxford till I am blue in the face, that guideline should be adhered to. If there was no consensus, or the guideline didn't exist, then half of the car photos would be piles of junk. WP:CARPIX is a guideline I have adhered to for many years i've been on the site. If only Vauxford followed that guideline firmly, then, as I explained 95% of our arguments would have not been in place. Otherwise it'd be time before one of us gives up, and I guarantee, I've made lots of friends such as Davey2010, Oshwah & OSX (retired). These guidelines I follow , I don't care what they are, if its that big. Regardless, Vauxford is more than welcome to update/edit the guideline all he wishes. By doing so, we can make sure the thing is in order and ready to be successful. Remember, consensus is non-negoiable, its one of the five pillars on Wikipedia. A quarter of his photos do not adhere to the guidelines prescribed. A lot of Vauxford's images are distracting, but cannot really fault him, however he claims a small spec of dirt and 1/10 of a car behind is fine. Mate, sometimes if theres a good background, such as in the case of this one, then theres no grounds to replace it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- "prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same." I'm glad that someone get some elements of what I'm trying to get across with this user as well as evaluating the evidence I provided. Nim, I tried to improve it with some basic and neutral rule of thumbs, Turning a basic and easy to read guideline where the reader can choose to follow it or not into a god awful mess. I even put slightly more effort into that contribution by intentionally photograph these examples specifically for that section. This is a example of you taking stuff too literally and ruining it in the process.
- Its not violating any Wikipedia policies, so why should I change? OSX expected all car spotters, including myself to follow his set guidelines to the highest standards. Through your addition of these images, I took the chance to build onto the discussion, as I saw some worse examples. Also the comment "...why can't you focus on cars not in the UK..." [7] is an indicator that you don't want anyone else to contribute cars that are sold in the UK. I mean, is this some joke or something? If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? Its everyone's right to photograph whatever car they wish to do, and showcase it on Wikipedia. The guidelines at WP:CARPIX should be adhered to by anyone who is part of Wikiproject Automobiles. I've suggested for you to photograph cars that are European mainly, like Porsche, SEAT, Aston-Martin, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and let someone else do the other vehicles. Its gotten to a point where theres no chance for anyone to share their images on the site, rather you are driving away all the contributors. WP:CARPIX is a guideline which anyone can edit, hell if an admin on this chat decides he wants to edit it, and is not part of WP automobiles, he can. I have utilised some of my 2018 examples to further make it more comprehensive. Charles01 is the main person that should be blamed for the hardship caused. Also I don't really understand why you always get worked up with my images, yes I do replace them, but generally for valid reasons. I try to ensure my images are "perfect". If it wasn't for OSX, I'd be still using my iPad or iPhone and then they'd be low quality junk. I don't replace all your images, however I do if I know mine are improvements of yours (even for little things, I get worked up, as I want Wikipedia to be the best article as possible, this applies to writing too). I only replace them when I know mine (or someone elses, such as M 93's) is better. I like your Vauxhall and SEAT images and others not sold in Australia. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are basically reciting sentences that been said by other users (e.g. "If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? " - which was previously said by Mr.chopper, these are not your own words or your thoughts. Every time someone point out something against you, you flip it around to point at me, this is no way of resolving this conflict. I discredit OSX due to his nature in the past, especially from all the past discussion that he was involved in. I never had a proper conflict with anyone else other then you. Not to be harsh but the way you are talking right now is just proven me how much of a burden you are to people you work with. --Vauxford (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- To summarize things appropriately here, I discussed this dispute between Vauxford and EurovisionNim on my user talk page here and tried offering input and a solution to the matter and to no avail. You can refer to the user talk page section I just linked for more information and a summary of what this dispute is over exactly.
- Vauxford - as stated by others above, it's perfectly fine for an editor to use the edit summaries, responses, and other content from others like EurovisionNim has been doing - remember that nobody owns any content on Wikipedia and everything is free for other editors to take and use for themselves. Over the many years that I've been an editor on Wikipedia, I've taken the good templates, scripts, responses, edit summaries, etc that I've seen others use and I incorporated them to improve my editing and how I communicate with others; they helped shape who I'm seen as and how I communicate to this day. If I were met with messages such as, "don't copy me or my things or I'll report you" (such as what you've been conveying to EurovisionNim here, on my user talk page, and in other places), I wouldn't be the editor I am today. This project and building this encyclopedia is what should come as first priority in your mind, and if someone uses your style of editing, adding edit summaries, communicating with others, or use of templates in order to improve this project and make Wikipedia a positive experience for others, you should be happy and you should be proud that somebody sees what you're doing in such a high regard and enough that they incorporate it into their edits and habits. There are editors (such as Thegooduser, TheSandDoctor, LakesideMiners, and many others) who use the user page formatting I designed, the user talk page and edit notice templates and formatting I've created, as well as many other templates and scripts that I created for myself to use. It makes me happy to see other editors follow my example and use the tools, scripts, styles, and templates I created for myself, and the manner and methods I use to edit and communicate with others to improve upon themselves, improve the project, and make Wikipedia a better place to be apart of. If you have the right mindset and attitude, and you truly have Wikipedia's quality, this project's growth, and maintaining a positive culture regarding editors and communicating and sharing with others as your top priority (as you and all editors who are here to build an encyclopedia should have), then you should be open to others copying from others and you should have no problem with editors copying what you do or how you edit in order to make their edits better.
- Vauxford, EurovisionNim - Regarding car images, WP:CARPIX, and this other dispute that's mixed into this discussion and complaint here: you two need to sort this out among yourselves peacefully, and get neutral input from other editors in order to fully resolve this matter. You both have been doing the right thing so far; none of you have engaged in edit warring, and you both have been very good about discussing disagreements with each other and without allowing it to spill over into any articles and cause disruption or hardship to others. This is commendable, and I can easily speak for many other editors in saying that we appreciate it and wish that other editors had the ability and willpower to do the same. However, this dispute appears to be something that should probably be made on the project's talk page and will most likely require the input of other editors who are involved with WikiProject Automobiles and adding photos and pictures to car-related articles in order to help resolve.
- No administrators here are going to step in and take action or block anyone from this discussion, and no administrator here is going to be able to resolve everything between you two and provide the silver bullet with a perfect answer, recommendation that hasn't already been suggested to you both, or administrator "magic" that's going to make it all go away and with everyone happy. I have a feeling that this is what you're looking for, and I unfortunately have to tell you that this isn't going to happen. The fact that nobody is going to take action against one or both of you should be a pleasing thing for you both to hear, since (as I said above) you two are mostly doing the right things... I just think that somebody ran to ANI a bit too soon and with the wrong mindset about certain things, and that two different arguments and disputes are being thrown into one discussion.
- In summary: Regarding the complaint by Vauxford about EurovisionNim copying his style, editing, and edit summary usage... I think this issue can end here and now given what I said above. It's allowed, should be encouraged instead of met with push-back and resistance, and is quite frankly a silly subject to continue arguing about any further. Given the issues with WP:CARPIX: take it to the project's talk page, start a new section, continue the discussion, and ask for the input from other editors (start a request for comment there if necessary) and get this resolved. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oshwah It all sound using people's templates and possibly their editing summary but him trying to do everything I do and trying become Vauxford #2 is problematic. It just result in bland, uninspiring results, I keep telling him to think for himself and hold his ground when people criticise him, he prevent that from happening by latching on the biggest fish (e.g. me or some other person that agreed with him over something unrelated 2 months ago).
- A case like this does result a grey area so I don't expect any action to be taken anyway but I just want to have these complaints come to light about him. Another thing that I find irritating is that he stalks me everywhere I go. I know he does as proven when I made a edit on some Czech village that was razed by the Nazis and I added a photo. It couldn't be any more unrelated to cars or anything in his field yet he insist of making some form of edit, even when it wasn't necessary. What you said above is completely fine and I'm not against it but the way Nim does it on a scale equivalent of a parasite. I don't stalk and get right up Charles, Davey or some other editor's back on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Vauxford - If an editor is doing everything that you do, that's an opportunity to assume good faith, understand that they don't have the level of confidence and self-esteem as you or many others do, and to mentor someone. Help the user to build their confidence and their self-esteem and be there for them when they need you. Is that truly and honestly something you can't do for someone who needs it? Saying to them, "you're copying me too much and that I'm going to report you for it" isn't going to help them become their own person as you mention above as something you wish they'd do. It's going to push them away and make them feel isolated and unable to apply their enthusiasm and their personal desire to improve the project and truly feel like they belong somewhere. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, but what EurovisionNim is doing isn't against policy. Just help him. You may disagree with me here, but I don't think that giving other users and editors praise and encouragement, the assurance that there's nothing to be afraid of, positive reinforcement for their good work and their growth, and the mentorship, words, and tools they need to build their self-confidence and their self-esteem so that they feel welcome on Wikipedia and that they belong here is something that I consider too much to ask of experienced editors who truly care about this project, want to see its popularity and participation grow, and want to be looked upon as a leader and an editor that the community respects and will "shush everyone in the room" when you stand up to speak because they all want to hear your words of knowledge and wisdom. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Oshwah. Vauxford, by you making the reverts and saying you have a dislike, is de-motivating me and not allowing me to perform to my full potential. I can't imagine what you are trying to do, with your images and your comment saying my images are junk. The images I upload at least have some value, especially since I did a revert and I informed you in relation to the reverts, but you in your stubborness believe that your image, because its high quality is going to be an improvement. Unfortunately, not to be offensive, but you are wrong. Whilst I appreciate your uploads, users would expect the conventional model of the Mitsubishi outlander, as opposed to the PHEV models, so thats why I suggested you focus on it. Quality is not all about everything, it depends on how you use it. In Australia, the Outlander PHEV is rare, but the Outlander standard is very common, so thats why i left a comprehensive edit summary. In addition for car classification, I let you use your Skoda example, because I knew that was the better example and was rated Quality image. Look, its not all the time I replace your image for the sake, sometimes I use your image for that, and thats what I did. Its a deal and therefore we are all happy. I've left you a msg on your talkpage to discuss this over. If you make a revert, but the edit summary I cannot understand, I'm just going to revert you back. You are permitted 3 reverts within 24 hrs. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- A case like this does result a grey area so I don't expect any action to be taken anyway but I just want to have these complaints come to light about him. Another thing that I find irritating is that he stalks me everywhere I go. I know he does as proven when I made a edit on some Czech village that was razed by the Nazis and I added a photo. It couldn't be any more unrelated to cars or anything in his field yet he insist of making some form of edit, even when it wasn't necessary. What you said above is completely fine and I'm not against it but the way Nim does it on a scale equivalent of a parasite. I don't stalk and get right up Charles, Davey or some other editor's back on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Although I personally think he didn't have much credibility in the first place but calling my images "crap" is hitting a new low. As much as Nim can be frustrating I would always maintain my cool and to not make anything I say to sound derogatory. --Vauxford (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Another addition to try and get my point with this user is the edit warring he got into with other users.
- Recent one --Vauxford (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please remember Vauxford, this evidence is not edit warring. Thats a little different. Edit warring means reverting within 24 hours three times. I didn't do it that way. Have a read of WP:3RR --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- 3RR is a brightline - It doesn't mean you go up to that line, The moment you are reverted you go to the talkpage ....
- I'm sensing a short block may be in order here.... –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 02:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I haven’t been previously warned about 3RR in the last I think 4 years. How would a block be effective if I haven’t been warned. I mean I know about 3RR, but it doesnt mean that you should block. Besides I discussed this with Oshwah and he said users must be warned first before blocking. This was discussed on IRC. I don’t believe I have. It’d be unfair to block me, due to the fact that I wasn’t warned about it via a user template (I was warned back in 2014, but haven't since until now been in such a war). Look, I don't always edit war, however remember Dave, WP:BRD is only a suppliment to the policy i.e. the community hasn't really accepted the policy yet :). I do a lot of anti-vandalism fighting. I'm happy to admit, I have gone a bit too far, but to be fair I sometimes feel the need not to contribute but a warning should be sufficient, because I have a good standing, and never misuse my tools that were given to me on the userights. —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Vauxford, based on my unacceptable comment. I am extremely apologetic on the way I treated you. I was just totally upset and I knew that it was not on. You are a great photographer and I want you to continue. I hope you understand my error and we move on from there. I like your photos, you are doing such an amazing job and I guess I have gone too far, and I want 2019 to be a better place for everyone here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, boy... where do I start? My issues with Nim go all the way back to 2015, when he waltzed into the Kia Picanto article boasting about how it is his "least favourite vehicle" (Exhibit A and B). News flash: Nobody cares if you hate a particular car. Then there's the whole mess at the Audi Q7 talk page, where he tagged me and referred me as a "she". And finally, there's the Mazda MX-5 article, where he insists that only he and Vauxford are the only authority when it comes to car images and other editors' opinions don't matter. You see, for the past three years, I've done as much to tolerate Nim's antics when it comes to which images to post on car articles, but his problem is that he takes other editors' edits and reverts too personally. - Areaseven (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Areaseven Just to clarify, I was not involved when Nim did the edit where he said he would let me "handle this" and even if I was involved, I would've left it up to you and Nim, he like to hide behind others because he is unable to stand his own ground when one disagree with his edit. --Vauxford (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I hate it when editors name-drop other editors on their arguments and excuses. - Areaseven (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Personally Areaseven, the trouble is that sometimes you revert mine or Vauxford's edits and then you always have to come up with a lower quality image. We aim for the highest quality images possible, and the (Exhibit A and B) were complete jokes. I never intended of it to be taken seriously, I thought you'd guys like a little bit of something. See what happened three years ago doesn't matter, because that was like personally not going to be an improvement. Yes I do take other users edits and reverts personally, The reason behind this is because I want to ensure that the Wikipedia is nicely flourishing to the standards that I know would be in images and WP:CARPIX. Thats why I carefully assess examples, and is based on the guidelines. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- See, there you go again, mate, insisting that your edits are superior to everyone else's, yet there have been instances where you used photos of cars fitted with aftermarket equipment or were just plain filthy. BTW, I still haven't heard your excuse for referring me as a "she", mate. - Areaseven (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I make a really silly error Areaseven, I was typing really fast and did not realise your profile. It was a complete mistake and I do apologise for it --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't an excuse. I thought based on previous edits, I thought your profile was female, then I misread it and didn't realise. I'm so sorry about my mistake --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you're saying that "what happened three years ago doesn't matter" then whatever comment that OSX said to you two years ago as your defence doesn't matter either, sounds a bit double standard to me. --Vauxford (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No it does, but thats because me and OSX were on good terms and I didn't mind what he did. I had a lot of respect for him Vauxford. I don't see why i should deviate away from his way of picturing cars. He estabished to me that WP:CARPIX is the way to go with your images, yet you insist that was obsolete. its getting to a point where I don't feel like contributing due to the fact that no one wants to edit and edit, but i cannot retire, its just too much for me. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I understand Vauxford, but i have different standards in regards with the quality of the image. The trouble is you lot are deviating away from WP:CARPIX, which was considered a product of consensus, and because consensus is based on the five pillars of Wikipedia, so therefore thats why I have been obsessed over this policy because we want to ensure the images of vehicles are in factory condition and also looks polished and clean. I mean, whilst I'd admit some of my shots haven't been to the best, I'm not the only one, some of Vauxford's earlier ones look tightly cropped. I do however love his recent uploads, which are good enough to my liking. However his 'angle' is very complicated because people may have different preferences. I don't really care much about myself, and my health, hence the reason why of my obsessive edits. I've got nothing else to do – besides I think my images are fine, but I do need to update my edit summaries to a more detailed version. Look, you all, I want to move on and continue to edit --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No Vauxford. I will not edit war anymore, I promise. However, its not like its as serious as you may think. I do like a lot of your photos, but you and me have the same styles of photography. We need to act as a community band and work together. Images are very subjective and angles are complicated as we have differing versions. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Update on the situation
Recently now, Nim is taking the recent dispute I had on the Honda Civic page as a stunt to catch me red-handed. The first wave of edits was a error on my behalf when Nim wrote in his summary that he replaced a "blue image". I mistaken this because there two blue images on the page, one on the top infobox and one at the bottom of the latest generation, I thought he replaced the one on the top infobox without reading the diff and reverted it but turns out he replaced the one the latest generation one which he knew and apologise and acknowledge on my talkpage as a error on both of us. However he took that back and combine it with a completely separate revert I did on Eddaido and pasted a edit warring template on my talkpage not long ago Davey mention the following of a block from his 3 bouts of edit warring with several users. --Vauxford (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I explained to you pretty clearly that if I made a mistake to let me know. I assumed that because you made three reverts in the last 24 hours that you'd be edit warring, thats what I read. I was completely confused as per WP:3RR, I've also analysed the edit history. You aren't allowed to make 3 reverts in 24 hours, thats the guideline regardless of this. My error was made so, and I've learnt from the three. I'm new to these templates, so I apologise most sincerely. Also being called a 'hypocrite' I take insult personally and I do think its completely unacceptable. I don't understand, but this may be linked to WP:PERSONAL, I was a bit misguided, no need to take it up the chin if I've made a silly error. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't try and straw man what I said to you as a "insult", although was quite brash of me but it true as proven with evidences, it a big difference to your derogatory comment where you called my images calling my images "crap" which I could've class it as a "personal attack" but I knew it was childish and pity of you saying that so I didn't bother. --Vauxford (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I apologised over this incident, if you want me to do it again I can. Calling images such as that was unacceptable and I just want to enjoy myself, you aren't a bad photographer, don't get me wrong. I don't want this to be a repeat again, but its true. That insult is forgotten and I've moved on from this, but you just bring it up again and again to be defensive. Its just lowering my self-esteem. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - between this, the taunting, the calling editors out in edit summaries, and the fact that EurovisionNim's (thankfully now-removed) "images to avoid" section on the project conventions page was selected to be mostly Vauxford's work, it appears to me that EurovisionNim has some sort of fixation on and/or grudge against Vauxford. I'd strongly advise Nim to disengage in order to avoid making this issue any bigger.
- Despite not being directly involved, I've also noticed that these ongoing image disputes are starting to frustrate other automotive editors. Something else for you to be mindful of. --Sable232 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy to admit I do. Its easier because what happens is it gives an idea of how consensus works. Its best to talk to the editor who reverted your article, and then get their input. It can reveal the same result as if I were to discuss it on the article itself. Either way both do work effectively as I found. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- EurovisionNim You made Charles01 snapped and called you "Comrade Psychopath" which was wrong of him but it take a lot to frustrate someone like Charles that badly. --Vauxford (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charles01 is a person who is trying to be difficult with his choice of images. What he needs to understand is he needs to keep his cool, and go with the flow. I think he needs to be mindful where possible. I reverted his edit. Problem is (and I've seen this in plenty of places), is that when a person gains respect too much, it means that the individual would take advantage of. Remember, Charles, be mindful with your language, even if you get heated, doesn't mean you call someone a "psychopath". I may have made bad judgements in the past and used these words. I want to improve, and thats why I'm here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've further made a compromise with Vauxford in relation to the Outlander image [8]. What this means, is by setting up compromises, then the dispute is resolved. I am allowed to make any edits what I wish, provided I'm not violating policies and guidelines. In fact see WP:IGNORE as this will give a better outline. Also I'm very picky about background choices, rather than pixels. I don't have much an issue with the pixels, so I'm now being very careful. If its in front of a house or something, its no problems provided theres nothing in the windowsills. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose a interaction ban between the two users at odds here since it seems they are both at odds and can't seem to find a common ground and at this point just seem to be yelling at each other for the sake of yelling. I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period as it seems they take other users edits and/or reverts on those articles way to seriously and is constantly getting into disputes over them. I believe the topic ban would give Nim some time to reflect and maybe find some other areas they are interested in on Wikipedia and alleviate disputes on those articles. TheMesquitobuzz 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support as nom, but I would agree with @Davey2010: bellow, due to ownership issues that have popped up, I believe the TBAN should be idef due to Nim disrupting the Automobile project a ton. TheMesquitobuzz 03:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum It would seems since this ANI is not going Nim's way, he is "throwing the toys out of the pram" and retiring under a cloud as per his talk page. TheMesquitobuzz 08:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- TheMesquito Be aware that this is the 5th time Nim has "retired" throughout this whole ANI, he done it first when I was considering of creating a ANI and he said he taking a Wikibreak as well as requested a self-block, this lasted only 3 days. After I created the ANI, he "retired" again follow by a "semi-retired" which lasted no longer then a day. He then stated he cannot retire follow by another Wikibreak. When things started to not go his way, he "retired" again follow by a semi-retired which only lasted 2 days. I presume this "retired" stunt would be his last, seeing as he blanked his entire user page. --Vauxford (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. It appears for all the world that EurovisionNim is following Vauxford around (example). Maybe that's harassment, maybe it's some odd sort of hero-worship or something. In any case, it's unconstructive - especially when, after all these discussions, Nim can't possibly be unaware that he shouldn't be doing so. Briefly disengaging these two editors from each other would probably be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum - I support the proposal to make the topic ban indefinite. The more I look into this the more disruptive Nim appears. I'm starting to see things that look like potential WP:CIR issues, but I'd like to provide Nim the opportunity to contribute elsewhere, where this severe obsession and the resultant level of disruption will hopefully not occur. --Sable232 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not sure the person that is mention in the proposal is allow to have their say but this is definitely would be better for both of us and behalf of the other editors on the Automobile project, it would give us breathing space from the constant arguments and daily RfC discussion that is making all of us restless. It also mean Nim can be ween off from this obsession of the compulsive thought that there need to be someone in Australia to photograph cars like it the end of the world if otherwise and come back with (hopefully) a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am happy to accept a topic ban for a month. This means that basically I won't be contributing on Wikipedia for this time, thus it'd alleviate breathing space for the group. However this may not be effective because I'd just be continuing uploading on Wikimedia Commons, except this time round, I'd have the time to relax and ignore Wikipedia. After all, we want the best. Also Vauxford is not the only user I'm following around, Areaseven is another user, as indicated in the Mazda MX-5 article. Users who are sanctioned are permitted to take part in these discussions. I also admit gladly that I did that with OSX, except this time we worked together and ensured we got the best. He was more interested in helping me out, so i helped him back. Its very ironic we have the same photo techniques. Unfortunately stopping a user from photographing the same way as you is not going to work out, because remember some of the top photographers people emulate their techniques. This means, the first month I can use, I can have the time to reflect. Unless someone is willing to teach me how to write, the only way I'm able to contribute is with photos, because I do not have very good writing skills, thereby pictures is the only way I can really express myself. I'm also very picky with photos, such as the car should be clean, the car must have no distractions and other stuff. I guess this way I was very picky and I do indeed apologise for the misfortune that I have caused you all, and I hope to remain a productive editor in the next month. I've also resolved plenty of disputes in the previous segments, therefore theres a good chance that I can improve. After all its 2019, but this means that I can slowly adjust to the user's preferences on quality. I had the same problem back with OSX when I first began, however by setting out compromises, thereby we achieved the best outcome possible --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your pictures 6 months ago said otherwise, they had no aspect whatsoever to be remotely similar to mine, the reason why they are now because you simply mimic off them, why couldn't you of done that when OSX was around? You didn't seem to pick up his way of photographing at all. You were "picky" because you treated the CARPIX essay that was heavily rewritten by OSX like it was the Tenth Commandment and you kept shoving it down in all of our throats, it a good reason why I find it redundant because it just far too impractical and seem to tailored specifically in that location.
- You clearly are following me everywhere I go, especially when I made edits on an article completely unrelated to automobiles and yet you feel to have the urge to make a pointless edit all because I was there, you also stalk me on Wikimedia Commons and doing tasks such as categorise and changing the description on my own image when the user personally asked me to do them and having to resort to private messaging with other users because you would intervene in them almost all of them. --Vauxford (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
*Support but I'm going one step further and suggesting the IBAN and TOPCBAN should be for a year indefinetely - To be honest I want to say indef but I feel that may be slightly over the top ..., Anyway as there have been constant issues for some time between these 2 as well as with other users I feel an IBAN/TOPICBAN may be for the best for a year,
- Whilst Vauxford does primarily update and replace images here (the same as Nim) as far as I can see no one's ever had an issue with Vauxford although I do object to him replacing ALL images to his own - That being said his images are much better quality than those he's replacing,
- Nim on the other hand appears to have caused issues with a good few editors and doesn't seem to be listening to anyone and unfortunately at this point in time has become disruptive to the project,
I suggested to Nim a few days that he should take a break for a bit which seemingly went ignored so as such I see no other viable option than a IBAN/TOPICBAN. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Indef TBAN and 6 month IBAN - As of late I've replaced a good chunk of Australian car images with European ones (because English Wikipedia goes beyond Australia and because I believe there should be a variety of images) - Nim had reverted myself and others on almost all articles and there are clear signs of IDONTHEARTHAT in his edit summaries as well as on my talkpage (here and here) and there's certainly a lot of oWNership taking place,
- It's also worth noting Nim has gone to every single Wikimedia Project and has added all of their images to these various Projects which given this and their behaviour here I would certainly say there's a very unhealthy obsession here,
- Given their mass-Wikimedia image replacements as well as their behaviour here I believe they should be TOPICBANNED indefintely from automobiles and anything and everything related to them - Outside of cars Nim isn't a problem and so despite their behaviour I would consider blocking to be OTT at this present time. –Davey2010Talk 02:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A year would definitely seem excessive Davey2010. Wouldn't it be better if someone who's the first time being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard get like a short period of the ban say 3-4 months. One year seems overly excessive because on the first report, I haven't been blocked for anything, except for self-requested blocks ([9]). These, however, were needed, because I was studying, and didn't want Wikipedia to distract me. Besides, I've apologized over the incidents that I've done in the past, and therefore, if I am just being restricted to non-UK cars only, then I'm not feeling any point in contributing, because there are other users from America, like Kevauto. Besides I'd probably learn my lesson in 3-4 months. I also note that a 'bit' means like up to six months, rather than 1 year. Because theres nothing really on Wikipedia that interests me, that would just be rebutted. I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014. But why are you trying to refer to Vauxford having no issues with other users. Eddaidohad objections with this image, which I was trying to tell everyone and placed options. I also specifically told everyone that if they do not like the current version of CARPIX, they are more than 100% welcome to update it to meet the new standards of other car spotters. I've been using this guideline as my bible, therefore hence I've been careful about my image selections. You want me to have a break, thats fine, but then again, i've been doing this section for the last four years, only 2018 I had the issues with Vauxford & others. Besides the previous edits, I think 2019 would be easier to improve, but I would think that maybe I'd go easier unlike before. I guess now, looking at everyone's complaints, I now understand how my behaviour has caused everyone upset and despair, but I never knew. I do indeed apologise to everyone on how I acted and I hope for 2019, I do more improvements for Wikipedia, but I can't find anything else on Wikipedia. It seems a little bit too much to resort to a topic ban for one year, but I think do a 3-4 month topic ban on the first go. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I see that EurovisionNim mentioned in one of hs rants on this page that I identified him as "Comrade Psychopath". Guilty as charged. I might choose to say I intended it not necessarily as a diagnosis but more as a throwaway remark. Ill-judged for people - and there are lots - who believe that psychcopathology carries or should carry a stigma. But there are serious issues. The fellow insists on uploading and linking mediocre pictures of cars to wiki articles on an industrial scale and reacts to disagreement by treating the wikipedia project and fellow contributors with contempt. The way he assiduously wiki-groomed Vauxford over more than a year was border-line creepy, and seems to have ended in tears. But either way, this is not what wikipedia is for. Or am I missing the point of something here? The more important issue arises where he risks degrading wikipedia by insisting on inserting own photographs most of which are not terribly good. In the process he wastes huge amounts of other folks' time as here. And there is no way to calculate the number of potential contributors who take one look at the way he behaves and wander off to do something else. He says he is very young somewhere. Maybe he is young enough to learn? He must be. But the evidence of the last few years suggests that he is a relatively slow learner. No one reading simply this page will know the sheer scale of EurovisionNim's contributions to talk pages. But wikistats can no doubt be interrogated. And this page does itself, after a couple of days, give a reasonable flavour of the sort of thing we're faced with. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Now that EurovisionNim has dragged me into this, its time to get some facts right. Back in 2014 EurovisionNim was going on a spree replace ok and good photographs with one that were of poor quality and would restore his own photographs when they were removed. It is clear that EurovisionNim doesn't take on any feedback or criticism given about his actions and behaviour. These are the reverts that I did back in 2014 and most were of vehicles not buildings; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bidgee, this was four years ago, besides I've got all these images deleted. Why do you need to worry about an incident that occured more than 4 years ago? At that time, I never knew what was quality and was just plain dumb. You didn't need to do that way because that time I learnt my lesson and no longer repeated the offense afterwards rather i improved my photos based on the feedback you gave me. Thats a totally different issue altogether mate and besides at that time, I was completely new to Wikipedia so therefore I wasn't aware of the policies at the time. Since joining Wikipedia i've grown and now i tend to reduce images as opposed to flooding them. These edits I looked back were unacceptable, because they were all low quality junk and also I understood when you left me [36], afterwards I've completely halted this activity, and focused mainly on Perth. So those diffs are completely unnecessary. If I forgot to apologise, I do so indeed. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well it wouldn't have been raised at all if you never made the following statement, "I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014.", which wasn't truthful! What do you think I was going to do, leave it unchallenged? Though one thing to come out of it is that you haven't changed, you continue to push what image/photo you want, you can try and say its a totally different issue but its the behaviour that you have that is the problem and it hasn't changed from 2014 to present. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also going onto other people's talk pages is not a wise move. Bidgee (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I doesn't see like EurovisionNim can't let it go and is showing strong signs of having ownership issues[37]. I'm starting the lean more towards a block, if EurovisionNim refuses to recognise that he has a problem (ownership/control issues) and address it. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Bidgee: I agree, I'm almost tempted to start a different proposal for a temporary block alongside the TBAN/IBAN, this is getting ridiculous. TheMesquitobuzz 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I doesn't see like EurovisionNim can't let it go and is showing strong signs of having ownership issues[37]. I'm starting the lean more towards a block, if EurovisionNim refuses to recognise that he has a problem (ownership/control issues) and address it. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also going onto other people's talk pages is not a wise move. Bidgee (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well it wouldn't have been raised at all if you never made the following statement, "I used to do buildings, but after Bidgee reverted me (I can't find the diffs), I gave up and moved to automobiles in 2014.", which wasn't truthful! What do you think I was going to do, leave it unchallenged? Though one thing to come out of it is that you haven't changed, you continue to push what image/photo you want, you can try and say its a totally different issue but its the behaviour that you have that is the problem and it hasn't changed from 2014 to present. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bidgee, this was four years ago, besides I've got all these images deleted. Why do you need to worry about an incident that occured more than 4 years ago? At that time, I never knew what was quality and was just plain dumb. You didn't need to do that way because that time I learnt my lesson and no longer repeated the offense afterwards rather i improved my photos based on the feedback you gave me. Thats a totally different issue altogether mate and besides at that time, I was completely new to Wikipedia so therefore I wasn't aware of the policies at the time. Since joining Wikipedia i've grown and now i tend to reduce images as opposed to flooding them. These edits I looked back were unacceptable, because they were all low quality junk and also I understood when you left me [36], afterwards I've completely halted this activity, and focused mainly on Perth. So those diffs are completely unnecessary. If I forgot to apologise, I do so indeed. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indefinite interaction ban and indefinite topic ban. EurovisionNim would be welcome to request that these sanctions be overturned in six months. For that to be successful they would have to provide reasons there would not be a repeat of the obvious problems. I removed "for a short period" from the heading because longer sanctions have been proposed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per Johnuniq. Have EurovisionNim request a topic ban-lift after six months and then show willingness to collaborate. It seems like this issue needs plenty of cooling off, and my POV is that one month is going to bring it back to ANI almost for certain. RandomGnome (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN as a limited-time measure that is clearly necessary; the best way to resolve this dispute is for EurovisionNim to gain more editing experience in other areas of the project. I'd prefer an explicit 3 or 6 month TBAN, but an indef TBAN with an explicit "this can be appealed in 6 months and there is no expectation of waiting longer" is fine as well. I'm less sure about supporting an IBAN; this seems like a situation where an IBAN might be more trouble than it's worth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: Article restriction
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The suggestion:
If EurovisionNim wishes to use a different image for a given article, they are to start a discussion on the article's talkpage with both the currently used image and the proposed replacement for the purposes of gaining concensus. This discussion must run for a minimum period of 48 hours. Failure to engage in such a discussion will result in a one-month topic ban from automobiles, broadly construed. Repeat infractions will result in escalating topic bans of one week (ie: third infraction is one month + 2 weeks TBAN).
Would this be workable? Dax Bane 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I like this idea better. Its more sensible and also it's easier as of course I'd like to contribute. In fact I'd be more than happy to. Would this be indefinite or something? I'll be happy to accept this topic ban voluntarily --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good question, would six months without infraction before you could appeal be palatable?
- Side thought: if the IBAN (one way or both) above is set down in concurrency with this proposal, perhaps a limited exception allowing both to participate in the consensus forming outlined in this proposal be a good idea? Dax Bane 04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Usually the 6 month waiting period is reserved if you have an indef block or site ban. A topic ban, i don't think specifies there, so if I wish to appeal, I could maybe do it in 2-3 months (so in March or April) :) I'm not sure. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dax Bane Not surprised Nim prefer this proposal because it means he can continue the very thing that is causing the problem. He been doing exactly what you are proposing, and he beginning to frustrate other editors because of it, we are all fed up having to comment on every replacement edit he does. Another thing this is the 3rd time that he has said the following; "wiki-break" or "retired". He treat the retirement template like it an on and off switch when things doesn't go his own way.
- I prefer TheMesquito's proposal because it far more logical, seeing as he has read everything from this discussion and the evidences I provided. The way how Nim express that he "cannot retire, there MUST be someone from Australia to take car pictures", To me this is like a obsession to him then a hobby, bringing distress rather then enjoyment and potentially can be unconstructive in that sense. Plus it mean I don't have to wake up 4am in the morning and my talk page flooded with constant request for comment whenever he want to replace a picture (mostly mine). With this topic ban for a short period of time would be better for him and ween out this obsession and be able to actually think with a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Vauxford: fair points, it's just a proposal and there's no guarantees it'll be accepted by the community at large anyway. That said, if it does go ahead, and if there are violations then it can be dealt with swiftly without needing another AN/I report (at least, in theory) Dax Bane 06:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you Vauxford, he has an obsession and this has driven (no pun intended) people from the project. I have now very rarely uploaded any photographs of vehicles because of EurovisionNim unhealthy obsession and ownership that he has, so I know how you feel. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Vauxford: fair points, it's just a proposal and there's no guarantees it'll be accepted by the community at large anyway. That said, if it does go ahead, and if there are violations then it can be dealt with swiftly without needing another AN/I report (at least, in theory) Dax Bane 06:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer TheMesquito's proposal because it far more logical, seeing as he has read everything from this discussion and the evidences I provided. The way how Nim express that he "cannot retire, there MUST be someone from Australia to take car pictures", To me this is like a obsession to him then a hobby, bringing distress rather then enjoyment and potentially can be unconstructive in that sense. Plus it mean I don't have to wake up 4am in the morning and my talk page flooded with constant request for comment whenever he want to replace a picture (mostly mine). With this topic ban for a short period of time would be better for him and ween out this obsession and be able to actually think with a sound mind. --Vauxford (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose while this a good proposal at heart, looking more into Nim's edits I feel like it would just be more of the same. I think Nim honestly needs a break from the automobile project for a bit in order to give the project time to breathe and give Nim a fresher head. Also I agree with Vauxford above, the retired template is not for when a conversation is not going your way. TheMesquitobuzz 20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think a topic ban is appropriate here. Nim's editing has been disruptive, even if in good-faith, to more editors than just Vauxford. Nim has expressed insight that some edits have been disruptive and sincerely wants to step back, but can't seem to do it, not for very long. A temporary topic ban would also extinguish the interaction between Vauxford and Nim. The auto project would progress without Nim's involvement for a while, allowing Nim to see how a (hopefully!) collaborative and much less combative approach has worked to benefit the project during the term of the ban. RandomGnome (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: The above account, RandomGnome, was created on 24 December 2018. The above is their 17th edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think a topic ban is appropriate here. Nim's editing has been disruptive, even if in good-faith, to more editors than just Vauxford. Nim has expressed insight that some edits have been disruptive and sincerely wants to step back, but can't seem to do it, not for very long. A temporary topic ban would also extinguish the interaction between Vauxford and Nim. The auto project would progress without Nim's involvement for a while, allowing Nim to see how a (hopefully!) collaborative and much less combative approach has worked to benefit the project during the term of the ban. RandomGnome (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
not important to this thread
|
---|
|
- Fair call, I’ll be happy to accept it but would I be able to appeal the ban say in about 4 months? Is that how it works? I’m happy to have it for around 3-4 months but up to 6 months is equally fine as this means I’ll get the chance to do anti-vandalism activities. Bidgee can step in and do the car photos for me while I work on anti-vandalism. Sounds like a fair deal —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
DE-Wiki
Apparently, EurovisionNim and Vauxford have both been edit-warring in the German language Wikipedia (i.e. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]). Furthermore, I have asked EurovisionNim twice to stop replacing pics and to refrain from using the English language in the German language version of Wikipedia (de:Benutzer Diskussion:EurovisionNim). To address this, I have "issued" an "Admin-request" in the German language Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen#Benutzer:Vauxford_und_Benutzer:EurovisionNim. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Johannes Maximilian Correct me if I'm wrong but they not really edit warring examples from me and Nim, I think the worst one out of the you linked was the Kia Sportage one, the rest are hardly relatable and are 1-3 months apart. --Vauxford (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a specifically wiki-de issue, JohMax. EurovisionNim cheerfully replaces pictures on wikipedia in every langauge with an article on the car that he is photographing. There is probably no "wiki-guideline" prohibiting this behaviour because till EurovisionNim came along no one had the self-belief (good word) or arrogance (nastier word) to behave in this way. But the overall result is even more of an excessive preponderence of pictures featuring the same trademark blindspots as to what makes a half-decent portrait of a car. Or - if you think the fellow takes excellent pictures every time he sets foot outside his home (and he does have a certain talent for "making wiki-friends", as some of the contributions to this page confirm) - the same excellent pictures. But even then, too much of a "good" thing, I suggest! Charles01 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Charles01: I just wanted to mention that there was sort of a "photo-warring" on DE-wiki and that Nim was asked to stop (he has unfortunately ignored it) – I have not seen any other non-English Wikipedian posting a similar "please stop" message on Nim's talk page yet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Vote stacking issues
It would seem now that Nim is trying to stack the vote by going to other users talk pages and asking them to come the the thread. Normally I would Assume good faith and just think they where notifying an interested party but seeing as how this ANI thread is not going Nims way, this smacks of attempted vote stacking. TheMesquitobuzz 14:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Its also worth noting that in the talk page message they sent to 1292simon, it links directly to the proposed TBAN/IBAN TheMesquitobuzz 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting worse. I feel like we should now, after a hefty discussion, just direct TBAN/IBAN him, and we have the votes anyways. However, we need to fix what he’s done in all the other language Wikis. We need a steward. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshawott 12: I would almost agree, the amount of issues across multiple wikis are going to be hard to clean up without a steward, but is his replacements in other wikis bad enough to warrant calling one?TheMesquitobuzz 00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting worse. I feel like we should now, after a hefty discussion, just direct TBAN/IBAN him, and we have the votes anyways. However, we need to fix what he’s done in all the other language Wikis. We need a steward. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TheMesquito: @Oshawott 12: It isn't as bad as you think it is, what seem to have happen, since Nim have a tendency of mimicking almost anything I do, at one point I did do some replacement edits on different language Wikipedia articles which hasn't been updated for as long as 10 years. I did do some replacement edits on active Wikis such as German and Polish and my rule of thumb of doing it; "If the folks over there rejects my replacement, then that's that" and don't interfere with Wikis such as Ukrainian and Italian as users on there are doing it there own way which I respect.
- I like to think my intention of doing these edits are in good faith however the problem is, when Nim found out I been doing it, he began doing the same thing, attempting to replacing BMW X5, Kia Sportage, Mercedes-Benz GLC etc, from my assumption he doing this like it a game of "Who pictures appear on the most Wikis" which safely admit this when he said "but the only reason I want mine to appear is because I want these to be in news articles". --Vauxford (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Socks?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm I the only one who think it strange this IP user came in to suddenly make bold edits and reverts almost less than a day since Nim's "retirement"? There was a recent discussion I created about putting the country where the photo was taken in the captions. This is useful for certain models that are sold different countries like Toyota or Honda, the rest I find unesscary as readers can easily find out what rebadge model or special edition on the Infobox or in the paragraph. This user that hopped onto 3 IP users just done a mass revert on everything I done with the same summary of a quote by Mr.chopper. The IP info doesn't match to where Nim's based in but the behaviour of taking what someone said quite literally is similar.
Current IPs:
- 125.160.209.22
- 202.58.170.123
- 120.188.65.92
- 120.188.33.160
--Vauxford (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite block/ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the IPs above quacking up a storm, I propose an indefinite block of EurovisionNim and associated IPs. Nim is clearly incapable of understanding the issues raised here and believes that by ducking behind a curtain that sanctions will be avoided (or, possibly, simply not here to build an encyclopedia). IP socks are being used to, essentially, violate the topic ban before even being enacted; there's no reason to believe it will be heeded once put into place. Easier to block the account and the IPs now and be done with it. --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
* Weak support I don't really want to see him blocked, but with the use of sock puppets and other issues, Nim clearly needs some time away from the project. Hopefully he will be given the standard offer and can return eventually. TheMesquitobuzz 05:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Vaux TheMesquitobuzz 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't hear quacking. There's no shortage of problematic IP editors in this space (as I recall from investigating Carmaker1 threads here) and the 4 IPs presented are obviously not all the same person; 120.188.65.92 reverted 125.160.209.22 at Toyota Sienta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a bit disputed over the IPs, I recently sent a message to Nim questioning about the IPs, unsurprisingly he denied all them so I don't have much to say. --Vauxford (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Earlier I had been thinking/voting in terms of a time-limited block/ban but the continuing editing under various IP accounts after repeatedly announcing his "retirement" (per the frequently archived bits of his user page and talk page), combining with the denials reports by Vauxford, swings it to "indefinite". I've not studied all the IP edits from IP addresses listed in this section, but I have studied the entries from the IPs identified here. I am far more familiar than I should wish to be with where and how EurovisionNim likes to edit. These are not anonymous quacks, IM(H)O. More to the point, there is no evidence that he is able or willing to edit constructively and collaboratively. There is, clearly, absolutely nothing to stop him applying for reinstatement when he's thought a little more thoughtfully and ... "calmed down a bit" Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Just adding another problematic IP to the list to investigate for a possible indefinite block, for all of the good it will do. 2600:1003:B86E:4CEB:907D:2C26:889B:236B (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Having thought about this for a day I have to disagree with Indeffing - Whilst they are a problem editor they're only a problem editor on car articles .... as far as I know outside of cars they're not a problem at all,
- I honestly have no idea if the IPs in the SPI are him or not however IMHO if the IPs are his he should be indeffed, If they're not his then the SPI should be closed and then this ANI thread should be closed with a consensus for the indef TBAN/6month IBAN,
- I feel indeffing him is just throwing the kitchen sink at everything and I feel it's rather excessive - If issues arise with other articles then we can return here but like I said at present I cannot support an indefinite block. –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Engr-05.jpg/150px-Engr-05.jpg)
- Just to clarify I support indeffing if there's been socking but I don't support it if it's just for CIR/HOTHERE etc,
- Oppose - It a likely chance we won't find out if the IPs were his. Agreeing with Davey, I still support the TBAN/IBAN and hopefully that would it be put into place soon. I rather not want this whole ANI I created myself just to be used to scare off Nim for a few weeks, only for him to come back to cause the same problems I been addressing for the past month. --Vauxford (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Davey2010. Indef if socks proved resulting from SPI. TBAN if not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGnome (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I suppose if the topic ban is violated it can be dealt with easily enough then. It appears there's consensus for an indefinite topic ban. --Sable232 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive editor at Talk:Pikmin 2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Akun_Island_basalt_sea_cave.jpg/170px-Akun_Island_basalt_sea_cave.jpg)
This is a slightly complicated case. There is an editor at Pikmin 2, Leitmotiv, that has been engaged in edit warring over several months over the phrase "underground cave". They believe that this phrase is redundant and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Their edits were contested in the summer, and then they reasserted their edits a few days ago without attempting to reach a consensus, I posted about edit warring on the noticeboard here [[48]], they were warned.
They have been told multiple times to open an rfc if they believe their position is right, but they refuse to do so. My complaint is two-fold, first is that they took the incredibly inappropriate step of making comments represented as my own here. [[49]].
Second, they have stated that they are erasing the phrase "underground cave" from wikipedia [[50]], as they believe they are an expert and have judged the term redundant[[51]], as they believe all caves are underground. Others have shown the person that the definitions of caves includes caves in the sides of hills and that the distinction is not entirely redundant. I see from their contribution history, that they appear to be blindly removing the word underground from all articles including the phrase. In some instances, this changes the meaning of the sentence and I believe this is a pattern of disruptive editing and editing with an agenda. For example, this article specified that the owls burrow in caves underground, while the average reader would probably assume an owl would burrow in a hillside cave if the word underground were removed [[52]]. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's totally an agenda. I am free to answer any questions, but the consensus I wrote on the talk page of Pikmin 2 was clearly my own interpretation of the discussion when Basil refused to answer my simple question. And no, I'm not avoiding an RfC, all things when I'm ready to do so. I'm not operating on Basil's schedule. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Battling to change "underground cave" to "cave" in an article about a game is pretty, umm, lame. Find something substantive to work on and forget that article. Perhaps people are dumb and do not understand your point, but it doesn't matter so forgetting about it would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I love a good argument, that I can't deny - so maybe it is lame from that perspective but you could say any mundane task here on wikipedia is lame and that's really not fair to those folks. Honestly, it's really a tempest in a teapot. I'm not arguing for much because my edits would equally be understandable. But the resistance to it is irrational. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing tautology improves the project, so I understand Leitmotiv's motives. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Leitmotiv was warned for long-term edit warring about the word 'underground' at Pikmin 2 per a complaint at WP:AN3 which was closed on 8 January. I have explained to him how RfCs work, though he has yet to explore that option. The AN3 seems to be an exchange of complaints that the other party isn't discussing properly. Anybody who knows how to open an ANI should also know how to do an RfC, so the way is open for the real discussion. Since both parties know what the real next step ought to be, I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this ANI isn’t about the edit warring, I provided it here for context. This ANI is 1. About the conduct of misrepresenting comments as my own. No editor has the right to speak for or as another editor. And 2. A pattern of disruptive editing at all articles with the phrase “underground cave” based on a personal agenda. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say that removing tautology insn't improving the project, that it is a personal agenda? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this ANI isn’t about the edit warring, I provided it here for context. This ANI is 1. About the conduct of misrepresenting comments as my own. No editor has the right to speak for or as another editor. And 2. A pattern of disruptive editing at all articles with the phrase “underground cave” based on a personal agenda. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Leitmotiv was warned for long-term edit warring about the word 'underground' at Pikmin 2 per a complaint at WP:AN3 which was closed on 8 January. I have explained to him how RfCs work, though he has yet to explore that option. The AN3 seems to be an exchange of complaints that the other party isn't discussing properly. Anybody who knows how to open an ANI should also know how to do an RfC, so the way is open for the real discussion. Since both parties know what the real next step ought to be, I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing tautology improves the project, so I understand Leitmotiv's motives. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I love a good argument, that I can't deny - so maybe it is lame from that perspective but you could say any mundane task here on wikipedia is lame and that's really not fair to those folks. Honestly, it's really a tempest in a teapot. I'm not arguing for much because my edits would equally be understandable. But the resistance to it is irrational. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Battling to change "underground cave" to "cave" in an article about a game is pretty, umm, lame. Find something substantive to work on and forget that article. Perhaps people are dumb and do not understand your point, but it doesn't matter so forgetting about it would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- You may disagree with my reasoning on my edits regarding redundancy, but that hardly makes my edits disruptive nor an agenda - I'm improving Wikipedia in my own way, that's the only "agenda" I'm guilty of. If there is a special case needing closer examination, I'm happy to discuss the need for clarification/distinguishing certain types of caves in those instances, should they arise. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, it is an unacceptable use of english, but wont comment further. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- This may be a good place to discuss the tautology of "underground cave" since Basilsauridae refuses to answer some fundamental questions I asked her at Pikmin 2, even though I know this thread is more about perceived slights. It's okay to use hillside cave as that is descriptive of it's locale, if there is a need for it. But a hillside cave is still underground. I've never deleted a "hillside cave" for redundancy. If there is a need to label a cave as "cave in a field" that too is fine, but it still remains that both a hillside cave and a cave in a field are both underground. The very thing that Basilsauridae cannot answer is why there is a need for distinction on Pikmin 2, nor any other editor on that talk page. There is nothing special about the cave at Pikmin 2, which contradict's Basilsauridae's concern for confusion on other pages, because she has repeatedly dodged answering why a distinction is important at Pikmin 2. For what it's worth - Cave den or cave burrow would also suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it's okay for you to discuss it prior to my comments. You're still dodging why this cave needs a distinction when "cave" would suffice. Are there other types of caves in the game that could confuse the reader/player as to which cave we're talking about? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will not be engaging in this debate with you here or outside of an RfC. I have expressed my opinion fully and reasonably on the talk page, and summarized here for anyone interested. That is not the purpose of this ANI and you are aware of the appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- On the question of tautologies (or not): sea cave, glacier cave, etc. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Joel B. Lewis A sea cave is always underground, even if it is also underwater. A glacier cave could be a particular exception in some cases, I suppose. Anything lying on the ground, could be considered a part of the ground, including the mineral ice. However, I could see some exceptions as a small possibility if somehow a reader was confusing a dirt ground with one of ice, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- On the question of tautologies (or not): sea cave, glacier cave, etc. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will not be engaging in this debate with you here or outside of an RfC. I have expressed my opinion fully and reasonably on the talk page, and summarized here for anyone interested. That is not the purpose of this ANI and you are aware of the appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- As always, ANI isn't the place for content disputes so not sure that the above discussion is helpful. IMO it's fine for an editor to change one or a few articles per WP:BOLD, and then participate in a discussion to defend that change if they are reverted. I would suggest that changing a large number of articles enmasse is likely to be disruptive unless there is an RfC or some other wider discussion that establishes the term is clearly wrong or unneeded. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Completely arbitrary section break by an uninvolved editor
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Seacaving.jpg/170px-Seacaving.jpg)
Apologies for my bluntness: This doesn't matter, it shouldn't have made it to ANI, and it most certainly doesn't need an RFC. Stop fussing over one word and go find better hills to die on. -- a. spam | contribs 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, it didn't "make it to an ANI". It was provided here for context but is not what the ANI is about. The ANI is about 1. The action of misrepresenting comments as my own. and 2. a long term disruptive pattern of editing. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Basilosauridae: That may be the case, but again - it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'll admit, I did not look into it all that much: I saw a content dispute about something as inconsequential as whether caves are underground or not lead to a few hundred lines on both the article talkpage and ANI. It takes two users to
tangoedit war: Take your own advice and drop it. The world will keep turning whether we specify caves are underground or not. -- a. spam | contribs 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)- Respectfully, If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t get involved. I’m not sure why editors think it’s helpful to tell people to just stop having an issue. Dropping the WP:STICK implies that there has been a consensus or other impass reached and editors are continuing to persist. I am here to start a discussion on the things I brought up, to which there has been little discussion. Everything is up for reasonable discussion on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don’t think it’s helpful to essentially tell people to pipe down when you admittedly “didn’t really look into it much.” †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Basilosauridae: That may be the case, but again - it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'll admit, I did not look into it all that much: I saw a content dispute about something as inconsequential as whether caves are underground or not lead to a few hundred lines on both the article talkpage and ANI. It takes two users to
- Note: There is an ongoing discussion about this at ANEW, in which the involved editors and two admin have participated. Not sure if this thread here should be closed while that one there is resolved. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- As far as the Pikmin 2 edit war that started that ANEW, a warning was issued and I consider that ANEW discussion over. Another editor with a similar issue resurrected that conversation with their own complaint about similar behavior on another article, to which I would suggest that they should have opened their own section because Leitmotiv was not warned from the overall behavior, just from edit warring at the Pikmin 2 article. That discussion doesn't overlap with the complaints of this ANI in anyway, so I would say that the current discussion at that ANEW isn't relevant to this ANI. The main purpose of this ANI is to discuss the pattern of disruptive editing concerning the phrase "underground cave". I would argue that the new issue raised by a new editor to the discussion, czar, supports my position that this is disruptive behavior. I'm not sure where else to discuss an editors expressed personal agenda that affects hundreds of pages, if not an ANI, let me know if there is a more appropriate venue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- You and your personal "agenda"s. Click-baity words. If I decide to continue editing "underground cave" I am open to discussing disagreements. My latest disagreement at Catacombs of Rome went smoothly and also ended in my favor. I think I'll find there are plenty of people that agree with me and an equal amount that get butt hurt about not having an "underground cave" if Pikmin 2 is any indication. In the latter example, I may discuss it for a bit and see where it goes. Basilosauridae, I recommend not getting worked up over a tempest in teapot next time. My passion is caves, yours is your whale ancestors. Don't begrudge me for having an interest in editing something that I'm knowledgeable about, even if you disagree with my point of view. My edits aren't the end of the world, nor the hill you want to die upon as someone mentioned earlier - though I suppose if said hill had an "underground cave" it would make for an ideal tomb too. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The scholars of Google Scholar seem to think there's such a thing as an underground cave "underground+cave". See also the ngrams [53]. I get the impression there's been a shift of usage over the decades, and Leitmotiv clings to some traditionalist definition. EEng 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- And NASA thinks Planet 9 is Planet X, but that doesn't make them correct. People fumble with their words all the time, even those inspiring folks in the White House (sarcasm in case of Poe's Law). And I think traditionally, people have used "underground cave". Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you chose the Planet 9 – Planet X issue, which is a lukewarm disagreement no one's particularly exercised about, as your archetype of black–white / right–wrong says a lot. This is really beginning to look like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by way of WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng 03:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- And NASA thinks Planet 9 is Planet X, but that doesn't make them correct. People fumble with their words all the time, even those inspiring folks in the White House (sarcasm in case of Poe's Law). And I think traditionally, people have used "underground cave". Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is the wonder of Wikipedia: Not once in my life have I ever thought about whether all caves are underground or just some caves are underground; since reading this thread several days ago, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the implications. What is "ground" exactly? Is ice "ground"? What if it's floating on the sea? What does "underground" mean? Is there a difference between "underground" and "in-ground"? If I'm in a cave in a hill, am I above sea level but below ground? The sea floor is "ground", so when I'm underwater, am I below sea level, but above ground? If I'm in a cave, there's ground below and above me: am I "between-ground"? What is the template for the mind-blown emoji? Levivich (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is quite fascinating isn't it! Humans try to categorize everything to make sense and we're limited by our words. Ice is a mineral, so why would we decide that ice isn't the ground? Because we like playing favorites? Why only ice? Ice is interesting in that it's a floating mineral, though pumice has this same quality, but it is a rock. Is it floating ground? Seems absurd, but that's just what it is. Well, if you're standing on an iceberg, are you standing on the water, or something else? When you fly to the south pole and your plane touches down, is it touching down on "not the ground"? If you're on the bottom of the ocean, with a mile of water above you, and a hole in the ground below you, you are indeed fitting that rare niche of being below sea level, but above ground. As for being in a cave, you are both below the ground and within it. A cave is exactly the absence of substance in the ground. You could say you've taken the middle ground, possibly in Middle Earth. At the end of the day, the vast majority of the articles on wikipedia aren't going to gain anything by doubling up "underground cave". If an article raises the above mentioned issues, then I'm willing to make an exception, but I think most of us realize there aren't going to be many examples like these. Most of the articles don't have another cave mentioned in their article, or if they do, it's a part of some cave system. Personally, for me, discussions like this make me appreciate the unique properties of H2O. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think in most instances on this issue, I am persuaded by WP:YOUDONTSAY. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me too. I'm always open to exceptions, but the editors that have rebuffed my edits are hard-pressed to supply a reason why their cave is special. Underwurlde - a cave below a house. Pikmin 2 - a cave in a field. There isn't anything confusing about these caves that requires them to also be labeled as underground. Levivich, are there any project pages/essay pages that would be interested in the tautology of underground cave? I enjoyed your link on Principle of Some Astonishment. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- FYI that's my essay (with a lot of help from my friends, of course). I wish one of you two would change your name because I have trouble keeping you straight. EEng 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me too. I'm always open to exceptions, but the editors that have rebuffed my edits are hard-pressed to supply a reason why their cave is special. Underwurlde - a cave below a house. Pikmin 2 - a cave in a field. There isn't anything confusing about these caves that requires them to also be labeled as underground. Levivich, are there any project pages/essay pages that would be interested in the tautology of underground cave? I enjoyed your link on Principle of Some Astonishment. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think in most instances on this issue, I am persuaded by WP:YOUDONTSAY. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is quite fascinating isn't it! Humans try to categorize everything to make sense and we're limited by our words. Ice is a mineral, so why would we decide that ice isn't the ground? Because we like playing favorites? Why only ice? Ice is interesting in that it's a floating mineral, though pumice has this same quality, but it is a rock. Is it floating ground? Seems absurd, but that's just what it is. Well, if you're standing on an iceberg, are you standing on the water, or something else? When you fly to the south pole and your plane touches down, is it touching down on "not the ground"? If you're on the bottom of the ocean, with a mile of water above you, and a hole in the ground below you, you are indeed fitting that rare niche of being below sea level, but above ground. As for being in a cave, you are both below the ground and within it. A cave is exactly the absence of substance in the ground. You could say you've taken the middle ground, possibly in Middle Earth. At the end of the day, the vast majority of the articles on wikipedia aren't going to gain anything by doubling up "underground cave". If an article raises the above mentioned issues, then I'm willing to make an exception, but I think most of us realize there aren't going to be many examples like these. Most of the articles don't have another cave mentioned in their article, or if they do, it's a part of some cave system. Personally, for me, discussions like this make me appreciate the unique properties of H2O. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EEng: It's one of my favorite essays. I look forward to vandalizing it someday. @Leitmotiv: To answer your question above, I don't know of any such projects or essays, but you could always write an essay about it. You know, at first, I thought somebody going around striking "underground" from "underground cave" from like every article that had it was disruptive, but after thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that no, that's called copyediting prose, and I believe it's permitted here under certain circumstances. Regardless, may I suggest that as you go from page to page tightening up the prose, if you come across a page where an editor strongly objects, just let it be. Let them have it. I generally agree it's redundant, but out of the many pages you're editing, if a few redundancies are left behind because somebody really wants them there, it's only going to be a blip among all the other examples you will have fixed. It's hardly worth fighting about, even if you're right. Any time you spend fighting is better spent making some other changes you want to make that no one will object to. Just my two cents. Levilivivich (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thems some good cents. The thing I like about arguing is that I understand my position much better as well as my naysayer's. I think you're right. I'm not going to "fight" the ones that want to keep it the way it was. At least not as much, but I still may learn something yet. Maybe a few more arguments, and then I'll be sick of arguing once I've fleshed out the nuances. For now, I think I've actually eliminated most of the occurrences of "underground cave" unless my search method is flawed. I have, however, seen that "underground tunnel" has way more entries, and I suspect "underground catacombs" may too. "Underground mine" is an interesting case where it actually makes sense because there are surface mines, though I suspect there are plenty of cases where the distinction was made without consideration to surface mines. Not sure if I want to tackle those beasts as I'm not as learned in those fields. Thanks for advice Levivich with three v's. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EEng: It's one of my favorite essays. I look forward to vandalizing it someday. @Leitmotiv: To answer your question above, I don't know of any such projects or essays, but you could always write an essay about it. You know, at first, I thought somebody going around striking "underground" from "underground cave" from like every article that had it was disruptive, but after thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that no, that's called copyediting prose, and I believe it's permitted here under certain circumstances. Regardless, may I suggest that as you go from page to page tightening up the prose, if you come across a page where an editor strongly objects, just let it be. Let them have it. I generally agree it's redundant, but out of the many pages you're editing, if a few redundancies are left behind because somebody really wants them there, it's only going to be a blip among all the other examples you will have fixed. It's hardly worth fighting about, even if you're right. Any time you spend fighting is better spent making some other changes you want to make that no one will object to. Just my two cents. Levilivivich (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- This thread has become A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE UNDERGROUND CAVES, ALL ALIKE. Can someone close? EEng 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here we have a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT:
- Ignoring guidelines set at WP:USRD/STDS and claiming they don't exist, even though they are visible in the hidden editor text
- Repeatedly adding WP:POV & WP:ORIGINAL research
- Ignoring multiple requests ( [54] [55] [56] ) from other users to stop adding and reverting various edits
- Blanking multiple talk page warnings
Cards84664 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The individual does have a 'heavy' revert button. I had some disagreements with him a few weeks ago at the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- User is within his rights to remove warnings from own talk page per WP:BLANKING. Lorstaking (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Dough4872 and Imzadi1979. Cards84664 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, this user makes numerous poor edits (such as adding multiple junctions for one town in one entry in the infobox even if the junctions aren't connected, which is misleading) and constantly reverts edits. Dough4872 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
This user has now switched to an ip address, 74.71.22.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cards84664 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification, the user keeps switching back and forth without making sure that they are logged in. Cards84664 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
-I did not switch to an IP address to be sneaky, I used my desktop instead of my laptop. Chill out. -Peterjack1
- You should be logged in to both. Cards84664 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well too bad cause its not something you should be worrying about as long as I'm not being sneaky which I'm not. -Peterjack1
- @Peterjack1:, it is against policy to be using both an IP and a username this way: see WP:SOCK. --Rschen7754 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately ignoring guidelines continues. Mitch32(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Commenting as an editor) Overall I see this issue as not being willing to listen to other editors and their concerns (as well as the POV/RS issues). I also see a DS warning message on their talk page, so that indicates to me that there is a larger issue. --Rschen7754 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, as I pointed out above, my past experiences with the aforementioned editor, is that he's got the wrong attitude. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. This dif from above in response to being told they need to log in on both desktop and laptop lacks the collaborative, collegial spirit we all long for, and goes to show there is a problem with the user's ability to work and play well in this environment-- Well too bad cause its not something you should be worrying about as long as I'm not being sneaky which I'm not. Q.E.D.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
- PS. We are allowed to blank talk page messages, certainly. But there comes a time when it is clear user is not responding to valid concerns and refusing to discuss collegially.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. This dif from above in response to being told they need to log in on both desktop and laptop lacks the collaborative, collegial spirit we all long for, and goes to show there is a problem with the user's ability to work and play well in this environment-- Well too bad cause its not something you should be worrying about as long as I'm not being sneaky which I'm not. Q.E.D.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
User is constantly reverting me at Interstate 80 in New Jersey (See history) by adding cities that are not on signs to the exit list, which is in violation of MOS:RJL. User is showing little regard to the MOS for exit lists. Dough4872 01:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- He's just violated 3RR on that page, so a block for that would seem to be in order. Maybe an extended one on account of his persistent unwillingness to understand and respect consensus. --Sable232 (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Could an (uninvolved) admin review this before it gets archived? --Rschen7754 01:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sooner than later. Cards84664 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Please close this. Now you've seen it firsthand at Super Mario. Cards84664 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Technically, since I’ve reverted him twice, I’m now involved, but had I not, I would definitely have blocked him. He does not understand OR and edit wars to keep his OR in place in articles. Additionally, he has been warned, but has a WP:IDHT about it. I believe he deserves a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Your turn. Cards84664 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uh oh... what's going on in here, fellas? What do I need to look into doing? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: ANI is pretty busy, we need someone to close this since Sergecross73 is unable to. Cards84664 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uh oh... what's going on in here, fellas? What do I need to look into doing? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Your turn. Cards84664 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Technically, since I’ve reverted him twice, I’m now involved, but had I not, I would definitely have blocked him. He does not understand OR and edit wars to keep his OR in place in articles. Additionally, he has been warned, but has a WP:IDHT about it. I believe he deserves a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the discussion here, the user's recent contributions and conduct on Wikipedia, and the concerns expressed - I feel that the following can be asserted and based off of my uninvolved analysis and findings. Peterjack1:
- has a long history of violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while making edits and adding content to articles - the concerns expressed and the user's contributions show that he has repeatedly added unsourced content, original research, and content that does not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
- has failed to take multiple discussions held involving his edits and the policies cited that Peterjack1 has been violating - and take the proper time to review, understand, and apply them to future edits to articles and content. This is prevalent when I read through the discussion held on Talk:Super Mario and the edits made to the article (as well as others) in response to those discussions.
- has not demonstrated a desire to take the feedback and discussions to heart and improve upon their edits. Some responses and comments made by Peterjack1 (even in this discussion here) show a battleground-like demeanor, and a belief that their edits are not problematic and that collaboration and consensus is not their desired goal.
- will likely not improve their edits without administrative intervention, and that administrative action is necessary in order to stop the behavior and prevent future violations of Wikipedia's policies.
- Given my findings above, I am blocking Peterjack1 for a period of one month so that he'll (hopefully) take this time to self-reflect, review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and understand them fully, refocus their efforts and priorities to put the project's growth and expansion as a top priority, and work with other editors in a positive and collaborative manner to help to make Wikipedia a place for everyone to visit, read, and edit and with articles and content written in the highest quality, neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability that we can provide. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
post hoc discussion and socking follow up
- You have a lot of us admins who can't block due to being involved very thankful for your decision. Mitch32(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 05:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: or @Mitchazenia:, Now we have a solid case of socking, please take a look at Spyro5478, and toss out 74.71.22.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) while you're at it. Cards84664 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- reported Spyro5478 at SPI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- In these situations where an individual is quite headstrong, many socks will likely be created. Heads up. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1. note to archiver When archiving the main thread of this discussion, please include this subthread.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you archive a level2 section without including level3 sections below it? Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you archive a level2 section without including level3 sections below it? Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1. note to archiver When archiving the main thread of this discussion, please include this subthread.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- In these situations where an individual is quite headstrong, many socks will likely be created. Heads up. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I blocked the 74 IP that he'd used previously. Sad,-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Request advice concerning FreeKnowledgeCreator
I have tried unsuccessfully to edit the page A Thousand Plateaus. A person who currently uses the pseudonym @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, but who previously ruled the talk page as Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs) has adamantly refused that so much as punctuation mark and metatextual signs be modified. They have now been engaging me in a short edit war, in which I have attempted to make a number of improvements.
These five reverts are not the first time that FKC has edit-warred on the page. As Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs), they also engaged in pointless edit warring on this same sentence back in 2012 with an IP: diff 6.
I also see them dominating the previous discussion of this page at WP:NPOV/N here. More eyes are need, especially those who might also know something about "continental philosophy". The full context of the current TP discussion starts a bit before here.
Thanks for any productive advice on dealing with the incivility and ownership behavior. SashiRolls t · c 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above is part of a content dispute that doesn't belong here. Essentially SashiRolls is unhappy because their edits were reverted. I am perfectly happy to discuss matters in good faith with SashiRolls, but the discussion doesn't belong here. Asking for a third opinion would have been fine, but an ANI post is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I trust those who look into the context of the TP can judge whether there is incivility on the TP or ownership behavior on the mainspace page on their own. I'm looking for a restatement of the words used by @Bbb23: back when you were blocked: "Finally, if there's any repetition of abusive editing by this person, no matter how eloquently they defend themselves, the same". Maybe you've kept your nose clean for a while, if so, that's great... let's just remember that you're not here to enforce your PoV when it has been consistently challenged, for years now, by multiple users on the TP. I don't take evidence of behavioral problems to ANI every time I see them. SashiRolls t · c 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear it, but that doesn't make this ill-judged act of yours any the more appropriate. You can label disagreeing with your edits "abusive editing" if you want, but it accomplishes nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that in this filing, only the citation from Bbb23 contains the words "abusive editing". It's at the very end of this page: [57]. SashiRolls t · c 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- In effect you implied that I was guilty of "abusive editing" for disagreeing with you. Someone shut this discussion down already and tell SashiRolls to pursue some appropriate form of dispute resolution. Waste of time for all concerned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that in this filing, only the citation from Bbb23 contains the words "abusive editing". It's at the very end of this page: [57]. SashiRolls t · c 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear it, but that doesn't make this ill-judged act of yours any the more appropriate. You can label disagreeing with your edits "abusive editing" if you want, but it accomplishes nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I trust those who look into the context of the TP can judge whether there is incivility on the TP or ownership behavior on the mainspace page on their own. I'm looking for a restatement of the words used by @Bbb23: back when you were blocked: "Finally, if there's any repetition of abusive editing by this person, no matter how eloquently they defend themselves, the same". Maybe you've kept your nose clean for a while, if so, that's great... let's just remember that you're not here to enforce your PoV when it has been consistently challenged, for years now, by multiple users on the TP. I don't take evidence of behavioral problems to ANI every time I see them. SashiRolls t · c 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The two of you must stop bickering now, or both of you will be blocked for disruption. Drop your sticks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Humor? "Bickering" isn't a blockable offense so far as I know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Bickering in this way is a form of tendentious editing and disruptive editing in general. You are at the very brink of a block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- He was, too. See his SPI thread that almost got him blocked. Unfortunately, he didn’t get blocked. What a shame. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The blockability of bickering aside, it's my experience where there is substantial discussion from the existing participants of whatever dispute before anyone else has joined rarely lead to one sides action. Mostly commonly they simply have no action, sometimes said participants are all blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this is why I thought it best to bring the behavioral problems up here before going to WP:3O, which I have now done. (I notice that the knowledgeable IP who tried to fix this page back in 2012 never returned to en.wp—at least as an IP—after their interactions with FKC.) I think it worth asking if misrepresentation of sources is considered a behavioral issue. Having a copy of Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge on my bookshelf, I decided to check the context for the statement that was used to suggest that the subject of the article was a nonsensical book. The result is here. In fact, reading the whole essay shows that Lyotard was holding the fluffy article in a weekly literature magazine up as an example of what Régis Dubray translates as a reactionary "slackening". It is difficult to imagine that someone wishing to accurately represent the book's reception would have added something so diametrically opposed to Lyotard's meaning into the article. SashiRolls t · c 14:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, I should clarify my comment wasn't meant to comment on any possible action from Cullen328, but instead simply to suggest that when this happens, the people involved are probably doing something wrong. (Maybe there was no reason for the case to come to ANI, maybe there was but the arguing has meant no one is sufficiently interested in sorting through it.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of the past socking, unless there are new allegations. The extent to which there's WP:OWN going on is unclear. In a couple things, FKC seems to have a decent point, but in others (and even in those couple points) it's definitely not a situation with a clear black and white policy answer. Got to continue down the dispute resolution path, though; I don't think admin action is called for here. 3O is the most likely to help (I see it's there already). My advice is that you two should try to deterritorialize by hopping on the next line of flight out of the reception section and into the summary section. An unfortunate articulation of D&G's assemblage to have a reception section roughly six times the size of the material that actually summarizes the book. Granted, it's hard to separate reception from summary while keeping the rhizomatic read remotely reader-friendly, but maybe talking about how that could be done would be useful. Virtually useful? Either way, I don't see a need for admin action; just for additional people to get involved in the content dispute. (This didn't start off so self-indulgent, sorry). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Both parties appeared to have edit warred (Over how long?). I think taking a step back for a few days is a good idea for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Request for admin-eyes-only summary
Whether the stale odor of socking is pertinent or not is an interesting question. Looking at another Deleuze & Guattari book review review I've never edited, I find the authorship info of our What is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guattari) entry shows that the primary authors are:
- FreeKnowledgeCreator: 68.3%
- Polisher of Cobwebs: 25.7%
The content is eerily similar, isn't it?
As it turns out though, I would need admin-eyes to see that page since the battles that may have raged there have been revdelled. Could an admin summarize what happened, please? SashiRolls t · c 21:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Er...what? The revisions are deleted but the edit summaries aren't, anyone can see that there are no "battles raging" in the edit history. Also I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "authorship info". POC and FKC are the same person. FKC started editing the article after POC was blocked. There is no suspicious behavior there, and I'm not sure why you're bringing up socking that ended in 2014. This does appear to be a minor content dispute. When this situation arises, you're supposed to stop and discuss the specific points of disagreement. If you reach an impasse, you pursue dispute resolution. You don't edit war, you don't take a hostile tone, you don't make personal commentary, you don't bring up irrelevant misdeeds from over three years ago, and you don't drag your opponent to AN/I just because you can't resolve a dispute with them. You are expected to have the competence to work to resolve content disagreements. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Er... ok, there's just a whole host of inexplicable deletions, I guess revdel isn't the word. Perhaps it's just something simple. But in terms of editing there, I'll pass for the moment, I guess that is a competence. FKC has signed 38 pages where Bricmont & Sokal are discussed. That's kind of a lot. I'd probably be safer elsewhere given the tone of many of those discussions. And I see Roger Scruton or Bricmont & Sokal having the last word on too many major philosophical works for comfort. (Critique of Dialectical Reason, Deleuze BLP, A Thousand Plateaus (perhaps still, not sure), What is Philosophy?,...) I think I'll steer clear, profusely apologizing for having blundered into those really clever "science wars" cites claiming that wide swath(e)s of post-1962 French philosophy were in fact pseudo-scientific claptrap all along. What a relief! I'm feelin' positively w!k!fied that we discourage reading such "fashionable nonsense". SashiRolls t · c 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- They are revdels, but they are not "inexplicable", they're explained in the deletion log for the page. FKC had identified and removed copyright violations from the page, and the revisions containing violations were deleted in accordance with WP:CPI. FKC is conducting voluntary copyright cleanup on many of their articles. That's completely unrelated to your dispute. Like I said, you should be able to see from the edit summaries that there is no contentious editing history there. Regarding the content issue itself, there are tons of places to discuss this, but this is not one of those places. And, when I talk about competence to work through disputes, I do not mean you need to walk away (although WP:LETITGO is good advice sometimes). I just mean that you are not expected to just argue with FKC ad infinitum. Dispute resolution is about getting outside opinions, and if necessary, forming consensuses which deliver binding decisions. WP:RFC and WP:3O are helpful tools. If you have an issue which affects a wide variety of articles, you can conduct these discussions at centralized locations, such as WikiProjects or noticeboards, and get general rulings regarding fundamental article positions. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Both editors are yet again at the precipice of 3RR. I acknowledge that the style of editing FKC is taking here can be frustrating. Most of us have been on the other side of an argument with a highly-active, highly-particular/fastidious editor enough to empathize with Sashi here, I think (which is not necessarily to say that I think the thrust of FKC's main points are wrong -- I'm not certain). Regardless, the options in response are not (a) edit war, (b) make it seem like FKC is not allowed to revert, or (c) try to dig for dirt in FKC's editing history. The options are (a) getting comfy on the talk page for as long as it takes to resolve it before adding it again or (b) working through other dispute resolution processes, like DR/3O/RfC/whatever. Might be worth leaving some WikiProject messages (WP Philosophy, for example), too. If this continues in the same direction it's been going, a block/ban seems pretty certain. It's clear you're both making good faith attempts to improve the article, and there are very few people able -- and even fewer people willing -- to edit Deleuze articles, so let's not get banned by continuing this thread. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Who is Bidhan Singh & why does a mobile editor from varies 24XX.XXX.XXX mobile accounts keep putting him into the Head of state article, while adding random whitespaces to President of India & related articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- A fair question, and one that has been recently much on my mind.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Head of state has been protected by TideRolls-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The individual continues to mess with other articles. I suppose there's no way that Wikimedia can track him down & perma ban. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- IP addresses can't be indef-blocked. Perhaps requesting an edit filter would be a better solution? –FlyingAce✈hello 14:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The individual continues to mess with other articles. I suppose there's no way that Wikimedia can track him down & perma ban. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Live score updates
An IP-hopping user (currently User:2600:1000:B02E:73AC:38EC:1BCF:E9E2:DCB3, and yesterday User:2600:1000:B118:DF68:51D:B81C:C7C0:37DD) is insisting on adding live score updates to the 2018–19 NFL playoffs article. I have mentioned to them that Wikipedia is not a news source and there are far better places for people to get updates from. The game will be over in a couple of hours, so they should really be waiting until then to add all the relevant info, not just changing the score. I should also mention that this person has made a number of unwarranted personal attacks against me (see here, here and here). – PeeJay 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the article for 3 hours, that should sort out that issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: Thanks for that. Chances are the issue will surface again for the later game this evening, so I recommend protecting the article for six hours instead of three. – PeeJay 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, just noticed that. Now protected until 2am UTC. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: Thanks for that. Chances are the issue will surface again for the later game this evening, so I recommend protecting the article for six hours instead of three. – PeeJay 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Black Kite, the IP-hopper is back at it. Please re-semi, for longer this time? Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Persistent NOTBROKEN vios, no communication
59.102.47.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Persistent and ongoing violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, after two warnings.
- 16:20, 17 December 2018 - advised of NOTBROKEN by User:FlightTime. There was no response.
- 23:52, 11 January 2019 - advised of NOTBROKEN by me. There was no response.
- 01:46, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
- 02:01, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
- 05:35, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
- 10:45, 12 January 2019 - at least one NOTBROKEN vio
- 11:07, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios, at least one defeating a section redirect
- 11:41, 12 January 2019 - multiple NOTBROKEN vios
At this point I tired of this tedious work. As of this writing there are about 22 later edits with edit summaries including the words "link corrections"; given the pattern, it is reasonable to assume that they include many more NOTBROKEN vios.
- 19:30, 13 January 2019 - advised of NOTBROKEN by User:Mac Dreamstate. There has been no response and, given the pattern, it is reasonable to assume that none will be forthcoming and that the NOTBROKEN vios will continue.
Requesting two things:
- A block of sufficient duration to be noticed by the user and get their attention.
- That an admin advise the user of the importance of communication with other editors, and follow up to make sure they received that message. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The latest edits seem to have stopped doing this. Maybe the IP editor is listening now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- 09:13, 14 January 2019 - at least one NOTBROKEN vio
And still no acknowledgement. I don't see why editors should be required to monitor this person's edits until (1) it becomes statistically probable that they have seen the messages and have stopped violating NOTBROKEN, or (2) it becomes obvious that they have not, requiring another ANI complaint, at which point we would start all over again with the "let's wait and see" bit. That's just silly, and my requests stand. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
FTR: I complained to User:Awilley on his UTP.[58] I didn't get a block, but at least I got some admin action[59] (thank you) with the possibility of a future block. Yet another piss-poor performance by ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, if you want an immediate block I'm probably not the best admin to approach about that. I've made only 39 blocks in my 5+1⁄2 years as an admin. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Keith-264
Yet again false accusations of vandalism, & now "sabotage". Yet where are the sanctions? Nowhere to be seen. So he gets a free pass, & I get a block for "incivility". What a bunch of hypocrites. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any recent blocks in your log. What are you talking about specifically? spryde | talk 17:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- You know you're required to notify Keith-264 (talk · contribs), right? And that some diffs or links would help out those who are puzzled by reading this. There's also a really big risk of this getting treated as The Boy Who Cried Wolf otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I presume this is in relation to Malta convoys and Talk:Malta convoys#Major edit? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I request that Trek be reminded of the the advice given to him here a few days ago to take it to RFC. He didn't, so I did and now he's laying blame again. I added detail to the article under Background and Prelude to get the ball rolling and he returned to peremptory content removals. I had another look at WP:vandalism which covers at least some of Trek's edits but I also tried to move on, in cooperation with other editors and he's ruined it. It's getting boring. Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since nobody on this page, or any Admin, is paying the slightest attention ao anything I say, notification was pointless. Accustions of vandalism, sabotage, & not assuming good faith, all made by Keith-264, are, by appearances, perfectly okay--so long as they're made against me. And his "discussion" of the issue in question, so far, has amounted to criticism of my actions & calling my edits an idee fixe, & scant actual discussion of the content, or why his view should prevail. Oh, wait, he thinks he doesn't owe me any. Evidently, no "administrator" does, either. So go ahead. Block me. Ban me. It's what you're just itching to do, isn't it? Just waiting for me to say or do something that will give you an excuse to ban me forever, right? At this point, I'm wondering why I put up with this garbage. So go ahead & do it. Prove me right: I can't get fair treatment. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- (non admin comment) If this is about the Malta Convoys thing, I remember it being recommended that the content dispute at hand be appealed at the Milhist talk page for a wider range of opinion. This has not yet occurred, and it seems its time it should. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- ♠I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue, & have been from the outset. The closed-minded one has been, & remains, Keith-264.
- ♠I also notice Andy Dingley & haunting my every edit, somehow. How, exactly, does he manage to keep turning up every time I create a page? Oh, wait, nobody here cares about that, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Trek is playing the martyr yet he has got away with slash and burn removals of content. @Indy, yes it has. Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You do know, don't you, that unsupported accusations of wrongdoing are considered personal attacks? Provide evidence or make no more accusations, both of you, or you may be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Provide evidence? False accusations of vandalism, vandalism, sabotage, not AGF, & lying (a knowing falsehood is a lie by definition). And you have the nerve to threaten me with a block! I was right! Every single admin here is a hypocrite! TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow! All 1,190 of them? That's a lot of hypocrisy all in one place! Normally you'd have to go to Hollywood or Washington D.C. to get that level of hypocrisy, and we have it right here, in our own little corner of paradise. Amazing! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Provide evidence? False accusations of vandalism, vandalism, sabotage, not AGF, & lying (a knowing falsehood is a lie by definition). And you have the nerve to threaten me with a block! I was right! Every single admin here is a hypocrite! TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- You may need to take a deep breath and count to 100, you seem a little agitated. Your post here is lacking a few things from you that would probably help your case - civility (in general) followed by actual proof of your statements. Instead of coming here saying "HA! I knew you wouldn't do anything" and then expect people to read your mind you could have presented actual diffs etc. to what the problem is. Admins are not mind readers, they are not omniscient and they are not all out to get you. So perhaps just calm down and there may actually be a chance you would be listened to. Five cents of advice from a non-admin. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- As one of the few editors to weigh on on the previous discussion, I've said it before and said it again it's wrong to say something is vandalism which clearly isn't. If Keith-264 is still calling things of yours vandalism which aren't, I would still support a block. But a quick look in the edit history didn't show any vandalism accusations after my edit. If there are some in your diffs above, I can't be bothered sorting through them. As others have indicated above, people would likely care more about this if your behaviour here wasn't so poor. As for other issues like sabotage accusations, it could easily be a personal attack, although it's a lot less clear than vandalism which as I said has a definition here on wikipedia which doesn't includes your edits whatever their quality. Again people would care more about this if your behaviour here wasn't so poor. Frankly even if I were an admin, and I did come across a diff of Keith-264 accusing you of vandalism after the discussion in the last ANI (yes I'm aware there was some initial problems, I'm talking about after that), I'm not sure if I could be arsed to do anything about it based on your behaviour. And it isn't even just in this thread. I said in the previous ANI that you two need to use some form of dispute resolution if you can't sort it out by yourselves. (I had a quick look at the history and others told you likewise.) I said in that talk page you two should cut out the personal stuff. Yet I visit that talk and mostly see more of the same nonsense. Slatersteven is trying to help, I'm not really sure how they became aware of the discussion but I'm guessing it wasn't due to one of you using some form of dispute resolution. (ANI is not dispute resolution.) Frankly I was thinking this last time, and I'm thinking it even more now, the simplest solution would just be some form of topic ban for both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I came over there as a result of an RFC notice on the Mil hist board. Personally I am not that impressed with either edd involved in this. But have no idea as to the history, OR WHO STARTED IT. Maybe you both need to take time off from that article. Or maybe an IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah so I see someone did finally try to get outside help to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately for TREKphiler, it's the person they're complaining about ..... Still the best solution was of course for both parties to participate in good faith in the discussion and try to put aside their apparent strong dislike for each other. Not come and moan here about how everyone else is evil or whatever. (To be clear, I'm not excusing any poor behaviour from Keith-264 either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a case of personal enmity then I do not think it is possible for them to cooperate and this will just flare up again. You are both aware this is heading for an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah so I see someone did finally try to get outside help to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately for TREKphiler, it's the person they're complaining about ..... Still the best solution was of course for both parties to participate in good faith in the discussion and try to put aside their apparent strong dislike for each other. Not come and moan here about how everyone else is evil or whatever. (To be clear, I'm not excusing any poor behaviour from Keith-264 either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The unfairness bullshit and railing against all admins (temper tantrum throwing) has predisposed me against Trekphiler. A little less martyrdom and a lot more factual reporting would go a long way to reducing the drama and allowing the community, including us dreadful admins, to objectively read the situation. Even so. No one is right when everybody is wrong. Mutual IBAN's for these two and TBAN's for both from the article in question. Let the MILHIST people sort out the content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- addendum per Nil Einne
and per Slaterstevenand per MPJ-DK.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
- addendum per Nil Einne
- My comment was not about this dispute, but another.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would oppose any talk of IBANs. I don't see that two editors with such obvious overlaps in interest would benefit at all from such a thing. I would encourage both to try and resolve this dispute though, and that's probably by both of them agreeing to run some sort of RfC through milhist, for both to pitch their standpoints and suggested texts, and for both to agree to stand well back from it thereafter whilst others agree something and write it. No matter what sort of 'hypocritical sabotage' either of them might think of the result. Otherwise it is likely to end in *BANs. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apropos vandalism, I had another look at the WP and find that Nil Einne's judgement is untenable. As for comments here, it seems to me that Trek is my best advocate. He's got his own way with the article, his peremptory edits have continued and yet he still plays the martyr. I have tried to move on with a RFC and engagement with other editors who seem willing to take my edits as they come, rather than to condemn them out off hand. I hope that this continues. I don't have this page on watch so if anyone wants me to see a comment pls ping me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE editor using an article's talk page as WP:FORUM
- Fariborz26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this user is using Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis like a WP:FORUM. first i answered him with sources but he does not get the point and keep feeding the talk page with his sole POV. Then i removed the discussions per WP:FORUM, WP:TROLL and WP:DONTFEED, but now, he's edit warring in order to reinstate his irrelevant edits and says that this is his "freedom of speech" or WP:BATTLEGROUND comments like "you could not stop me" on his talk page : [60]. IMO, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE troll. Admins attention is required. Thanks very much.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAP case. Looking at their comments shows the reported user thinks WP is a forum and articles should be rewritten based on their nationalistic fantasies. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a few sentences in "talk page" and share my concern about the article, at first Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted my writings and called me troll and diversionist ( while I did not change the main page). Then I undo my section (in talk page) and described my reason, after that again Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writings, threated me to block and accused me of using the talk page as the forum (while I just respond to his concern), so now somebody else, Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writing, threated me to block, and call me a nationalist who wants to write my nationalistic fantasies, who is Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? is he an administrator with such pre-judgemental mind? How could I write a few sentences and share my concern in talk page?Fariborz26 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Content dispute? Background: Iranian Azerbaijanis is about Azerbaijanis living in Iran. Not surprisingly, whether they are Iranian or not Iranian is a topic of discussion. Before Aug 2018, the Origin section of the article began by discussing a 2013 Russian DNA study that concluded not Iranian (or more Georgian than Iranian). In August, Wikaviani added content sourced to two Iranian studies that concluded Iranian. [61] [62] On 4 Jan, Fariborz26 posted on the article's talk page and a discussion ensued about the Origin section and the studies cited. [63] On 15 Jan, Wikaviani deleted the talk page discussion, [64] Fariborz26 undid [65] and added more comments, [66] [67] Wikaviani reverted [68] and posted a warning, [69] Fariborz26 undid, [70] Wario-Man reverted [71] and posted a final warning, [72] about the same time this ANI was posted. Fariborz26 posted an additional article talk page comment. [73] Seems to me the objections are centered on WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and whether the entire DNA/origin issue should even be in the article at all. I express no opinion on that but if this is a content dispute about the studies, perhaps third opinion or dispute resolution is the proper forum. Also I'm curious about reverting a bot's edit with the edit summary "removed an unreliable source" when the source is an MIT Press book. [74] Levivich? ! 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is not a content dispute and what you have posted is irrelevant to this ANI case. User:Wikaviani's edits are another story and if any editor thinks they're wrong, they should discuss on article talk page. This report is about the behavior and comments of reported user on talk page. It seems you're not familiar with this topic and that's the reason why you think his comments are content dispute stuff (as if they're caused by Wikaviani's edits). Even his last comment does not make any sense at all.[75]; e.g. he said: "You could not find the Origin section in the rest of the ethnic groups' pages." Really?! Almost all articles about ethnic groups have a section named "Origins" and many others have "Genetics" too. Don't you think posting such comments on talk pages is some kind of trolling or inappropriate behavior? He wants to remove some content from the article only because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Per his comments, he also likes to insert his ethnocentrist POV and nationalistic rants instead of sourced content. And finally his behavior fits in WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: This has nothing to do with a content dispute, this is about a WP:NOTHERE ethno-nationalist troll who wants to rewrite the Iranian Azerbaijanis article in the way he likes. My mistake was that i began discussing with him on the article's talk page instead of simply ignoring him or, better, removing his WP:FORUM-like unsourced comments. Also, the "third opinion" was Wario-Man. As to your remark about my removal of a source, please take a look at who Brenda Schaffer is and you'll understand why i removed her.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I looked into her. Brenda Shaffer is a professor at Georgetown University [76] and the University of Haifa, former research director for Caspian Studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government [77], a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [78], published by MIT Press, University of Pennsylvania Press and others, testified before the US Congress, quoted in the media, and generally appears to me to be a recognized scholar in the area. I'm guessing this is about the accusations in Huffington Post [79], The New Republic [80], and OCCRP [81]. I call it a content dispute because the dispute appears to be about what content should be in the article or not be in the article, or what source should be cited or not be cited. Levivich? ! 15:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I like your both suggestions; please tell me what I should do for the next step. Also, I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications.Fariborz26 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fariborz26: My first suggestion for "next step" is to wait and do nothing (at least for a few more days), to give other editors a chance to comment here, and see what others think. I only speak for myself and not for anyone else, and others may have a different point of view on this issue. If there is no progress here or on the article talk page after a few days, you might want to ask for help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do post to DRN, keep the issue as narrow and simple as possible (don't complain about mistreatment of entire groups of people generally, but rather ask for opinons about this edit or that section of a specific article). I hope this help! Levivich? ! 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As per the above diffs, comments, and the reported user's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like "I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications") who sounds like having some serious WP:CIR issues (one more example here where he believes to have provided a reliable source with high impact factors with a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written ...), i make the below proposal :
Topic ban proposal
An indef topic ban on all topics related to the Azerbaijanis and Iran broadly construed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, for three reasons:
- I don't see what the editor did that violated any policy; raising objections about an article's content on its talk page is exactly what we're supposed to do. This still seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, to me.
- There appear to be good-faith reasons to have concerns about the two studies (1 and 2 in Wikaviani's comment above the proposal). Both studies suggest that Iranian Azeris are Iranian; both are from Iranian universities; neither is highly cited; and both are published in what may be low- or no-impact or non-notable journals: International Journal of Modern Anthropology (can't find on RG or SJR, 6 cites on WP), and International Journal of Immunogenetics (Ovid IF 1, SJR H-Index 43, 21 WP cites). Fariborz26's objection to the two seems to be a good-faith one to me.
- Wikaviani's third link, in the sentence "one more example here", is to Fariborz's post on the article talk page, in which Fariborz linked to National Geographic Society's Genographic Project 2.0's article about reference populations, which Wikaviani characterizes as "a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written". But if you read the talk page post, Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, he's arguing for removing the Origin section altogether based on, as I understand it, genetic diversity and the challenges that arise in using DNA studies to categorize people into definite groups, and he was using the Geno 2.0 study as evidence of the broader point about classification of ethnic or nationality groups by DNA. To quote Fariborz:
People in one country or region have different roots from different parts of the world so we should not use the term of the Origin anymore, it is the concept of the 19th century not 21st.
- I don't know if Fariborz is right or not right about removal of the studies or the Origin section of the article, but I don't see how his bringing it up in any way merits any kind of sanction whatsoever. Levivich? ! 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, as far as i can see, using an article's talk page to give his opinion about the article with no source is prohibited. Making battleground comments is prohibited. Edit warring, is prohibited. Need more ? what about this this section title ? I would be curious to know why Fariborz finds offensive for Azerbaijanis to be described as having Iranian origins. Clearly ethno linguistic nationalism.
- So, according to you, since the sources i cited in the article are Iranians and support an Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis, then they may be dubious ?! So let's remove all non notable (BTW this is yet to be demonstrated and the links you provided do not discredit these sources, they have few cites because Iranian sources are, often, less famous than westerners) English sources for UK-related topics, non notable American sources for US-related topics, non notable French sources for France-related topics, etc ...
- If this Nat Geo society source is not to be included, then why quoting it on the talk page ? You're quite wrong when you say Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, and this shows, as Wario-Man said above, that you're not familiar with this issue yet. Fariborz claimed to have "tons of references" for his claims and he posts that poor one thinking that it's a high quality source. Did you take a look at it ? i forgot the number of spelling mistakes it contains. Also, it is strongly controversial. Fariborz made his first edit on january 4, 2019 then 16 other edits have been made and not a single of them is actually improving the project, instead, we have WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND contributions. Seriously ?! Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- The articles Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis have sections on origins and genetics, but those are articles about ethnic groups. Iranian Azerbaijanis is an article about a particular ethnic group (Azeris) in a country (Iran). In similar articles, Kurds in Iran, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Armenians, Iranian Turkmen...none have a section about origin, DNA, or whether the ethnic group is "Iranian" or "Kurdish", "Georgian", "Assyrian", etc. Iranian Kazakhs has a section on Origin but it doesn't mention DNA or whether they are "Iranian" or "Kazakh". The suggestion that an Iranian Azeri is Iranian and not Azeri, or Azeri and not Iranian, is surely a controversial one. Seems to me like exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed by editors on a talk page. As for the editor not editing more, my assumption is the editor isn't editing because the first time they posted something on a talk page, it resulted in them being brought to ANI. But it doesn't matter; even an IP editor should be able to post this on a talk page without getting dragged to ANI over it. Levivich? ! 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- IPs can post what they want (just like any other user), but on one condition (just like any other user too), it should be sourced and verifiable, per WP:EQUAL. Also, your remarks about other articles not having an origin section does not justify to remove sourced content from the Iranian Azerbaijanis article per WP:OTHER. And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong: Fariborz did not remove anything. Fariborz posted to the article talk page, and you removed those posts, and then posted here. Are you suggesting WP:RS is required for talk page posts? I do agree it will be helpful to hear from other editors about this. Levivich? ! 03:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- IPs can post what they want (just like any other user), but on one condition (just like any other user too), it should be sourced and verifiable, per WP:EQUAL. Also, your remarks about other articles not having an origin section does not justify to remove sourced content from the Iranian Azerbaijanis article per WP:OTHER. And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- The articles Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis have sections on origins and genetics, but those are articles about ethnic groups. Iranian Azerbaijanis is an article about a particular ethnic group (Azeris) in a country (Iran). In similar articles, Kurds in Iran, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Armenians, Iranian Turkmen...none have a section about origin, DNA, or whether the ethnic group is "Iranian" or "Kurdish", "Georgian", "Assyrian", etc. Iranian Kazakhs has a section on Origin but it doesn't mention DNA or whether they are "Iranian" or "Kazakh". The suggestion that an Iranian Azeri is Iranian and not Azeri, or Azeri and not Iranian, is surely a controversial one. Seems to me like exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed by editors on a talk page. As for the editor not editing more, my assumption is the editor isn't editing because the first time they posted something on a talk page, it resulted in them being brought to ANI. But it doesn't matter; even an IP editor should be able to post this on a talk page without getting dragged to ANI over it. Levivich? ! 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
MLearry and abiogenesis
- MLearry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Abiogenesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
MLearry has to stop his/her WP:ADVOCACY about abiogenesis. Does not seem to WP:HEAR our advice. Has become aggressive with Mr./Ms. Rowan Forest, there is no Theory of Abiogenesis yet. Stop delusions (and stop cheap attempt at poetry).. .
[82]. Deals in creationist canards, like The article of an encyclopedia state the facts about research conclusions, their limitations, quote opinions and state future research, but it doesn't play with words to hide the limitations of some hypothesis so that "any believer in God note we are atheists",
[83] and My point has been , and still is, that there is no need to be bias and furnish a slowly ingrained "atheist" slogan in this encyclopedia article.
[84]. Such accusations show WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and push a WP:PROFRINGE POV. And, oh, that old tired creationist canard about Pasteur and abiogenesis, [85]. Or (are you so naive to think NO single scientist believe in God?)
[86]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if I have the right to comment here. I apologize if I don't have, I guess I have it. But I exhort those listening to consider that there are aspects ( and also a context, along with sentences made by me) not mentioned by Tgeorgescu in his previous message here, and those aspects, further sentences & context change significantly the reasons and/or intentions, and any potential blame, suggested. The implied messages are at my Talk page, and from me are mostly replies, not conversation starters. Thank you for your time. MLearry. January 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MLearry: It might amaze you, but I believe in God, there is no contradiction between God and abiogenesis. Of course, if you reduce God to a cosmic magician, he is incompatible with abiogenesis. Also, the suggestion that atoms would have souls (panpsychism) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: God and/or Panpsychism, both notions, are in a sense antagonistic with Abiogenesis (as presented today, 2019) since they (God and/or Panpsychism) represent an origin of life that is not entirely an accident, while Abiogenesis (in its most common & popular interpretation) suggest that life is the by-product of luck, an accident that lead to an emergent system "prolonged in time". There are various different interpretations of Panpsychism, and, under one interpretation, is not atoms but macroscopic systems what have the property of processing information in a subjective (but not necessarily anthropomorphic) way (and thus capable of somehow influence outcomes in a non-random but non-magical fashion; when I say systems, is not just necessarily the known biological ones, nor merely the artificial automaton created by sentient intelligent beings; consider that some systems tend toward maintaining some chemical equilibrium, as a non-exhaustive example). If one day the hypothesis of Abiogenesis acquire such a level of evidenced that is too hard to dispute (and becomes a theory, formally speaking), it will be inevitable that some atheist will argue that life is the product of accident, and that the belief in God is just a superfluous & rampant denial of the clear truth. God and/or Panpsychism can be regarded as having an inverse correlation with the hypothesis of Abiogenesis (and by that, I mean Abiogenesis as presented today , in 2019; Perhaps other ideas differ in that regard, but they much less popular). That's why I do believe they are pertinent to the topic when discussing the philosophical implications of Abiogenesis. Sometimes, someone suggest something that immerse others into those philosophical positions, even indirectly... For my part, I simply think that an encyclopedia article that focus on empirical research should stay away from fostering somehow those inconclusive debates, unless such article has a title that prepares the reader for less neutral positions, like "Philosophical implications of Abiogenesis", or "debate in Abiogenesis"", or something like that). - MLearry — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Removing other editor's comments
Microwave auditory effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
PaulGosar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edits in question: [87][88][89][90][91][92][93]
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The entire section is worth reading: Talk:Microwave auditory effect#December 2018 - Hello, Goodbye, Goodnight. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- He recently posted Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Electronic Harassment and seeming NPOV/cherrypicking violations, in which he outlines his point of view (he accuses WP of being "biased towards science"). It's a pretty clear case of WP:GREATWRONGS, though he certainly got more belligerent today. VQuakr (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from pseudoscience be appropriate here?
- Related question: do we have a place where the other accounts associated with Handlerendings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are listed? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also related: [94]. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Related question: do we have a place where the other accounts associated with Handlerendings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are listed? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN. Sometimes proponents of fringe ideas can help us understand them better and document them from a reality-based perspective. And sometimes they are only here to WP:BLUDGEON bullshit into articles. This looks like the latter kind of editor. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think this would fall under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. It doesn't look as though the editor has been alerted to those sanctions, but once they have, AE is the right place for this. I'd suggest alerting them, leaving a courteous note summarising what will happen if they keep disrupting articles, and seeing what happens. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bellezzasolo posted the DS alert.[95] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think they are utterly puzzled that the community finds them disruptive and do not know how to edit otherwise in this subject area. A TBAN will allow us to try to retain and repurpose a potentially constructive member of the community.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bellezzasolo posted the DS alert.[95] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN. Enough please, we have reached WP:EXHAUSTION. After months of having policies explained to them on Talk pages, they are still on the same mission to right WP:GREATWRONGS. The primary wrong they want righted is Wikipedia's bias in favor of psychiatrists and mental heath professionals regarding the treatment of people who say the government is beaming voices into their heads [96]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Username Issue? On my talk page[97] another editor mentioned the similarity between this username and Arizona politician Paul Gosar. I am reluctant to take that first "talk to the user" step as recomended in Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames while in the middle of an ANI report. It kind of feels like piling on or throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I just filed at UAA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN: I was on the fence but I reviewed their edits again. What I am not seeing is even the slightest attempt to listen to advice given by multiple experienced editors. A classic case of WP:RGW and WP:IDHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN Editor has demonstrated a repeated refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy when editing in this topic area. --Jayron32 20:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN It would be nice to have some response from this user. The oblique request for help referenced above is sad on the one hand and revealing of a lack of ability to function in a collaborative environment on the other. Hopefully, they can now turn to constructive pursuits.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN I had reservations and wanted to hear what he had to say about a possible path forward first, but he's acknowledged the notice of this discussion without choosing to comment. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The issue in question is whether I unfairly deleted another user comments, not whether I can 'work with others' etc. A user accused me without evidence that I had a sockpuppet. I consider this a serious personal attack, so I removed the comment. Under WP:TPOC, this is acceptable behavior - unless you think another accusing me of sock puppetry is merely uncivil, in which case the deletion would not be so egregious as to warrant a ban, but merely controversial --PaulGosar (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:[98]--PaulGosar (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The edit in that diff is not directed at you, Paul. JamesWatson was flagging an edit made by an account that was determined to be a sock so that anyone assessing consensus on the talk page would give that due weight. It was not an accusation that it was your sock. I can assure you if that account was a sock of yours, you'd already be blocked. TelosCricket (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:[98]--PaulGosar (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do not mischaracterize me. I am for science. I am for psychiatry. I am against cherrypicking facts. Most of what I have added has been from sources already cited. Just because other users disagree is no reason to censor notably well sourced information. Read the talk pages. Read the archives. Read my suggestions. I have not intentionally violated any wikipedia policies.--PaulGosar (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you have evidence that the administrator who issued that edit warring block was wrong, talk it over with him on his talk page, and if that doesn't resolve the issue, present your evidence in a separate section. This ANI report is about your behavior, not sirlanz's. Your transparent attempt to deflect the conversation away from your behavior is a good example of the Law of holes at work. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"in 11 years and 1000's of edits sirlanz had never been accused of edit warring"
. Paul, you need to open User talk:Sirlanz and search "edit war"."LuckyLouie They have suggested bans for any user that has disagreed with them on EH or MAE"
As I have explained to you before, I can't ban anyone, I'm just an editor. If you are referring to user Jed Stuart's TBAN, yes I did endorse it (for good reason), but as you can see I was just one of many such editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)- What I find interesting is the implication that if I recommend blocking or topic banning an editor that multiple admins will go ahead and apply the block whether or not my recommendation has any merit. Oh well. I might as well admit it. I regularly use electromagnetic weapons to transmit thoughts into the administrator's heads. All thoses times that an admin has disagreed with me are just me covering my tracks -- it would be too obvious if everyone always agreed with me. . --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- PaulGosar is still pushing his fringe POV, even after this ANI case was opened.[99][100] (Don't know why he is using strange formatting, but I have asked him to stop.[101]) It looks like we have two choices. Either change Wikipedia so that we no longer mention the multiple sources where psychiatrists and mental heath professionals talk about people who say the government is beaming voices into their heads,[102] or impose a topic ban to stop the ongoing WP:RIGHT WRONGS and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. Should this be snow closed, or would more discussion be of value? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Spamming Youtube-links in edit summaries
Youwikitubepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor has so far made 137 edits here, edits that, at first look at least, seem constructive, but all have a Youtubelink in the edit summary, added after a normal edit summary (like these: "minor corrections: https://you tu.be/XSBqDhYHntI"
and "reverting vandalism: https://you tu.be/M-SrZPwWyXY"
; note the space in each link, added to evade edit filters), with a different link in each edit summary. Which seems like a sophisticated way of spamming without technically violating any rule that I know of here. So what do we do about it? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- In the absence of a good explanation, I'd be inclined to block tbh. GiantSnowman 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you actually watch the video as provided in each link, it's a short video of the edit being made. Fish+Karate 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's still spam. GiantSnowman 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Youtube still pays you for every view, right? Or have they done what I have long predicted and stopped paying for many/all views? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that whether they are getting paid for it is rather beside the point. It serves no useful purpose, and is irritating to say the least to be presented with a link which looks like it might be an explanation for the edit, only to find it isn't. Given that the added space can only be a deliberate attempt to bypass the spam filter, I'd suggest that Youwikitubepedia be blocked unless and until they can give a satisfactory explanation as to why they consider such links compatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. There may not be explicit rules against such links, but one really isn't needed, per WP:NOTHERE. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC) — 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- To get monetization on Youtube you need 4000 watch hours and 1000 subscribers I think. At the moment they have 31 subscribers so I do not think they are getting paid for the videos. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Youtube still pays you for every view, right? Or have they done what I have long predicted and stopped paying for many/all views? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's still spam. GiantSnowman 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you actually watch the video as provided in each link, it's a short video of the edit being made. Fish+Karate 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems rather odd but I am not sure if it breaks any policy. It might break WP:SPAM but it could be argued that since the videos are of them making the edit and some I saw talk about why they made the edit it might be okay. I would like to hear their explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd consider it a violation of SPAM, SOAP, and COI; and would have brought it to RSPAM if I'd run across it. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like about half of them have been WP:REVDEL by JzG as spam. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- N.B. - I had responded to this user being reported to AIV for spamming and issued a block. Upon noticing this discussion, seeing that it is ongoing, and looking more deeply, I unblocked the user and left them a note to please comment here. I had also revdel'd some of their older edits summaries with the links as spam (similarly as JzG did). I did not follow any of the links until seeing Fish and karate's comment as I was concerned they could be malicious/booby trapped. While the videos are technically promotional, they are fairly benign promotion and I agree that it does not look like the YouTube account has monetization enabled (due to a lack of subscribers at the very least). Upon reflection, I could see an argument that as the changes are productive and the videos are of the edits being made that they could be allowed as illustrative and instructional. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- There’s no point, too late, they’ve all been revdelled and the account blocked. For no valid reason at all. Someone providing videos of their edits while explaining them could have been a really educational way to encourage new users and spread awareness of how easy it is to edit Wikipedia. But that ship has sailed. Fish+Karate 22:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- May be the new user edited wikipedia as an ip user, before creating "Youtube+wikipedia" account. However, if he is not , then it violate sock , as in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose. ". Unable to determine the purpose of creating a brand new account and teach people how to edit as an experience user, or is it within the scope of "would defeat the point of the account" when disclosing the master account is? Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support 3-6 month Youtube linking topicban - Personally I would say it's spamming and as such I support the revdelling, There's no specific policy that says "You cannot post Youtube videos in edit summaries" however it's still spamming,
- Instead of supporting a reblock I instead support a ban on them inserting any Youtube link anywhere on this project - This would include articles, talkpages and yes edit summaries too,
Judging by their edits they're clearly HERE to improve the project so I don't see a point in reblocking however I feel monitoring them for a few months or so may be a good idea. –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)- Having given this some more thought and having read the below comments I have to agree in that they should be warned and if it continues then indef them, A topic ban seems rather excessive considering they don't appear to have been warned for the disruption, I still think indeffing now is more punitive than preventative. –Davey2010Talk 13:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of their motivations, they can't include Youtube videos in their edit summaries. As long as they don't do that going forward, there's no need for any punishment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef block. (Non-administrator comment) from the guy who report the user to WP:AIV. The edits (e.g. Special:Diff/874823736) were not so necessary piping change and the ture purpose is spamming stuff in edit summary, for all edits. Matthew hk (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, consider the username is a word play of "wikipedia + youtube" and 100+ edits on inserting link as spam. Matthew hk (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand what this looks like, but I think it's harmless and potentially educational. It would be better if they had provided an explanation up front. I notice there wasn't any attempt to discuss with them before this thread was opened and consequences were applied. I suggest waiting for a response before taking any more action; as it is we don't know if they're trying to be helpful or promotional. If there's none in a sufficient time frame, then maybe do something. On the other hand, changing link targets to not be redirects is indeed useless. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm with F&K. I don't understand how a YouTube video showing a Wikipedia edit being made is "spam", or why anyone would be opposed to such a thing. YouTube videos are how people teach other people to do things. Why wouldn't we want YouTube videos showing how to make edits? Why wouldn't we want to link to those videos in the edits and vice versa? Levivich? ! 02:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- You think that people who don't know how to edit Wikipedia will be looking at broken YouTube links in random edit summaries in order to find out how to do it? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, Wikipedia. Where anyone can edit. But do so using an IP rather than registering, and someone will immediately assume you are using a sockpuppet account, even when there is no remotely logical reason why you should need one. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- You think that people who don't know how to edit Wikipedia will be looking at broken YouTube links in random edit summaries in order to find out how to do it? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- It seem odd that an ip that without any edit outside ANI, made he/she first edit in ANI and so far all edits are in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- A WP:NOTHERE indef block would obviously be the correct outcome (AGF does not apply to actions indistinguishable from trolling). However, since this is Wikipedia no action is currently required other than the warning is at the user's talk. If they do anything like this again, they should be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- How in the name of all that is holy can someone making instructional videos of making edits that improve Wikipedia be construed as being "not here to improve Wikipedia"? I am at a loss, I really am. Fish+Karate 14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The issue isn't making instructional videos. The issue is placing broken (deliberately, to get around Wikipedia blacklisting software) and entirely unexplained links to such videos in edit summaries. As a tool for providing instruction to people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't understand how, they are almost useless, since the chances of anyone in such a position finding them and then following them are remote. In all other circumstances, they are a distraction at best, and a potentially serious liability at worst. If this contributor is to continue to create them, logically others would be permitted to do the same. Which would leave Wikipedia as a host to links to multiple unchecked YouTube videos, any one of which could violate Wikipedia policies in multiple ways. There are multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines in place which regulate the appropriate use of edit summaries, and none of them have exceptions which justify such malformed and off-topic links. If it were ever to be decided that linking to an instructional video in an edit summary was appropriate, simple logic would suggest that a way to make an unbroken link was found, and that such links be confined to a limited number of videos which could be verified as actually appropriate. Frankly though, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would ever consider such a proposal though, since it would be far simpler and less confusing to add such a link elsewhere on the editing interface, and leave the edit summary for its intended purpose. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just for my own reference could you link to the polices that support your position? PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The most obvious policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. No, it doesn't explicitly state that Wikipedia edit summaries are not a repository for broken links to YouTube. It does however state that Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Which I would assume would include deliberately broken ones placed in edit summaries. This policy likewise states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Which such links clearly are, since they don't in any meaningful way contain the information one would expect an edit summary to. Beyond WP:NOT one should probably consider the WMF's statement in the Terms of Use that their websites should not be used for spam. Which these links clearly are, given the fact that the contributor has not only attempted (by breaking the links) to get around blocking software, but has entirely failed (despite there being room in the edit summary) to inform any readers what exactly the links link to. As for guidelines, start with Wikipedia:External links, which explicitly states that a contributor should "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". I'm quite sure that other guidelines will apply too, but I'd have thought that I've provided quite enough already. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay none of those directly or even indirectly cover this situation. WP:NOT clearly is not intended for this as it is not a repository of external links. It is a history and explanation of edits. Same reasoning for indiscriminate. I do not really see WP:ADV as an issue either. They are not promoting their product or service. They are also not actually benefiting at all personally for doing this. I am really starting to struggle to see the actual harm caused here and you have not provided any rational for your position that is not based on bad faith or misunderstanding policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The most obvious policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. No, it doesn't explicitly state that Wikipedia edit summaries are not a repository for broken links to YouTube. It does however state that Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Which I would assume would include deliberately broken ones placed in edit summaries. This policy likewise states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Which such links clearly are, since they don't in any meaningful way contain the information one would expect an edit summary to. Beyond WP:NOT one should probably consider the WMF's statement in the Terms of Use that their websites should not be used for spam. Which these links clearly are, given the fact that the contributor has not only attempted (by breaking the links) to get around blocking software, but has entirely failed (despite there being room in the edit summary) to inform any readers what exactly the links link to. As for guidelines, start with Wikipedia:External links, which explicitly states that a contributor should "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". I'm quite sure that other guidelines will apply too, but I'd have thought that I've provided quite enough already. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just for my own reference could you link to the polices that support your position? PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wait for an explanation (because we are all curious) and cessation of comment spamming; then block if both are not forthcoming or adequate. I am pretty sure this is some sort of conceptual art or advanced programing project. If each video really does represent the actual edit it is connected to, it's an impressive piece of coding (screen recording, uploading to Utube, getting the link and passing it back to WP...) You can almost picture him/her presenting it to their Advanced Scripting for Web class. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: Either you're easily impressed, or you didn't watch the YouTube video before posting a comment calling for a block. Here is the edit, and here is the video (www.you tube.com/watch?v=XSBqDhYHntI) showing that edit being performed. It's the user's most-recent edit. If you watch the video until the end, you'll see they never hit "publish" in the video, they just typed in the descriptive part of their edit summary ("minor corrections"). We can infer the user stopped the video there, then posted it to YouTube, then finished the edit summary by inserting the YouTube link and hitting "publish", thereby accomplishing linking an edit summary to a YouTube video showing that edit being performed. I really do see the value in this as an educational tool. At the very least, I see the good faith. Levivich? ! 04:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh relax. He/she is obviously using WP to promote their Youtube channel, rather than being here to improve WP. If it's an educational tool, it can stay on YT. If they don't stop that, they clearly need to be blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- May be wikipedia need a new video tutorial guide, but not doing so by a new user without informing any wikiproject or admin, and spamming all video links in edit summary. Even new video tutorial are created, those link should listed in the namespace wikipedia, but not in edit summary. Those edit plus edit summary, definitely promoting the YT channel as an unofficial tutorial of the wikipedia. But it still spam and promotion. Matthew hk (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh relax. He/she is obviously using WP to promote their Youtube channel, rather than being here to improve WP. If it's an educational tool, it can stay on YT. If they don't stop that, they clearly need to be blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree it should be discussed, but I don't see it as spam (or promotion, unless all YT content is considered as promotion under the logic that it's all on somebody's channel), or a reason for sanctions. I am relaxed :-) and I'm saying: relax on this editor, and let's assume good faith. Levivich? ! 05:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned how anyone can think this isn't spam, so I added "Avoid external links" to Help:Edit summary [103]. We can discuss on it's talk page if needed.--Ronz (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aaannnd reverted.[104] PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe putting external links in edit summaries is in some cases encouraged if not required, and there have been cases of editors being warned/reverted/blocked for not putting an external link in an edit summary. (Rightly or wrongly, I don't know.) Levivich? ! 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's discuss at Help_talk:Edit_summary#External_links_in_edit_summaries --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe putting external links in edit summaries is in some cases encouraged if not required, and there have been cases of editors being warned/reverted/blocked for not putting an external link in an edit summary. (Rightly or wrongly, I don't know.) Levivich? ! 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- People put url in edit summary to indicate the discovery of copyvio, as the rev would be hidden but the edit summary did not. Also , when i am too lazy to put citation in the article, i put it in edit summary as the evidence of my edit. Or sometimes, the citation and url are already inside the article , but posting the url again in edit summary to justify my edits were based on the url as citation. Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned how anyone could think this was spam. WP:SPAM - "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". No product or website was being promoted. I imagine we have lost an editor here who was making constructive edits and was trying an interesting new way to spread awareness of how to edit Wikipedia, because the immediate assumption was negative and mistrustful. A real shame. Fish+Karate 10:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- "No product or website was being promoted" is technically incorrect: Wikipedia was the website being promoted, logo and all. You gotta admire folks who are so anti-promo as to also be anti-WP-promo. Someday this project will die when Wikipedia editors decide that Wikipedia editors are COI'd from Wikipedia. Levivich? ! 15:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned how anyone could think this was spam. WP:SPAM - "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". No product or website was being promoted. I imagine we have lost an editor here who was making constructive edits and was trying an interesting new way to spread awareness of how to edit Wikipedia, because the immediate assumption was negative and mistrustful. A real shame. Fish+Karate 10:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- People put url in edit summary to indicate the discovery of copyvio, as the rev would be hidden but the edit summary did not. Also , when i am too lazy to put citation in the article, i put it in edit summary as the evidence of my edit. Or sometimes, the citation and url are already inside the article , but posting the url again in edit summary to justify my edits were based on the url as citation. Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It might possibly be worth taking note that the YouTube channel that User:Youwikitubepedia has been promoting, under the name 'wikipedia edits' (see [105]) is predominantly displaying a trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logo on each linked page, in direct contravention of Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. Nowhere on that channel is any indication whatsoever given that it is not an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia logos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. As attribution is clear, this is not an issue. Fish+Karate 10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, the logos are absolutely not under any such license. See Wikipedia:Copyrights which clearly states that such trademarks "are not freely usable without permission", and see also the Wikimedia Terms of Use [106]. Or if you prefer, contact the WMF and ask them. As for 'attribution', I can't see any, though I can see what looks to me like an attempt to pass off a random YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I read [107] and the boilerplate of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg. "You have the right to use marks to Truthfully describe a Wikimedia site, Accurately report news, Create artistic, literary, and political works, or Link to Wikimedia sites". Unless you really do think this is trying to claim to be an official Wikipedia project, which is crazy, and in which case I don't see any point in trying to continue a discussion, there's no copyright issue. Fish+Karate 11:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- From the trademark policy you have just linked: 'When reasonable, please include this notice when you use a mark outside the Wikimedia sites: "[Wikimedia Wordmark / name of logo as listed here] is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and is used with the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not endorsed by or affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation... Regardless of whether you use a notice or a trademark symbol to identify your use of Wikimedia marks, please make sure that your use does not suggest endorsement by or affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation.' AS for whether you consider there any point in continuing the discussion, feel free not to. Meanwhile, I will continue to use this thread to bring to the notice of Wikipedia admins an apparent attempt to portray a YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. I may also contact the WMF directly to do the same thing. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I have now emailed the WMF regarding the copyright issue, and await their response. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Will you accept the answer when they tell you that you don't understand how copyrights, trademarks. and the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license work? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- So far they have told me no such thing. Which leaves the clear and unequivocal statement on the Wikimedia Trademark policy ([108]) that use of their trademarks is conditional on compliance with specific terms as the only thing I have to go on. A policy which incidentally, I have just noticed, also states that "You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production." Whether a YouTube channel is an 'online production' or not may be open to debate, but I think it might be wise to let the WMF decide for themselves, considering that the policy also states that "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". Or in plain English, whether the usage of the trademarks is compliant with WMF policy or not is beyond the scope of WP:ANI. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have zero understanding of what trademark is and what constitutes trademark infringement, and I strongly suspect that you are both willfully ignorant and ineducable on the issue. If the alleged infringer is using the mark to identify the mark owner (which he is in this case) then the use of the trademark falls under fair use. You may not build and sell cars with the distinctive Ford trademark on the grill, but you certainly can take a picture of a Ford that contains the logo. This editor is clearly not claiming to be Wikipedia. He is simply identifying Wikipedia as the website he is editing. That's allowed under trademark law. He isn't doing anything illegal. If he was, then every Youtube unboxing video would be illegal as well. (Whether we allow him to link to the Youtube video in an edit summary is another issue.) Go ahead and pester the WMF if you want. You will soon discover that when people make silly claims the WMF legal team ignores them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- So far they have told me no such thing. Which leaves the clear and unequivocal statement on the Wikimedia Trademark policy ([108]) that use of their trademarks is conditional on compliance with specific terms as the only thing I have to go on. A policy which incidentally, I have just noticed, also states that "You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production." Whether a YouTube channel is an 'online production' or not may be open to debate, but I think it might be wise to let the WMF decide for themselves, considering that the policy also states that "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". Or in plain English, whether the usage of the trademarks is compliant with WMF policy or not is beyond the scope of WP:ANI. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Copyrights and trademarks are two entirely different things. A copyright is a perceptible, fixed embodiment of a creative work; a trademark (or service mark) is an indicator of source—a "HELLO! I Emanate From _____" badge, if you will. I view this as a huge trademark problem and a copyright nonissue. Somebody has this conceptual art project going (or whatever) in which they created a YouTube channel showing videos of Wikipedia edits being made, and the Wikipedia edit summaries link to the videos. Nobody's copyrights are being infringed (or, if they are, the infringement is de minimis, of largely unprotectable material like the visual depiction of the Wikipedia GUI, and probably protected by the fair-use doctrine). The Wikipedia marks are the bigger issue, and query whether that is the community's responsibilitiy to police or the WMF's.
- Legal issues aside, though, as a philosophical issue, this is WP:COI self-aggrandizement, in my view, and not appropriate; it's like spamming links to taxi companies in Mallorca or QuickBooks help-desk (800) numbers into edit summaries. Not okay. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Will you accept the answer when they tell you that you don't understand how copyrights, trademarks. and the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license work? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I read [107] and the boilerplate of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg. "You have the right to use marks to Truthfully describe a Wikimedia site, Accurately report news, Create artistic, literary, and political works, or Link to Wikimedia sites". Unless you really do think this is trying to claim to be an official Wikipedia project, which is crazy, and in which case I don't see any point in trying to continue a discussion, there's no copyright issue. Fish+Karate 11:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, the logos are absolutely not under any such license. See Wikipedia:Copyrights which clearly states that such trademarks "are not freely usable without permission", and see also the Wikimedia Terms of Use [106]. Or if you prefer, contact the WMF and ask them. As for 'attribution', I can't see any, though I can see what looks to me like an attempt to pass off a random YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Edits by IP 121.222.88.51
I am concerned about edits made by the IP 121.222.88.51. It looks like they went through and added a "History" section and added a expand section tag to a random assortment of articles over the course of the last few days. I want to assumed WP:GF but I think most, if not all of these edits should be reverted. Rbcshw (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Adding a section tag and expansion needed tag in the same edit does not seem like a productive move.MPJ-DK (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Rbcshw, did you try talking to them on their talk page? IPs have talk pages too, and I see only your ANI notice there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Karkolekter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Real Rich White Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account was created on 12th January. While their initial edits seem constructive, their 4th edit is tagging a talk page with a WikiProject - which seems to demonstrate knowledge beyond a newbie. However, problems really begin on 15th January, where they create a draft talk page with contents "Stream THE HOMIE."
The matching draft page has contents "Please stream me"
, created by Real Rich White Man. Since this particular account only made that one contribution on 3rd January, it's not in my opinion enough behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry. However, today, Karkolekter has been adding {{deceased wikipedian}} to User talk:Til Eulenspiegel, here and here. When I engaged with them on their talk page, the response I recieved was We did it homies. This seems to be fairly obvious trolling, but doesn't quite fit neatly into any other bucket, so I'm putting it here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- What response are you looking for? 209.152.44.202 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absent convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, while not quite fitting a WP:VOA due to their early edits, I'd suggest a NOTHERE block for trolling. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The adding (and edit warring over) of a "deceased Wikipedian" template at Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) might be a clue. MarnetteD|Talk 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absent convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, while not quite fitting a WP:VOA due to their early edits, I'd suggest a NOTHERE block for trolling. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- There's something there that you couldn't see, Bellezzasolo, namely that Draft:Rich White Man has a deleted history also. It was created by User:KyleDelGaudio on 11 Nov 2018, and at that time read like this:
Rich White Man is an American Rapper and Music Producer pseudonym of Kyle Del Gaudio from Southern California... etc
— 9 lines of copyvio description of the fine qualities of this rapper have been removed.
- That draft was speedied by RHaworth as an unambiguous copyright infringement, and on 3 Jan 2019 was recreated with only the text "Please stream me" by User:Real Rich White Man, a new account that had been created in the same minute as the new version of the draft. It seems very obvious that Real Rich White Man and KyleDelGaudio are one and the same, only here for self-promotion. I have blocked both as NOTHERE. It seems likely enough that Karkolekter is another sock (or friend) of KyleDelGaudio, but I don't feel sure enough to sockblock it. The Til Eulenspiegel connection inclines me to block it for trolling, though. Anybody else got an opinion on that? Bishonen | talk 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
- PS, yes, I've pasted in a copyvio above — the green text — but I'm morally sure that's only Kyle himself using his own rather boastful text. Oh, OK, I'll remove it in a while. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
- (ec)Maybe this "deceased Wikipedian" notice has something to do with the fact that a conversation on WikiMedia was started last week asking for Til Eulenspiegel
to be globally banned from all WMF projects
. It seems unlikely that there isn't some connection. This editor(s) might be someone who knew, worked with or fought with Til Eulenspiegel. I don't think this was random vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- (ec)Maybe this "deceased Wikipedian" notice has something to do with the fact that a conversation on WikiMedia was started last week asking for Til Eulenspiegel
- PS, yes, I've pasted in a copyvio above — the green text — but I'm morally sure that's only Kyle himself using his own rather boastful text. Oh, OK, I'll remove it in a while. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
- Eng. Lit. major comment: Unless you've read V. that is, where one Rachel Owlglass, along with Benny Profane (a shlemiel and human yo-yo) is one of The Whole Sick Crew. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Karkolekter is probably Real Rich White Man (talk · contribs), Official Rich White Man (talk · contribs), and a bunch of vandalism-only accounts, including Famous vandols (talk · contribs) and Watch out for the cr***ir (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- moved from AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
OhsalveelCesar (talk · contribs) seems to have a really hard time being civil recently and assuming good faith. They've already caused problems with this behavior before and some users have left messages on the user's talk page asking them (such as [this post] from DisneyMetalhead (talk · contribs) from December) to start assuming good faith and cease the apparent edit-warring. User has already been blocked for edit warring by User:NinjaRobotPirate, albeit this was about a year ago. Notably, this user has never participated in <resolving these issues in> Talk page discussions OR User Talk page discussions or taken up other's requests to start those discussions. (such as DisneyMetalhead's request). This behavior has continued into this year, in the editing patterns and the blatantly uncivil behavior in the edit summaries, including personal attacks, which I happened to notice in the page histories for Aquaman and Shazam!, and these instances have all gone unnoticed and or/undealt with.
- " It is a rumor. A leak. And it does not belong in the cast section. Have a little bit of common sense before trying to impose your point of view AGAIN and AGAIN)"
- "How in hell the reviews are mixed when they are way above average? You can check plenty of wiki pages from movies with rates lower than Aquaman and they're cited as mixed to positive or generally favourable. Stating otherwise it's absolutey unfair)"
- "The statement is a false narrative, conveniently picked from some few sources. What are you? A Marvel fan?"
- "Currently the film Glass holds a 36% RT and yet the Wikipedia article reads ""mixed reviews". Just another example of bias against DC, in this case coming from user TropicAces."
- "You're not being objective. You're being bias"
Some gems from December (as found in the contributions; I only went back a month, So I'm unsure what exists before that):
- "Moving these films to the Development section, where they belong. Thanks to user Guy1000able for deleting them for the future films table. Unfortunately we all know that user DisneyMetalhead will come and add them AGAIN as he/she has done over and over and over, against everybody's opinion.)"]
- "you cannot overrule other people's opinion just to impose yours. What is wrong with you?" (having looked at this one due to the amount removed, it appears to be borderline vandalism. User removed an entire section that was sourced without any valid reason)
- "Nonsense. It is a limited theatrical release, as WB does with every DC home release. Take the time to check the others before lowering the quality of the wiki page again"
- "These films obviously don't belong here and that's why everybody keeps delete them after user DisneyMetalhead re-adds them over and over again. You don't get to impose your thinking here)"
Edit: Noticed this discussion from last week about the user and their editing behavior, specifically reverting, at WikiProject Film: [109]. It's also notable because the user was pinged and did not address their edits. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- tagging relevant users @TropicAces:, @Bovineboy2008:. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- not *quite* sure why I'm tagged here (aside from having had my edits reverted by the user in question) or what (if anything) is being deliberate upon, but yeah, I was getting annoyed (as much as one can be over a Wikipedia edit haha) by OhsalveelCesar (especially by the hilarious "just another clear bias against DC" line). So if this is a vote to see if there is a groundswell to have him blocked, I'm all for it. If I was only tagged out of obligation because my name is involved in the edits...then I suppose have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)TropicAces
- Sorry, I should have been more clear about it. I am tagging you and others because of your many run-ins with him, as well as his comments directed at you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The editor has participated on an article talk page and on their user talk page albeit not recently and not often. They are not currently active and I'd like to see if they respond here. Their remarks are clearly dismissive and uncivil but do not rank as personal attacks, at least to me. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz:, these are unrelated to any content or editing disputes they have had.
- Their comments on their own user talk page are 2 posts due to confusion about being blocked, not attempts at consensus-building or collaboration or resolving disputes.
- Their 2 edtis on the article talk page for Birds of Prey (2020 film) are merely for one post to support a move, not resolving editing disputes.
- I should have made it clearer, so that's my mistake. Point is they've never been interested in dispute resolution. I indicated my error above. Also, see my edit to my original post, there is a discussion they never took part in.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 06:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz:, there are pretty clear personal attacks, as noted in WP:NPA. For instance:
- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" - "The statement is a false narrative, conveniently picked from some few sources. What are you? A Marvel fan?"
- "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)" - " You don't get to impose your thinking here"; "you cannot overrule other people's opinion just to impose yours. What is wrong with you?"
- "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." - "Currently the film Glass holds a 36% RT and yet the Wikipedia article reads ""mixed reviews". Just another example of bias against DC, in this case coming from user TropicAces."; "You're not being objective. You're being bias" - R9tgokunks ⭕ 06:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz:, there are pretty clear personal attacks, as noted in WP:NPA. For instance:
- @Liz:, these are unrelated to any content or editing disputes they have had.
- The editor has participated on an article talk page and on their user talk page albeit not recently and not often. They are not currently active and I'd like to see if they respond here. Their remarks are clearly dismissive and uncivil but do not rank as personal attacks, at least to me. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been more clear about it. I am tagging you and others because of your many run-ins with him, as well as his comments directed at you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- not *quite* sure why I'm tagged here (aside from having had my edits reverted by the user in question) or what (if anything) is being deliberate upon, but yeah, I was getting annoyed (as much as one can be over a Wikipedia edit haha) by OhsalveelCesar (especially by the hilarious "just another clear bias against DC" line). So if this is a vote to see if there is a groundswell to have him blocked, I'm all for it. If I was only tagged out of obligation because my name is involved in the edits...then I suppose have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)TropicAces
Not sure if I'm required to comment or not, but I have indeed tried to resolve editing differences with the stated editor.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5
Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Removed a link to "History of Iran" from the History of Islam page and removed a WP:RS reference written by a renowned Iranologist (Alireza Shapour Shahbazi).[110]
- Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[111]
- Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[112]
- Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[113]-[114]
- Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[115]
- Tried to label Iskander Beg Munshi, a historic Persian writer, as an Azerbaijani. No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[116]
- Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[117] even though the sources at Khanates of the Caucasus make it clear that this is not WP:NPOV. I even told him this on numerous occassions.[118]-[119]
- Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[120]
- Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[121]
- More WP:IDHT.[122]
I issued him a WP:AA2 warning a few weeks ago, to no avail. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment : The reported user seems to have a pro Azerbaijani agenda here, on the English Wikipedia, and also, with all due respect, some WP:CIR issues because of his inability to read and comprehend English properly : [123], [124], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- (The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, as admin would you tell me that which of my edits can be reason to make me blocked? Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Wikaviani:, I already introduced my online English certificate on my talk page, but for you I can add it also to here [1]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[125] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![126] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man:, I'm interested in the collaboration with every Wiki user (who make edits on historical topics )since I often try to discuss some edits and future edits on talk pages, here is some examples: [1] 2, [2], [3]. I want also add that you should concretize which my edits you mean by saying nationalistic/irredentist.
Section 27
- The link which was inserted in the Iranian identity which was nonsense, but if it wasn't nonsense User talk:LouisAragon could restore the link. But he didn't it, probably, to use it against me one day :) What about that reference, as I already wrote in my edit summary[1], the source that I deleted doesn't mention about Iranian identity, so I deleted it. If my these edits weren't in Wiki policy, it must be proved me by my pro-Iranian colleagues who wish to see me blocked :(
- I never accused anyone on Bahmanyar talk page, but I noticed Azerbaijanophobia to colleague's message where modern Azerbaijani irrendist political ideology is using as an argument on historical person's talkin page. @LouisAragon:, Let's have a some flashbacks from it:
"Non-RS nonsense. These are the same "historians" who claim that Iran and Armenia are "ancient Turkic lands", and that anything from Derbent to Urmia, Zanjan, to Kars etc is part of "Bütöv Azərbaycan" that used to exist "since times immemorial". No self respecting Western historian takes these "books" serious. Azerbaijani (SSR and post 1991) and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[3] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided."
I gave him an answer on the same way, which now I think wasn't needed to me and to the encyclopedia. But I think it's ok, because at that time I wasn't experienced.
- I'm curious that why @LouisAragon: says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
- My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
- Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
- The states on this page are groupped by a geographical criteria. So Shirvanshahs as the state which was on modern Azerbaijani territories, should be in the Eastern Europe section, so I added it to list of Eastern European states.
- My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- First, this complaint is very hard to follow. Second, this looks like a content dispute. 2600:100F:B104:1606:FC9F:90E:6DC4:B70E (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
1)What Shahanshah5 links to is a Ranking system by SENSE. Nowhere on this page does it state Brill is an unreliable, less reliable or even that "it's not high reliable source". Yet again, Shahanshah5 has shown their inability to read and comprehend what is written in English. Here is the SENSE documentation and organization page. "Where it states:Please note that the WASS-SENSE ranking list of publishers has been set up for the WASS and SENSE Dutch Graduate Schools only. The list is based on the publishing houses used by our researchers. It should not be used by other institutes."
This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history. This is POV pushing at its finest.
2)Shahanshah5 has on numerous occasions added information that is poorly written[127] and/or makes no sense. Clear case of Wikipedia:CIR.
3)Shahanshah5 has made battleground comments. Accusation of racism, labeling editors that do not agree with his illegible, nonsensical edits as "pro-Iranian colleagues"
4)Refusal to get the point.[128] Shahanshah5 was in such a hurry to push their POV, they either didn't or couldn't comprehend that the book they were using for a source, also supported the information they were deleting!! And when told this, they still ignored what I said and then blamed me for their lack of compentence in English!
I see no reason to allow this to continue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- (1), SENSE documentatation [1] where it writes that A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers'B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers'? Doesn't the A rated means the being high rated source? And how B rated source the Brill can be as high rated? Oh, and checked Brill also on this Wiki page where were the lists of the top publishers but I didn't notice notice there the name of Brill. And what about it "This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history", why don't you give at least two publisher rankings that Brill is the A rated?
- (3)I think you're a little bit late with the Bahmanyar talk page, so I already answered to it on ANI. What about the second accusing, hm, I had thought users here can be honest since @Wikaviani: and @Wario-Man: labelled my edits as the pro-Azerbaijani and nationalistic/irredentist. So I had thought I also should be honest and said about the POV of some my colleagues.
- (4)I already answered about Quba Khanate here. What about the second deal of "blamed me for their lack of compentence in English", it's not so succesfull manipulating over meaning of my sentence were I citated "I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :)" You didn't revert my edit and at least didn't fix my sentences(which was on high RS source) until your reporting of me to the admin. But after reporting the admin, when you done your work you reverted my edits [1], [2]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @LouisAragon:, aren't you going to answer my demand about your accusing me on this my edit? Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world for Shahanshah5. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per my above comment and evidences provided by involved users. 6-month topic ban will show us if he's WP:HTBAE or not. Also posting a final warning on his talk page is necessary in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per the above evidences and comments.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support The evidence above shows that Shahanshah5 is not capable of working collaboratively or obeying Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and reliable sources when writing about these topics. --Jayron32 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Frankly, I think the above shows grounds for a CIR block, but let's start gently and see if things improve. Blocks are cheap and easy, gaining editors less so. GoldenRing (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support I kinda agree with Goldenring, but yes, start with a topic ban- possibly if the editor avoids an area they seem to have strong views on, they can slow down and learn a bit more about collaboration, NPOV, AGF and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Goldenring there are grounds for a CIR block. A 6-month topic ban will negate the disruption, not sure how this will fix CIR issues or as Jayron notes, reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per GoldenRing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'll support a 6-month topic ban since that is what's on the table, but actually I don't much believe in them. It's too easy to wait out a time-limited ban without editing, learn nothing, and then come back with all the old problems intact. I'd much prefer an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed no sooner than in 6 months, where the appeal will only be received favorably if it's believable and the editing on other subjects (and on sister projects!) shows progress. (I'm good with a CIR block too.) Bishonen | talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
- I could also certainly support an indefinite ban, but would like to see them given at least some chance before we indef them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support for reasons given above --AndInFirstPlace 03:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note to closer: The above editor has been here for 5 days, and already has been blocked twice. He doesn't know sh*t from Shinola about Wikipedia, and shows it in their every edit (eg. they thought admins were assigned to articles, and filed an RfA so they could become the admin for an article they were editing, and was in multiple disputes about; see #User:AndInFirstPlace below for more). Their !vote here should be disregarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I also have my doubts about fixed-term topic bans, as it is an editor's problematic approach to controversial subjects that needs to change and not their age, but I'll support this as it's what's being proposed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article, and upon running the copyvio checker, it appears to be largely a copy of [129]. I can't get this link to load, however, so I'm not sure if it could be a copy paste from the article. Requesting evaluation and revdel if necessary. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like it needs an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that PDF you linked looks like it's based on Wikipedia page to me. So I don't think the article is a copyright violation. The text on page 11: E.g. "Milwaukee, WI-based Dale Gutzman (book, lyrics) and Todd Wellman (score) debuted the musical adaption AmijimA in 2007. Listen to the WUWM interview with the creative team." sounds like it is supposed to have a link in it, which the PDF doesn't (just states that as prose). Also the "See also Sonezaki Shinjū, a 1978 film based on the same story." (p. 2, again with no links, and referencing something that's not discussed in that PDF). So I'd say it was copied out of Wikipedia probably, rather than the other way around. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- So is it the chicken or the Egg?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Truncated by BBB23 and template:copyvio placed till matter resolved. I think the article is the chicken.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'd say a Wikipedian chicken laid an egg legally, then it hatched into an unattributed copy at the above link. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Love Suicides at Sonezaki looks the same. I'm assuming all four are. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- So is it the chicken or the Egg?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- It maybe an idea to use a copyright checker on the text of the articel, just in case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Our article was created in 2005, but that PDF was created in 2013 (click on "properties"). The evidence strongly points to the PDF being the copy, rather than our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can read the file just fine and it is titled "FOUR MAJOR PLAYS OF CHIKAMATSU" and contains the sections The Love Suicides at Sonezaki, The Battles of Coxinga, The Uprooted Pine and The Love Suicides at Amijima and closely follow the structure and content of the linked articles. --Auric talk 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Mass reverting and mass deletion nominations by User:Dennis Bratland. Can someone look into this? Oceanh (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm 99.999% certain this is an other example of prolific long term abuser Europefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. If not, apologies, but if it walks and talks and acts like a duck... Europefan has an extremely distinctive and unmistakable editing pattern, and this fits it to a T. I'm happy to pause and wait for checkuser confirmation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland, I had a CU check run recently on a Europefan sock, and this account wasn't detected. It's also been here almost 12 years. Home Lander (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oceanh: Dif's please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: In case this helps, I believe this is regarding 200+ reverts of Oceanh and {db-sock|Europefan} CSDing of pages created by Oceanh, listed here. Levivich? ! 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Oceanh: Dif's please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland, I had a CU check run recently on a Europefan sock, and this account wasn't detected. It's also been here almost 12 years. Home Lander (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only thing I have to add is that initially several editors worked aggressively to remove all edits by Europefan (probably not the original sockmaster, but that's what we call him), and after a few months the Deny recognition effort worked and Europefan went relatively dark for a couple years. More recently we've slowed down and have only blocked the socks as they appeared obvious without removing the edits, which correlates with an increase in Europefan activity. It appears to be time to clean house again. Oceanh might have been here for 12 years, but this sockmaster is has very likely been with us for at least as long. One of the reasons this kind of socking is so harmful is the collateral damage. Still looks like a duck though. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, dear God. I have my doubts, but DAMN! That's an incredibly serious accusation against a long term user-- been here about as long as I have.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Europefan has been around longer than you or me or Oceanh. Look at the histories of the many blocked sock accounts, and you tell me how much different they really are. Look at the global contributions. I understand why Oceanh could feel offended, but this sockmaster really is that bad, and really is that hard to manage. Like plugging holes in a collapsing dam. I do apologize to Oceanh if I'm wrong, but look at the evidence yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've just declined a bunch of G5 speedy deletions of articles created by Oceanh and tagged by Dennis Bratland. G5, as with other speedy deletion criteria, is intended for obvious cases only. G5 speedy deletion tagging isn't an appropriate way to accuse a longstanding contributor of being a sockpuppet. These should not be tagged unless it's established that Oceanh really is a sockpuppet, and at 45,000 edits over more than a decade s/he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Bratland also tagged some articles which weren't created by Oceanh or any other sockpuppet for speedy deletion, where the only obvious connection was that Oceanh added a category recently. One was written by an admin. Hut 8.5 22:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've closed the report at SPI as meritless. As an aside, Oceanh has been around years longer than Europefan.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK. I apologize. I'll be more cautious on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
false claim
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Acroterion claimed I was autistic. I am not. What should we do? --AndInFirstPlace 01:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)
- AndInFirstPlace: I urge you to withdraw this request because I think it's going to be the tipping point for you being indef blocked.--Jorm (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why is that? He claimed I am autistic. I am not. Is there nothing you can do? --AndInFirstPlace 01:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)
- He said that you mentioned it (in a deleted page I can't view). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndInFirstPlace says exactly what Acroterion said it does. GABgab 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I never wrote "Please note that I am autistic and kindly have an eye to clarity." It may have been from the template I copied, unless another user wrote it in. AndInFirstPlace 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm simply saying I did not post that i was autistic! AndInFirstPlace 02:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndInFirstPlace says exactly what Acroterion said it does. GABgab 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- He said that you mentioned it (in a deleted page I can't view). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why is that? He claimed I am autistic. I am not. Is there nothing you can do? --AndInFirstPlace 01:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)
I don't think you guys are being truthful. Please provide screenshot AndInFirstPlace 02:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) contribs)
- ... No. He says that you mentioned being autistic, and was trying to be kind to you by providing context for your actions. You are clearly way out of your depth here; I strongly urge you to withdraw this. You've been here less than a month and have opened a request for adminship (doomed to failure) and asked for rollback rights (also doomed to failure) while still not being to figure out how to sign your posts.--Jorm (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to sign my posts properly. I want to ask for help with that. But I promise I never mentioned being autistic. --AndInFirstPlace 02:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk)
- You are aware that even "deleted" pages can be read by those with the proper rights – and that GAB apparently does, has, and confirms (above) that what you said in the RFA is what Acroterion said you said? Are you accusing them of lying? General Ization Talk 02:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to sign my posts properly. I want to ask for help with that. But I promise I never mentioned being autistic. --AndInFirstPlace 02:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk)
- ... No. He says that you mentioned being autistic, and was trying to be kind to you by providing context for your actions. You are clearly way out of your depth here; I strongly urge you to withdraw this. You've been here less than a month and have opened a request for adminship (doomed to failure) and asked for rollback rights (also doomed to failure) while still not being to figure out how to sign your posts.--Jorm (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- not per se, but I don't think that's correct
- For admins, see the deleted RFA here: [130]. And yes, I was trying to be kind on behalf of someone who appears to be having trouble correctly interpreting how other editors are interacting with them. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, that's definitely what the OP said. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
AndIn, you clearly stated on the deleted page that you were autistic. That's fine: we don't discriminate. But it's a bad idea to lie about it. If someone says they're autistic, and someone else takes that person at their word, is that really cause for opening a discussion here? Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- RFAs temporarily restored [131] [132]. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that was a copy-paste from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De la Marck; not sure how/why that would be possible but it is an explanation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. Please withdraw my request for intervention. :) AndInFirstPlace 02:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that was a copy-paste from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De la Marck; not sure how/why that would be possible but it is an explanation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I think we've got to the bottom of this one. Lets close it up. Oh AndInFirstPlace, your signature still doesn't have the ability to take people to your talk page, can you please fix that. Canterbury Tail talk 02:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you everybody, and I'll re-delete the RFAs to prevent another misunderstanding. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- So AndInFirstPlace, just be careful in the future. You are responsible for everything you post and edit, even if it's inadvertent. This seems like an innocent mistake and I'm glad we got to the bottom of it without any harm, but please be more careful in future. Canterbury Tail talk 02:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
User:AndInFirstPlace
Howdy hello! I was originally going to report this at Arbcom Enforcement but after trying to get to the root of the problem I think the problem warrants ANI. If you believe I should drop this and merely report this at AE, let me know.
Problem: AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs) came to my attention after posting a rather strange series of messages on SunCrow's user page (to be honest I had forgotton I was following them, Twinkle just autofollowed the page after I gave them a warning once and I'd forgotten to unfollow). I checked out the page in question (2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries), and saw that they had made several reversions regarding a candidate ([133], [134] [135]). The page is under discretionary sanctions for post 1932 American politics (WP:1RR max) already.
AndInFirstPlace was then warned that they were about to break WP:3RR on their talk page. They then went on talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries and called for a vote (contravening WP:VOTE). The two folks who voted quickly in favor were SkullKnight1189284 (talk · contribs) (who had already been warned about being a potential sock/meatpuppet of AndInFirstPlace) and . (who has a recently posted message on their talk page regarding how they "gotta fight on" from AndInFirstPlace). AndInFirstPlace then said that their version of the page was "non-negotiable" on the talk page for 2020 dems. Most recent edits show them trying vote harvest.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring up these issues, but I feel like something fishy is up, and am looking for some uninvolved folks to take a look. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I struck the "non-negotiable." That was a mistake. Do Checkuser me to confirm im not those other two accounts. AndInFirstPlace 03:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- And the person I was asking to vote was against my cause. AndInFirstPlace 03:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Something fishy is up; he was just on #wikipedia-en-help trying to... I wanna say provoke... us. Pretty much his entire schtick there past the first ten or so replies was to troll us about the vote, claim helpers had no clue what Wikipedia policies were about, and even go so far as to claim they didn't "need to" read Wikipedia policies (specifically WP:CRYSTAL) in spite of their obvious lack of knowledge as to how Wikipedia works. They even struck a comment made by another user who's also a regular helper in that channel and then self-reverted for no reason I can think of other than to play chicken. And while I do not suspect Metalreflectslime is him, I cannot say the same for SkullKnight. Right now he's been +q'd on -en-help specifically for the trolling; once it was clear we couldn't see anything he had to say, he showed his heels. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Right, but the chat is a separate deal. And you were taunting me. AndInFirstPlace 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- If this is not deliberate trolling, then consideration should be given to a WP:Competency is required block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- AndInFirstPlace just received a 36-hour block at WP:AE for Post-1932 American Politics Discretionary Sanctions 1RR violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not AndInFirstPlace. Nothing to be paranoid about, we just happen to agree with each other. I'm not running away from any conversation, I'm just busy and finally got to this now. I've seen several valid points made about changing the ordering of the list of declared major candidates and I've also seen the suggestion we just say declared candidates. Let's stick to that discussion rather than suggesting I'm AndInFirstPlace SkullKnight1189284 (talk talk page) 05:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You... do not sound very convincing.--Jorm (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @SkullKnight1189284: Why is your signature above in the middle of AndInFirstPlace's signaure? The text reads:
Let's stick to that discussion rather than suggesting I'm [[User:AndInFirstPlace|<b style="color:green">AndIn<span style="color:gold">First</span><span style="color:purple">Place</span></b>]] [[User:SkullKnight1189284|SkullKnight1189284]] ([[User talk:SkullKnight1189284|talk]] [[User_talk:AndInFirstPlace|talk page]]) 05:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- How did that happen? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:AIFP has had trouble figuring out how to deal with their signature. Instead of signing they copy/paste it at the end of their statements. I suspect that SkullKinght is the same person and thus uses the same technique. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's sorta where I was heading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:AIFP has had trouble figuring out how to deal with their signature. Instead of signing they copy/paste it at the end of their statements. I suspect that SkullKinght is the same person and thus uses the same technique. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that I have banned this editor from post-1932 American politics for six months and blocked for 36 hours, both as arbitration enforcement actions following a report at AE. If the community feels a more substantial block is justified, take my consent to modify the AE sanction as read. GoldenRing (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have to say, folks, having just had a read of AndInFirstPlace's contributions, this comment seriously looks like trolling. But if it's genuine, it's stunningly arrogant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. From observing what has been said in the discussion just above this one and the comment at SunCrow's discussion page displays either gross arrogance or obvious trolling. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- At this point I'm unsure of which, but they're definitely not here to build meaningful content. I almost blocked them myself last night, but decided to go to bed instead. I'm finding nothing constructive and a lot of pure arrogance and insistence that their way is right. Additionally there is no collaboration here and if they spoke to people in real life the way they do on here, they'd likely not end up well (not a threat, just an observation of human behaviour.) Let's see what happens when they return, but I think the next block should just be an indef. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable course of action, given the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- And now blocked for 2 weeks and Talk page access revoked for that term by L235, I assume based on this interesting exchange on the editor's Talk page. General Ization Talk 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I feel that this user has earned a NOTHERE block.--Jorm (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I say we wait to see what the SPI says. I don't think there's a coincidence that SkullKnight is copy-pasting AIFP's "signature". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Concerning sockpuppetry, I suppose I'm becoming somewhat known for seeing sockpuppets behind every bedpost, but let me say two things about this situation.
- It seems highly unlikely that AndInFirstPlace is a sock of a previous editor. Some of their comments could be expert trolling, but their difficulty in getting their signature right appears to me to be quite real;
- On the other hand, it seems probable that SkullKnight was created by AndInFirstPace to help create a false consensus, and then was used to edit while they were blocked.
- Just how I see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- SkullKnight was created first. My current theory is that AIFP created him first to use as a sleeper in the event AIFP was blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly meat in my view. Functionaries, email me for more information. I've indef'd AndInFirstPlace. Any admin is welcome to modify or remove any actions I've taken here (but not GoldenRing's original AE block). I suggest that this thread be closed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- JoeAnglimSurvivor (talk · contribs) appears to be another sock, down to the random noticeboard comment on an issue they're not involved in. Mélencron (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly meat in my view. Functionaries, email me for more information. I've indef'd AndInFirstPlace. Any admin is welcome to modify or remove any actions I've taken here (but not GoldenRing's original AE block). I suggest that this thread be closed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- SkullKnight was created first. My current theory is that AIFP created him first to use as a sleeper in the event AIFP was blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Concerning sockpuppetry, I suppose I'm becoming somewhat known for seeing sockpuppets behind every bedpost, but let me say two things about this situation.
- I say we wait to see what the SPI says. I don't think there's a coincidence that SkullKnight is copy-pasting AIFP's "signature". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I feel that this user has earned a NOTHERE block.--Jorm (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- At this point I'm unsure of which, but they're definitely not here to build meaningful content. I almost blocked them myself last night, but decided to go to bed instead. I'm finding nothing constructive and a lot of pure arrogance and insistence that their way is right. Additionally there is no collaboration here and if they spoke to people in real life the way they do on here, they'd likely not end up well (not a threat, just an observation of human behaviour.) Let's see what happens when they return, but I think the next block should just be an indef. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. From observing what has been said in the discussion just above this one and the comment at SunCrow's discussion page displays either gross arrogance or obvious trolling. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indef block the lot of them as not here. They are clearly here to promote some political candidate. Checkuser to look for sleepers.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have a SPI request already open: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkullKnight1189284. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- P;ease see this thread-- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000#Jonathunder_conduct for more detail.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have a SPI request already open: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkullKnight1189284. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Homeostasis07 requesting interaction ban with Czar.
Apologies for the length of this. I tried to be as succinct as possible, but this ANI has been 18 months in the making. I've even omited several other incidents, but what I've written below should be sufficent in determining whether my request for a mutual interaction ban with Czar would be appropriate. If not, I can expand where necessary.
Background
|
---|
This entire incident resolves around the nomination of Jill Valentine for Featured Article Candidate. After reading through the first and second FACs (which I nominally contributed to), as well as the subsequent peer review (which I did not contribute to, but Czar was a major participant in; it recast the article almost entirely, and was sufficiently hostile, badgering and argumentative for the original nominator to abandon the article), I spent several weeks in my sandbox and on main-space working on Jill Valentine, making good-faith attempts to address every criticism ever levelled against it by every previous commentator (especially any item relating to sexism). Believing all those issues resolved, I renominated the article at FAC in May 2018. An FAC image reviewer – who determined that one image had an issue with its FUR, but otherwise the images used were appropriate (i.e., had "contextual significance") – was the only person to comment before Czar appeared. Despite this, Czar then began edit-warring over the use of a separate image. That FAC was closed on the basis of Czar's opposition, with the suggestion that I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again." I then spent the next 5 months contacting all 21 previous reviewers, 17 of who responded. |
Over the course of those 5 months, an 8-week discussion with Czar was initiated on Jill's talk page. Long story short, that discussion ended up being a continuation of the openly hostile and aggressive tone of the peer review, linked to in 'Background'. Even when it was pointed out to him that he was "reviewing" an older ID of the article, he responded with "but the point similarly applies to instances like...", while going on to quantify his original complaint with completely unrelated points. Another one of his points, beginning "It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998)", actually only developed as a result of a request I'd received from one of those 17 editors—i.e., genuine consensus building. But when the sentence he was complaining about was moved to another section of the article, he complained that "This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", which stinks of a user holding their own opinion above all others. Furthermore, Czar never accepted a single argument I put forward, and just seemed to dig his heels in even further; the most productive portion of his review consisted of me removing author names from prose, which I happily did, on all but one occasion: Lisa Foiles, because I argued she was a notable writer. It ended up being the only thing I thought I convinced him of during that entire 8-week discussion. Instead, he went on to redirect Foiles' article without consensus. I know there's a lot in this paragraph, and I apologise that there aren't as many diffs as I'd like, but Czar tends not to time-stamp his responses. Though I was involved in the discussion directly, even I can't find the continuation of the discussion he ended with "Yes, see below c".
With that talk page discussion at an impasse, I renominated the article at FAC. This latest FAC attracted the participation of several previous reviewers, who all supported, except Czar. Many of the points he raised there were simply continuations of the arguments I highlighted here in the previous paragraph. He was also dishonest about his role in the peer review. When it was pointed out by another user that the FAC template requires "significant contributors to [an] article" to indicate their involvement prior to commenting, he responded "Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor", which was fundamentally untrue. Entire swathes of the article were completely re-composed during the 2-month peer review. He additionally labelled my attempts at establishing consensus by contacting previous reviewers over that 5 month period as disingenuous, arguing that "Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted", despite 17 of those 21 users responding. That FAC was closed/not promoted, primarily as a result of Czar claiming that "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization [in the Reception & Legacy section] is nonsensical."
With this in mind, I then contacted Czar via his talk page, requesting his assistance in sorting out any alleged organisational issues in R&L once and for all via a draft page I'd specifically created. Between the 8-week talk page discussion and him subsequently labelling my attempts to rectify his concerns "inadequate", I thought this was the way to go. Instead, he aggressively refused this request, posting another round of badgering, once again claiming that the moving of a single sentence to another paragraph introduced a multitude of other problems, while calling me "openly hostile".
My purpose in requesting an interaction ban is to allow me to non-combatively work on gaining consensus for Jill Valentine, with both old and new reviewers. My interactions with Czar on this article have gone beyond the point of a mere content dispute. This is never-ending, self-contradicting badgering from an uncollaborative editor, and a direct continuation of the hostility and aggression found in the previous peer review. He has genuinely been the most disruptive and downright insulting user I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Plus, his latest response to me doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he has left his tendentious editing behaviour behind, with regards to Foiles' article. Many of his criticisms have been so intentionally vague that I believe no user could ever resolve them, regardless of the extent anyone attempts to; you fix one alleged problem only to be greeted by another, and then another, and then eventually you're told that something you did several weeks before was "inadequate". His criticisms all seem purposefully designed to convince me that Jill Valentine would never meet the FA criteria, which isn't an especially collaborative mindset to have adopted, but it's indicative of a user who only came to interact with Jill's FACs via this hostile discussion with the previous nominator. There has been no attempt whatsoever on his part to compromise or build consensus ever since, and in fact he continues to argue over matters I've already responded to.
Once again, sorry for the length of this ANI, but there's an 18-month history here which I tried my best to adequately and succinctly explain. I'd appreciate any help in this matter, because I really can't cope with this user any more. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose two-way iban after reviewing the lengthy history of the article Jill Valentine, about a female video game character (not usually a controversial area). After going through GAN1 (2012), GAN2 (2013), GAN3 (2015), PR1 (May 2017), and GOCE (June 2017)...
FAC1 Comment
|
---|
|
- Homeostasis07 (not the nom at this point) responded here, and the FAC coordinator responded to that response in the same thread. FAC1 was closed with the comment:
We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are...I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article...the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC.
- FAC2 (Oct 2017) closing comment:
The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported).
- PR2 (Nov 2017) was closed by the nom, after posting a departure notice on the article's talk page.
- FAC3 (May 2018) was nominated by Homeostasis, who wrote
...I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative.
Czar wrote:Bad idea. This is a common courtesy and better done before starting another nom...
The closer wrote:Sorry, but I'm going to close this as it's clear that open issues have not been resolved from the last FAC. The last peer review seems to have been closed in frustration with issues still on the table. FAC is not a venue for bringing something up to standard. I'd advise open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating this article again.
- Conversations took place on Czar's talk page, Part 2, and Part 3 (including talk-page-watcher comment:
...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs.
) - FAC4 (Dec 2018) was nom'd by Homeostasis with:
...A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available on this FAC's talk page...Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here:
followed by five usernames, four of whom had voted support at a previous FAC and one participated at PR (seems legit). Closer's comment:...I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition.
- Conversation on FAC4 closer's talk page
- Conversation Part 4 on Czar's talk page (I happened to post the next thread on this talk page, which is how I saw this; otherwise I'm not involved.)
- Homeostasis07 (not the nom at this point) responded here, and the FAC coordinator responded to that response in the same thread. FAC1 was closed with the comment:
- After reviewing the above, particularly "Part 3" and "Part 4" of the conversations on Czar's talk page, I oppose a two-way interaction ban, as I do not believe it will effectively address the issues. Looking forward to reading others' thoughts. Levivich? ! 05:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The issue regarding sexism is moot to this ANI, since FACs 1 and 2, as well as PR2 [all pre-dating my first nomination, FAC3], resolved this. My nominating statement from FAC3 has been taken somewhat out of context here. It continued: "
Previous FACs have led to this nomination becoming a loaded issue – to say the least – for some, so I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. If requested, by FAC coordinators, I wouldn't have a problem with informing everyone that I've renominated it. ... Plus, I think fresh eyes all around may make FAC3 a much more beneficial experience.
" The quote "...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs."
relates to a separate issue, which I decided against mentioning here because it's bound to get messy: I'd received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library, in which an administrator allegedly referred to me as a "scumbag" and "sexist asshole" and all sorts of other things. Also, the user who wrote this quoted text was not a "talk-page-watcher", but was involved in the first two FACs and perhaps the largest contributor to PR2. And as I explained in 'Background', FAC3 was closed with the suggestion I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again", so the implication that my actions could be considered canvassing is unwarranted.I would like to believe that there's a possibility of addressing any of Czar's complaints to a point where he no longer felt the need to constantly object, but my experience thus far hasn't left me with the impression that even a remote possibility of that happening exists. As diffs in my post above illustrate, he's been hostile, uncollaborative and tendentious. I've tried – for over 12 weeks at this point – to address his concerns, but they just keep coming and changing, which indicates badgering. I've not taken the decision to bring this to ANI lightly, but it's gotten to a point where I feel like there's no other option. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The issue regarding sexism is moot to this ANI, since FACs 1 and 2, as well as PR2 [all pre-dating my first nomination, FAC3], resolved this. My nominating statement from FAC3 has been taken somewhat out of context here. It continued: "
Born2cycle
Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.
B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.
While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony Ballioni that the unblocking of Born2Cycle, a long-term tendentious editor, should never have taken place. AGF and hope springs eternal and all that, but there is nothing in B2C's long history to indicate that there was any possibility that they were going to change their ways. Their modus operandi is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's working model, and problems such as Tony Ballioni brings up here will continue as long as he is allowed to keep editing. I strongly suggest that the community consider a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The issue can be seen here and at WT:BLP. TonyBallioni should not need to work this hard when pointing out the obvious—there is no reason to identify a relatively unknown person as a killer and child kidnapper before a court conviction. Previous disputes with B2C show they are impervious to other's views and will continue pushing forever. Unless someone can point to major redeeming features an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C ☎ 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C ☎ 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I’m beginning to sense your long-standing prejudices about me, largely based on misunderstanding, inhibit our ability to communicate and work together effectively. I’m sad that you’re so quick to write me, or anyone else, off. I’m going to continue working on improving the encyclopedia where I can. Good luck to you. —В²C ☎ 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C ☎ 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C ☎ 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Summoned the unblocking admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- This member of the community has lost all patience with B2C and his complete inability to accept that any view other than his own could even be a legitimate interpretation of policy. The hours of everyone else's time that B2C has wasted with his crusades would be hard to count. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, B2C appears to have said (paraphrasing) "I disagree, but am willing to drop it"
, a day before Tony started this thread. We do not block editors for having different opinions. I am tired of saying it, but we are not the Thought Police. If you can give me one disruptive edit (as opposed to describing Tony as a "jerk" and "unpleasant", which is not on but is not cause for a site ban), I'll change my mind. I don't see edit warring to restore his (ludicrous and incorrect) perspective on the topic, I see one edit, reverted by another editor, and then discussion on the talk page. Fish+Karate 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish+Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish+Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Slowly? He's been here for just shy of 14 years and he has over 27,000 edits. How much time do you think he should be given to bring himself into alignment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish+Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish+Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: "a complete and total negative" is not the correct standard. Rather, it is whether they are a net asset or detriment to the project. By your standard, all 27K of the user's edits would have to be problematic, which I can't imagine ever happening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- keep, b2c has transcended annoying user status, or cautionary tale of misspent focus, he is an unimplacable, irrepressible, and irreplaceable archetype. cygnis insignis 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Folks, I do sometimes tend towards thinking that might be a little bit unconventional or out-of-the-box. I feel some of you do not recognize and appreciate that, and I’m being punished for it. This BLPCRIME discussion is a perfect example. I made one edit that was reverted and then I took it to the article’s talk page where the broader issue was uncovered (wording/reasoning at BLPCRIME), so I raised the question at the policy talk page where I think there is a reasonable and self-explanatory discussion, that also spilled back to the article’s talk page. Where exactly is the problem? When consensus changes on WP, isn’t it exactly through discussions like these? If anyone else did what I did, would they have been taken to AN/I? Seriously consider that, please. I hate to pull the persecution card, but I do feel persecuted here. In fact, everything was going reasonably until I decided to weigh in on another dispute that TonyBallioni was involved in regarding adding a link to the See Also section of the same Kidnapping of Jayme Closs article. I happened to agree with the other user and I think TonyBallioni took it personally. That’s when he shocked me with the BLP notice on my talk page (but not on the other user’s talk page - speaking of feeling persecuted) and then, instead of trying to work it out on my talk page, it quickly escalated to here. This filing did prompt some discussion on my and TonyBallioni’s user talk pages that I do feel has been productive, but filing this ANI was not necessary to cause that to occur. —-В²C ☎ 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I make no suggestion about what action (if any) to take this time around because I wasn't directly involved in the current cycle and haven't pored through all the relevant posts. I just note that there's an apparent pattern that has repeated through several cycles over a number of years: stick-like behavior that toes up to the line of tolerability, sometimes crosses it, sometimes leads to some kind of sanction, followed by a period of comparative quiet, and then a gradual return to the original behavior. Insofar as Born2cycle has many years of experience and a good understanding of many guidelines and policies, his input is beneficial — but that benefit is often offset by his insistence on certain interpretations/applications of policy that are at odds with community consensus, his persistent advocacy for those views to an extent and volume that can be considered tendentious, and a determination to prevail through persistence rather than to accept compromise and move on to other areas. That's just my view based on what I've observed, and I don't know the best solution, but I do agree that it is a concern. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue, and while I've noted any time since that I've seen this come up that В²C does tend to badger and stonewall and relitigate and all the other tendentious behaviours until they get their way or are sanctioned (and so I endorse those observations in this thread) I have never felt along the way that this rises to the level of a site ban. Frankly В²C is a valuable resource in terms of interpretation and criticism of policy, sometimes on very contentious issues. On the present dispute over whether BLPCRIME should apply to someone who has admitted to but not been formally convicted of a crime, there's probably a point to be made there. If the community feels that a sanction is required I recommend it be something which allows them to still participate here. I don't have time today to suggest something so I'm just leaving this here as a comment.
- We should very likely also rethink our DS notification guidelines. Being warned by an administrator that you're in a dispute with that administrators have authorization to unilaterally dole out sanctions on a topic is an inherently belligerent gesture even if not so intended (and I'm not suggesting that was Tony's intent), almost rising to the level of using administrative tools to win a dispute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's certainly how it felt and what escalated this particular discussion into a dispute, unnecessarily in my view. I would hope all administrators involved in discussions know it's not prudent to dole out such warnings to other discussion participants themselves, but, if appropriate, ask an uninvolved admin to do so, for precisely these reasons. Being involved they may be biased and so asking an uninvolved admin to take a look is an appropriate level of precaution. I would think that would be standard practice for admins. --В²C ☎ 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I strongly disagree that an admin giving out a DS alert as a normal editor comes anywhere near tool misuse: the template clearly says it implies no wrongdoing at the time, it is not an administrative action as anyone can hand it out, and I have never once taken any action in regards to B2C precisely because I am involved with him. Simply being an admin does not mean that people you are in a content dispute with don’t get to be notified of DS by you. It means that the admin doesn’t get to use them. I think B2C should be sure banned, or at the very least restricted so his unique form of disruption isn’t allowed to continue, but I have never once abused the tools with regards to him and have always asked the community or other administrators to take action. Comparing following the policy to the letter on how to deal with an entrenched disruptive editor who you are involved with really shouldn’t be competed to tool abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am an editor like B2C who has a large interest in page titling and page moving. While I would definitely oppose to B2C being banned altogether in RM discussion and similar activity, due to the fact that they clearly have a vast interest in this area and can bring a net benefit. I don't however oppose to some lesser ban of B2C, like no closing RM discussions (this was supported by several editors) and no editing policy talk pages (since that appears to be somewhat what this is about). I don't know enough about the BLPCRIME issue to make any comments about it specifically so I'll duck out otherwise there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C ☎ 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes we have indeed managed to work things out, despite sometimes having different views (mainly on long-term significance and ASTONISH). Remember that I'm not supporting anything, I would much prefer to oppose to any restrictions but I can't ignore the concerns of others, which I don't think are entirely invalid. Please continue to participate in page titling discussions etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C ☎ 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- * First of all let's consider that this is an editor that doesn't really contribute much to an encyclopedia - They have 27,000 edits, of which only 9% are in mainspace, of which most are related to page they've been involved in moving or otherwise discussing. 75% are to talk pages, mostly involved in arguing and/or discussing page moves. Frankly, B2C should never have been unblocked without a community discussion in the first place - it was a utterly terrible unblock given the persistent disruption in the RM area since (see the AE filing linked in the opening paragraph) - however that is now past history. At the very least, however, he should be barred from closing Requested Moves (there was consensus for that in the first place), and if he has moved onto causing issues (especially BLP related ones) at policy pages, then that needs to be looked at as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57::18 January 2019 (UTC)
- We don't all contribute in the same way. Because of my interest in title stability on WP (see my user page and FAQ), I tend to get involved in controversial matters about titles which necessitates many (some long) discussions on talk pages to develop consensus (that's how consensus is developed on WP). That's why so much of my activity is on talk pages working this stuff out. I was recently thanked for a good typical example of this; see Talk:University_of_Klagenfurt#Requested_move_26_December_2018. That some of you choose to persecute me for this approach while others are sending me wikilove notes for it, is disappointing. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I make no comment about when/how B2C was unblocked being correct but I would dispute Black Kite's statement that User:wbm1058 "unilaterally unblocked B2C", the unblock was discussed at User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14 where it appears several editors favoured unblocking B2C (though apparently with restrictions). I would agree that wbm105 may have been better off posting at AN or asking the blocking admin/AE filer though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I'm involved here since I unblocked B2C and have been pinged; frankly I'm annoyed at having to look into his edits again so soon. A distraction from an otherwise productive day for me. I can't really say much more before I read all through this, but two points. (1) SMcCandlish's comments on B2C's talk prompted me to unblock, so I'm pinging them now, in case they wish to review the current drama and add input. (2) I count 15 B2C signatures on Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs – I think you're over your quota there. You should realize that article is running on the center rail; please take some time out to tend to outside-rail maintenance where you have much less risk for receiving electric shocks. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're annoyed? Sorry about that, but imagine how I feel! The discussion at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs has nothing to do with titles. I'm not sure what quota you're referring to. As to my 26 talk page edits, there are several of us who are working on that article, and discussing various issues as we go. Yes, I have 26 Talk page edits. Joseph A. Spadaro has 40. TonyBallioni has 12. I have 17 edits on the main article also. I don't think that's such an unusual ratio for main/talk article edits considering the care put into a current event article with BLP considerations. Ballioni is 4 main/12 talk, for example. My question: How is anything I'm doing wrong or problematic by any reasonable standard, much less warranting an AN/I? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Still reading through this (not that much fun, so bear with me please) but one initial comment. Template:Ivory messagebox (changed to
|bg=#E5F8FF
) is documented as for use in system messages. Personally I don't care to see it being used on user pages for this purpose. The notification about ArbCom sanctions can be delivered without using a loud colorful message box with exclamation point icon and Important Notice section header that will draw the attention of any passerby that visits the user's talk page. Giving the notice in a more "friendly manner" may not have prompted the kind of response it got. I'd prefer sending the message without bothering to use a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal (Born2cycle)
Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose To namespaces other than WT namespace (and also exclude from RMs in the project namespace, since they occur at the WT namespace), I don't think there has been sufficient problems there. This seems to have been the views of the September AE case, there didn't appear to be much support for banning B2C from individual RMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as the persecuted and accused. I deny the charges which are extremely vague anyway, and not even attempted to be proven. I find it ironic that the editor who started this AN/I is accusing me of "interacting with others" in a disruptive way. Who has been disrupted by anything I've said or done? What have I said or done that disrupted anyone? Now look at how many were disrupted for this AN/I. And this latest squirmish all started, by the way, when TonyBallioni jumped in at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs with this surprising edit and edit summary about which he still can't explain the basis at Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Joseph_E._Duncan_III. That sure looks disruptive to me... --В²C ☎ 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was and remain bewildered by your objection to inclusion of that link in the See Also section (Joseph A. Spadaro and I await your responses to our questions at that discussion section, especially considering what WP:SEEALSO says and the similar examples of See Also inclusions in BLP/criminal related articles I listed), but I admit that it was a mistake and premature to revert your revert, and I apologize. That was out of character for me if you look at my history, but I truly thought you made an error and consensus for inclusion was implied. I won't do that again. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- oppose, mildly, "It is a highly active species. Always on the move and is very squirmish, if handled. " this is the only hit I got, so I want to see that word used more often : ) never change mate. cygnis insignis 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose unless we're going to penalize all overly active participants in requested moves and related discussions the the same way. Although I don't think any action is necessary at this point, I urge B2C to consider this a warning and consider dialing back his participation in said discussions. Calidum 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that but please know this issue with TonyBallioni was at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs and had nothing to do with RMs or titles. I honestly think he (and a few others) just unfairly judge my behavior through a prejudicial lens and see problems where if others did the exact same thing it wouldn't be an issue at all. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- While I have argued for many years that B2C needs formal restrictions, this suggestion of edits per page per day is not it. Words per page per week might be a better measure of tendentious verbosity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm not understanding the hesitation to indef him. He's been a net-negative for a long time. Hasn't he "exhausted the patience of the community" yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Net-negative? Thank you for sharing your hateful and hurtful opinion. Why is this acceptable? —В²C ☎ 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be disingenuous, it's hardly the first time you've been evaluated as a net-negative to the project. And it's acceptable because AN/I is where the behavior of editors is evaluated for the possibility of sanctioning -- which you totally know, because you've been discussed here before -- these are all AN/I reports:
- The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I stopped when I got to the third page of this. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it.
- So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —В²C ☎ 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Take a look at some of the AN/I reports I just posted links for, and see if it doesn't change your mind. Basically, B2C has been like this from the beginning, he's been in trouble for his behavior from the beginning, and he just never changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Flooded with them hundreds's signature
I didn't want to bring this here, but I've tried to communicate with Flooded with them hundreds on their talk page about it and got brushed off, and they are continuing to use the signature, so I believe this may need community attention.
An example of the new signature can be seen in this diff.
Flooded is a prolific recent changes patroller, and does a lot of good work in that vein; however, they also (by necessity) become the first person to make contact with a new editor, by leaving a template on their talk page. I believe that this signature would be very confusing for new users - it smacks of conflict and bitterness, and for people who intend to edit collaboratively (and are getting a template for making an honest mistake) it will be positively off-putting.
WP:SIG says that anything that's not allowed in a username is not allowed in a signature; I don't believe that a username along the lines of 'AdminsTreatMeLikeDirt' would survive a nomination to UAA. I'm not looking for Flooded to be blocked or anything, I just think that they should change this signature, or at the very least stop templating new users with it and potentially driving people away from the project. GirthSummit (blether) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- A tricky one. Possibly violates WP:SIGLENGTH (as being too long) and WP:CUSTOMSIG (which states "a distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users"). However there's no actual disruption as far as I can see, no personal attacks or incivility etc. GiantSnowman 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed - for clarity, I am not accusing Flooded of incivility. I'm just concerned that a new user, reading that long and snarky signature, would be either confused or put off. And, given the nature of the work they do, a template from Flooded with this signature attached to it is the first contact from the community that a lot of new users receive. GirthSummit (blether) 13:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The operative element of the signature is
(sig inspired by Hullaballoo)
—and is to whom you must go. ——SerialNumber54129 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)- Notified. GiantSnowman 14:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's better than Flooded's previous oversized signature. (And there's really no point in engaging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in a discussion about it, there'll be no joy there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Notified. GiantSnowman 14:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Username policy actually states that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be immediately blocked if they...are...long..." Rather ambiguous, given that how long 'long' is isn't actually defined. Probably needs clarification. Would be rather unfair to block anyone on that basis though. It might however be wise to suggest to Flooded that even if there isn't currently a policy or guideline banning his username, one might turn up if he doesn't find a way to be a bit more subtle with his gripes. Definitely offputting for a noob. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point, all, about me directing you to HW was not to discuss anything with him (why? it's none of his business), but to intimate that, perhaps, the issue has already arisen? This discussion—and there have been others of a similar vintage—pretty comprehensively tanked the question. And hypotheticals like "scaring noobies" is little more tha an exercise in Project Fear. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you about Project Fear, and I actually think the two cases are rather different. HW, from what I can see from a quick look at their contrib history, mostly works on content, and doesn't use talk pages much. Flooded is a very prolific patroller - they template tens or hundreds of IPs and new accounts every day. We are all encouraged to be welcoming and communicative with new editors - that message does the exact opposite. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Have we treated Flooded like dirt two years before they created their account? Good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that would be a clever trick, Bbb23 ;) but, more mundanely, I think it just refers to the previous (3?) usernames. ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- In response to Serial Number 54129's question above - yes, this particular issue would be resolved by their ceasing to patrol; no, that wouldn't be a benefit to the project; and that's not the outcome I want. I just hope to convince them to stop posting what amounts to a complaint about how Wikipedia is administered on the talk page of hundreds of new users every day - that's not what warning templates are for. I brought it here because I hoped that, if it was clear that the community wanted them to change it, that might carry a bit of weight. GirthSummit (blether) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Incidentally, @Girth Summit:, I probably ouhgt to emphasise that I am actually in agreement with you on at least one aspect of this: I think the signature is childish, petty and with a certain arrogance. But I think consistency and fairness to established editors are as important as ?civility to new editors, and however much I personally dislkie those sigs, I object to condemning one without the other: condemn both, if the community wants to return to it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- In response to Serial Number 54129's question above - yes, this particular issue would be resolved by their ceasing to patrol; no, that wouldn't be a benefit to the project; and that's not the outcome I want. I just hope to convince them to stop posting what amounts to a complaint about how Wikipedia is administered on the talk page of hundreds of new users every day - that's not what warning templates are for. I brought it here because I hoped that, if it was clear that the community wanted them to change it, that might carry a bit of weight. GirthSummit (blether) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that would be a clever trick, Bbb23 ;) but, more mundanely, I think it just refers to the previous (3?) usernames. ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I originally had an issue with his purple sig (which I thought what this thread was all about) but having seen 3-4 people already raise it with him on his tp I figured me leaving another sig message would be pointless, I feel like this editor is intentionally trying to be disruptive .... He caused issues with the purple and now here we are a new signature and still more problems,
- FWIW Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's sig was also raised here a few years ago but nothing was done about it - If anyone deserves that signature it's TRM!, Anyway there's generally leeway given to sigs but I feel this is rather pointy and quite honestly childish,
- Just my 2p anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Genuine question Flooded with them hundreds - Do you have diffs where you were "treated like dirt" I'm genuinely curious. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently I missed the part where this thread is about his sig and welcoming new editors - Doesn't really fill the newbie with confidence does it .... "Welcome to Wikipedia, I've been treated like shit for 3 years" ..... Don't welcome new editors (unless you change the sig) = Problem solved. –Davey2010Talk 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Genuine question Flooded with them hundreds - Do you have diffs where you were "treated like dirt" I'm genuinely curious. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's say I was welcoming new editors, ending every welcome message with "By the way, the administrators will treat you like dirt!". Not in a signature, just at the end of every message. I would imagine a topic ban from welcoming new editors would be forthcoming. I don't care if FWTH has it in his signature day to day, but the welcome template should be welcoming. And that welcome template includes the signature, we should not be hung up on the fact the phrase is within the signature, we should be considering the fact it's within every welcome message FWTH leaves. It's proselytizing and not an appropriate message to give to potential new editors. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FWTH is well aware of this conversation and has shown no inclination to participate. I imagine he's loving the attention. I would hope FWTH could voluntarily choose to stop welcoming new editors until he changes his signature. If he doesn't then he needs a topic ban from doing so. Fish+Karate 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps the OP here, who has for all practical purposes been editing for well under a year, could explain why this is a matter of such moment that it called for escalation from a talk page post to a drama board fracas in less than one hour, and why they apparently did not consider another part of the policy they cite, Wikipedia:Username_policy#Consider_leaving_well_enough_alone. Moreover, since their real concern is that the signature Sends The Wrong Message to new users, it is probable that their purpose violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down" merely because it might tend to offend the bastards' tender sensibilities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED is for encyclopedic content. We do not censor encyclopedic content because we are here to be a reference for people on a variety of topics. This does not extend to things posted elsewhere. For example, you cannot insult people, share viewpoints in support of things like Nazism or pedophilia, and you are supposed to avoid biting new editors. (And if we really wanted to be more friendly toward women, we would not allow degrading sexual content in userspace, but that's another matter.) This is not censoring, this is having a modicum of professionalism when it comes to getting work done on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (and I see F&K has made essentially the same point above) I think it more useful to frame this issue in terms of disruptive anti-vandalism patrolling than a WP:SIG violation. Suppose someone, instead of using {{uw-vandalism1}}, left the following:
Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. I have been treated like dirt by many admins since 2001. -Example (talk)
- on the talk pages of new users. Certainly that would be regarded as disruptive? I don't see the point of having the clause
Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocks.
if we can never enforce it, either. (and since Hullaboo does not do anti-vandalism patrolling to my knowledge, there would be no selective enforcement here). I would argue that while Flooded can use this signature in other contexts, in the context of leaving newbies message, he should not be allowed to (he should use a different signature when doing anti-vandalism patrolling) and should be blocked if he continues to do so (I suppose that would be regarded as more admins treating him as dirt). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC) - In response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - yes, I'd be glad to explain. As I said above, Flooded is very prolific - you just have to look at their contribution history to see what I mean. I raised in on their talk page, and they made it pretty clear that they had no intention of changing it, so I wasn't sure what else to do:: I suppose I could have waited and asked them again, after they'd put it on a few hundred more people's talk pages, but I didn't really see the merit in that. I did consider leaving well enough alone, and rejected that idea because I was genuinely concerned about the potential for harm to the project. I have no axe to grind with Flooded, I appreciate the work that they do, I just wish that they would do it without putting that negative, snarky message (which I did not read in the spirit you assert is intended) on the talk page of new users.
- I agree with Galobtter and F+K - I've got no problems with Flooded using that signature in other contexts, but not when templating new users. GirthSummit (blether) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't figure out what else to do, so I blew this dispute up as much as I could -- that does not exactly provide confidence in your grasp of policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I have not been editing that long, and my grasp of policy is not comprehensive; I hope you can also see that I'm doing what I can to develop it. Your mischaracterisation isn't fair - I am not trying to create drama, I'm trying to stop something from happening. I saw someone doing something (very frequently) that I thought was counterproductive; I asked them to stop, in what I hope was a friendly and respectful way; they brushed me off, and carried on doing it; so, thinking that it was urgent because of the sheer frequency with which they were doing it, I brought it here. I have never raised an ANI report against another user before, and I'm not calling for sanctions - I have no beef with you, or with Flooded, I just want them to stop templating people like that. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (Feeling somewhat like he's been treated like dirt by HW since earlier this afternoon)
- It seems to me an editor raising a concern (Flooded's signature) here which has been brought up over a period of time by multiple editors and has, arguably, now gotten worse, has a good enough grasp on how Wikipedia operates to recognize a "chronic, intractable" dispute. Considering a number of longtime editors agreeing with the concerns raised here by Girth, their posited lack of experience does not seem to have caused them to misstep in this posting in anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I have not been editing that long, and my grasp of policy is not comprehensive; I hope you can also see that I'm doing what I can to develop it. Your mischaracterisation isn't fair - I am not trying to create drama, I'm trying to stop something from happening. I saw someone doing something (very frequently) that I thought was counterproductive; I asked them to stop, in what I hope was a friendly and respectful way; they brushed me off, and carried on doing it; so, thinking that it was urgent because of the sheer frequency with which they were doing it, I brought it here. I have never raised an ANI report against another user before, and I'm not calling for sanctions - I have no beef with you, or with Flooded, I just want them to stop templating people like that. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (Feeling somewhat like he's been treated like dirt by HW since earlier this afternoon)
- Seems pretty childish to me, but nonetheless, the signature seems to only cause potential harm to Wikipedia if it is present while Flooded is welcoming/warning new users. A block should be enforced if he continues to persist in this. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't figure out what else to do, so I blew this dispute up as much as I could -- that does not exactly provide confidence in your grasp of policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking as a newbie who has had early issues with some admin, when I saw Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's signature, rather than finding it off-putting, I found it quite encouraging. It was nice to know that I wasn't the only one who felt a certain way. I encourage other editors to question their assumption that this signature is a negative message that would be off-putting, as opposed to a positive message of encouragement (yes, seriously). As Hullaballoo said:
...we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down"...
. Nobody should believe that FWTH's signature is what's going to determine a new user's opinion of WP or how people treat people on WP. The new user will form that opinion on their own anyway, indeed most new users already have formed an opinion before ever editing (new editors are not new readers), and long before they'll have seen FWTH's signature. Levivich? ! 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: At least you should close the bold on your sig (I did it for you, but you should still close it up) SemiHypercube 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @SemiHypercube: Sorry, fixed, and thank you for point it out to me (and cleaning it up here). Levivich? ! 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Levivich, who told you that new editors are not new readers?
- Unless you've gone batshit crazy, do you seriously wish to claim that a newbie editor makes a round-trip across random user-t/p(s), ANI threads and all the backstage-drama before choosing to correct a typo or insert a line or whatever?
- And, by the way, what's your previous account or did you have an habit of maneuvering through the trenches, prior to your excellently competent edits? ∯WBGconverse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WBG: There are no new readers of Wikipedia. If you ask your phone or computer a question, the first thing that pops up is a WP article. It's the #5 website on the internet. Every student and every other internet-connected person in the English-speaking world looks stuff up on enwiki. This is not an encyclopedia, this is the encyclopedia, and has been for years. I'm not sure how you can imagine that somebody would start an account here who hasn't previously read Wikipedia, although I am starting to understand why you're so mystified by newbie proficiency, if you think that before starting an account, new editors basically have never read the encyclopedia before. Levivich Making many veterans jealous with his amazing markup skillz since registering his first and only account in November 2018.? ! 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: At least you should close the bold on your sig (I did it for you, but you should still close it up) SemiHypercube 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hullabaloo's signature is clearly allowed, if for no other reason than the length of time it has not been challenged. I don't see any reason to force FwtH to change their signature either, but they should know that willfully antagonizing a large part of the community is unlikely to benefit them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Replying to:
the issue would be resolved if FWTH stopped patrolling. Would that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia?
The answer to this rhetorical question is simple. Yes, this would be an improvement. Flooding the talk pages of alleged vandals by messages that only call for more vandalism is surely not what should be done.Pldx1 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- A fellow editor wrote to me privately about this ANI discussion, my reply to them is the following: "My friend! How are you doing? Thank you for writing to me. It's great you've done so in advisory of the recent signature issue that arose on my talk page hours ago. You are absolutely correct that the signature may be frowned upon by everyone but I am hoping for there to be consensus which allows me to use it, as I am a strong supporter of individual rights and I am of the opinion that my exercising of the right to voice out in the name of freedom of speech will not be as disruptive as one or more ANI participants have suggested. As you can see, a past discussion linked in the ANI discussion, involving another experienced user, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whom I have taken inspiration from by the use of this signature, has shown that the community may be accepting of the said signature in contrary to the views of the original poster, which suggests that the signature may scare off new users. That may be true, but that may also be false. It is very subjective. One may argue that my signature could actually make new users feel like home, as it shows informalcy on how regular non-admin users are treated by admins. Moreover, I believe the signature is rather subtle and that newbies will not even notice it. Sometimes they don't even notice the entire message because they're newbies who are more likely to be elsewhere than on their own talk page. You are correct, I am absolutely pissed. I am pissed about the bias against new editors and how admins have treated me and other non-admin users terribly. I do not wish to go further on specific incidences but I would like to say that I am not happy and I have tried taking a break for two weeks but apparently I seem to have been suffering from wikipediholism. Changing my signature might easily solve the ongoing case at ANI but it will, however, make my efforts to exercise my freedom of speech void. But of course, if there is a community consensus to prevent me from using this new signature, then I shall change it or revert to my old one at extreme reluctance. Best wishes to you."-- Flooded. Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 (sig inspired by Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Essential reading, for those not familiar with it: Wikipedia:Free speech. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFREESPEECH - you are free to complain about admins elsewhere but not on newbie talk pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- While I've enjoyed working around Flooded with them hundreds, I agree this signature is disruptive, pointy, battlegroundy and insulting. Free speech is one thing (not actually practiced here); walking around with a chip on one's shoulder is another. Please stop with the dirt! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- And yes, this is a horrible message with which to greet new users.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- So I have been looking this over, is there any sign of anything actually happening with new users in relation to the signature? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Unmeasurable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- We could always ask the new users who have been templated what they think of the signature, and what effect, if any, it had on them. Levivich? ! 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Might be worth a look. If there has been no impact is there actually a problem? Personally I am not a fan of non-stock signatures in general but eh not a big deal for me. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the concern here seems based on an assumption that something is bothering somebody else, but there is no evidence that any new users are actually bothered by this. In the meantime, this discussion has inspired me to update my own signature. Levivich Treating many admin like dirt since 2018.? ! 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Levivich, PackMecEng, you're right - the concern is partly based on assumption, rather than any objective evidence of harm; however, the signature runs contrary to the whole objective of templating. Patrollers (including myself) don't just template obvious vandals - templates are also given new users who are acting in good faith but who aren't aware of our policies and guidelines. At the point when a brand new (good faith) user gets their first template, they most likely don't know what an admin is - they need a friendly welcome, information about why their edit was reverted, and what policies they should read to avoid making the same mistake again. Adding that signature on to such an important first contact is, I believe, frustrating that objective. GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: I agree welcomes should be welcoming, of course. But looking at this recent example, it seems like the signature is the least-unwelcoming of all the unwelcoming templates. Even this first template [136] [137] [138] is unwelcoming IMO. (Compare to the welcome I got or the {welcome} template, both of which are actually welcoming.) The standard warning templates, even the info-icon ones, are not welcoming. When I look at this, the signature, kind of an obvious joke, softens the harshness of the template, rather than making it worse. When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel more welcomed and less alone. So I personally don't think it frustrates the objective, I think it may even promote the objective. (More to the point, I think the templates need an overhaul to be more welcoming.) I interpret it one way; you interpret it another way; I don't know how new editors by and large interpret it. So I think it's good that you brought this up for discussion, as it's definitely something worth looking at, I just don't see it as obviously a problem (or obviously not a problem). Levivich? ! 20:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Levivich, PackMecEng, you're right - the concern is partly based on assumption, rather than any objective evidence of harm; however, the signature runs contrary to the whole objective of templating. Patrollers (including myself) don't just template obvious vandals - templates are also given new users who are acting in good faith but who aren't aware of our policies and guidelines. At the point when a brand new (good faith) user gets their first template, they most likely don't know what an admin is - they need a friendly welcome, information about why their edit was reverted, and what policies they should read to avoid making the same mistake again. Adding that signature on to such an important first contact is, I believe, frustrating that objective. GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the concern here seems based on an assumption that something is bothering somebody else, but there is no evidence that any new users are actually bothered by this. In the meantime, this discussion has inspired me to update my own signature. Levivich Treating many admin like dirt since 2018.? ! 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Might be worth a look. If there has been no impact is there actually a problem? Personally I am not a fan of non-stock signatures in general but eh not a big deal for me. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- We could always ask the new users who have been templated what they think of the signature, and what effect, if any, it had on them. Levivich? ! 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- When we welcome people, we need them to... feel welcome. Like they want to join the Wikipedia community. Many of us have had a job or volunteered somewhere where there's someone who feels mistreated and wants to let you know that every chance they get. It quickly becomes tedious/obnoxious (unless you come to feel the same way, of course). That person is never the person who welcomes you and shows you around. If it were, that person would be fired/dismissed/whatever. Grumpy Gus keeps his job when his job doesn't depend on making people feel like a welcome part of the community (and if it goes as far as "I do what I want even if everyone complains" I would presume it would be hard to find a long-term home in a place built on collaboration and community). So yeah, I think the role someone takes for themselves here does matter when looking at something like this. There are plenty of examples, for better or worse, when we tolerate something in one situation but not another, e.g. there's more allowance for some harsh/profane language when in the midst of a heated content dispute, but take the same language and direct it at newbies while welcoming them, and it wouldn't be ok. F+K has a good point that if this were a typed message to each user rather than part of the signature (no difference to them), it would be a clearer problem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe they have been treated like dirt. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think a failed RFA is a good reason to wear a chip on one's shoulder, especially given the impossible standards the community sets these days.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: - (without making a judgement on the primary issue) - the community having impossible standards would actually increase the justification for a failed RfA to initiate chip-wearing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- But that's an RfA. I haven't participated for a long time but is participation now restricted to admins? If not, was there a substantially different outcome between the !votes of admins and the !vote of non-admins? If neither of these are true, I don't see it as being good evidence admins treated them like dirt. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no, they haven't been treated like dirt by admins. I would say the community has been pretty patient with this user. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The admin/non-admin distinction is really besides the point, isn't it, because if he changed the signature to "Treated like dirt by many editors since 2016," that wouldn't really assuage anyone's concerns, would it? Levivich? ! 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well there are two questions here. One is whether the signature is okay. Two is whether there is evidence for the signature. Above someone else asked for evidence for the signature. The RfA was presented as evidence for it. I fundamentally disagree since it isn't evidence specific to admins. For people who will allow the signature, but only with evidence, then it probably matters to them. For people who will disallow the signature, evidence or not, then I don't think it matters, it may still be an interesting question to some while others may consider it off topic. As long as evidence is presented, it seems fair to challenge that evidence, regardless of personal feelings of the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. Yes I'm aware some would argue if both admins and non admins treat someone as dirt then it technically still applies. My view is that if when you single out a group, you're implying there something special about the way that group treats you, or at least you have insufficient evidence about people outside that group. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Point well taken; I hadn't considered the aspersions aspect, as it is an unevidenced accusation. Yet, "like dirt" is so subjective... and if we went that way, we'd have to require everyone with such a statement to provide said diffs. I also agree with your points (far) below that the editor should want to change their signature, and hopefully will after reading this discussion, and at a minimum, remove the reference. Levivich? ! 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. Yes I'm aware some would argue if both admins and non admins treat someone as dirt then it technically still applies. My view is that if when you single out a group, you're implying there something special about the way that group treats you, or at least you have insufficient evidence about people outside that group. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well there are two questions here. One is whether the signature is okay. Two is whether there is evidence for the signature. Above someone else asked for evidence for the signature. The RfA was presented as evidence for it. I fundamentally disagree since it isn't evidence specific to admins. For people who will allow the signature, but only with evidence, then it probably matters to them. For people who will disallow the signature, evidence or not, then I don't think it matters, it may still be an interesting question to some while others may consider it off topic. As long as evidence is presented, it seems fair to challenge that evidence, regardless of personal feelings of the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The admin/non-admin distinction is really besides the point, isn't it, because if he changed the signature to "Treated like dirt by many editors since 2016," that wouldn't really assuage anyone's concerns, would it? Levivich? ! 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no, they haven't been treated like dirt by admins. I would say the community has been pretty patient with this user. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think a failed RFA is a good reason to wear a chip on one's shoulder, especially given the impossible standards the community sets these days.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The chances of FWTH being blocked as a textbook-case of POINT seems to be exponentially increasing with time. I'm supporting a block in case of any more posting on a newbie-t/p with that signature per the concerns expressed above. ∯WBGconverse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- My two cents: He should want to change it - having essentially two grammatically incorrect sentences as a signature is awkward and confusing looking. But that said said, as pointed out before, this guy changes his name or signature on like a monthly basis. Wait a month and he’ll probably pull a complete 180 and change his signature to “Frank Johnson - talk page” or something. It’ll likely resolve itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Flooded is a prolific and excellent vandal fighter. Had I seen the RfA before the snow close, I would have given it moral support. Yes, failing RfA is dissapointing, but antics like this are more of a behavioural problem than having a history. Flooded, if you want to succeed in a future RfA, take onboard the critcism, and stop having what essentially looks like a tantrum (your RfA criteria fit into that too). It takes a cool temperament to be a good admin, indeed a good contributor. If you want my advice, revert your signature, keep doing what you're good at, and address the issues raised in your RfA. Antics like these throw the possibility of an RfA succeeding years down the line. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Refusing to change the sig after a massive backlash at AN/I is disruptive, as is spreading around its hostile, anti-fouth pillar message to new users and vandals. Falling back on your right to free speech is not a valid excuse for WP:POINTy behavior—as has been pointed out, the right to free speech does not exist on Wikipedia. If this is your response to a failed RfA, then you've accomplished nothing but proving that your RfA failed with good reason. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- My view is that Flooded should change their signature, because they realise how bad it is for the community and how poorly it reflects on themselves. (I pretty much feel the same about anyone said to be treated as dirt, e.g. the two named above.) But there's no point trying to force them do, even for when they post to new users. Consider for example that many user talk pages have even more unwelcoming messages and if some newbie makes it to one of them to discuss some message, they're going to see them. Nor is it sufficient to justify a topic ban on dealing with new users, or a site ban. It could be one of the many realms of evidence that would be considered. As others have said, the issue has surely damaged any hope for a successful RfA in the near future and made those of us who didn't participate including non admins like me, sure that the right decision was made. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually on further thought, I wouldn't mind forcing them to remove the Hullaballoo thing. Even if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't object, it IMO is unnecessarily confusing and unnecessary for their message. Anyone who needs to knows that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has the same sort of signature already. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers and Template editors are supposed to act on behalf of the community. If User:Flooded with them hundreds prefers to act otherwise, he should better resign from any parcel of authority... before being ousted from all of them. A guy who is 10% of an admin should fulfill at least 10% of ADMINACT. Pldx1 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a good point. Most of their extended privileges involve working with new users to some degree. Using these extended privileges to spread a hateful message to new users is appalling, and if they'd rather use an edit summary to soapbox about their resentments, they should not be in such positions of trust. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect this has something to do with Flooded with them hundreds' unblock request on Commons. If that drama is carrying over to enwiki, that's a problem. Bradv🍁 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a bit odd, but if I was a new user to a website and I received a message that, as per a comment above, said,
I think I'd be rather intrigued, and at least it would show a human side to the post - personally I think the worst aspect of these so-called "welcoming" templates is that they are so obviously generic and impersonal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)"Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. I have been treated like dirt by many admins since 2001. -Example (talk)"
- Maybe I'm a bit odd, but if I was a new user to a website and I received a message that, as per a comment above, said,
- It’s frown-worthy, and probably shouldn’t be used in welcoming newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Dennis Brown, who has been active in WP:WER. Don't think we can do much in light of the precedent set by HW, but it sure makes me wonder about FWTH's attitude toward WP (and wonder if it has anything to do with their recent unsuccessful RfA). I don't think they should be welcoming new editors with that signature. Miniapolis 01:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- If anything, TheMagnificientist/Zawl/Flooded with them hundreds's sig should say "treating admins like dirt since 2016". Just read that unblock discussion on Commons. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
User:LOCOJAYW
After making this revert and going to the user talk page for a warning, it seems either the user has never looked at their talk page or doesn't care or both, but it seems further actions are required. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is it time to evoke the Captain's speech from Cool Hand Luke?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm reporting the above user for blatant incivility for no reason at all. Today I had reverted the user from two articles' GAN nominations since per WP:GANI "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." I left a polite note on the user's talk page explaining the scenario as well as on the GAN talk page. The user then had a really battleground reply on his talk page and proceeded to personally attack me on the GAN talk page and other profanity. This is seriously gross when an experienced editor resorts to simply name calling and not taking time to understand why he/she was reverted. —IB [ Poke ] 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I’m sorry that you’re offended by the female anatomy, which isn’t profanity, or idioms that you’re unfamiliar with—no one called you a “name” anywhere, stop projecting. And it’s “her” not his, all that time you’ve spent on my page today it takes all of two seconds to see the right at the top it says “this contributor is female so don’t call her a male”. And no you weren’t polite at all, so I came back with the same energy. Just because we have different interpretations of the policy, in which we’re both right, doesn’t mean you should lie. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please show with differences where I made personal attacks to you Trillfendi, or called you "dumbass". Regarding your pronoun, no I did not check your user page where it is written that you are female (which I can see now). And no, other users in GAN agree with my actions, so stop with the mighty attitude and learn civility. I will leave the rest to administrators. —IB [ Poke ]
- You’re not a psychic. You don’t know what edits I’m going to make anywhere at any time. I interpret anyone can nominate as such. Knowing there’s a backlog almost a year long, it’s not like anyone was going to start reviewing it anytime soon anyway. So go snitch somewhere else. And anyone can nominate means just that, so my interpretation was indeed right. If anyone can’t nominate then the policy must be changed. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- You do realize that you just changed your story 180 degress, implicitly agreeing that you were not a significant contributor prior to GAN, reallying making your attitude over this even more questionable. The natural assumption is that an article nominated for GA review is believed to be at GA level already. I could nominate Lucha Brothers now and in the next 8 months bring it from a newly created skeleton to a Good Article, but that's not how it works. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Article Marvelous Marvels of Marvel (movie) is also not eligable for GAN, at least not to anyone else. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- You do realize that you just changed your story 180 degress, implicitly agreeing that you were not a significant contributor prior to GAN, reallying making your attitude over this even more questionable. The natural assumption is that an article nominated for GA review is believed to be at GA level already. I could nominate Lucha Brothers now and in the next 8 months bring it from a newly created skeleton to a Good Article, but that's not how it works. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I’m sorry that you’re offended by the female anatomy, which isn’t profanity, or idioms that you’re unfamiliar with—no one called you a “name” anywhere, stop projecting. And it’s “her” not his, all that time you’ve spent on my page today it takes all of two seconds to see the right at the top it says “this contributor is female so don’t call her a male”. And no you weren’t polite at all, so I came back with the same energy. Just because we have different interpretations of the policy, in which we’re both right, doesn’t mean you should lie. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the female anatomy was the objectionable part of that reply. Anyone familiar with vernacular English understands the subtext. I honestly think someone has been overly sensitive and overly reactive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- “Tough titties” is just sarcasm. No one is taking anything sensitively besides the person running to administrators about such saying. I didn’t say “GFY”. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Overall, I think Trillfendi's response was not in keeping with a collegeal environment, I'm not sure it warrants admin action. Some deep breaths and self calming might help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I never look to see what someone's preferred gender pronoun is. Being a dinosaur, I sometimes lapse into the collective "he". Mostly I use "they" or "thay". Some users gender remains a mystery to me and I enjoy a certain mystery in a relationship.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- IndianBio's initial reverts were almost guaranteed to get anybody's back up, but fundamentally they were not wrong. I see that Trillfendi has acknowledged the need for discussions before they nominate articles they haven't edited much. As such I'm not seeing anything actionable here at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. @IndianBio:. "Please", "thank you", and "I'm sorry to bear ill-tidings, but", can go along way to not upsetting other users. Calming breaths. Then cpmpose your massage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright folks, I’m eating lunch. Back to your regularly scheduled editing pursuits. Much bigger problems out there right now. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankly bizarre accusation of edit-warring in Wikipedia talk:Spam (restored after unexplained unclosed archiving)
In this edit, @Ronz: has made an accusation of edit warring. Given that no one has made more than one relevant edit to the articles under discussion, it’s rather difficult to simultaneously assume good faith and competence. A look at it would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you ask him what he meant? Natureium (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks clear .... WP:EDITWAR.
11:52, January 15, 2019 diff hist +266 Alcatraz Island Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo
11:51, January 15, 2019 diff hist +515 Fort Point, San Francisco Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo
11:50, January 15, 2019 diff hist +548 Fort St. Philip Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo
11:49, January 15, 2019 diff hist +467 Fort Macomb Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo
11:48, January 15, 2019 diff hist +502 Fort Pike Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo
- At first glance, I'd say he added back book spam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Could you add in the links to the difs or tell us who made the edits. I'm far too lazy to chase them down. ANd too fat to catch them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: for he's the most rationale of us all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, no, no, he's the only rational one here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Qwirkle. Even a proponent describes it as an "edit-war".--Moxy (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- At first glance, I'd say he added back book spam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything actionable here. An argument over what is/isn't book spam. And going behind someone and reverting their removal of said book spam might not be edit warring, but it might be something else.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, one shouldn't confuse "edit warring" with "breaking the 3R barrier". One can argue that Qwirkle is sort of edit warring in that they're reverting a whole lot, and I certainly disagree with their edits (and I am glad Ronz does too), but this isn't (yet) something we should call on the Parrot Brigade for. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given that they were the same edits that you had reverted, I suppose that someone could argue that you were sort of edit warring...that is, if the idea of a single edit to an article constituting an “edit war” were not inherently fatuous. Qwirkle (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is why I adhere to 1RR for most things. Looked like bookspam to me, but I can see how others might disagree.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing spam is good; adding it back? meh.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Placing 'the' seminal work on a subject in articles connected with it strikes you as spam? A single revert of another person’s revert of a third persons edit strikes you as edit warring? Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Never said that. Never said either one. Still don't see what action you are seeking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you just did. You may not have realized it, perhaps. Emanuel Raymond Lewis’s Seacoast Fortifications..&cet is the first major scholarly retrospective on the subject covered here, and 5 decades on, it is still the starting point for study of it. And I surfaced Ronz’s behaviour here because he claimed, to paraphrase as I did above, that
single revert[s]of another person’s revert[s] of a third persons edit
s - that’s what occured there - was somehow “edit warring”. you appear to be endorsing that idea. Qwirkle (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you just did. You may not have realized it, perhaps. Emanuel Raymond Lewis’s Seacoast Fortifications..&cet is the first major scholarly retrospective on the subject covered here, and 5 decades on, it is still the starting point for study of it. And I surfaced Ronz’s behaviour here because he claimed, to paraphrase as I did above, that
- Never said that. Never said either one. Still don't see what action you are seeking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Placing 'the' seminal work on a subject in articles connected with it strikes you as spam? A single revert of another person’s revert of a third persons edit strikes you as edit warring? Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given that they were the same edits that you had reverted, I suppose that someone could argue that you were sort of edit warring...that is, if the idea of a single edit to an article constituting an “edit war” were not inherently fatuous. Qwirkle (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Er, no.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the case, I think it odd that you would be asking, in effect, what I see wrong with this picture. We see a series of implicit or explicit accusations of bad faith, from spamming to edit-warring, that appear to have no substance to them. Ordinary editing is described as misbehaviour; poisoning the well appears to be rather a norm for WP:SPAM if this mess is typical. And there are unfortunate overtones of ownership as well; there appears to be an assumption that the spam project puts ordinary editing on hold.
Sorry, but rather than calling it "edit warring", it would have been better to bring up WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Given the context of the discussion, calling it "Using reverts to restore the same material on multiple articles without notifying anyone of the reverts, after multiple editors have expressed their opinions that the material may be spam in a ongoing discussion about the material" in order to be more precise would just add too much to an already overly-lengthy discussion. As I've already brought up WP:IDHT and WP:FOC to the discussion, I think a reminder of WP:NOTBATTLE is appropriate now that we're at ANI over terminology. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, we are at ANI over use of inaccurate, pejorative, descriptions of other’s editing, poisoning the well by describing a rather good source as book spam, or a routine revert as edit-warring. That sort of thing. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- So we agree-- it's not edit warring but something else.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Edit peace-keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Edit police action? We in the States were very big on that at one time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, now we just name our wars with inspiring patriotic titles spun up by the DoD's PR department. Edit-Enduring Freedom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Edit police action? We in the States were very big on that at one time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Edit peace-keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
War!! What is it good for!?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing (uh), say it again y'all. (Sorry, I tried, I really, really tried, but the impulse was just too strong.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think if it's used as a source, it should be linked to. I think if it's just added into the See also section that that section should be reserved for internal links to other articles. I can see why if added not as a wource how someone could mistake it for book spam. Though I think that is probably for some other discussion ? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- " describing a rather good source as book spam"-- but it wasn't used as a source in the articles? Just added to "See also"? See above.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some fishiness at this AfD. The first Keep has been blocked as a sockpuppet already, and the third one's second edit is to the AfD, with every edit since being to footballer articles (as if to try and make themselves not seem like a sock). Could I get some eyes on it? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I added a "notvote" to the top. If a CU could stop by.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a clear cut case of vote-fraud so I have filled the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neerajmadhuria72014. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Board glitch
This edit by @SemiHypercube: archived one discussion, while describing it as another, which had alredy been archived immediately before. I am sure this needs to wind up elsewhere eventually, but I wanted it up here first to explain the sudden reappearance of the original thread. Qwirkle (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you'll notice in the diff, two different editors were using OneClickArchiver (which is FABULOUS -- everyone should install it) within seconds of each other. Unfortunately under those conditions there's a race condition which can cause the wrong thread to be archived. It happens to me about once a year. There's probably some very complicated way to fix this, but it would never be worth it. EEng 01:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Domino-effekt.jpg/200px-Domino-effekt.jpg)
- I just try to use OneClickArchiver and I get "reported" to ANI for the first time @Qwirkle: you know that a ping is not sufficient for notification!) SemiHypercube 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, if I were reporting you for misconduct, I doubt you’d be using those scare quotes. You aren’t really the subject here, the “glitch” in the title is. Qwirkle (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- But I'm involved, aren't I? SemiHypercube 02:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you’d really like to be, I suppose you can volunteer for it, because, like most automatizing software around here, there is probably a disclaimer pointing out that you are responsible for its effect if you use it. You really should, in fact, have checked the edit after the fact, probably. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- But I'm involved, aren't I? SemiHypercube 02:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, if I were reporting you for misconduct, I doubt you’d be using those scare quotes. You aren’t really the subject here, the “glitch” in the title is. Qwirkle (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I just try to use OneClickArchiver and I get "reported" to ANI for the first time @Qwirkle: you know that a ping is not sufficient for notification!) SemiHypercube 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- This feels like it should be on the talk page rather than on the main page. I.e WT:AN/I not WP:AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe the Village pump under technical?-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
- In dentistry, this is referred to as the Domino effect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I appreciate the info-- I thought it was magic or my hallucinations catching up with me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
an ip removes embedded ext links without replacing them with footnotes
Thus the references are lost. Please talk senses to them.- Altenmann >talk 04:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
PS. When posting the ani notice in their tak page I noticed a repeated pattern of noncooperative editing. It looks like a behavioral problem. - Altenmann >talk 04:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)