Lightburst (talk | contribs) →User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding: properly cited |
Thunderchunder (talk | contribs) →User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding: Enough is enough |
||
Line 972: | Line 972: | ||
:*(edit conflict x2) {{re|Lubbad85}} I'm not sure you understand, first, how serious copyright violations actually are, and second, that digging up diffs completely unrelated to this case aren't helpful. In terms of your challenge, [[Christopher Kaelin]] came up as a copyvio on Earwig because of the overuse of a primary block quote, similar to what Hijiri 88 removed in the earlier edit, which I also would have done - I've now removed that. [[Dick Bacon]] was also flagged as a copyvio by Earwig for non-blockquote reasons, so I have to go back adn fix that. Earwig came back unlikely on [[John Trevena (lawyer)]] but flagged a quote that I don't think has any business being in the article. [[Matteo Mancuso]] was flagged as unlikely but Earwig flagged a bunch of prose that needs to be rewritten. That's three out of four with at least some copyvio issues, a terrible look. I haven't looked at the other ones. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 03:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
:*(edit conflict x2) {{re|Lubbad85}} I'm not sure you understand, first, how serious copyright violations actually are, and second, that digging up diffs completely unrelated to this case aren't helpful. In terms of your challenge, [[Christopher Kaelin]] came up as a copyvio on Earwig because of the overuse of a primary block quote, similar to what Hijiri 88 removed in the earlier edit, which I also would have done - I've now removed that. [[Dick Bacon]] was also flagged as a copyvio by Earwig for non-blockquote reasons, so I have to go back adn fix that. Earwig came back unlikely on [[John Trevena (lawyer)]] but flagged a quote that I don't think has any business being in the article. [[Matteo Mancuso]] was flagged as unlikely but Earwig flagged a bunch of prose that needs to be rewritten. That's three out of four with at least some copyvio issues, a terrible look. I haven't looked at the other ones. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 03:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
*[[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] A blockquote properly quoted and referenced will always alert earwig. I do understand, how serious it is and and so does Hijiri88 which is why the editor weaponizes the complaint. You have erased a properly referenced blockquote because it was primary source material, not because it was copyvio. So I think I have said enough on this thread. I have been reported to CCI by this editor, but this is about a pattern of serious harassment. I yield to the admins.<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User:Lubbad85|<span style="color:white;background:red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Lubbad85 '''</span>]]</span></small>([[User talk:Lubbad85|<b style="color:#060">☎</b>]]) 03:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
*[[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] A blockquote properly quoted and referenced will always alert earwig. I do understand, how serious it is and and so does Hijiri88 which is why the editor weaponizes the complaint. You have erased a properly referenced blockquote because it was primary source material, not because it was copyvio. So I think I have said enough on this thread. I have been reported to CCI by this editor, but this is about a pattern of serious harassment. I yield to the admins.<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User:Lubbad85|<span style="color:white;background:red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Lubbad85 '''</span>]]</span></small>([[User talk:Lubbad85|<b style="color:#060">☎</b>]]) 03:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
===Cban proposal=== |
|||
Enough is enough, the multiple IBANS show a significant problem with how this user interacts with the community which needs to be fixed. Until this happens, we need to show conclusively that this behavior is not tolerated. [[User:Thunderchunder|Thunderchunder]] ([[User talk:Thunderchunder|talk]]) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* ''Support'' - As proposer. [[User:Thunderchunder|Thunderchunder]] ([[User talk:Thunderchunder|talk]]) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication == |
== Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication == |
Revision as of 03:34, 1 June 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) |
|
The Pirate Bay official URL - possible linkspam or malware attack
42.3.52.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Got a problem here: From Talk:The Pirate Bay "Re this edit: the "official url" template is currently redirecting to https://tea0539.blogspot.com/p/the-pirate-bay_17.html which is most definitely not thepiratebay.org. There are characters in Chinese (Green Tea News according to Google Translate). I'm not sure why this is happening and would welcome suggestions on this. Anyway, we can't link to something that is obviously not the official url." Please could the article be semi-protected until this is fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- The same user has also done this at xHamster.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also happening at 1337x and several IPs repeatedly changing the underlying data at WikiData. O3000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is why enwiki shouldn't rely on the spam-prone {{Official website}} parameters from Wikidata. —DoRD (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Posted about this on WD:AN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- We definitely shouldn't rely on Wikidata for this type of official site. By "this type" I mean the kind of legally ambiguous (or unambiguously illegal in some cases) site that winds up switching domains regularly. There are a whole lot of efforts to trick people, hijack, duplicate, etc. The dark net drug markets get a ton of spam, which can be even harder to detect as in addition to the official site frequently changing, the url is a mostly random collection of characters so it can be hard to tell one from another. (of course, whether we should be including any such url at all is a separate conversation). For the safety of our readers, we need to have tight control over urls likely subject to abuse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is why enwiki shouldn't rely on the spam-prone {{Official website}} parameters from Wikidata. —DoRD (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also happening at 1337x and several IPs repeatedly changing the underlying data at WikiData. O3000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think we should be using wikidata for anything. Reyk YO! 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I hear ya. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: If only you would let a WD admin like me know first before you write off the project's ability to fight spam. Semi-protection is all that's needed here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: A fair response. The issue isn't that Wikidata has no defense against vandals, though. I like Wikidata and see it as having a ton of potential, including developing mechanisms to protect against problematic edits. When it comes to fighting vandalism right now, though, enwiki is really very good most of the time, with lots of people and lots of tools that I just don't think Wikidata has yet. For example, if someone becomes autoconfirmed (a low barrier) and edits the url on Wikidata, how many people see it? If it's changed on enwiki, 617 people have the page watchlisted. A semi-protected Wikidata item may be more protection than many projects currently have, but it just makes less sense for sensitive content than a page 617 people are watching. Unless it's full protected, but I doubt anyone really wants that (I suspect you'd hear objections from those who see having material on Wikidata too much of a barrier to editing Wikipedia). Something that could work is that for particularly sensitive and/or likely vandalism targets, perhaps there's a way to full protect/lock just that statement? Or, more broadly, to lock anything that's actively in use by templates on another project, with something stronger than semiprotect on it? I'm just spitballing now, I suppose, in a way that's probably not suited to ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- The WD community is quite distrustful of pegging any local access of any sort to the actions of another community (on the principle that we are not bound by the policies of other projects). Our autoconfirmed threshold is significantly higher than Wikipedia’s for a reason, and we also are pretty good with making abuse (edit) filters for this purpose. Anyone who is this concerned about these popular items should request that I protect them, not merely complain that we don’t do as much about the problem—especially as we have more items to watch over than articles here and more edits in 7 years than this wiki has had in 18 (yes, Wikidata has surpassed Wikipedia’s size in those metrics).—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- This incident has made me wary of allowing parameters in enwiki articles to be changed on Wikidata. The problem is that enwiki editors may not be watching everything that happens over at Wikidata. Template vandalism is a serious problem, and templates on enwiki often have full protection so that IP or newly autoconfirmed users cannot vandalize them. I always remember this incident in 2015 which led to media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- The WD community is quite distrustful of pegging any local access of any sort to the actions of another community (on the principle that we are not bound by the policies of other projects). Our autoconfirmed threshold is significantly higher than Wikipedia’s for a reason, and we also are pretty good with making abuse (edit) filters for this purpose. Anyone who is this concerned about these popular items should request that I protect them, not merely complain that we don’t do as much about the problem—especially as we have more items to watch over than articles here and more edits in 7 years than this wiki has had in 18 (yes, Wikidata has surpassed Wikipedia’s size in those metrics).—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: A fair response. The issue isn't that Wikidata has no defense against vandals, though. I like Wikidata and see it as having a ton of potential, including developing mechanisms to protect against problematic edits. When it comes to fighting vandalism right now, though, enwiki is really very good most of the time, with lots of people and lots of tools that I just don't think Wikidata has yet. For example, if someone becomes autoconfirmed (a low barrier) and edits the url on Wikidata, how many people see it? If it's changed on enwiki, 617 people have the page watchlisted. A semi-protected Wikidata item may be more protection than many projects currently have, but it just makes less sense for sensitive content than a page 617 people are watching. Unless it's full protected, but I doubt anyone really wants that (I suspect you'd hear objections from those who see having material on Wikidata too much of a barrier to editing Wikipedia). Something that could work is that for particularly sensitive and/or likely vandalism targets, perhaps there's a way to full protect/lock just that statement? Or, more broadly, to lock anything that's actively in use by templates on another project, with something stronger than semiprotect on it? I'm just spitballing now, I suppose, in a way that's probably not suited to ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think we should be using wikidata for anything. Reyk YO! 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The quality of vandal fighting at Wikidata? The Wikipedia:Editing policy (and the same at 28 other wiki languages) isn't called the same at Wikidata. No, since 16 November 2018 the name of the page in English has been "stupid prick" instead[1]. Three days ago it also got an English description: "décription".[2]. Looking at "recent" changes in articles, since two days a fang is described as "a big ugly thing with a christmas tree"[3]. This is two days old. Jenna Marbles has grown 4 feet[4].
Since nearly a week, at the top of Sony Pictures hack enwiki displays (in those environments that still show the Wikidata description) the subtitle "Kim Jong-un", caused by this. We get serious BLP violations through this method, e.g. Trevor McMillan is said since 13 May to "Cuts staff while spending money on new buildings "[5].
Oh, and Ammonia production has a vandal title at Wikidata since 2013[6]. No, I don't really trust Wikidata or its capability to handle vandalism. Fram (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) It seem the spam of another blog in wikidata Cathay Pacific (Q32141) is related. Despite the url is different, it had the same "author" (pseudonym) 绿茶新闻. Matthew hk (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- And then for the wikidata off-topic. May i had a templated warning in wikidata? So far i "handwritten" my own message to communicate with the vandals in English, but just like sister project wiki-common, they had templated warning plus some translation that can switch immediately . Can i had that system in wikidata ? Matthew hk (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- There should be serious consideration to a moratorium on using {{Official website}} on enwiki. It is hard to keep a constant eye on what this link actually does when clicked, something that the vandals/spammers on Wikidata have already spotted. The high profile articles on enwiki are monitored and the problem with The Pirate Bay was noticed quickly, but other articles may be less lucky. Alternatively, Wikidata could make changing the official URL a feature available to administrators only.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem of wikidata itself, is there was even higher tech nerd barrier to edit it. I had to keep asking which Q is applicable to which P. And then lots of bot edit are wrong. I have to fix ill in zh-wiki as the redirect of related topic, does not mean it is the alias of the article. I have to create box in box in box entry for a complex business group, but sometimes i just bold not to split the entry when there is just the change in legal person and throw two Bloomberg id into the same wikidata entry. For obvious reason i don't think such a complex database need to be allow ip to edit. Definitely not enough admin is another small problem. Way more problem on too many troll ip edits that i seldom saw a good non-vandal edit by ip over there, way much worse that en-wiki that ip most of the time can assume good faith. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Matthew hk: The Foundation will never allow us to blanket restrict IP's from editing, however, we recently got consensus to implement a blanket semi-protection policy for items being used on a certain number of pages. What number is not decided, but there was consensus: wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/semi-protection_to_prevent_vandalism_on_most_used_Items. One feature I have been meaning to request is a statement-granular form of protection, but I haven't yet.
- In the meantime, anyone with serious concerns about it should simply add Wikidata changes to their watchlist. Patrolling it is no harder than here when yo udo that.
- It is also wrong that Wikidata has "a higher tech nerd barrier to edit it". Your perspective is unrepresentative since you are accustomed to editing here. To the contrary, in IRL meetups, new users find Wikidata more intuitive to edit owing to its use of a GUI that is simpler than the arcane template syntax we use here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem of wikidata itself, is there was even higher tech nerd barrier to edit it. I had to keep asking which Q is applicable to which P. And then lots of bot edit are wrong. I have to fix ill in zh-wiki as the redirect of related topic, does not mean it is the alias of the article. I have to create box in box in box entry for a complex business group, but sometimes i just bold not to split the entry when there is just the change in legal person and throw two Bloomberg id into the same wikidata entry. For obvious reason i don't think such a complex database need to be allow ip to edit. Definitely not enough admin is another small problem. Way more problem on too many troll ip edits that i seldom saw a good non-vandal edit by ip over there, way much worse that en-wiki that ip most of the time can assume good faith. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Those who complain that Wikidata doesn't fight vandalism effectively are honestly, in a sense, part of the problem, and not the solution. If you are concerned about that, then you are more than welcome to participate in vandalism fighting on Wikidata. This can be as simple as showing Wikidata changes on your watchlist (see Special:Preferences and go to watchlist settings), and reporting vandalism to me or other admins. I admit we can get better, but part of it too is that not as many people explicitly patrol for vandalism on the project simply because we are a smaller community entrusted with a larger wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here is faulting the Wikidata community. It's just the reality of the numbers. In one case, there are a lot of people watching; in the other, less so. That may change in time, but for sensitive material at this stage, I think there's a preference to err on the side of caution. That doesn't mean the Wikidata folks are incompetent or whatnot; it just means Wikidata is still growing. Enwiki has had quite a head start such that it's pretty decent at policing itself (in some ways anyway). I genuinely look forward to when Wikidata is just as reliable in that regard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: What I'm saying that, instead of only trying to address the "symptom", anyone with this concern should instead solve the root problem.
- For what it's worth, when I tried to introduce a living persons policy in line with our BLP policy (we don't have the "B" because our items aren't biographies per se), the community rejected it. The same happened when I introduced verifiability. So it's not as if I disagree with a lot of these concerns. But your concerns will not be heard over there if you don't participate in such discussions. I don't mean to canvass support for a particular policy (and think WD's independence is important), but I strongly despise anyone who doesn't trust WD and yet does nothing to contribute when WD is a project anyone can edit.
- A good interim proposal should be to just make WD edits appear on watchlists by default. This alone would improve monitoring. I personally consider myself pretty strict when it comes to sensitive cases; users who vandalize such items typically get blocked under a lower threshold than here (usually at most only one warning), and we are also implementing stricter protections. Our mission is in part to serve Wikipedia. In return, we ask that you participate meaningfully.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- If Wikidata is independent from Wikipedia, then we should never transclude anything from there to here, since by definition doing so risks undermining Wikipedia's policies. I don't feel that there's any way around it - if Wikidata wants to be "useful to Wikipedia", it needs to abide by and bind itself to Wikipedia's policies and decision-making process. If you're unwilling to do that, then the root problem is that Wikidata is useless to us, and the solution is to rip off the band-aid and set a strict policy against ever transcluding anything from it in a way that would allow a Wikidata edit to directly alter the display of a page on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is non-negotiable and "oh, we tried to convince people to accept it but failed" isn't a useful answer - if, for example, anything from Wikidata is going to be transcluded into a page here that falls under WP:BLP, then we first need absolute assurance that any later changes to that data will reflect Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. If Wikidata refuses to accept that, then you've prioritized your "independence" above "serving Wikipedia" in a way that makes you useless to us. A resource that is useful to Wikipedia is one that reflects and meets our policies, not one that's run like a petty independent fiefdom. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is up to the Wikipedia community to advocate for its positions to the WD one much in the same manner that Commons serves us but is independent. Independence does not mean we can do whatever we want, but rather, policies made here do not have automatic effect on WD; instead, we are accommodating to individual projects’ needs, but will not base our policies on any single project’s. There are many more Wikimedia wikis than this one and it would not be fair to them. You clearly misunderstood the relation between us and other projects, so please spend some time engaging with our community before writing us off (go to wikidata:WD:PC and open a thread).
- I, for one, am pretty strict (stricter than even admins here) about revdeleting BLP-violating material on WD so it cannot easily be restored.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikidata has every right to set their own policies, rules, ... But people should not expect us (enwiki editors) to instead of monitoring and vandal-fighting on one site, they should now monitor and vandal-fight on two sites, with a different interface, different policies, different userbases (e.g. some users banned here are among the most active and vocal editors on Wikidata), different ideas about reliability and sourcing, ... Furthermore, it isn't just about enabling Wikidata changes on your watchlist, we should also enable Wikidata changes on the recent changes, since everyone of us only watchlists a fraction of all pages of course. When I highlighted some Wikidata vandalism last week, I also bookmarked some pages with one specific type of vandalism (changing the English label, which is essentially the same as a page move would be here). Midget, which has on enwiki more than 500 pageviews per day, has had a BLP vandalism pagemove last week on Wikidata. Mesto only has 72 pageviews per day here, but on Wikidata it has been overwritten in a series of 13 edits one week ago to be about a completely different person. The GA 2008 Sichuan earthquake gets some 500 pageviews per day here. Anyone looking for it on Wikidata in English will need to know that over there, it is called "mi tio se llama pedro" instead since one week. These are not obscure pages, and they aren't even the worst examples. But of course, a page with more than 500 pageviews a day on enwiki alone, gets less than 1 pageview per day on Wikidata. So if the few dedicated vandal fighters there miss it, then it falls of the changes logs and can linger undetected for ages, while the same pagemove on enwiki on a relatievly well-read page would lasts for minutes at most.
- It all boils down to the fact that vandalism fighting at Wikidata is highly inadequate, and that to expect people here to double the number of pages we need to check just to make infoboxes and the like here easier to populate (no matter how static these are onmost articles) is not realistic or helpful. That doesn't mean that Wikidata has to change or that the editors there aren't trying: but it does mean that many people at their potentially largest "customer" are very reluctant to rely on it. Fram (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- If Wikidata is independent from Wikipedia, then we should never transclude anything from there to here, since by definition doing so risks undermining Wikipedia's policies. I don't feel that there's any way around it - if Wikidata wants to be "useful to Wikipedia", it needs to abide by and bind itself to Wikipedia's policies and decision-making process. If you're unwilling to do that, then the root problem is that Wikidata is useless to us, and the solution is to rip off the band-aid and set a strict policy against ever transcluding anything from it in a way that would allow a Wikidata edit to directly alter the display of a page on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is non-negotiable and "oh, we tried to convince people to accept it but failed" isn't a useful answer - if, for example, anything from Wikidata is going to be transcluded into a page here that falls under WP:BLP, then we first need absolute assurance that any later changes to that data will reflect Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. If Wikidata refuses to accept that, then you've prioritized your "independence" above "serving Wikipedia" in a way that makes you useless to us. A resource that is useful to Wikipedia is one that reflects and meets our policies, not one that's run like a petty independent fiefdom. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I just found a BLP page which is viewed on enwiki 15 thousand times per day (!!), where the Wikidata page had been moved to a vandalism title 2 days ago by an IP. This change is visible not only on Wikidata, but also on the Commons category (since Commons has outsourced much of its content / infobox to Wikidata). If it is this obvious that no one here (or at Commons), and way too few people at Wikidata, actually check for Wikidata vandalism even at high profile pages, then why do we use such a site to import information (or even to direct our readers towards)? Laziness should not be an excuse to lower our standards so drastically. Fram (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ugh, can we just blacklist Wikidata until they get their act together? RAN's bizarre fidgeting was bad enough, but these bits of vandalism are something else. Reyk YO! 10:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's not exactly Wikidata not getting it's act together, it's that catching and reverting vandalism is more difficult on a wiki with roughly 10 times as many content pages but 1/7 as many editors as this one (according to Special:Statistics and d:Special:Statistics). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- "10 times as many content pages" but 1/10th of the content? Most of these "content pages" are near-empty and have never seen a human editor in the first place. "1/7 as many editors" is overestimating it: many people here at enwiki will be surprised that they have "edits" at Wikidata: e.g. when you move a page here, you are listed as a "contributor" at Wikidata as well despite never really editing there. I'm following 14 bits of recent Wikidata vandalism now: two of those have been caught, one after 40 hours[7], one after 52 hours[8]. Fram (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- When I've looked at Wikidata, it seemed to be full of empty pages presented in a confusing "card" format designed to make it look like there was more there than there really is. Reyk YO! 10:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they need a lot of space for little content. Anyway, the good news is that after 12 days, the New England Cheatriots are no longer[9]. Gets some 3,000 pageviews per day on enwiki, and 4 per day on Wikidata.
I guess it's agin time for some general discussion about Wikidata on enwiki, as the vandal fighting there is clearly abysmal. This is not the right section to do this though, so I'll just leave you with some recent unreversed vandalism of one type only. I keep two high-level examples to myself to see how long it will take for anyone to see and act upon these (I don't edit Wikidata). "but why is the rum gone" has gotten 19 vandalism edits on 23 May, and another one on 27 May, all undetected, even though the edit summaries made it extremely clear that they were vandalism[10]. The actual article behind this is Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. Here 6 edits between 27th and today, all need reversion. Since 24 hours, "Manner of death" has become "Antonia" on Wikidata[11]. Since 29 hours, "maximum" has become "15500"[12]. Noose has been vandalized on the 25th and the 27th, both undetected[13]. Undetected since the 26th[14] and [15]. Since 3 days, the Crown of Castile is called "Chile" at Wikidata[16]. Since the 25th, popular band The 1975 (4000 pageviews per day) has been renamed to "Los somvari els aka “the 1975”"[17]. Did you know there is a Maya language called "Mama"?[18]. At least after three days, the human brain no longer is called "human brStatementsain"[19], so that one is solved. All Boys? No, "All BoysEquesosh on oless"[20]. Black Clover has become "Black Coock"[21]. More: [22][23][24][25][26][27]
At least we got mostly rid of the use of Wikidata descriptions on enwiki last year, otherwise we would have shown our readers that Michael Jordan was a pornographic actor for more than 4 hours[28]. Fram (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Unacceptable behaviour by Ybsone
Ybsone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I would like to report about the irrational behaviour of Ybsone. He edits pages without a source and when asked, behaves rudely. I would add links supporting my claim:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ferrari_575M_Maranello (here, it is seen how he refused to add a source when inquired and admitted he was just lazy to do so)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9 (another source highlighting his rude behaviour and non acceptance of sources when added. Also a violation of the three revert rule)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#/talk/3 (here he tells me to contact Maserati myself while being rude and only presents a self centred blog in his defence)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Quattroporte (again, refusal to add a source and instead this rude message being posted on my talk page claiming that he is right when he has no proof backing up his theory)
I'm willing to put an end to his as I'm fed up with this user's behaviour. He has been the source of discouraging others to edit pages on Wikipedia by having a "I am always right" attitude. I request the admins to take appropriate action.U1 quattro TALK 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmmm.... When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing. And to be honest (though I am not a car guy) it looks to me like U1Quattro is coming off as the worse of the two. I also note U1Quattro's recent blocks for similar behavior with another editor (see here), who he is still feuding with as of a few minutes ago ("until a consensus is reached, the edit I made stays"? That's not how it works....). It would be appreciated (and wise) if @U1Quattro: and @Ybsone: both dialed back the pointless aggression and edit more collegially, so you don't waste other people's time. But User:U1Quattro, you're getting pretty close to a significant block yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC
- Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U1 quattro TALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I did read that Floquenbeam. I'm not feuding with Vauxford as of now. I wrote that comment as he tends to revert edits back to what he personally thinks is right without seeking concensous on the subject matter's talk page. I don't know how am I getting close to another block as I have just been out of one. Also, administrator intervention was necessary as Ybsone continues to edit without source with no change in his behaviour.U1 quattro TALK 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U1 quattro TALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Although I'm taking great care to not start up what happen in the past between me and U1Quattro but I'm not impressed that shortly after his block he has already reverted a edit I did and done the usual "I'll take the matters to administration" threat on my talkpage, as pointed out by Floquenbeam. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will state my case, and would like to point out at this time that I am constantly being harrassed by User:U1Quattro. My edits were reverted at least 19 times over the past 9 months and not once was it necessary, and not once was it correct.
- 1. 612: Special:Diff/855578814 My edit was reverted just on occasion of rewriting the article. With this correct engine links were reverted. Vandalism of my work.
- 2. 575M: Special:Diff/879639849 My correct, and later, sourced edit was reverted, even though previously there also was no source. Special:Diff/880025334 Here I presented that my claim was sourced but it was deleted not improved anyway Special:Diff/880107734 and User:U1Quattro begun a conversation accusing me of being lazy. His rude behaviour and unwillingness to improve an article. And so I inserted a source Special:Diff/880427587, which was deleted maliciously Special:Diff/880566579 and replaced by a "credible" source, ie. a forum... Special:Diff/880569080. My later update of dividing production numbers into two completely different models (practice very common) was just deleted Special:Diff/894035517 because it is, quote: "Too confusing.", whch will be a very often defense mechanism for User:U1Quattro, so he deleted it from infobox altogether. Again I see this as vandalism of my work.
- 3. 599: Special:Diff/880107892 A very long engine size was shortened as is common in any other Ferrari model but this edit was reverted because User:U1Quattro deemed it: "Not needed." It was then reverted yet again Special:Diff/880566293. User:U1Quattro then begun edit warring Special:Diff/891852265 and Special:Diff/891870862 about a picture clearly inserted into wrong place and was deaf to any constructive arguments. Especially frustrating when they are correct and with a little attention I would not have to waste my time to do one edit three times.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_599 When I tried to peacefully point out what are we talking about he accusses me of being rude.
- 4. EB 112: Source I presented is the highest authority on Bugatti EB 110 and 112, but: Special:Diff/881425458, Special:Diff/883089248 Here he states that source shows 2 cars (it shows 3) Special:Diff/883134358 Still stubbornly argues that he only sees 2 cars. Special:Diff/883136624 Here he claims he added a more reliable source, that just proves my point further but after 4 revertions. Time surely wasted. Also see talk page for EB 112: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bugatti_EB_112 where he claims that this "unofficial registry" is... "confusing" when it isn't. I even posted three separate links to three chassis numbers Special:Diff/883138743.
- 5. F50: Special:Diff/885645951 I was not asked for a source my edit was just reverted. He could have just followed the link.
- 6. Coupé: Special:Diff/893820486 Special:Diff/893818480 Special:Diff/893802825 Special:Diff/893778756 Special:Diff/893739643 Special:Diff/893737761 Special:Diff/893736904 Special:Diff/893716503 Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893710349 Special:Diff/893606976 Special:Diff/893606872 Special:Diff/893606503 Special:Diff/893606228 Special:Diff/893349542 (other members of the community also helped providing proofs of facts stated by me, to no effect)
- Coupé talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name
- Coupé talk on U1Quattro talk: Deleted by him Special:Diff/896526399
- Coupé talk on my talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#April_2019 with a racial outburst about a japanese trading site that showed a limited edition 3200 GT for japanese market with a plaque that said Japan Special:Diff/893720057
- 7. Ghibli (M157) talk (after being stuck in a ill-logic loop that an era-successor is also the successor to every individual car type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Ghibli_(M157)#Predecessor just a pearl of his logic:
- "The Quattroporte IV was itself based on the BiTurbo so it never succeeded Amy of the Biturbo family cars."
- "The Ghibli II succeeded the BiTubro and was based on the BiTurbo"
- Special:Diff/895002665 he also changed one of his claims after my reply
- 8. Quattroporte Special:Diff/898127851 Again not asked to show a source (should I be asked for a source to prove what I see on the picture? Really?? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006_Maserati_Quattroporte_-_Flickr_-_The_Car_Spy_(4).jpg ) my edit was reverted just to start a war with yet another user. I showed a source anyway.
- Quattroporte talk on U1Quattro talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Maserati_Quattroporte when I asked for him to stop reverting my contributions and he gets offended?? YBSOne (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone your proofs clearly show that you edited without a source in the first place. On the 575 page, you added a source in the edit summary and not in the article which is not how it works. You only add source when you are done arguing and I'm sorry to say, this is not how editing works on here.U1 quattro TALK 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- About the EB110 page, yes I was wrong but you could've been more courteous while pointing out my error which you clearly didn't do and kept on adding some unofficial registry. This was resolved once I added a more credible source. Your "defense" of the facts is not only unethical but it also discourages me to keep editing.U1 quattro TALK 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U1 quattro TALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- You claim that I don't source my work, but You don't do it Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893720240. Difference being that I am a journalist.
- You claim that EB 110/112 website is just some unimportant unofficial registry. His website is THE website for EB 110 and 112. Just like mine is for the GTV/Spider: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/ and Lancia Lybra and Maserati Coupé. Researching italian cars' history is very tough. I know it and You clearly don't.
- You claim that I asked You to contact Maserati. If You did: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/maseratispyder90thanniversary.jpg http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/interview-with-maserati-heritage/
- You claim that I incorrectly sourced 575M manual transmissions. But You reverted that edit... to my edit that was before Special:Diff/818782708 and yet lack of source didn't bother You at all.
- You claim that I didn't source that Quattroporte V intake is plastic and black. I don't have to source every single fact that can be, with open eyes, clearly seen on the picture and I won't be bullied to do so.
- You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting.
- You claim that I should accept any sources, any time. Nothing furthest from the truth. As I told You many times be inquisitive not repetitive. You have presented countless sources and all of them were wrong and unacceptable.
- You claim that I should encourage You to edit and be more courteous while pointing out Your errors. Yet You don't have to adhere to Your rules. YBSOne (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh so you're a journalist what would you now claim next? That you are a historian? It's that behaviour of yours which is the most repulsive of all. You are repetitively stating a personal blog as a source which is run by you and you hae basically "ordered" me to use this source. Who do you even think you are? Some kind of a dictator? I think that Ferrari owners, who own the cars and are in contact with Ferrari are more reliable sources than a personal self researched blog-site which has been forcefully used here. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners manual. Frankly, I don't have any blogs to post the records there. Yes you do have to source every other "fact" that you think is right, otherwise it is just self research. I only see a lack of understanding to the policies which are followed here. FYI, a talk page is a user's personal name space and he can use it the way he wants. You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide.U1 quattro TALK 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am a historian. I have researched automotive history with many successes and published my findings on my personal website mainly. My historical research of type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider is unparalleled in the world and widely respected in it's community. It was even commended by Cenrto Documentazione AR. You on the other hand were tasked by community and me to research one simple fact, like a name of a limited edition, and failed. You asked wrong questions and got same answers. I asked right questions, again, and received a confirmation of facts I already knew. Consensus was reached and You were still stubborn. You claim You needed sources, but when I provided credible and primary ones You change them to Yours. You don't want facts You want Your facts.
- I was very patient over the months of harassment. Even didn't participate in recent actions against You from other user, although I did reply to what I was asked to provide. You wanted to start this fight by provoking me with vandalism Special:Diff/898127851 and You got it. Now You manipulate opinions that You are the victim. You are not a victim but an agressor. First thing You do afer block is lifted You harass all of Your "enemies", undoing work of at least 5 different users. Admins can see Yours and mine contribution history. You are the dictator because You don't care about consensus nor facts. You claim to respect policies yet You constantly vandalise my work, replace primary sources with uncredible secondary ones, attack personally, threat, edit war and for this I expect User:U1Quattro to be blocked by Administrators.
- Should Administrators have any further questions towards me I am at their disposal.
- With regards, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, historian. YBSOne (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do you even know what harrasement is? I think you need to have a look at the definition of what harrasement is before you start to act as a victim of harassment. That is a very bold claim that you're making about your research and everything else which was "successful" and has recieved "acclaim". Infact, I don't even see a mention about you in the automotive press let alone the Italian automotive press and I haven't seen any proof where this is verifiable. Wikipedia isn't about you or your facts where you go on to claim that your "work" is vandalised. I have now found solid evidence that your website is in violation of the policies here as pointed out by 72Dino and hence cannot be used as a source in the articles here. Yet you had the audacity to come out on my talk page and force me to use the site. I wasn't tasked by anyone to do research on the sources, I did it on my own free will and shared the response which I got in return. You on the other hand, posted your own blog in which it was highly unclear about the said conversation you were pointing at. I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here. I have provided my evidence and that shows how you behave and force others to stay along at work and act like this site is all about you. That's all I have to say.U1 quattro TALK 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- You were using ferrarichat.com/forum Special:Diff/818411451 that clearly violates policies as being self-published and uverifiable. Also the production sums are way different from official Ferrari claims. Yet in 2018 You had absolutely no problem with it what so ever, because of double standard. My note: "Please do not use this source in the future" is not an order nor forceful. You are manipulating facts to Your advantage and blowing them out of proportion. YBSOne (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- There you have it. Does the manufacturer who is manufacturing the car knows better how many were produced or some self proclaimed historian and journalist who has no sources on where he got his information? I will let the admins decide.U1 quattro TALK 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- On the Ferrari 575 page, I just changed wording of a sentence, that doesn't change its meaning. Just accept that you're out of justifications now. Plus about the Maserati talkpage, I talked about my doubts but accepted the name as is.U1 quattro TALK 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Both of you, stop. ANI is not for content disputes, it's for behavioral issues. And all you've managed to do is prove that you're both fighting, instead of collaborating. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I reported him for his odd behaviour which is clearly showing here.U1 quattro TALK 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.
The greater dispute here is quite difficult to follow and I don't know that YBSOne is entirely blameless in this, but the personal attack noted above is concerning, especially given the timing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.
- Shortly after the week block U1Quattro left this message on my talkpage, already threatening to take "matters to administration" when no form of conflict hasn't started yet. As pointed out by Sable, he made a edit replacing the infobox when there was an ongoing discussion about it when a consensus haven't been reached. --Vauxford (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford you are assuming on the same talkpage that you should put the 'White on on the infobox while the red one in the ZL1 section' so you get an equal blame for assuming things that way. Also, you had already mentioned about your talkpage discussion earlier on, so I see this as an attempt to side with the accused in order to oust me from editing which you had been doing ever since you have been feuding with me. Sable232 if you see how Ybsone has behaved above in this thread as well as accusing me to stop the "flow of knowledge" and everything else, I consider these personal attacks as well. Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page. Where was he with his reliable source before? And why did he completely refused to add a source in the article? That is the question.U1 quattro TALK 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- In general, I'm fairly disappointed with how these two editors namely Vauxford and Ybsone behave with others while violating WP:CIVIL and WP:ETIQUETTE multiple times. I don't know how one would behave nice with them when they behave repulsively with others. Since we are diverting to point out the flaws of each other, I think Vauxford should also be held accountable for his behaviour with Charles01, 1292Simon and Alexander-93.U1 quattro TALK 02:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro this is proof of Your manipulation: My quote: "You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting."
- Your response blown out of proportion: "You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide."
- And this is proof of Your uncaring about facts nor consensus: Your claim: "I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here."
- Your actual behaviour on Coupé talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name
- Manufacturer sourced data was provided on the first line of dispute yet it took more than 2 weeks not to teach You or show You gently the errors of Your ways. It took 2 weeks to wear You down. Not only that but reference to Maserati website and Spyder 90th Anniversary was there all the time, since 2012, You didn't take time to read it (number 61: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#References). But I read it when it was active.
- Another intersting fact about Your dictatorial behaviour: "Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page." So is it forbidden to correct Your mistakes? Is it forbidden to edit pages that were marked by You? Who do You think You are? YBSOne (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone and who do you think you are? If you have researched about cars so much go and improve pages instead of sitting back and degrading others. Where were you when you researched about the Ghibli and it's successor? That's right, you came to edit and fight with me when I had edited the page. Where were you on commons when you thought the photo of the suspension system of the Ferrari 599 was wrong? That's right, you were coming right after me after I had edited the page. Where were you when you had researched about the Maserati Coupé and the Maserati 3200 GT? That's right, you were after me when I had edited the pages. Your edit pattern suggests that you're indeed a stalker who is targeting other editors in order to degrade them.U1 quattro TALK 10:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- And for your kind information Ybsone you cannot dictate any user to keep or delete content on their talk page which is their personal name space. Just like I haven't told you to keep or delete content on your talk page. About manufacturer claims, the Ferrari 575 incident happened before the Maserati Coupé incident. So you failed to put the blame on me, yet again as edit history is present to back that up. And as for "dictatorial behaviour" I think you need to look up what that behaviour is when you try to blame someone next time.U1 quattro TALK 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your contribution history says otherwise. You have started to target me ever since the Ferrari 575 incident. You have been following me on pages as soon as I edit them.U1 quattro TALK 10:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
How about an IBAN, then you go both get on with productive editing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- And how about actually going after that disruptive user for his vandalism and personal attacks? YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I was trying to productively edit before I came across this abusive user.U1 quattro TALK 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone so you are actually going to dictate the admins now?U1 quattro TALK 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone I'm just presenting facts about your editing history and your repulsive behaviour which is showing here. Thankfully, you won't be able to manipulate any of this.U1 quattro TALK 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, You are mistaken, I and other user are presenting facts about Your abusive behaviour and personal attacks even though You try to manipulate the sense of it. YBSOne (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your current behaviour here is abusive Ybsone. You personally attacked me when you said "who do you think you are" so I will let the admins decide who is the more innocent one here.U1 quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also you and Vauxford are trying to form an alliance to oust me from editing.U1 quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and any user is allowed to challenge an suggestion. If this feuding continues it will be more then just an IBAN, for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro Are You sure You want to use this argument? Special:Diff/898214744 YBSOne (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven As I posted above I'm defending myself agains constant attacks from U1Quattro, I'm not feuding. I'm here because he filed an action against me, because he vandalised my work. This is the ill-logic I have to deal with. YBSOne (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I'm ready to bury the hatchet but I demand an apology from him for how he behaved with me.U1 quattro TALK 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think others have suggested you are both at fault. I have no idea who is at fault (or who started it), nor do I care. This is wasting a lot of time with the pair you you throwing insults back and forth. The only solution now (as far as I can see) is either an IBAN or you both get blocked. I suggest that the pair of you drop this now before it become a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I'm ready to bury the hatchet but I demand an apology from him for how he behaved with me.U1 quattro TALK 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone no, you're actually trying to prove that you're above everyone else when you aren't. Your "work" is just as relevant as the works of any other editor. It is neither superior nor inferior. Any editor, including me, has the right to edit a page after you have edited it. You're trying to say that you own a page after contributing to it, this is the behaviour I'm against.U1 quattro TALK 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- And I actually filed this claim because I'm done with your behaviour and envy against me.U1 quattro TALK 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro And how exactly am I behaving? All You do is claim and still noone sees any actual proofs. I have proven Your vandalism and personal attacks. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone I have presented my proofs and others in this discussion. This is another attempt of yours of manipulation. Your behaviour? It's narcissistic and repulsive.U1 quattro TALK 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- And Ybsone I'm still waiting for the proof of praise of your work by the automotive press.U1 quattro TALK 10:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No You havent, You invent causes and claims and move on to manupulation.YBSOne (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please block the pair of them for tendentious editing and close this? This really has gone on for two long.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry Ybsone, but the proof of disqualification of your website as a source and the sources I presented along with the behaviour you have shown here isn't something that I invented. But go on and keep trying to shift the blame. I don't say I'm innocent, but you aren't either.U1 quattro TALK 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who does not agree with You is automatically called rude by You and is suddenly in violation of policies. Even presenting facts does not matter because You shift Your position from pro-manufacturer to anti-manufacturer whenever it suits Your current needs. You use forums when You need it and simultaneously devalue an automotive blog when it suits Your needs. You do not allow others to check Your work, change Your work or even do their work after You. You bury Your opponent in an avalanche of seriously sounding phrases and have nothing to back them up with except Your opinions. I am not envious of You and never will be and You will never be apologised to by me. You start the fight and then act like a child and scurry behind someone who You think You can manipulate and do Your bidding for You. When pointed out a simple thing You turn it's meaning around, blow it out proportion and then use as a weapon. You are not interested in learning, You are not intersted in policies you claim to protect, You are not interested in facts nor in consensus. Everything must be as You want it to be and we all are just in Your way. You are narcissistic and parnoid and You think everyone is after You and they are conspiring to oust You. You are very, very, very tiresome and actually disruptive to this community. We wouldn't be here if You wouldn't maliciously reverted a simple edit. You wanted all this attention. You needed to blame someone for Your shortcomings. You crave to act as a victim when someone endangers Your position. And don't worry I will soon publish my first book. I can be a very good editor but You will never be as good a historian as I am. I surely hope Administrators will see through Your facade of lies and manipulations and block You for good. Best. YBSOne (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- "You will never be as good as I am." Proves how big of a narcist you are. Your "Automotive blog" doesn't qualify to be a source on Wikipedia which has already been said proven by other users. We are here because of your disruptive behaviour, not because of me as a victim. I never said I was a victim neither am I trying to be one. I have said why I filed this claim and I hope you also get dealt by accordingly. I never said that others are not allowed to check my work, statement like this from you "He is vandalising" my work is a proof that you don't allow that. This site isn't a place to have opponents like you put it. It's for collaborative contribution and you refuse to do so. I just see blame shifting here.U1 quattro TALK 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- And by the way, calling me paranoid is a personal attack. I'm still waiting for proof of your praise by the automotive press as I write this. Statements like "I'm going to write a book very soon" wouldn't make anyone believe in your credibility. You are right about learning. I'm not interested in learning from you.U1 quattro TALK 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- "You will never be as good as I am." is based on experience of You trying to research a simple fact and failing miserably. I am not disruptive, edits that I did, sourced or not, were correct. We are here chronologically because of Your revert of my simple edit and shifting blame on me for that incident. I have yet to wait for You to correctly check my work. You don't know the meaning of collaboration and You of all people should not use that term. Paranoia is a mental illness when someone sees threats where there are none, like secret alliances etc. I don't have to prove to You my credibility, community checks it. My website is just some of my automotive knowledge and still is unparalleled on 916s alone. You are not someone I have to prove myself to. YBSOne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Edits I did, sourced or not were correct" these statements just prove my point more of why we are here. Never said I was going to research anything so didn't fail, another blame gone wrong. I am waiting for you to show me the praise you received by the automotive press, you blank accusations are not going to change the claims you have made. Yes I do collaborate with others and appreciate their work but I won't do none of that for you. Oh yes you have to prove yourself here because your website is incapable of being used as a source and unlike you, I never tried to establish hat I am right and the others are not. Give WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL a read.U1 quattro TALK 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are mislead about the source of my contributions. And as for my website it can be used as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid Because as I proven, facts were checked with manufacturer and are based on their publications and sources. Example: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-147-156-166-gt-production-dates/ So taking my website out of running You Got Nothing on me! YBSOne (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- No you do not get to decide your website is an RS, the community does. SPS is clear that to use an SPS certain requirements must be met, in the case the only applicable one is 2 "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", you do not appear to meet his. Frankly I think you are heading for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- This part is something to work on in the future it is not relevant now. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- The use of your website, and your instance that it is an RS is at the heart of this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- No it isn't The 4 points he made at the begining and 8 points I made later have nothing to do with my website. YBSOne (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- This part is something to work on in the future it is not relevant now. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- No you do not get to decide your website is an RS, the community does. SPS is clear that to use an SPS certain requirements must be met, in the case the only applicable one is 2 "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", you do not appear to meet his. Frankly I think you are heading for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Who is being manipulative and avoiding to use proofs now Ybsone?U1 quattro TALK 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Then why is it being banged on about here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because of his manipulations!!! YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone yes it is relevant as it is you who claimed to be a journalist and a historian by the use of your website. You also used your website at the Maserati Coupé incident you pointed to multiple times. That makes it relevant here.U1 quattro TALK 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I never tried to manipulate anyone here. Stop your empty accusations.U1 quattro TALK 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name No it isn't I posted manufacturers claims first. Then proved that I am in contact with Maserati. Just that no sourced were used from my website. Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- You claimed that you contacted Maserati Classiche in edit summaries before a talk page discussion was opened and you used your website as a source which is unreliable as per WP:SPS. This is not manipulation but a fact.U1 quattro TALK 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- There you go Ybsone this is before when you started a talk page discussion and I never said that you used it as a source in the Maserati Coupé page. I said that you used it as a source that you contacted Maserati like you said in the article's edit summary.U1 quattro TALK 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is not an edit summary for Coupé, this is not a source for Coupé, this is just Your talk page. No proofs still? YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Then I see no problem if the website does not meet WP:SPS if it is on the talk page. Any more problems to solve? YBSOne (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Because I contacted Maserati Classiche" there you go with the edit summary. When asked for a source, you presented your website, which is unreliable.U1 quattro TALK 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ha! The website was not used as a source! The source was there since 2012. And is still there. YBSOne (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do you actually get what I'm trying to say? I said that you used your website as a source that you had contacted Maserati. The fact that you also tried to promote your website as a reliable source on my talkpage isn't hidden either.U1 quattro TALK 13:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, my website was not used as a source on the points specified. I see no further problem to discuss. May please Administrators step in and ban us already. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it was. I have presented my proofs. Yet you deny them. Proves who is being manipulative now. You have no right to dictate the admins on what to do.U1 quattro TALK 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- "please" is uequal to "dictate". Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- You telling them what to do is dictating. Stop accusing.U1 quattro TALK 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- http://www.citethisforme.com/topic-ideas/english/History%20of%20the%20Alfa%20Romeo%20GTV-19284871 My website as source and citation used to research history of the Alfa Romeo GTV
- https://www.mlsclassiccars.dk/cars_sale/alfa_romeo_spider_3_v6.html Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject
- http://www.squadra916.com/history/ Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject
- https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/4200-production-numbers.537650/ My website noted as a source and a compliment: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link! "
- https://automotiveviews.com/2015/02/10/gandinis-shamal-a-controversial-maserati/ My website noted as a source
- https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/4200-production-numbers.24306/ My website noted as a source
- http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1956_ferrari_250_gt_coupe_corsa/ My website noted as a source
- And a rather established Petrolicious: https://petrolicious.com/articles/the-designer-s-story-battista-pininfarina
- YBSOne (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Four sources are forums (which you consider unreliable yourself) one source used only photos from your site. So this doesn't change the fact that your website is considered unreliable here. And I only saw praise from one Ferrari Chat forum member of your source which is certainly not the automotive press.U1 quattro TALK 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, read this from WP:SPS "self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." Your website is not used by established publications. Petrolicious is a new publication (established circa 2016) and is not as established as Car and Driver and La Stampa etc. So still, your website is not in conformity with WP:SPS.U1 quattro TALK 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As of 31 May 2019 U1Quattro is still edit warring with my edits. Almost all Ferrari articles have production quotas in an infobox, that is an established practice. Yet U1Quattro removes this quotas from two articles that I have edited, because they are "unnecessary" or there is "no guideline" and leaves them on every other Ferrari article. This behaviour is clearly bias. He is not interested in an established layout but in reverting my edits and provoking a response. Here You have it.
Special:Diff/899606215 Special:Diff/894035517 Special:Diff/893049371 Special:Diff/894035442 Special:Diff/899606108
Partial list of articles with production quotas in the infobox. See for Yourselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_production YBSOne (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone I didn't touched them after you mentioned those articles on my talk page. Look at the definition of the three revert rule, then come here. You are just spicing up the issue.U1 quattro TALK 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
48 hour block for both users
Enough is enough, it is clear neither user is interested in working with each other, its also clear this is going to drag on. For the peace of ANI I therefor think the pair of them need as cooling down period. Please can we stop this now?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I might well have done this if I'd come along a while ago, but as the last edits in this section were two hours ago, I think it would be more punishment and less preventive. Of course, I'm saying this only regarding the argument immediately above, and maybe there's something else that warrants blocking. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- A block wouldn't be out of line in my opinion but I'd question whether it would help now.
That said, both editors are clearly not getting it, and this dispute is spilling over to other parts of Wikipedia and becoming disruptive, such as the bludgeoned discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation)#Infobox. Long-term, I think a two-way IBAN is unavoidable given the behavior by both parties. --Sable232 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- This block was only to stop the ANI war, hopefully it is no longer needed (and it is not just a case of Sleepy Bobo's). I suggested a two way above, and still think this is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- A block wouldn't be out of line in my opinion but I'd question whether it would help now.
- At this rate it seem fruitless to defend myself against U1Quattro since he just going use anything I ever said past or present as a form of accusation such as ousting or conspiracy even when its not, as he done here and here. This name dropping he did while venting with this IP user. I did repeated myself twice because I thought that comment could be used further down the discussion, I was thinking of removing the initial comment but then what the chance of him making another accusation against me that I'm trying to cover up my mistakes? Currently I'm not in any edit dispute nor planning to any time soon with U1Quattro but I believe that something should be done by now with these personal attacks against other users. --Vauxford (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- [29] He now went on my talkpage again saying that I was "name calling" when I didn't say that. At the time I thought I did say that and got my words mixed up so I made this respond, I reverted after realising I didn't say "name calling" at all and redone the message. U1Quattro took offence and said I was being "manipulative". He made further accusation that I'm trying to "oust" him because I brought up two users in a past ANI who was involved in the same incident as I was.
- [30] He is taking the phrase "anytime soon" literally in a sense that I'm planning to edit dispute against him when most people use that pharase as a figure of speech. This has already proven my point that whatever defence or comment I make, U1Quattro simply take it as some form of attack or accusation and seem to be threatening to use what I said above against me despite the fact I already provided the diffs from my talkpage. I'm trying my best to be neutral and calm about this situation but I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comments made by this user clearly suggest that he plans edit disruptions and involves me. He is also being manipulative here while accusing me to be so.U1 quattro TALK 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this is now the only solution to this, but extended to three users, this is just getting silly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The below disruption is appalling. How have there not been blocks issued for this yet?!--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Iban between U1Quattro & Vauxford
No idea what created this one, but its clear its more of the same.Slatersteven (talk)
- Slatersteven It because of past incidents which were already solved and done. U1Quattro has been holding a grudge against me since that 1 day block we got for edit warring. Anything I seem to say he takes as a form of attack and threaten to use it against me. I am not directly involved whatever Ybsone and U1Quattro got themselves into. I believe this situation can't go on for any longer, U1Quattro has already gotten a 1 week block for the things he doing right now and what he left on my talkpage which I provided diffs for. I'm sorry if that sounds threatening but I don't know how else to put it.
*Support I think a IBAN between me and U1Quattro would be helpful. I'm tired of getting all these talkpage messages from him just because I'm giving my own testimony unrelated to this Ybsone incident. --Vauxford (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since when you were asked to give a testimony Vauxford? I opened this discussion because of my greviance against Ybsone. You didn't had anything to do with it.U1 quattro TALK 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support.U1 quattro TALK 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Although I do support this IBAN I believe U1Quattro's recent behaviour towards users in general should be look at by a administrator. --Vauxford (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The disputes between these two will clearly flare up again and again otherwise. Vauxford's inserting himself into this one, given the recent history, was out of line. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sable232 How was speaking out about someone was out of line? I thought it was appropriate to have my said about the problem? This user has been under hot water and dispute with several users, not just me and this Ybsone user. I inserted what I said above because I believe something really need to be done U1Quattro can't go on with this sort of behaviour towards others. --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because you've had significant disputes with U1Quattro in the very recent past, and bringing that up here in an unrelated matter gives the appearance of "piling on" and only makes things worse, as you can see from what resulted above. At times like this it's better to exercise the discretion to stay out of it unless your input is asked for (in my opinion). If YBSOne had started this discussion about U1Quattro instead of the other way around, it may have been appropriate; but as it is, I don't believe it was. (I could be wrong in that assessment though, if anyone wants to change my mind). --Sable232 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Decline Scratch that, this IBAN seem to me is just a attempt sweep the problem under the rug, it been a week and no admin intervention has actually been done for this whole incident and the likely outcome for all of this is keeping a few mouths shut. I showed my diffs to proven U1Quattro hasn't learnt after his 1 week block with the personal attacks and combative behaviour. What I "inserted" in this incident was actually meant to be sub-incident rather then the one about U1Quattro and Ybsone. But I guess having someone have their say about the user in question is "out of line". --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford had given his testimony because he can clearly see who was wronged here. Just because U1Quattro preemptively struck this action against me doesn't mean that he is the innocent party. May I remind You that this action was taken after I asked him to stop vandalising my work. And in reply he reported me. This is how twisted this is. Vauxford and I do not have any alliance. We were both wronged by the same user - U1Quattro, and both our patience ran out. YBSOne (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford, you don't have any proof of what you said here. You were repulsive to me, you got the same behaviour in return. The same goes with Ybsone. If you're talking about Carguy1701, he was coming off on my talkpage hot headed. The way I see it, you inserted yourself in this matter which had got nothing to do with you in order to pile up evidence and attempt to oust me from editing.U1 quattro TALK 19:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone you also threatened me to take the matters to administration, please bear that in mind. Posing as the innocent party won't make you innocent. "Vandalising my work" sure, that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes.U1 quattro TALK 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford I say it after reading the diffs. You had me reported on ANI so you shouldn't slip into other matters when I report someone else as you're basically over me after the decision of the admins. Sable232 is right. You were out of the line here.U1 quattro TALK 19:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- What he said also that he "could be wrong in that assessment" [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36]. These diffs proven that the 1 week block hasn't change the way you treat me and other users such as Ybsone, Carguy1701, Toasted Meter, and possibility other people in the past. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford you got these messages on your talk page because you decided to put yourself in a matter you had no relation with. Further, there is a reason you get this kind of a behaviour. You are yourself repulsive against me. You get what you give in return. As for the other users, I haven't interacted with Toasted Meter. Carguy1701 was also told by a user to back of because of his out of the line attitude.U1 quattro TALK 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I actually found this evidence which suggests that this user is not the innocent party here and his behaviour keeps getting worse.U1 quattro TALK 04:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro Grasping straws, that discussion on my talkpage is something unrelated to what your doing. The situation I was having with Charles01 was way before this and most of it isn't resulting in insulting and throwing threats. To be honest, it feels more one-sided since as far as I am aware I haven't done anything that would directly provoke him to be like that to me. Your misunderstanding the take that I'm maintaining innocent when I'm not. At the end of the day, you were the one who got blocked for genuinely harassing users and already proven the block did nothing towards your attitude and I believe this should of been reviewed at over a week ago. --Vauxford (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford since you're the one bringing my talkpage into this, I would bring yours into this as well. Your own behaviour will also be assessed here which is nothing short of bad and disruptive.03:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro I don't think there anything to be assessed for me, not what I'm aware of, I don't remember making any recent personal attacks or accusation on somebody with no evidence to support, all I have been doing is putting my testimony against your behaviour since I don't think you learnt from your 1 week block while being calm and content while I'm speaking. I believe I haven't done anything considerably disruptive since my 1 day block which was a month ago but all the diffs I provided about you are all shortly after your block and it the same stuff you did that made you got it in the first place, straw grabbing whatever scrap I got with Charles01 recently isn't a reason why I am being "bad and disruptive" and unrelated to this ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford you haven't learnt anything from your blocks either. The recent assesement of your behaviour by Charles01 shows that. Now I have got nothing to say to you since you inserted yourself in this matter which had nothing to do with you.U1 quattro TALK 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro I got blocked for edit warring, not for personal attacks against other users. I might of got myself into a scrap with Charles01 but I didn't edit warring. I did (attempt) to discuss it on the talkpage but Charles01 did a I presumed a outburst of frustration and reverted it prematurely before the discussion was finished which I reverted back, other then that, I haven't got into any edit wars like I did to get me that block. Look, I'm sorry U1Quattro but no matter what the case with me, and Sable pointed this out, you have continued doing what you got blocked for, within no more then 24 hours after you got unblocked. That all I'm going to say. --Vauxford (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford if you have read, Sable232 also pointed out your out of the line attitude which you have adapted here. Your apologies are rejected.U1 quattro TALK 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford your personal thoughts matter next to nothing. You were out of the line. Infact, you shouldn't be here arguing anyways since this matter doesn't concern you.U1 quattro TALK 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Iban between U1Quattro & Ybsone
This is the only solution as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk)
SupportYBSOne (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)- SupportU1 quattro TALK 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- As was commented before on my behalf I may not know the lingo Special:Diff/898595031. If this IBAN is a temporary solution to give Administrators a chance to come to a conclusion and block faulty party or parties, then I agree. BUT if this IBAN is the only punishment and the matter will be dropped, in my opinion it would just be a slap on the wrist and I would have to decline. I was under the impression that this two-way IBAN is just to stop us from bludgeoning this hearing and still a serious decision will be made later. I was wronged by U1Quattro and I demand justice. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I decline this solution. I feel it is not serious enough. YBSOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- You certainly didn't gave ANI Advice a read. You cannot come out here demanding justice. The admins would do what they think is best. I whole heartedly agree with the IBAN since then I wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.U1 quattro TALK 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I can. Just because You reported me does not mean that this is not Your trial. You want to accept smaller punishment beause You don't want to be held accountable for Your actions. Le me quote on the admins (or a user) Special:Diff/898595031: "It's rather clear to me that Ybsone is here to build an encyclopedia and wants this mess to be over."
- And this is about You: "In all but naming the essay, they are trying to communicate that the reporting user is trying to WP:BLUDGEON the ANI thread by muddying the waters. Given the personal attacks made against Ybsone and Vauxford... My suggestion would be a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent further harassment. U1Quattro clearly has a checkered record [4] and listed themselves as semi-retired. One-way should end the disruption."
- You will not manipulate Your way out of responsibility. YBSOne (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ybsone showing old thoughts of a user about you, won't change anything. This diff is before you started to show your true self here. You won't weasel your way out of here by these tactics. By insisting that your personal website is a credible source while it's not and by showing that no one can correct your mistakes, you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia.U1 quattro TALK 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If this ANI thread is any indication of the interminable and disruptive feuding between these two, I'd say a temporary topic ban is in order for both to allow a cool down and a rethink of exactly what this project is all about. Both of them clearly have a great deal of work to do when it comes to pursuing a collaborative approach to editing. I don't think an IBAN will achieve much except business as usual plus the silent treatment, with the possibility of an increase in disruptive editing doing the talking. RandomGnome (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- U1Quattro"showing old thoughts" Those old thoughts are as of 16:45, 24 May 2019 and my last reply to the main thrad is from 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) so yeah, chronology. I have proven without a doubt, even though it was not required from me, that I am seen as an expert in automotive community and that my website is cited even by an establised, from 2012 is not new (again chronology), publications. To prove to Wikipedia community that it is a reliable source will be just a formality in my opinion and I will not discuss it further here. To my use of word 'work' in substitution to 'contribution' or 'edit' You immediately propagate that: "that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes", is just a manipulation of a simple word. YBSOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- "you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia" is just Your opinion and I disagree with it. You have ran out of arguments against me and have to change the meaning of words to invent new insults. YBSOne (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- That user only posted his thoughts on the matter and you're using it as a weapon by posting it on here and on your user page. Let the community decide whether you want to build an encyclopedia or not and be collaborative. Your recent behaviour suggests that you're not in the mood to do those things. You are only considered an "automotive expert" by forum members which are themselves unreliable sources. Petrolicious (a new automotive website) posted your website only as a reference, this doesn't make you an automotive expert.U1 quattro TALK 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I suggested a temporary ban above. I would support a TBAN of some kind at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment It is rather clear that this user is on a a new level of starting another disruption by posting the thoughts of other users about this dispute on his talkpage when a decision has not been made.U1 quattro TALK 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is only clear to the person who invented yet another argument out of thin air. My talk page is clear of other users "thoughts", proof: (talk). You are still bludgeoning this thread with those fantastic accusations. YBSOne (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support (Non-administrator comment) Having read this dumpster fire of an ANI somewhat thoroughly, it appears the two users will not be able to discuss with each other in a civil fashion. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews
In the few weeks I've noticed some odd goings-on at the biographies of various Polish Jews with questionable, or even odious histories. Specifically, there seems to be a concerted effort to label them as "Jewish", and not as "Polish", generally in apparent ignorance or defiance of MOS:ETHNICITY and the "Nationality" parameter in Infobox person. I think I first noticed it at Salomon Morel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it has been particularly apparent at Chaim Rumkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where multiple IPs and new/seldom-used accounts have shown up to make edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There does not seem to be any similar effort to designate other types of biographies of Polish Jews (e.g. resistance fighters such as Yitzhak Zuckerman, Frumka Płotnicka, Hirsch Berlinski, Chaike Belchatowska Spiegel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish". It seems unlikely that seldom used accounts such as Sophiel777 (talk · contribs), Rordayukki (talk · contribs), Szydlot (talk · contribs), Albertus teolog (talk · contribs), Waćpan (talk · contribs), Tashi (talk · contribs) suddenly discovered this article/dispute by chance. There is now a section on the article's talk page discussing the issue, but my concern is much more regarding the source of this influx of suddenly activated/reactivated and highly motivated editors. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- There have been ongoing edit conflicts on wiki with editors who insist that Jewishness is a distinct and exclusive ethnicity and, for instance, one can't be both Jewish and Polish or Jewish and German, individuals are one of the other. Perennial pov conflict that needs attention? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to be a bit distorted version of the events.I have actually seen attempts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from articles about individuals who collaborated with Nazis leaving only Polish in the lead first sentence, under pretext that it indicates nationality[37].Also in case of Salomon Morel the issue has been it seems debated since years looking at history of the page.For the record reliable sources in cases of individuals with complicated identity often use the term Polish-Jewish as per Per Anne Applebaum "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56 "the unusual case of Salomon Morel, who – all agree – was a Polish Jew and a communist partisan" New York Magazine - 9 Mau 1994.
- Per MOS:ETHNICITY MOS:ETHNICITY,that ethnicity can be mentioned “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” The cases where somebody was involved in Holocaust and it played a major role in his life, or used his ethnic background as defence against persectution for crimes and it caused international controversy are I believe good reasons for mentioning the ethnicity in the first sentence.I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland. I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland.
- As for recent activity it seems that popular publicist Rafal Ziemkiewicz re-tweeted this characterization on his twitter webpage recentely[38], which probably led to people reading this to react. I don't know how to link to re-tweet, as I don't use twitter much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that could help explain the recent influx of editors at the Rumkowski article, though perhaps not at others. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and regarding this edit you criticized above, you do realize that the nationality parameter on infobox person is only for citizenship, not ethnicity, don't you? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a fact that the tweet was the cause of interest because many people have noticed that in case of hideous Jewish characters, their Jewishness have been erased from the article. We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). Another example may be the recent edition in Stefan Michnik which was a Stalinist judge who was responsible for murdering many Polish anti-communist soldiers, generals etc. All information about his sentences have been deleted even though I provided two different sources. All of them have been marked as "too far-right". User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one (Redacted). Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. Tashi Talk to me 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[1]
- Tashi, I suggest less emotional approach.I know that some of the crimes comitted by Nazi collaborators or Soviet executioners can be upsetting but it's best to keep professional attitude and don't use insults, I suggest you re-write your sentence a it.
- From a technical point of view I encountered a similiar problem once before:mainly the units of Selbstschutz in Poland 1939 were made of Germans with Polish nationality living in Poland that fought against Polish state. Would it be fitting to describe such individuals as Polish? I am sure this would seem wrong and there should be description of their ethnicity as well in order not to confuse the readers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Trust me that I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible but I also wanted to point out some facts that seems to be constantly omitted. I have nothing against Jayjig or any other user and I think we can work out and reach a consensus :) Though, there's a space for the debate about the nationality since that term is understood differently worldwide and it can be the bone of contention. I understand the argument that nationality is somehow related to the citizenship but there is no doubt that calling people like Rumkowsky as Polish is totally misunderstanding since he did not identify himself as Polish. Someone suggested the term "Russian-born Polish Jew" and I think that would be acceptable historically Tashi Talk to me 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that I have extended-confirmed protected Chaim Rumkowski, it is clearly appropriate as the semi-protection (where I was the protecting admin) is not working as designed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not see why there need to be labels made in the article about Chaim Rumkowski. Disputes concerning nationality or descent are common and tend to be left out in most cases when a consensus is not achieved, as in Nicolaus Copernicus where only occupation is stated. However, it is appropriate to consider where the person lived, worked and/or obtained citizenship. Rumkowski held Polish citizenship and lived in Poland which is a dominating factor. In general context, I cannot stress enough that "Jewish" is not a nationality only an identity based on both racial descent and religion. All Polish Jews (considering they haven't emigrated) that are either secular or not Orthodox should be labelled as "Polish" per citizenship laws. "Polish-Jewish" or simply "Jewish" is a term appropriate for rabbis and religious or spiritual leaders. You do not see the label "American-Jewish" in articles about American actors, musicians, soldiers or politicians that are of Jewish heritage. Oliszydlowski, 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
MOS:Ethnicity is not based on religious criteria, and for purely MOS comparison(not character), Janusz Korczak or Anne Frank have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead.I agree that usually it’s not needed, but in cases where it played huge role(Morel for example)and RS point this out ethnicity should be mentioned.Also contrary to your assesment we have actors described as American-Jewish, ie Leo Fuchs or Menasha Skulnik[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm disturbed by the statement from Tashi,
We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history).
(emphasis mine). This is reminiscent of the "exclusionary antisemitism" common in pre-war Europe. Compare with:
- Exclusionary Antisemitism
- The exclusionary nature of antisemitism derives from the perception that the Jew stands outside the nation, and represents an alternative nation or an anti-national, internationalist collective. This idea thrived in the early twentieth century when Jews were said to be internationalist, and thus to stand against the interests of national communities. Because there are distinct Jewish communities in many countries, antisemites alleged that: 1) Jewish communities conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their "host" countries and 2) the dominant forms taken by this conspiracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are international finance and communism. In making such claims, antisemites sought to push out the Jew altogether.
- Source. To go with Tashi's quote, see their edit here: [39]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem was that Jewish community was very strong and very separated. It made up majority in many places. In addition to separation between ethnic Poles and ethnic Jews, there were also separation between assimilated Jews and non-assimilated Jews. Pre WW2 state was very liberal in national and religious question. Cautious (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, antisemitism. Sorry but if the discussion is going to be about playing the antisemitism card then I'm out. I don't know how well you're familiar with Polish history but it is a fact that a lot of Jewish people didn't even speak Polish though they had lived there for a few centuries. It's not only about Polish only. That's historical fact and what's antisemitic about it? The other thing, yes I added he was a Jewish businessman because that information had been deleted. It's not something I made up. I used to say he was a Polish Jew but someone is trying to delete that information and I don't know why Tashi Talk to me 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on
"playing the antisemitism card"
, and above that editing of WWII historical articles was prompted by tweets by Rafal Ziemkiewicz, are deeply concerning. Some context on Ziemkiewicz is in order: Guardian 2018 (visit cancelled to UK, views on Muslims, gays, and Jews, Ziemkiewicz calling UK "fascist"), National Post, 2019 (comments on Jew hatred), JTA 2018 ("scabs" for jews), JTA 2018 (WJC - "gang of international blackmailers"), Pankowski, Rafał. Right-wing extremism in Poland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Department for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012. (endorsement of a book advocating that Poland should've allied itself with Hitler in 1939), Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. (views on Jedwabne pogrom and antisemitism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)- I don't agree. In my POV those comments was prmoted by this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/262593 ("'Israeli minister who made anti-Polish remarks a stupid idiot’ Prominent Holocaust survivor Ed Mosberg blasts Israeli FM over anti-Polish comments". Artcile date 02/05/19 16:10 Rordayukki (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on
I have no idea about the particular case, but have come across the attitude (in exactly the way it has been put) in a number of articles relating to Jewish-Polish relations. I said it there and I will say it here, saying that this is an anti-Semitic trope. Apart from a very small number of ultra-orthodox Jews there is no evidence the Jews refused to speak (or did not see themselves) as Polish (serving in both the home army and the Free Polish forces). I think a topic ban is in order. We cannot and should not allow the propagation of anti-Semitic tropes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Many Jews didn't identify themselves as Poles and spoke polish with very strong accent. It might be due to the fact the seprate religious education was allowed. This has changed after WW2, when the state enforced uniformed primary education and went hard for uniformisation. Cautious (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd recommend caution, to avoid stiffing the debate through chilling effect and variations of Godwin's law and political correctness.
- Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.
- Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."
- Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)
- Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".
- Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"
- Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([40]).
- But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "
- Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."
- Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""
- I hpoe it is clear that it is not 'antisemitic' to discus to what extent Polish Jews spoke Polish and identified with the Polish nation, and that someone who makes the argument that some, and perhaps most Polish Jews did not speak Polish, is not an anti-semite who deserves a topic ban. We should, of course, keep antisemitic discourse off this project, but the case discussed above is very much a normal academic issue, not 'an antisemitic trope'. PS. Personally, I am not convinced that 'most Polish Jews' did not spoke Polish, this may be an exaggeration, but it is one tha at least some scholars support. And I think the sources presented above make it very clear that at least a significant group of Polish Jews did not speak Polish (but whether that significant group was 10% or 90%, I have no opinion on yet). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi Talk to me 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'd like to see what source she uses for that. It's a rather far-reaching estimate that needs good backing from sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi Talk to me 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess. In short - the lede should mention their nationality/citizenship only (X was a Polish astronomer, Y was an American writer etc.) and only mention ethnicity/religion if it is key to their notability - so Anne Frank should probably be described as Jewish but there is no need to describe Barack Obama as African-American, for example. GiantSnowman 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Xx236, that is pretty ridiculous. Like, completely ridiculous. Please look at Trevor Noah and tell me what ethnicity you see. Or don't, and just don't participate in this discussion because you're just digging your hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- After reading this and reading some of what some are calling RS, I do think a TBAN for Tashi is in order. I saw a lot of links posted, so I am not sure if this was in the mix, but this is one of the sources being pushed, [41]. This is not something we should allow on the encycopedia. Antisemitism or antisemitic tropes should not be tolerated or condoned. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- To Piotrus: pointing out ethnic tropes & bigotry is not
political correctness
[42] run amok; it's basic human decency. Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [43] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I could equally accuse Poles of not 100% speaking Russian, German, or Yiddish, even though they "lived there" for over a century, but that would be silly.
- Then there's Tashi's targeting of Jayjg:
User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles.
This is highly inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman:, @Piotrus:, @Slatersteven:, what do you think of this "refactoring", that still doesn't appear to accept that there's anything wrong with bringing up some random 7 year old attack thread on some outside forum, but "apologizes" if that was somehow taken as an attack? Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I fail to see what the relevance of that forum is, not what it "proves" in the way of anything. It was not in and off itself a PA, but it was (I think) uncivil. What a bunch of loud fingers on some forum think is irrelevant and a distraction, but does imply the user see's this as some battle against a "towering figure in the history of WikiKorruption", i am also am also somewhat concerned that that forum had an outing attempt, and linking to it here was outing as well. Overall it reinforces my view the user needs a TBAN, as I see nothing but distractions and obstructions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This is all kind of a stupid argument, because in both cases - that of Chaim Rumkowski and Salomon Morel - the information as to their ethnicity/nationality is pretty much implied/stated right there in the sentence. In case of Morel, whom Icewhiz is trying to "tag" as Polish [44], it says in the same damn sentence he worked for the Polish security services. So his citizenship is kind of obvious. In the case of Rumkowski the first sentence states that he was "head of the Jewish Council of Elders" which already implies he was Jewish. So there's no point in trying to "tag" him as Jewish either. Trying to invoke an overly literal interpretation of WP:MOS here to insist on adding the nationality/ethnicity in the lede explicitly is a classic example of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. And WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- How is it possible that the Jewish Poles had Jewish property? Citizens of Poland have Polish property which is nationalized if heirless.
- Pre-war Poland was obsolete, it continued some pre-division customs. Jews had their parties, Poles had their parties and Ukrainians had their ones. This division created ethnic wars partially described in Intimate Violence http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170 . The massacre of Poles by Ukrainians was bigger than anti-Jewish violence of Poles.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/lens/poland-ukraine-volhynia-massacre.html?searchResultPosition=1&fbclid=IwAR17TAD11EfjuGJ7L9uBWRmUTJcSO4aVPKoWgZIUhxcx7mAHhH2bjy5I0Yk BBWR and socialists accepted Jews.
- The Jews were strictly isolated by their religion, mainly by lack of mixed marriages. A poor Pole wasn't able to marry a Jewish girl and join a Jewish business. Even getting work was a problem. Such division craeted serious economic and social problems. It's impossible to creatre a modern state from two strictly economically and socially divided ethnicities.
- Zionists weren't Polish, they constructed future Israel. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see a couple of users in this thread who clearly should not be editing Polish-Jewish topics. Is AE sufficient to enforce this, or do we need a new ArbCom case? In addition, let me please warn everybody against WP:NOTFORUM violations. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously? Chilling effects to the extreme. While I fully support NOTFORUM, trying to topic ban someone for one-two talk page posts is ridiculous. Topic bans should be limited to people who have shown a consistent pattern, over many edits, of problematic editing of content, not made one-two borderline comments. I would like to see how many people you'd topic ban after seeing discussions on pages of Trump, Obama and such... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|[[User talk:Piotrus|
Anyway, I think that this thread is nothing but NOTFORUM discussion that will lead to no constructive solution, and I suggest closing it. If any editors are making inappropriate edits, specific diffs can be discussed in new threads (or at AE). Reminders of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV wouldn't go amiss, there are also warning templates for those, right? So I suggest that the closer sprinkles a few of those as neeeded, and we move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This thread is an exemplary example of one problem that hounds editors in these fields: not prejudice (like antisemitism), but Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with it. This aspiration to keep Wikiepdia a "sterile space" where we only discuss editorial decisions and policy technicalities is, as we all know, ridiculous: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, and society has bigots, and so some Wikipedians are bigots. The assumption that calling out bigotry has a more "chilling" effect than not being able to call it out at all, has denial built in to it: that we don't have bigotry, that the usual processes are enough, that people minorities are "too sensitive" etc. And so in Wikipedia's current climate pointing prejudice out is a cause for indef blocking, while expressing prejudice is pastime that rarely gets addressed. It's not at all difficult to recognize: some editors are entirely concerned with eg. introducing sources that 3rd party RS describe as prejudiced; others repeatedly and explicitly express opinions that RS state are stereotyping, nationalistic, prejudiced etc. The fact that they're being polite about it (eg. dogwhistling) rather than burn crosses and paint swastiakas on synagogues doesn't make it any less severe, and Wikipedia should address it just like any other "real world" organization. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: The concern I have is that some editors are using the label 'antisemitic' with little justification, but because of the 'political correctness', anyone who disagrees with them is risking being labelled an 'antisemite' (or a ill-judged defender of such). Hence, the chilling effect (intimidation). Do you want to stifle a discussion, scare some people away and bait some admins into political correctness-like blocking? Accuse your opponents of antisemitism and watch sparks fly. This is how we already lost the most prolific content editor in this topic area, User:Poeticbent, author of 1000+ DYKs, including among others dozens of perfectly neutral and informative entries of Jewish WWII-era ghettos and such. Someone accused him of an antisemitic attitude based on a single comment, a certain trigger happy admin agreed, Poeticbent got a topic ban and left in disgust saying 'if this is my reward for 10 years and 1000+ articles, bye'. This is the real danger here - that a group of editors, portraying themselves as on the side of angels ('we fight bigots/antisemites/nationalists so of course we are the perfect righteous guys, if you disagre with us you are a bigot/antisemite/nationalist!'), are going to intimate everyone else of this topic area. The comparison to Jewish/Palestine is not the best, as in that area the sides are more 'gray' than if you paint this as a fight between 'antisemites' and whatever the other group should be called. It is basically a logical fallacy of of Loaded question - posing the question of 'how are we going to deal with those antisemites', conveniently skipping the part where we prove that there are really any antisemites to be dealt with. Now, to be perfectly clear, I am totally supportive of warnings and blocks/bans for editors who are shown, beyond doubt, to be promoting bigotry, antisemitism and like. But there's a difference between calm elimination of editors who are here to promote such problematic views, and a witch hunt that starts when someone accuses someone else of antisemitism, and people pile on with 'antisemitism? awful, truly awful, let's topic ban the whole bunch, nobody wants those kind of people here' with scant evidence that someone behavior is problematic beyond one or two unclear comments that could be variously interpreted. PS. Going back to the OP post, I think there issue of removing/adding words Polish/Jewish to a bio has nothing to do with antisemitsm, just with a form of nationalistic defense of one's nations/ethnicity. For unsavory individuals, people prefer not to think of them as their own. Classic example, Hitler - I am sure many Austrians would prefer a description of him as German, not Austrian, and vice versa. For Morel, ditto - many Poles prefer to think of him as Jewish, and Jews, as a Pole. There is no antisemtism here, BUT there's certainly a problematic attitude. One I have seen in the past on numerous articles that had nothing to do with Jewish identify Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian/Belarus, etc. If an editor is doing little but adding/removing nationality/ethnicity claim to the articles, a topic ban can be in order (one preventing them from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity). That's really is all we should be focusing here: are some of the reported editors doing noting else in this topic area but warring over ethnicity/nationality? If so, we have something to act upon. If not, nothing to look at here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I said I am concerned that an over use of the accusation may just be being used to silence those who some users disagree with, just not (frankly) in this case. The user clearly used a common antisemitic canards to claim that certain people born in Poland, who held Polish passports were not Polish because some Jews (not even the ones who the articles are about) could not speak Polish. That is the problem. At the end of the day even if it was not antisemitism it was such a wholly invalid argument that it simply put is disruptive and tendentious as it is pure OR and synthases of the worst kind (and that IS being generous). Given that (even without the antisemitic edge to it) could well justify an TBAN. The possible antisemitism just makes it all the more distressful and thoughtless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Valid concerns, and all the more reason to have a forum where they can be addressed by admins/moderators who actually know what they're doing. I'm fairly convinced that most editors - even those that are clearly biased on some issue or another - aren't prejudiced in the sense we're talking about here; but we both know some are - I bet if I asked you to you'd give the same names that I would - and these are the ones we need to be able to address, and address harshly.
- As for Poeticbent: I didn't know him except for the 2-3 times where he rushed into a discussion, flouted some accusations and disappeared. That behavior, to me, is unacceptable regardless of motive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will say this: Wikipedia as a social system is poorly designed (well - barely designed), and many a veteran editor grew tired of its impotence and abrasiveness, either left or were left. Put differently: the current system isn't built to accommodate and consider a variety of human behaviors and modes of communication; to minimize editor wear we need a system that is. Such a system would naturally know how to deal with prejudice as well, be it real or imagined. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I never understood why WP:PAIN was closed. It even had such a nice acronym :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not really in the scope of this ANI. I think you need to raise this at village pump. But this also has nothing to do with the question at hand, why should we no sanction the reported user for their actions. I do not care what the other boys did, did his actions fall short of what we expect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Likely, but sources are needed. Without them it's WP:OR. We don't know whether he spoke Polish (well) and whether he identified himself as a Polish Jew or such. We can only speculate. BUT what we can be sure is that he DID have a Polish citizenship. Also, why are you posting this in reply to Francois comment is beyond me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, regardless of the discussions above, this is still an issue; another seldom-used account has just shown up, and decided that "Jewish" is a "nationality", and started putting it infobox person.[45][46][47][48][49][50]. Perhaps one of the editors above who are concerned about labels etc. can explain why this still only seems to happen on biographies of Polish Jews who collaborated with Nazis, and not on any of the other approximately 1600 biographies we have of Polish Jews. Jayjg (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- The timing is suspicious. As I said above, a warning on edit warring should be given, and if an account is not adhering to it, I will support a topic ban (but not from a broad Polish-Jewish topic area, but from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity/citizenship). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ I did not mean to neither insult nor attack anybody and if the user Jayjg felt that way, I hope he will accept my apologize. I used that particular forum to underline my point that this particular user has already been a topic of similar discussions, not to attack anybody but as I said if it was taken that way by Jayjg, I apologize ~~~~
- I would have more sympathy for an appeal to leniency from Piotrus it wasn't for the fact that he defends SPAs accounts in the topic area under the guise of fighting political correctness. For example, Piotrus did not request that Tashi retract his statement against Jayjd until after multiple posts from other editors and myself. Instead, there's a discussion on how Tashi's discourse was "very much on a normal academic issue" [51], that this is "Chilling effects to the extreme" [52], and that we should just all "move on" [53]. Prejudice is not acceptable. If such discussions would deter those who use Wikipedia to publish their unfiltered worldviews, then good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Eh? I am the only person who gave him a direct conduct guideline/warning. But if you prefer to overract and nuke the guy, so be it - but I still reserve the right to see this as a pc-fueled overreaction for what merits at best a warning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Tashi was banned for a different reason. In any event, Tashi was hardly the worst offender; other editors have continued to edit in this way (and even edit-war over it). Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think a TBAN fishing net is needed here, rather than one at a time. Sadly, I don't think it will happen, unless someone opens an ARBCOM case, something which has been done for someone in this thread years ago, IIRC. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayjg and Sir Joseph: - (non-admin response) - identify the worst offenders, post all the diffs of each offender at the very start of a section. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for an indef Tban for Tashi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is I think enough discussion above to start with a proposal for an indefinite Tban for Tashi. I am proposing an indef Tban from anything related to WWII Poland and Polish-Jewish relations and Holocaust studies, broadly construed. I am trying to mimic prior Tbans for this area. I think we've seen quite a few comments from quite a few other users that are quite frankly evidence of not being here, but I think we don't need to overwhelm. At the same time, I don't think we should just keep building up a wall of text above.
- 'Support as proposer. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: - could you at least collate the diffs in your post above? I think I saw two but I don't know how many I missed? starship.paint (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint:No, the point of this section is not to rehash any argument, it's just to propose a tban and not to enter into any discussion. The op above has tons of diffs, the discussion has more. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: - could you at least collate the diffs in your post above? I think I saw two but I don't know how many I missed? starship.paint (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Way to broad. WP:TOPICBAN's stated purpose is "to prevent editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive," A single comment at ANI that's pretty borderline and that the poster tried to clarify and refactor as at best meriting a warning. There is no indication that Tashi is making any disruptive edits in this topic area, there is no need to protect the topic area from his 'disruption' (which doesn't exist), and a broad topic ban is nothing but a major intimidation/chilling effect nuke (and a reminder that anyone posting in AN(I) who is not an admin asking for trouble). A narrow topic ban is also pointless since again he is not doing any problematic edits (at least I never saw a single diff). Again, topic banning for a single comment at ANI is a ridiculous over-reaction. A warning is all that's needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please go back and read the OP, it's not just one diff. As multiple people have pointed out, you seem to ignore the multiple diffs. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
SupportIt was not a single comment, he has tried to remove Polish from multiple articles using the same dodgy excuse with no evidence shown he gets this is not the way to go about things. The rest looks like a battleground mentality that see's all disputes through that prism. This is about him trying to right great wrongs, not this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)- @Slatersteven: - do you have diffs? starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Jewish as a nationality [[54]] made after this ANI was launched (more then once [[55]]. But I have to stand corrected, he has attempted to claim the nationality
Polishwas on only one article (but as I said more the once) rather then on multiple articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)- Thank you Slatersteven. That doesn't look good. Tashi, if you wish to defend yourself, please provide a quote from the "Singing for survival" reference saying Jewish as a nationality. I note that you did provide a quote in the other source, [56], but I really don't think that other one says Jewish as a nationality either. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note I made a typo, he claims the nationally was Jewish, not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Slatersteven. That doesn't look good. Tashi, if you wish to defend yourself, please provide a quote from the "Singing for survival" reference saying Jewish as a nationality. I note that you did provide a quote in the other source, [56], but I really don't think that other one says Jewish as a nationality either. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Jewish as a nationality [[54]] made after this ANI was launched (more then once [[55]]. But I have to stand corrected, he has attempted to claim the nationality
- Support--someone who claims that one gets to be called "Polish" based on one's supposed "assimilation" should either apologize and change their ways or be topic-banned. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support, per their comments above (in particular given the tweeter behind the discissed tweet) and not backing down from use of Robert Jerzy Nowak (see Poetry, Providence, and Patriotism: Polish Messianism in Dialogue with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pickwick Publications, Joel Burnell, page 274 and Faith and Fatherland: Catholicism, Modernity, and Poland, Oxford University Press, Brian A. Porter, page 325 for a Jewish BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I don't really like "per X" comments, but the supporters above have pretty much got it covered, and I'm not seeing any sign of Tashi getting it. I think we need a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- My statement: I know I'm going to get the ban regardless of my expalnantions thus I'm not going to elaborate on that. Additionally I've already written to Jayjg and Sir Jospeh and none of them have responded. As has already been stated, there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion. I've already apologized Jayjg for the inappropriate statements, yet at the same time I pointed out that this particular user had been a subject of similar discussion. Now I'm waiting for the verdict and if anybody has any question I'm willing to answer to it. Tashi Talk to me 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @KamillaŚ: - as you are a native Polish speaker and a learned English speaker, could you assist in this matter with your language skills? How plausible is Tashi’s argument that
there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion
- which may have led Tashi to conclude Jewish is a nationality? starship.paint (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @KamillaŚ: - as you are a native Polish speaker and a learned English speaker, could you assist in this matter with your language skills? How plausible is Tashi’s argument that
- Not as clear cut as either side would like I suspect. In the ANI above this one there is (at least in part) a problem over the incorrect use of language with users (apparently) using literal translations when in fact the literal translation implies something else. The difference here (as I see it) is that (as has been pointed out, more then once) the choice of words may not in fact be conveying the message they want. Yet not only did the user seem to continue to argue the point (using sourcing that some have argued implies the ungenerous interpenetration of what they meant is supported by using sources that expound that opinion), they also made at least one more edit of the contested kind during the course of this ANI. It is thus hard to believe that "He is not Polish he is a Jew" is some error due to a poor grasp of English (added to which is they only seen to have taken this attitude on some articles, and one where the targeting is over a very specific issue).Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- In Polish language you can say that someone is of "narodowości żydowskiej" or "narodowości polskiej" (literally Jewish / Polish nationality" and it's acceptable. You're definitely trying to undermine my arugments without knowing Polish language (as I suppose). Tashi Talk to me 10:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Would you care to provide a source for the claim that saying someone is Jewish not Polish is acceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- For example, if you look up "Żydzi" (Jews) in Encyklopedia PWN (run by official Polish Scientific Publishers), it tells you a little about Jews and you can read that: 1) "w Polsce 2002 narodowość żydowską zadeklarowały 1133 osoby" (literary translated: In 2002, in Poland, the Jewish nationality was declared by 1133 people). 2) "wśród przywódców rewolucji ros. i w aparacie władzy ZSRR obecni byli politycy narodowości żydowskiej" (literary translated: among the leaders of the Russian Revolution and in the apparatus of the USSR's power, there were politicians of Jewish nationality) [Source Tashi Talk to me 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is you have used this to declare people are Jewish (and not Polish) who this has not been said about, that is the issue. Also I would point out that the term might be the English equivalent of Ethnicity, not nationality. Whilst I agree this would be a translation issue but again you cannot use this to say any give Jew is not (in effect) Polish. But if you accept that you cannot in fact use this line of argument about someones ethnicity I am willing to AGF and withdraw the vote for a TBAN. At heart is the claim someone is not Polish but Jewish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- But I think my comments here have already proven that I withdrew my words. I think it goes without saying that one can be both Polish and Jewish and there is no contradiction here. What I wanted to underline was that many Jewish people did not identify with Poland but I didn't know that the nationality in fact means the citizenship. And it is true I did not have the right source for such claim in terms of Rumkowsky. I was kind of basing on the posts on the internet. I think the problem lays de facto in defying the word "nationality". Under all these circumstances, I believe that we should stick to the Polish nationality in such cases. Tashi Talk to me 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Then I accept you may not longer be a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- But I think my comments here have already proven that I withdrew my words. I think it goes without saying that one can be both Polish and Jewish and there is no contradiction here. What I wanted to underline was that many Jewish people did not identify with Poland but I didn't know that the nationality in fact means the citizenship. And it is true I did not have the right source for such claim in terms of Rumkowsky. I was kind of basing on the posts on the internet. I think the problem lays de facto in defying the word "nationality". Under all these circumstances, I believe that we should stick to the Polish nationality in such cases. Tashi Talk to me 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is you have used this to declare people are Jewish (and not Polish) who this has not been said about, that is the issue. Also I would point out that the term might be the English equivalent of Ethnicity, not nationality. Whilst I agree this would be a translation issue but again you cannot use this to say any give Jew is not (in effect) Polish. But if you accept that you cannot in fact use this line of argument about someones ethnicity I am willing to AGF and withdraw the vote for a TBAN. At heart is the claim someone is not Polish but Jewish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- For example, if you look up "Żydzi" (Jews) in Encyklopedia PWN (run by official Polish Scientific Publishers), it tells you a little about Jews and you can read that: 1) "w Polsce 2002 narodowość żydowską zadeklarowały 1133 osoby" (literary translated: In 2002, in Poland, the Jewish nationality was declared by 1133 people). 2) "wśród przywódców rewolucji ros. i w aparacie władzy ZSRR obecni byli politycy narodowości żydowskiej" (literary translated: among the leaders of the Russian Revolution and in the apparatus of the USSR's power, there were politicians of Jewish nationality) [Source Tashi Talk to me 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Would you care to provide a source for the claim that saying someone is Jewish not Polish is acceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- In Polish language you can say that someone is of "narodowości żydowskiej" or "narodowości polskiej" (literally Jewish / Polish nationality" and it's acceptable. You're definitely trying to undermine my arugments without knowing Polish language (as I suppose). Tashi Talk to me 10:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not as clear cut as either side would like I suspect. In the ANI above this one there is (at least in part) a problem over the incorrect use of language with users (apparently) using literal translations when in fact the literal translation implies something else. The difference here (as I see it) is that (as has been pointed out, more then once) the choice of words may not in fact be conveying the message they want. Yet not only did the user seem to continue to argue the point (using sourcing that some have argued implies the ungenerous interpenetration of what they meant is supported by using sources that expound that opinion), they also made at least one more edit of the contested kind during the course of this ANI. It is thus hard to believe that "He is not Polish he is a Jew" is some error due to a poor grasp of English (added to which is they only seen to have taken this attitude on some articles, and one where the targeting is over a very specific issue).Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The linking to a 7 year old off wiki forum was bad, and deserves a warning. But if they agree to abide by the rules this ANI has served it purpose. However if they have lied (and you calim they have) that would warrant a block. I will AGF and wait for them to provide a diff to their communication with you and Sir Joseph.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- commentI'm not really seeing the antisemitism here. In a clear case of antisemitism, bigotry, racism or any other type of hate related editing the community has straight up fucking failed by pushing a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Serialjoepsycho, there are ~1600 biographies of Polish Jews on Wikipedia, yet these editors only seem concerned with making it extremely clear that the ten or so who collaborated with Nazis are actually Jews (not real Poles). Some, like Rordayukki (talk · contribs) / 5.173.234.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 5.173.234.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) apparently only edit Wikipedia for the purpose of highlighting these individuals. What does that feel like to you? Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayjg:I'm not a checkuser, I'm not an admin, and this didn't specifically seem like a sockpuppet investigation. I'm not seeing any antisemitism but only reviewing the Tashi account. That aside, in the face of hatespeech a topic ban is a piss poor action to take.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Serialjoepsycho, there are ~1600 biographies of Polish Jews on Wikipedia, yet these editors only seem concerned with making it extremely clear that the ten or so who collaborated with Nazis are actually Jews (not real Poles). Some, like Rordayukki (talk · contribs) / 5.173.234.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 5.173.234.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) apparently only edit Wikipedia for the purpose of highlighting these individuals. What does that feel like to you? Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is part of the problem with this ANI, it should be about a user, not a whole raft of them. It makes it hard to see if this is a "serial" problem, or just a few edds making mistakes and then stopping. As an example I can only find two examples of Tashi doing this. If (thus) this is a case of 30 edits, made by 15 different users that is not a problem ANI can deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni has indefinitely blocked Tashi so I do not know if that brings this discussion to an close. I wouldn't have made this choice and I'd like to hear from Tony about why he didn't just impose the proposed topic ban. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Liz, it is an {{OversightBlock}} that was placed after an issue was raised and discussed on oversight-l, and I can't discuss the matter further. If Tashi wishes to appeal, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I did not close this discussion as I'd prefer to let the community decide whether or not they want a TBAN to be in effect if a successful appeal occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of my disagreements with Tashi and their words, I don't agree with this action. But I admit that I don't have all of the details, and no access to the discussion about this on the email list. I just want to be sure that any blocked user has an avenue of appeal. And I appreciate you coming here, TonyBallioni, and providing as much of an explanation as you can, as frustrating as that is for the rest of us. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Liz - The user certainly does have an avenue regarding the ability to appeal the block that's been placed on them. They just have to do so privately and to the Arbitration Committee instead of through the usual channels that users with typical blocks have. I obviously can't share any information involved in the decision to block Tashi under an {{OversightBlock}}, but I viewed the information involved and I can give you my assurance that TonyBallioni's block on Tashi was necessary and justified, and I agree with the decision to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of my disagreements with Tashi and their words, I don't agree with this action. But I admit that I don't have all of the details, and no access to the discussion about this on the email list. I just want to be sure that any blocked user has an avenue of appeal. And I appreciate you coming here, TonyBallioni, and providing as much of an explanation as you can, as frustrating as that is for the rest of us. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Continued
@K.e.coffman: Re: Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [43] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires.
I see a logical issue and have a question. If on Wikipedia we describe nationality based on citizenship rather than ethnicity, why would January Suchodolski (for example), who was alive only during that period, be (accurately I assume) described as "Polish" in his lead when he did not have such citizenship? We could probably find many articles like this. So my question is this, when do we use ethnicity for nationality and when do we use citizenship? Is there a clear rule? From MOS:ETHNICITY: In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
I think that is an incomplete formulation of what we have to do in some circumstances.
@Xx236: Re: Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture.
So many things wrong with this that I think it speaks to the fact that you should not be editing articles related to this topic. Other of your comments here and on Talk:History of the Jews in Poland, also speak to a bias and agenda, for example: Thousands of Israeli citizens ask for Polish citizenship and/or visit Poland. Israeli youth is indoctrinated and terrorised by Israeli guides/bodyguards to prevent informal contacts with Polish youth.
This one also speaks of personal bias: My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours.
Isn't there something else you can edit on Wikipedia?
I think there is some honest question over how to apply MOS:ETHNICITY as outlined above. It is tempting to say that being Jewish in Europe during the holocaust may be essential to providing the context demanded by the MOS, but I think this is limited to cases, as the MOS says, where the person is notable for something related to being Jewish. These issues can be reasonably worked out on article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. I do believe there is a problem with several editors who are fixated on Polish Jewry constantly being at odds with each other. This does not quite rise to a TBAN (except perhaps in two cases, one of which being rendered moot), and I think that would lead to an imbalance to prevent the open discussion of what is NPOV and RSed on these topics, but to my mind this pushes the limits of what is acceptable as far as activism by editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is not really a discussion for ANI, but I would say that this is at the heart of the dispute. They are (say) Polish when someone wants them to be, and not Polish when they dont. Ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing, some om can be a Polish Pole or a Jewish Pole. The problem was calking they were (in effect) not Polish at all. This may not have been the intent, it was the effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest Issue involving IP Connected to Company
50.73.174.35 is licensed to the West Virginia Radio Corporation (WVRC). WVRC owns a slew of radio stations under WVRC, but also as AJG Corporation, along with The Dominion Post newspaper. In 2016, they attempted to edit some of their company's station's pages here on Wikipedia and that was successfully shut down with a simple COI warning. In the past week or so, they have started up again. I have issued 2 more COI warnings. It's clear all the edits are coming from the WVRC IP and they are trying to make the articles less than neutral or more kind to WVRC and their owners. The latest edit was pure OR. I have done what I can, so I bring it to this board for assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)
- We have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for this sort of thing. - Donald Albury 10:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was kinda hoping for some assistance, not the run-around. But sure...here ya go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)
- The COI discussion has gone nowhere. I mean no responses, which seems typical of most of the posts there. Any assistance here would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:37 on May 27, 2019 (UTC)
- 1) It's the weekend, 2) it's a holiday weekend in the States. Have a little more patience. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is English Wikipedia, which means there are more than just US folks here. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- Hence my pointing out that it was the weekend first. The American holiday was to emphasize that American editors were likely still out doing other things even after that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of "pointing out" things, how about helping the matter? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:19 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- Okay: When discussions get no traction, that often means it no one believes it rises to the level of needing correction. You've already given them a COI warning, if they proceed in promoting OR or pushing their brand, bring it up again. Right now, it's hardly a blip on the radar and I doubt admins will block an IP for what has happened so far. Bringing it to ANI was premature. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not wanting to do your "job" isn't a good response. This has happened in the past, this is a company registered IP, and the COI discussion has gone nowhere (still). So, I don't think it was premature to bring it to ANI (even though I brought it to ANI first). I think it's right where it needs to be. I just think no one actually wants to do anything about it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57 on May 30, 2019 (UTC)
- Because they don't agree it rises to the level of needing anything to be done. On that note, I think we're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not wanting to do your "job" isn't a good response. This has happened in the past, this is a company registered IP, and the COI discussion has gone nowhere (still). So, I don't think it was premature to bring it to ANI (even though I brought it to ANI first). I think it's right where it needs to be. I just think no one actually wants to do anything about it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57 on May 30, 2019 (UTC)
- Okay: When discussions get no traction, that often means it no one believes it rises to the level of needing correction. You've already given them a COI warning, if they proceed in promoting OR or pushing their brand, bring it up again. Right now, it's hardly a blip on the radar and I doubt admins will block an IP for what has happened so far. Bringing it to ANI was premature. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of "pointing out" things, how about helping the matter? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:19 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- Hence my pointing out that it was the weekend first. The American holiday was to emphasize that American editors were likely still out doing other things even after that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is English Wikipedia, which means there are more than just US folks here. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- 1) It's the weekend, 2) it's a holiday weekend in the States. Have a little more patience. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Saint Peter move request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This concerns a move request at Talk:Saint Peter. For background, one move request was closed on May 10 as "not moved" [57] by Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This was the tenth such move request regarding Saint Peter, all of which have been unsuccessful. The move request in question was opened the following day by SelfieCity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and later closed by me as being out of process and too soon after the prior discussion [58]. King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my closure, instead of taking it to move review. He did this despite having participated in the previous discussion [59] and then voted in favor of a page move in the ongoing discussion [60] following his revert of my close, both of which run afoul of WP:INVOLVED. There is also a related discussion concerning the move request on my talk page. Calidum 18:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note that Born2cycle's closure explicitly said: "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title." Hence Calidum's premature closure was out of process and unjustified, given that the new RM was doing precisely as the original closer asked. And I disagree that I am involved, given that my action of reverting your close did nothing to further my previously expressed opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- You certainly are involved, and should not have been the person to do this. I'm neutral on whether a reversion was a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I opposed the original RM and should be happy for any new RMs to be shut down; I did not research the topic and decide on my !vote in the second RM until after I reverted the close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that we just wait a month here to let the move discussion cool down. Then perhaps, we can reconsider. No-one will die if "Saint Peter" remains "Saint Peter" for another month. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- The RM has probably already reached the point where no consensus to change the name can be found, so as long as it's open again then nothing seems harmed by a close that some dispute as robbing Peter to pay Paul and others see as possibly a bit premature but recognizing the trend. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- If a new RM takes place, then I suggest to make a discussion for the 12 apostles, not just St Peter. Either he is changed to "Apostle", or they all get renamed "Saint". T8612 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why? That's a terrible idea, and won't happen, and the others wouldn't be renamed if it did. WP:CONSISTENCY is and should be always treated as subordinate to the wider WP:COMMONNAME principles. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because the other apostles are not named by their most common name, which are St John, St Mark, etc. only St Peter, which gives him a sort of statutory preeminence over the other apostles. T8612 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, he is generally considered the most important of the apostles, and most people refer to him as "Saint Peter". Should we call him "Pope Peter" instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because the other apostles are not named by their most common name, which are St John, St Mark, etc. only St Peter, which gives him a sort of statutory preeminence over the other apostles. T8612 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why? That's a terrible idea, and won't happen, and the others wouldn't be renamed if it did. WP:CONSISTENCY is and should be always treated as subordinate to the wider WP:COMMONNAME principles. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that we just wait a month here to let the move discussion cool down. Then perhaps, we can reconsider. No-one will die if "Saint Peter" remains "Saint Peter" for another month. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I opposed the original RM and should be happy for any new RMs to be shut down; I did not research the topic and decide on my !vote in the second RM until after I reverted the close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- You certainly are involved, and should not have been the person to do this. I'm neutral on whether a reversion was a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think King's actions here are beyond reproach. When a closer specifically states that a second discussion should be held to clarify the consensus, and then someone starts the second discussion according to that guidance, you obviously shouldn't just swoop in and force-close that second discussion with the rationale of "Did you miss the first discussion?" I mean, come on. Really? ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- The previous closer crossed the supervote line in recommending, in the close, a new RM using ranked voting. It did not reflect the discussion he closed, does not reflect policy, but reflects his recent radical idea for algorithmic processing of discussions, an anethema to consensus decision making.
- I support the very old policy that any admin may revert any NAC, except if the sole reason is the nanadmin status, if the admin is UNINVOLVED. These conditions appear to not be met. King of Hearts is not uninvolved. He must not play both roles of admin and participant in the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I recommend that the RM be speedy closed, with any complaints about the RM issues sent to MRV. The INVOLVED admin action by User:King of Hearts should be discussed here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- "I mean, come on. Really?" is about right. If Closer #1 closes Discussion #1 "without prejudice" (however that's phrased), and Closer #2 closes Discussion #2 because it's too soon after Discussion #1, then Closer #2 is effectively just overruling Closer #1, and that's out of process. KoH's edit summary suggests that it wasn't "an admin reverting a NAC" but rather "an editor reverting a bloody-obvious out-of-process close", and thus WP:INVOLVED isn't applicable, and if it is, the exception for
straightforward cases
applies. The broader point is that if our colleague want to discuss something, like moving a page, who are any one of us to say, "No! You shall not discuss this! I say it is not the right time!" I mean, you're just getting in the way of consensus. Step aside and let your colleagues work. – Levivich 03:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC) - The second close was a very poor one - the closer explicitly went against the previous close. Yes, it might have gone to a move review, but it should be left open now. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- All three closers/close-reverters were at some fault.
- В²C closed Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 17 May 2019 with "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)"
- This is a pretty stupid closing statement, as I told him on his usertalk page. It is not based on policy or the discussion, it flies in the face of ancient convention that following a failed RM, there is a moratorium on a follow-up, something like 2-6 months. There was nothing in that discussion to justify him waiving the moratorium, other than that we know he always argues against moratoria of any kind. This sticking of his new theory into a close tells me yet again that he can't be trusted with closing discussions. He can write this opinion for himself nearly anywhere on a talk page, but not in a closing statement where it has no support from the discussion.
- Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 24 May 2019. User:SelfieCity, new Wikipedian, takes B2C's bad advice, and initiates a pretty poor repeat RM nomination. It doesn't speak to the failure of the preceding RMs or why they failed, and simply repeats some old points. SelfieCity was enticed into this by B2C.
- User:Calidum speedy closes with "Not moved. Did you miss the discussion right above this closed one day earlier?"
- While I !voted "Speedy close", I don't support this close, because there was not enough people calling for speedy close, and without participant support, the speedy close is a contentious close that should not be made by a non-admin, as per WP:BADNAC. Calidum could have !voted "speedy close".
- User:King of Hearts reverts the close with (rv close by Calidum: "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title")
- Surprisingly, King of Hearts quotes B2C's bad line as if it was an OK line. The revert was either a close-war, or an admin reverting a BADNAC. The second is reasonable, but King of Hearts should make more effort to abide by WP:UNINVOLVED; his 02:00, 21 May 2019 !vote could be explained away, but not his 16:46, 25 May 2019 !vote that for the second time asserts a strong opinion on the topic. A proper action would have been to talk to User:Calidum and take it to WP:MRV if not satisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with the first close. There is nothing remotely resembling a written or unwritten rule that a closer cannot highlight potentially strong support for an alternate proposal that requires additional discussion, and recommend a followup discussion or designate their closure as "no prejudice". Such closures are routine. Suggesting a different discussion can't be held due to some "ancient convention" of a "2-6 month moratorium" is nothing short of absurd. We are not bound to such silly procedural points of order, as a matter of policy. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yes there is something wrong with an NAC-er supervoting their personal opinions into a closing statement. The close is for summarising the discussion, and it is not an ordinary forum for posting your thoughts. There was nothing in that discussion that implied an immediate relist was a good idea, and discussions elsewhere had rebuffed his new theory of promulgating ranked voting. And the outcome is the proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- As many will know I'm not a big fan (to put it extremely mildly) of much of B2C's activity on RMs, but I actually don't think this was bad. He initally judged consensus correctly (there was clearly no consensus to move), but having noted that there was reasonable support by some respondents for a move to Peter The Apostle, suggested a ranked survey (italics important) "to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title". I really don't see a problem with that and I can't imagine that it would have received much of a pushback if it had been made by an admin. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yes there is something wrong with an NAC-er supervoting their personal opinions into a closing statement. The close is for summarising the discussion, and it is not an ordinary forum for posting your thoughts. There was nothing in that discussion that implied an immediate relist was a good idea, and discussions elsewhere had rebuffed his new theory of promulgating ranked voting. And the outcome is the proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with the first close. There is nothing remotely resembling a written or unwritten rule that a closer cannot highlight potentially strong support for an alternate proposal that requires additional discussion, and recommend a followup discussion or designate their closure as "no prejudice". Such closures are routine. Suggesting a different discussion can't be held due to some "ancient convention" of a "2-6 month moratorium" is nothing short of absurd. We are not bound to such silly procedural points of order, as a matter of policy. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- There's a problem with this article in that editors have persistently blocked a move to WP:COMMONNAME to Peter which outnumbers "Saint Peter" by a ratio of 100-1 in book inline text by counting hits for church buildings. I don't think that problem will be solved by a RM being launched with a ? as the title and complicated vote counts. It should have waited a week for discussion of how to present the vote that editors wanted (for Peter the Apostle) now we have confusion and people citing church buildings as hits again.... So honestly close the whole thing down and chill for a month while a sensible RM is worked out. Then when there's agreement post it and vote yes/no. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. Take a breath. Wait a bit. Read the previous RMs. Make a better nomination statement than was made previously. Address the reasons made in opposition previously, don’t just ignore. Immediate half-baked renominations are disrespectful to the previous discussion and drive away the non-obsessive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't the place, but as you've been told countless times over the years, it is precisely WP:COMMONNAME that keeps the name where it is, as most people rightly reject your highly artificial exclusion of everything but academic biblical studies. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no policy against starting a new RM right after a previous RM was closed, though there is guidance against doing so in cases where consensus was found in the previous discussion. In this case not only was there no consensus found in the previous RM, but the closer of that RM (yours truly) explicitly suggested a new RM allowing participants to respond by ranking preferences from an array of choices. Now, we can and do disagree on the wisdom of making such a suggestion, but there is no denying it was made. And so a new RM was started accordingly. We can also disagree about the timing and the presentation details of that subsequent RM, which I agree left something to be desired, but I see no basis to boldly close it prematurely, and the revert of that BOLD close seems justified, no matter how involved the reverter was.
Speaking of the timing and presentation of that second RM leaving, well, quite a bit to be desired, I do want to point out how this situation exemplifies the importance of timing and presentation in RMs. Although in this case this RM was proposed by someone who did support it, the importance of timing and presentation is why I think only proponents of a given title change should be allowed to nominate an RM, because only proponents, though still fallible, are motivated to at least try to get the timing and presentation right. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Should_noms_of_RMs_be_required_to_support_their_proposals?.
As to the specific issues about this article title discussed just above, this is not the place for that. That said, while this ANI about that title is open, it would be good to get consensus about what is reasonable in the foreseeable future. I think we can all see that the current proposal will fail. Does that mean there is no consensus to move this article? I honestly don't know. Given the strong opposition to the current title, I think there is room for continued discussion. And in my experience discussion about specific titles does not get much attention unless it's a formal RM (presumably because only as part of a formal RM does the discussion matter to what actually happens). So I would not support any kind of formal moratorium, though I would advise opponents of the current title to have a discussion about what single alternative is best to offer; one that has not been clearly rejected by consensus before. If there is one. --В²C ☎ 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Repeated personal attacks[61][62][63] and edit warring at Black Hebrew Israelites. The page has been protected 3 times at this point while he has his crusade for their point of view against several different editors. It also appears they were socking at one point to continue past 3RR with two IP accounts.[64][65] PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The suspected IP editing was a month ago. The talkpage diffs provided are strident but do not rise to the level of problematic personal attack. The discussion is in the Survey section of an RFC [66] Facepalm, and you are the one perpetuating the argument in the face to two people who oppose you. Drop the stick before you catch a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it was a month ago, this is one long continuous edit war. How many times is it acceptable to use IP to edit war anyhow? I thought it was none but I guess it's fine. Also in regards to personal attacks calling someone a dotard is not so bad or saying two other edits lie? Finally if you look at the page history and edit history you will note the number of people opposing him, it is far more than the two you mention opposing me. PackMecEng (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The evidence (diffs) you provided is clear. This is just a content dispute. Report edit-warring at WP:ANEW, when it occurs. Let the RfC play out; that's what RfCs are for -- to settle content disputes, regardless of how many people are presumed to be on what side. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is separate from the ongoing dispute about content, this is about user conduct. Hence the diffs to behavior, we can disagree about content as long as it is civil but it was not. The RFC is of course irrelevant to the discussion here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, the comments do not rise to the level of problematic, actionable personal attack. The content dispute and edit war are being resolved by RfC. And at this point you are the one perpetuating the conflict instead of resolving it. There was no need for this ANI; the fact that you brought it here is another way you are perpetuating the dispute instead of letting the RfC resolve it. Right now you are setting yourself up for either an IBan or a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Given their long block log for this very issue I respectfully believe you are mistaken. Thank you for your insight though. PackMecEng (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I can't see how you don't see a problem with MS's behavior here. There does appear to be socking and personal attacks during this discussion. Is the behavior blockable? I'd lean toward a firm warning instead. But I don't see how anything PackMecEng has said or done is wrong here, yet you appear to be threatening them with some type of block or ban. I think that's uncalled for. Hobit (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, the comments do not rise to the level of problematic, actionable personal attack. The content dispute and edit war are being resolved by RfC. And at this point you are the one perpetuating the conflict instead of resolving it. There was no need for this ANI; the fact that you brought it here is another way you are perpetuating the dispute instead of letting the RfC resolve it. Right now you are setting yourself up for either an IBan or a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is separate from the ongoing dispute about content, this is about user conduct. Hence the diffs to behavior, we can disagree about content as long as it is civil but it was not. The RFC is of course irrelevant to the discussion here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The evidence (diffs) you provided is clear. This is just a content dispute. Report edit-warring at WP:ANEW, when it occurs. Let the RfC play out; that's what RfCs are for -- to settle content disputes, regardless of how many people are presumed to be on what side. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it was a month ago, this is one long continuous edit war. How many times is it acceptable to use IP to edit war anyhow? I thought it was none but I guess it's fine. Also in regards to personal attacks calling someone a dotard is not so bad or saying two other edits lie? Finally if you look at the page history and edit history you will note the number of people opposing him, it is far more than the two you mention opposing me. PackMecEng (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- A persona past history has no effect on how to interpret current cases unless they reflect a pastern. If a user is "up before the beak" for incivility they have to have been uncivil, it does not matter how uncivil they were in the past. If they are being uncivil their past actions can affect their "sentence", it does not imply guilt this time. Their comments (whilst rude) are no PA's, and whatever I may think civility it is clear that Wikipedia has a much broader concept of it, and this I am not sure these comments fall foul of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: So calling someone a senile old moron, as they did with the dotard comment, is not a personal attack? PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Forgive me but I cannot see in the three diffs you provided where he calls any one a moron. Would you link to it again as maybe I am missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The third, which M S summarizes as
(→Survey: reply to the dotard)
, and whose body is*:::::You're right. You're not listening, nor do you appear to be capable of reading.
. Qwirkle (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - @Slatersteven:, I'm guessing it is the word itself, dotard. unless I'm wrong about what that means. cygnis insignis 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- And it was in the edit summery as well. Yes, that edit summery is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The third, which M S summarizes as
- Forgive me but I cannot see in the three diffs you provided where he calls any one a moron. Would you link to it again as maybe I am missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: So calling someone a senile old moron, as they did with the dotard comment, is not a personal attack? PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The comments are uncivil and clearly are instances of attacking the editor, not discussing the article. The socking is, IMO, a real problem (though about a month old). At the least a formal warning is in order. This editor does seem to have a temper problem. I understand they believe they are doing the right thing, but that doesn't excuse the behavior. Hobit (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there *is* any socking. The range that covers both IPs has rangeblocked by Yamla for cross-wiki harassment (and very possibly long-term abuse as well). I doubt very much if the IP behind that is Malik Shabazz - do you? Meanwhile, the editor in that edit-war that I would look at is this one - 53 contributions and practically every one a revert, mostly on contentious topics. Doesn't look like a new editor to me. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The IPs are half a continent away from MS. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- For anyone who wonders: Malik's userpage is in Category:Wikipedians in Cleveland (that's Cleveland, Ohio), while the IPs geolocate to Toledo, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan. I'm not clear why Acroterion says they're half a continent apart; you can drive from Cleveland to Detroit in four hours (and Toledo's in the middle), and I know I've had IP addresses that were geolocated to a couple of hundred kilometres away from my actual location. This is not saying that Malik has operated with these addresses, since I've not looked at anything else; I just don't see why geolocation rules out a connection. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Nyttend; it's clear that Malik was traveling or his mobile IP address geolocated to alternate locations, and the edit summaries and quickness of the first edit indicate it was him. He used the exact same language of the second edit summary (an article about religious groups with 10s of thousands of members doesn't need a section about five people) in the OP of the RfC he filed (In an article about a religious movement that spans more than 125 years and includes tens of thousands of adherents, does the inclusion in the article of the following paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen people ...). Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was mistaken, I had been under the impression that MS was located elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Malik's behavior on that page is beyond the pale, and given his history of edit warring and personal attacks, he should be blocked. I know we need to measure our responses to highly established editors who are constructive in the content space, but measured responses at this point are simply letting the blocks expire after a week or two. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't usually like to chime in on ANI threads, especially of a conduct thread, but MS is an editor where if I usually see him on a edit summary or if I see him in editing an article, I will usually stay away. I know that there are as Swarm says "protocols" for highly established editors, but MS doesn't seem to learn that being uncivil is not the way to go. His first response is usually to threaten, rather than engage. He is not a good ambassador for this project and most likely causes people to stay away from editing. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- "beyond the pale" is a phrase I personally avoid using, for several reasons. cygnis insignis 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- It has a fairly innocuous origin, unless there's something I'm missing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: I wish our sister site would use citations, but the talk had a helpful link to some usage Hist. Ireland. Moore, 1837 cygnis insignis 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It has a fairly innocuous origin, unless there's something I'm missing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I've now looked at the entire situation. PackMecEng's OP failed to make a case, but looking at the entire situation on the article and on the entire talk page going back nearly a year, the edit-warring, socking, bullying, and name-calling (both in posts and in edit summaries) all taken together are indeed actionable. Malik has long used his alternate account (MShabazz) to perpetuate edit wars and evade 3RR; he has done so here and edited logged out as well in the edit wars. I believe we need to institute a restriction on him against ever using his alternate account or editing logged out in an edit war, on pain of a lengthy block. I also think we need to institute a very firm restriction on any bullying, threatening, sarcasm, and name-calling, on pain of a very long block. It's a shame, because Malik used to be a mild-mannered straight-shooter, but a few years ago he drastically changed his on-wiki behavior. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Malik has long used his alternate account (MShabazz) to perpetuate edit wars and evade 3RR; he has done so here and edited logged out as well in the edit wars. Im sorry, but thats just not true. There is no evasion of 3RR on that article, and no evidence that the IP in question is his. Im not defending the language, but the comments on using the alternate account to evade anything are just not true. nableezy - 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- [edit conflict with Nableezy] Depends what you mean. Judging by others' words here, "using main account and alternate account together in a single edit-war" might be a good restriction, but if he were involved in an edit-war with the alternate account only, we should treat it the same as if he were involved in an edit-war with the main account only. The opposite interpretation of your words, sanctioning him more harshly if he engaged in an edit-war using his alternate account only than if he engaged in an edit-war using his main account only, wouldn't make sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- We already have rules on this; all our conduct rules, including EW and 3RR, apply to the person not the account. If Malik made 4 reverts with the accounts combined in 24 hours he broke the 3RR. There is one 3RR violation in the history, as far as I looked anyway, but the reverts were all with his main account. I dont see where he used the combined accounts to try to step past the limit though. nableezy - 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Stick to the point, please.
|
---|
For your information, Cygnis insignis, I've been using the name "Malik Shabazz" online for close to 30 years, longer than your friend Malik Zulu Shabazz has been using the name. If you have something to say about me, say it. Don't engage in innuendo and smear tactics. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|
- @Malik Shabazz:: Could you indicate if the IP you are accused of socking from was in fact you? If so, could you explain why you edited twice as an IP in that situation? Hobit (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't make either edit. First, I don't edit while logged out. Second, a review of my edit summaries (not just this account, but especially those made using my User:MShabazz account, which I use on my phone) would show that I rarely if ever abbreviate numbers using digits. (In other words, I would have written "tens", not "10s", as in the second IP edit summary.) I have never made a secret of the fact that I live in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within 150 miles of Toledo and 200 miles of Detroit, which is evidently where the two IPs' wireless carriers geolocate. Believe me if you care to, or don't. I don't really care. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- A few things here. One they both geolocate to Akron, Ohio just down the road.[67][68] Also in the past you have made edits while logged out. Though last record I could find of it was a few years back when you were warned against doing it.[69] PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was relying on what was written above about the geolocations, and yes, three years ago during a period of "retirement" from Wikipedia I edited a few times while logged out. I haven't done so since then. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- A few things here. One they both geolocate to Akron, Ohio just down the road.[67][68] Also in the past you have made edits while logged out. Though last record I could find of it was a few years back when you were warned against doing it.[69] PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. It just seemed weird to be debating if it was you or not when, AFAICT, you hadn't addressed the issue. Hobit (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't make either edit. First, I don't edit while logged out. Second, a review of my edit summaries (not just this account, but especially those made using my User:MShabazz account, which I use on my phone) would show that I rarely if ever abbreviate numbers using digits. (In other words, I would have written "tens", not "10s", as in the second IP edit summary.) I have never made a secret of the fact that I live in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within 150 miles of Toledo and 200 miles of Detroit, which is evidently where the two IPs' wireless carriers geolocate. Believe me if you care to, or don't. I don't really care. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to give people one warning here not to edit war at ANI. The next time I see someone revert someone else's edit in this thread, I'm going to block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Swarm is right about the comments being "beyond the pale". A high percentage of Malik Shabazz's posts concerning that article appear to be intended purely as harassment, rather than attempting any constructive discussion. I'm sure a new user would be blocked quickly for this sort of disruption, and while I'm aware that older users are subject to a different standard, this sort of behavior drives away users who want to contribute constructively. I think that some sort of action should be taken here.Worldlywise (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a totally uninvolved non-administrator. Looking at the three links provided by PackMecEng, I agree that they are personal attacks but I disagree that they're beyond the pale. These seem to me like standard fare low-level personal attacks. Not civil, but not shockingly uncivil either. No comment on edit warring or any other behavioral issues. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would consider this a personal attack, saying, "he is a cancer on Wikipedia." diff, to almost echo his statement, I stay away from him, because he is extremely aggressive and almost impossible to deal with and just not a civil person. I am not sure why the admins are not doing anything about it. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have not had a chance to review this Incidents report, but I did just give the user a final warning about engaging in personal attacks. Conducting oneself in this manner is not going to be tolerated. Not by me, at least. El_C 02:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I mean that isnt much different than saying such and such is a POV pusher. (also why does everyone use bullets for indents here?) nableezy - 02:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- That is just not so. Calling someone "a cancer" is very much different. El_C 03:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I dont think so tbh. Putting my own bias aside, and I obviously like Malik and have for many many years, the phrasing "is a cancer on ..." is not mild but not really all that extreme either. See for example [70]. Its just a way of saying X has an extremely bad effect on something. There are things that he has said that I wish he wouldnt, as I think hes giving the people who would like him removed from Wikipedia an easier way of accomplishing that, but this isnt that much different than saying such and such is an extreme POV-pusher. nableezy - 04:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- That is just not so. Calling someone "a cancer" is very much different. El_C 03:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I mean that isnt much different than saying such and such is a POV pusher. (also why does everyone use bullets for indents here?) nableezy - 02:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Not a civil person" that's in itself a personal attack. I would say Malik's comments are not civil but I wouldn't comment on him, himself personally.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty uncivil remark. Calling into question the basic competence of a longtime editor (and administrator) is just a nice way of making a personal attack, and the point Malik Shabazz was making there is valid ("notability" of an event is established by its having an article, but that it should be mentioned in that article does not logically follow). The earlier use of "champ" on that same talk page is also highly uncollegial. But here's the thing: it's a heated debate, and as long as it's not a gutter fight causing wider disruption I don't see why we should step in on either side. PackMecEng, I hope you understand why I think throwing "CIR" into the mix is a low blow. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I can see where you are coming from and will try to improve. I also hope you are not trying to downplay the long term, repeated, and ongoing civility issues with Malik Shabazz correct? PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, my personal opinion is that Malik Shabazz probably should try to tone down the language some. But I am less familiar with his supposed longterm civility issues than with the longterm harassment he receives on our beautiful project: last night I blocked a user (who is not directly involved with this present dispute) after what I consider to be a racist insult against Malik. But there are almost 2,000 administrators on en-wiki, and I don't feel particularly interested in figuring out what's supposed to be wrong with his editing: I am more interested in trying to protect those who are singled out because of racist and other -ist stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I mean a quick look at their block log should be enough or Swarm did a very good job summarizing below. He is far from the victim here and I am saddened to see your response. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I can see where you are coming from and will try to improve. I also hope you are not trying to downplay the long term, repeated, and ongoing civility issues with Malik Shabazz correct? PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note - Malik and (I think) this issue in particular is being discussed on a off-wikipedia forum, with encouragements to "get him". It's entirely plausible that the IP account is someone associated with that site, pretending to be Malik.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've always respected Malik. But it's hard for me to look at the page history, the reversions, the edit summaries, and the comments on the talk page (on an already-contentious topic) and not classify it as anything short of bullying that any normal editor would be blocked for. Then when I see subsequent edit warring and personal attacks while there is an AN/I thread open, that just seems entirely uncaring and unapologetic. Of course we do not want to have to choose between a valuable editor and our behavioral policies and guidelines. But when they've been desysopped, have a block log a mile long, and show no signs of improvement, and can't even bring themselves to stop during the AN/I thread, that just shows me that they've given up completely and that there's no point in doling out more and more rope. It can't go on forever, and it never does. Malik's gotten two "final warnings" for behavior that happened after this AN/I thread. I think that's the best we'll do here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Incompetent editing or toxic POV pushing never seems to trouble administration if those who exemplify it mind their p's and q's, and indeed show a flair for being impeccable, wikiquette-wise(or dumb). It is the simplest way to wreak havoc here. Stick to protocol and sheathe a quiet stiletto of complaint into anyone openly disgruntled by winning exhibitions of good behaviour by deleterious editors. AGF is becoming the default ace up the sleeve of both kinds of wikipedians, meaning that content and its safeguarding are of far less importance to the project than protecting whiners. Before coming here, I thought whingeing about being 'hurt' or 'offended' was something one learnt to leave behind after elementary school. Can anyone point out Shabazz adding false content, spinning tendentious opinions, pushing with monomaniacal fervor an ethnonationalist POV over the last dozen years? I doubt it. The record is of unremittingly austere, principled exclusion or inclusion of matter in sensitive articles depending on what policy governs an issue. He gets pissed off and thinks, to use an Australianism, that bad judgement is a cancer on the knackerbag. He is an exceptionally careful editor whose downgrading from admin to targeted peon is one long story, when not one of administrative disattention or misreading, of trivial technicalities at a failure to be chummy, in disregard of the absolute priority on Wikipedia for manners over matter. Since content conflicts are by the rules beyond the scope of administrative judgement, though any careful vetting of them will show who it is who is culpable of deep POV spinning, admins ignore that content-behavior as beyond their remit and are left only with plaintiff whining about etiquette, meaning the aim is not encyclopedic, but maintaining a recruitment-friendly atmosphere by insisting that we must, above all, be sensitive to any and everyone's capacity to cry hurt, whatever the damage or delay to article construction may be. Of course Malik will get it in the end, which will translate out as just one more gimlet-eyed expert less to monitor the trashing of articles by the incautious, the ignorant or the dyed-in-the-wool true believers (present company, of course, excluded). Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Five_pillars are all part of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Incompetent editing or toxic POV pushing never seems to trouble administration if those who exemplify it mind their p's and q's, and indeed show a flair for being impeccable, wikiquette-wise(or dumb). It is the simplest way to wreak havoc here. Stick to protocol and sheathe a quiet stiletto of complaint into anyone openly disgruntled by winning exhibitions of good behaviour by deleterious editors. AGF is becoming the default ace up the sleeve of both kinds of wikipedians, meaning that content and its safeguarding are of far less importance to the project than protecting whiners. Before coming here, I thought whingeing about being 'hurt' or 'offended' was something one learnt to leave behind after elementary school. Can anyone point out Shabazz adding false content, spinning tendentious opinions, pushing with monomaniacal fervor an ethnonationalist POV over the last dozen years? I doubt it. The record is of unremittingly austere, principled exclusion or inclusion of matter in sensitive articles depending on what policy governs an issue. He gets pissed off and thinks, to use an Australianism, that bad judgement is a cancer on the knackerbag. He is an exceptionally careful editor whose downgrading from admin to targeted peon is one long story, when not one of administrative disattention or misreading, of trivial technicalities at a failure to be chummy, in disregard of the absolute priority on Wikipedia for manners over matter. Since content conflicts are by the rules beyond the scope of administrative judgement, though any careful vetting of them will show who it is who is culpable of deep POV spinning, admins ignore that content-behavior as beyond their remit and are left only with plaintiff whining about etiquette, meaning the aim is not encyclopedic, but maintaining a recruitment-friendly atmosphere by insisting that we must, above all, be sensitive to any and everyone's capacity to cry hurt, whatever the damage or delay to article construction may be. Of course Malik will get it in the end, which will translate out as just one more gimlet-eyed expert less to monitor the trashing of articles by the incautious, the ignorant or the dyed-in-the-wool true believers (present company, of course, excluded). Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have now blocked Malik Shabazz for 72 hours for calling Sandstein (?) "corrupt and incompetent". This after I warned him about personal attacks when he called Icewhiz "a cancer on Wikipedia". El_C 20:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, another 72 hour block for PAs. Why apply the same length block as the previous ones for the same issues, when the previous ones obviously had little to no effect. This should be indef. Valeince (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because I have not reviewed this Incidents report closely yet to make such a significant decision. El_C 22:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Edit warring? Free pass. Personal attacks? Free pass. AN/I thread? Free pass. Edit warring in the AN/I thread? Fine, warning. Continued personal attacks? Alright, fine...warning. Even still continued personal attacks? Okay, fine, we'll block, for not even half of the duration of the most recent block, which is still extraordinary special treatment. And the immediate response? Someone's calling the block fascist. Lol. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I say that disallowing a user from calling an admin "corrupt" is fascist. Ive said it here before too. Admins have special privileges here, and in any non-fascist organization that would allow for criticism of their use of those privileges. Including by calling them corrupt. Yall seemingly want to create this glorified caste that none of us lowly editors can speak ill on. Well, sorry, but to me that is indeed fascist. nableezy - 23:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Don't forget the editors lined up to argue that "He is a cancer on Wikipedia" is either not a personal attack, or it's OK to say because someone said that about Trump once, and anyone who feels otherwise apparently doesn't grasp the English language. Ever notice the most uncivil editors are also the most sensitive to criticism, the least able to deal with disagreement? – Levivich 22:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, dont forget about those of us saying the phrasing "is a cancer on" is fairly common phrase that appears regularly. Or that some editors see fit to lobby for blocks privately instead of commenting here while dishonestly slanting the evidence. Lets not forget these things. nableezy - 23:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't you learn in grade school that just because another child says something mean to someone doesn't make it OK for you to then say it? – Levivich 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ thats just special. I give a number of examples of this exact phrasing being used in polite conversation but "back to basics" is your response. Yes, Corey Booker is a man-child saying a mean thing when he says "the war on drugs is a cancer on the soul of our nation". You may not be familiar with the phrasing, but that does not make it an outrageous personal attack. You are taking your ignorance of the phrase to be evidence of its maliciousness. No, it is evidence of something, just not that. nableezy - 23:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's one thing to use it in reference to a concept or inanimate object, but it's quite another to use it with regards to a person. Sure, it's a common phrase, but that doesn't make it civil. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- My point was that it is not the outrageous attack that some people are making it out to be. All it means is that the such and such has an extremely bad effect, to the point of poisoning it from within, on the target. Like I said above, it isnt that much different from saying such and such is an extreme POV-pusher. nableezy - 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's time to drop the stick over whether "He is a cancer on Wikipedia" is a personal attack. You may feel it isn't, but others agree with El_C: it is self evident. – Levivich 23:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the favored argument of somebody who has no evidence to back his position: it is self-evident. nableezy - 23:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's time to drop the stick over whether "He is a cancer on Wikipedia" is a personal attack. You may feel it isn't, but others agree with El_C: it is self evident. – Levivich 23:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- My point was that it is not the outrageous attack that some people are making it out to be. All it means is that the such and such has an extremely bad effect, to the point of poisoning it from within, on the target. Like I said above, it isnt that much different from saying such and such is an extreme POV-pusher. nableezy - 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's one thing to use it in reference to a concept or inanimate object, but it's quite another to use it with regards to a person. Sure, it's a common phrase, but that doesn't make it civil. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ thats just special. I give a number of examples of this exact phrasing being used in polite conversation but "back to basics" is your response. Yes, Corey Booker is a man-child saying a mean thing when he says "the war on drugs is a cancer on the soul of our nation". You may not be familiar with the phrasing, but that does not make it an outrageous personal attack. You are taking your ignorance of the phrase to be evidence of its maliciousness. No, it is evidence of something, just not that. nableezy - 23:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't you learn in grade school that just because another child says something mean to someone doesn't make it OK for you to then say it? – Levivich 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, dont forget about those of us saying the phrasing "is a cancer on" is fairly common phrase that appears regularly. Or that some editors see fit to lobby for blocks privately instead of commenting here while dishonestly slanting the evidence. Lets not forget these things. nableezy - 23:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I was just not aware of all of that. I did not feel I was informed enough about the user's history to block for longer or indefinitely. If someone more informed than myself wishes to modify the block upwards, I have no objection and they do not need to consult me in anyway. El_C 22:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Edit warring? Free pass. Personal attacks? Free pass. AN/I thread? Free pass. Edit warring in the AN/I thread? Fine, warning. Continued personal attacks? Alright, fine...warning. Even still continued personal attacks? Okay, fine, we'll block, for not even half of the duration of the most recent block, which is still extraordinary special treatment. And the immediate response? Someone's calling the block fascist. Lol. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- LeonardMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has continuously uploaded copyrighted images without license to Wikipedia despite multiple warnings not to do so. They were previously blocked on Commons for this same behavior, which is how they started uploading directly to enwiki instead. In addition to the copyrighted images, most if not all of this user's page creations, including redirect overwrites, have been without sources, often leading to either an A7 speedy deletion, PROD, AfD, or restoration of the previous redirect, all of which has resulted in numerous user's times wasted, myself having wasted the most in making these efforts to stop this user's behavior. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was about to leave a 'welcome' message on the user's talk page when I noticed this thread had been opened. I don't know any of their history on commons, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but when I looked through their talk page I saw template after template, relating to draftifications, CSD requests, COPYVIO stuff etc - but nobody had actually tried to talk to them. This isn't meant to imply any criticism of you, JalenFolf - I'm one of the people who have templated them myself too when I AfDed an unsourced article about an album. I wonder whether a more personal approach might be helpful in getting them to change their behaviour, before we reach for the block hammer? I'll leave a note now. GirthSummit (blether) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours with an advice that they should start clarifying immediately. If they don't respond within 24 hours, I'll increase the block till they start discussing. Lourdes 02:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let's see how they respond to personal, non-template messages before doling out extended blocks. And please give them more than 24 hours to respond...many people do not edit Wikipedia every day and it is not realistic to expect people with jobs and families to respond within 24 hours to a talk page message on a website. Wikipedia is not the most important thing in our editors' lives. It's a hobby, not a profession. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Liz. A little patience would be a good thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's actually important to save Wikipedia of copyright violations immediately rather than give fighting chances to editors who have not replied to any past messages. I don't advocate waiting for more than 24 hours normally, especially for editors with jobs and families who display this kind of irresponsibility to the project. Yet, because it's Liz and the Doctor, I'll wait. Lourdes 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let's see how they respond to personal, non-template messages before doling out extended blocks. And please give them more than 24 hours to respond...many people do not edit Wikipedia every day and it is not realistic to expect people with jobs and families to respond within 24 hours to a talk page message on a website. Wikipedia is not the most important thing in our editors' lives. It's a hobby, not a profession. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours with an advice that they should start clarifying immediately. If they don't respond within 24 hours, I'll increase the block till they start discussing. Lourdes 02:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Lourdes and Liz: Unfortunately, LeonardMoney did not change since the previous block. He's back to creating subjects recently deleted by discussion (See Pagandom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagandom (Band)). Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Shadegan
I've been trying to make him use the talkpage for his unjustified reverts[71][72][73]. I've cleaned up the years long messes in those three articles, but he keeps reverting to a version which is based on dead-links and unattainable references. I can see in the talkpages on various sites that Shadegan has for years now ignored everyone (incl. admins) in his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Feyli Kurds, Feylis (previously Feyli Lurs) and Iraqi Lurs are all about the same people. I merged them to make one article based on academia, which he seems to have reverted now with no explanation. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Laks (Iran)[74] too. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t expect the user to discuss his edits. He’a more interested in conspiracy theories[75] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Laks (Iran)[74] too. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really following what's happening (haven't had a chance to catch up), but I did protect the articles for three days. I also left Shadegan a warning about explaining their edits better and refraining from casting aspersions. El_C 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I know Shadegan has been around (because they had thanked me for the protection), but they have so far failed to respond to my note. So, I've taken the unusual step of editing the protected pages against their version. Hopefully, that will motivate them to engage in the discussion. El_C 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your reason for changing some revisions to some pages in order to nudge Shadegan's participation in a relevant discussion regarding the dispute. In fact, I've been tempted to do the same thing on numerous occasions where an editor involved isn't discussing the matter, and editing the involved page would certainly change that (though I've never acted on it and done so). Just be careful; you obviously don't want to be seen as "taking sides" or "favoring one revision over another". ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't even know what the revisions are about or how they differ from one another, so no risk of that. But what I won't let happen is to have the Kurdish set of articles turn into a sort of free-for-all, which unfortunately, has been the trend lately. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P
User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.
For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.
He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs)
Problematic IP
Please could an admin look into the edits of this IP. Aside from seemingly only having one word they use as their edit summaries (winner), they also repeatedly add unsourced info to articles despite repeated requests to refrain on their talk page. It should be noted that these were removed by said editor here and here. Thanks. Robvanvee 17:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked by NJA. Cheers! Robvanvee 17:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can’t say what they’re doing makes much sense. There were enough recent notices of their talk page to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing and they did have not. I therefore was comfortable blocking for 36 hours for disruptive editing and encouraged them to use proper edit summaries, sources and talk pages after the block (via block log message). NJA | talk 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- NJA, please could you look here. Same guy, same edit summaries and same unsourced changes. Different IP number. Thanks. Robvanvee 18:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly the same individual. I have blocked this IP for 31 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. Robvanvee 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly the same individual. I have blocked this IP for 31 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- NJA, please could you look here. Same guy, same edit summaries and same unsourced changes. Different IP number. Thanks. Robvanvee 18:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can’t say what they’re doing makes much sense. There were enough recent notices of their talk page to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing and they did have not. I therefore was comfortable blocking for 36 hours for disruptive editing and encouraged them to use proper edit summaries, sources and talk pages after the block (via block log message). NJA | talk 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:AIV policy question
I reported User:Dormasheen, User:Mike1819, and User:BloopyBloppy123456 to WP:AIV here, here, and here as they were all created by vandalism-only accounts before they were indefinitely blocked. In the past, I have taken such accounts to SPI because it could run afoul of WP:SOCK but they were dismissed. I have taken ~5 to AIV in the past for this and all of which resulted in a block. In this wave of reports, 2/3 were obviously the same person (Mike1819 was created by Mikep1819 and BloopyBloppy123456 was created by BloopyBloppy). These 3 reports were dismissed by NJA with a claim that there is no reason to block based on policy as seen here. As NJA posted on my talk page,
- User:Mike1819: created by User:Mikep1819 at 2019-05-27T13:59:14. Mikep1819 was blocked at 2019-05-27T14:13:28.
- User:BloopyBloppy123456 was created by User:BloopyBloppy at 2019-05-28T12:45:57. BloopyBloppy was blocked at 2019-05-28T12:56:26.
- User:Dormasheen: created by User:Username489 at 2019-05-26T01:34:04. Username489 was blocked at 2019-05-26T02:08:46.
This is not a question of administrator conduct, just a policy related question. I am submitting this here as suggested in the brief dialogue we had on WP:AIV. Am I in the wrong here or is this based entirely on the admin's interpretation? Kb03 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit: User:BloopyBloppy123456 was blocked for block evasion as I was writing this) Kb03 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- See Special:Permalink/899241560#AIV_submissions for my response on this. NJA | talk 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just because one hasn't used the other sleepers doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, They've shown the propensity to do it and thus all accounts should be blocked and tagged. Wrong venue for that but could've been resolved easier Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked on what justification and using which tags? The subsequent block of User:BloopyBloppy123456 is appropriate as they evaded the block, but what’s the justification for the former two? NJA | talk 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well you admit on the link you put that the original account was blocked correct? They used one of their accounts as a sock puppet and that account was blocked correct? So two accounts blocked and several sleepers? If I am still on the right track then why wouldn't we block the other sleeper accounts and tag them as sockpuppets? That's like telling a shooter that since you only used this gun we won't take these four or 5 others. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) The accounts were created by vandals, so it's reasonable to expect that once the autoblock expires, the new accounts will be used for vandalism, too. I would sockblock them as sleeper accounts, but YMMV. —DoRD (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's precisely why we have sleeper checks, to block sleeper accounts that are likely to become active once the autoblock expires. It falls squarely within WP:PREVENTATIVE.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think it appropriate to block accounts made before any indefinite block is given and where the account has made no edits at all is good practice. No real sock puppetry has occurred as they had not yet tried to abuse multiple accounts. If that’s what is happening though then Kb03’s initial report should be re-considered. NJA | talk 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- We do this all the time. If the main account is indefinitely blocked, the other accounts are blocked as well. Sure, socking hasn't technically occurred yet, but the first edit by the other accounts would instantly be in violation of policy. This is also the basis behind sleeper checks and blocking of unused accounts revealed through CheckUser. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think it appropriate to block accounts made before any indefinite block is given and where the account has made no edits at all is good practice. No real sock puppetry has occurred as they had not yet tried to abuse multiple accounts. If that’s what is happening though then Kb03’s initial report should be re-considered. NJA | talk 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's precisely why we have sleeper checks, to block sleeper accounts that are likely to become active once the autoblock expires. It falls squarely within WP:PREVENTATIVE.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked on what justification and using which tags? The subsequent block of User:BloopyBloppy123456 is appropriate as they evaded the block, but what’s the justification for the former two? NJA | talk 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just because one hasn't used the other sleepers doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, They've shown the propensity to do it and thus all accounts should be blocked and tagged. Wrong venue for that but could've been resolved easier Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: It is clearly not routine enough otherwise I would not have declined three AIV reports on this basis. Can it be confirmed specifically what blocking template and tags an admin is recommended to use that is appropriate in the exact instance of users User:Mike1819 and User:Dormasheen? FYI I do not plan to do this and another admin is asked to re-consider Kb03’s routine request that I declined. I am interested however re tags and templates to be used. NJA | talk 20:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, as an aside, I’d argue Checkuser sleeper blocking is not the same as this exact scenario as that means blocking other accounts confirmed or likely connected to a user who has abused multiple accounts. In this case, I argue, no abuse of multiple accounts, evasion, etc occurred (aside from one who was correctly blocked for evasion). NJA | talk 20:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's an abuse of multiple accounts. This happens frequent enough, and as Ponyo stated above, this is why we do check for sleepers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I blocked them using the dropdown option for socking in the system dialogue, and didn't give a block notice or tag them. You could also custom type in a block rationale linking to whomever the master is "Alt of indef blocked User:Example". Block notice and tags aren't needed since the creation log makes it obvious and they're supposed to appeal from the main account anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK got it. All blocked for “abuse of multiple accounts". The last question Kb03 asked is whether AIV was the proper forum for reporting accounts with no edits (edit filter, deleted, or otherwise) or if there’s a more appropriate forum? NJA | talk 20:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Editors are often requested to report obvious cases of socking to AIV in order to lessen the burden at SPI, which is really designed for the review of more intricate cases of socking as opposed to WP:DUCK throw-away vandal accounts. I'm guessing this is why Kb03 was feeling frustrated as doors were being closed regardless of where they looked for help. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I recommend Kb03 take this here as I felt AIV wasn’t appropriate. I could not identify an "active, obvious, and persistent vandalism requiring an immediate block”. Also, as at the time of the AIV reports were made, none of them edited wikipedia at all and therefore I would be surprised if Kb03 "felt any doors were closed” (they haven’t said that anyhow). The question remains is AIV appropriate. NJA | talk 20:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't assuming Kb03 had been pointed in several directions regarding this particular case, only that they have been receiving differing instructions from different admins in general regarding reporting obvious socking cases. They state this in their opening paragraph "I have taken such accounts to SPI because it could run afoul of WP:SOCK but they were dismissed. I have taken ~5 to AIV in the past for this and all of which resulted in a block.". I don't think anyone is in the wrong here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ponyo I agree entirely with "I don't think anyone is in the wrong here". I started this primarily to get a discussion going as to how this should be handled and if I need to change how I handle this. NJA I don't think you did anything wrong at all and I appreciate your timely responses. Kb03 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually this is the second inciddent I've observed with User:NJA at the AVI. I will note that both times I would have preferred different actions but they are open to discussion and changing course if needed. This also being sparing with the blockhammer so all in all a decent admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment. I like to think I’m better than decent, but I’ll take it ;) I am curious of the other instance there was action you would have preferred me to take (just curious)? I think the whole block thing is sorted now (though I have reservations), but it ties into whether AIV is appropriate. After all I rarely get too involved in SPI forums, but I do block obvious socks and tag them often enough. Re AIV and these reports, I can confirm I agree with Jayron32 (see his statement below). AIV is clear what it’s for, and the reports I declined today would be declined by perhaps quite a few admins patrolling AIV. This is not because of any underlying good reason to block
(again, I’m not so sure), but that the reports were not reports of ongoing, obvious and urgent vandalism. NJA | talk 21:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment. I like to think I’m better than decent, but I’ll take it ;) I am curious of the other instance there was action you would have preferred me to take (just curious)? I think the whole block thing is sorted now (though I have reservations), but it ties into whether AIV is appropriate. After all I rarely get too involved in SPI forums, but I do block obvious socks and tag them often enough. Re AIV and these reports, I can confirm I agree with Jayron32 (see his statement below). AIV is clear what it’s for, and the reports I declined today would be declined by perhaps quite a few admins patrolling AIV. This is not because of any underlying good reason to block
- Actually this is the second inciddent I've observed with User:NJA at the AVI. I will note that both times I would have preferred different actions but they are open to discussion and changing course if needed. This also being sparing with the blockhammer so all in all a decent admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ponyo I agree entirely with "I don't think anyone is in the wrong here". I started this primarily to get a discussion going as to how this should be handled and if I need to change how I handle this. NJA I don't think you did anything wrong at all and I appreciate your timely responses. Kb03 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't assuming Kb03 had been pointed in several directions regarding this particular case, only that they have been receiving differing instructions from different admins in general regarding reporting obvious socking cases. They state this in their opening paragraph "I have taken such accounts to SPI because it could run afoul of WP:SOCK but they were dismissed. I have taken ~5 to AIV in the past for this and all of which resulted in a block.". I don't think anyone is in the wrong here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I recommend Kb03 take this here as I felt AIV wasn’t appropriate. I could not identify an "active, obvious, and persistent vandalism requiring an immediate block”. Also, as at the time of the AIV reports were made, none of them edited wikipedia at all and therefore I would be surprised if Kb03 "felt any doors were closed” (they haven’t said that anyhow). The question remains is AIV appropriate. NJA | talk 20:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Editors are often requested to report obvious cases of socking to AIV in order to lessen the burden at SPI, which is really designed for the review of more intricate cases of socking as opposed to WP:DUCK throw-away vandal accounts. I'm guessing this is why Kb03 was feeling frustrated as doors were being closed regardless of where they looked for help. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK got it. All blocked for “abuse of multiple accounts". The last question Kb03 asked is whether AIV was the proper forum for reporting accounts with no edits (edit filter, deleted, or otherwise) or if there’s a more appropriate forum? NJA | talk 20:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, as an aside, I’d argue Checkuser sleeper blocking is not the same as this exact scenario as that means blocking other accounts confirmed or likely connected to a user who has abused multiple accounts. In this case, I argue, no abuse of multiple accounts, evasion, etc occurred (aside from one who was correctly blocked for evasion). NJA | talk 20:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think there are two different questions here: 1) Whether or not AIV is the appropriate place to handle these kind of reports and 2) Whether we should block these accounts when we become aware of them. I'll leave the second one as too nuanced to make definitive statements (for example, when someone becomes blocked quickly for vandalism, creates a new account, and never vandalizes again vs. when someone is creating a sockfarm for the purpose of committing widespread disruption are clearly two different issues). However, on the first one, I'd suggest that it really doesn't belong at AIV, and instead should be handled through a venue like WP:AN or WP:ANI. Here's why: AIV is really designed for rapid, obvious vandalism. When I respond at AIV, I make two quick clicks: the contributions page and the user talk page, to confirm that a) they are currently vandalizing and b) they have been warned. If both of those conditions are met, I block, and if they are not, I don't. AIV is designed for that kind of process. It is not designed for investigations or explanations of any sort. It should be the sort of thing where looking only at the edits themselves with absolutely no explanation at all, it is obvious a block is needed. If one has to actually explain why a block is needed, or if one needs an admin or checkuser to do any sort of investigation, then AIV is not appropriate. ANI exists for those purposes. Now, does that mean that sometimes such reports still result in a block at AIV? Sure, but it's not really what AIV is designed for, and we really should encourage people to use these process correctly so they can run effeciently. AIV should be a "speedy block" process and should not need any explanation at all. I would have declined these reports solely for that purpose, without prejudice against reporting the situation more properly at WP:ANI or elsewhere where it could be more properly dealt with. --Jayron32 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Jayron32 I agree entirely with what you said, although it seems like using ANI to report a possibly autoblocked alt account is a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail. Kb03 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Speaking to the general issue of AIV vs ANI, I completely agree that AIV is not the place for long-winded explanations or non-urgent matters, but I usually prefer to report to AIV when I can explain myself in one sentence or less, for these reasons:
- WP:DENY. Posting here makes a scene. And since you have to notify the user, they know about it. By posting here, you give the vandal the attention that they so crave. This page is archived forever, often preserving the vandal's name or a description of their edits. Reports at AIV are quickly buried in the gigantic history, and the only attention the vandal gets is the block notice.
- Non-admins don't "clerk" AIV. On this page everyone has an opinion. Sometimes I think people pick threads here completely at random, carefully search for any minor problem with the OPs post, and shout "BOOMERANG!" for the lulz. This is a page where people are out for blood, and there's always a risk that it might be yours.
- By the standard given above (
absolutely no explanation at all
), I shouldn't be making reports at AIV with the explanation of "See also filter log", or "Blatant block evasion by 127.0.0.1", or "Making identical edits to the ones they were blocked for twice previously, no warning given", etc. None of these require an investigation as such, nor reading through a tedious WP:WALLOFTEXT explanation, just one or two extra clicks to verify that the report isn't BS. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC) - Jayron32, That's about my workflow as well. If there's a multi-sentence explanation needed, or if there isn't obvious vandalism in the latest handful edits, it probably doesn't belong at AIV. SQLQuery me! 13:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, if I see that a parent account (who I've blocked for being an obvious VOA) has created any child accounts like this, I apply the same block to all of the child accounts as well. Users like these who only edit in order to be purposefully disruptive and add vandalism to Wikipedia will typically use the child account(s) they created in order to do the same. If someone makes a report to AIV stating that they're reporting a child account of a parent account that was recently created and recently blocked due to being a VOA, I don't mind at all and I'll typically handle the matter appropriately. Is it really that big of a deal? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I jump in with another "should I go to AIV" question? Asked already at AIV but under a report and dropped when report processed. At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu is identified a list of IP ranges characteristically used by the banned user. Today I find more of the same user on new IP 172.85.185.67. (Oh, same area, but not (yet) on list - new house?)
Should these IPs - when recognizably used by the banned user - be immediately short-term blocked? Sometimes the IPs are used multiple days. Shenme (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have trolls whose IP addresses I block on sight only because I am familiar enough with them. It's important to remember that most admins are not familiar with most long-term trolls, so even IF you find it obvious, reporting such things at AIV will only work IF the first admin to happen upon your report is also familiar with the troll in question. It's best, in those cases, to either use WP:ANI OR if you know admins who know the troll in question, to hit them up on their talk page. --Jayron32 15:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In direct relation to the above vandalism from the socks of Fangusu, I have found these two edits which appear to also be from Fangusu and appear to me to be vandalism. The page is locked so I am not able to revert them, and I was blocked for reverting other edits. Can a different editor please review the two edits in light of Fangusu's vandalism pattern and determine if they should be reverted or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898824411 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898792262
This is not vandalism. Please do not remove my comments. If you object to this post, please talk to me instead of blocking me and then ignoring me for a day. I am not here to vandalize. 2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: As you are the administrator who suggested that people post on this forum for complaints like this, can you please watch this? 2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising
See this article for an explanation: https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-imagens/2174261
The users in question should probably be banned, all changes reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gmortaia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adamjonnes80
I have not tried talking to them because they work for a marketing firm, and are not good faith editors.
These pages still have branded advertising in their photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarita_State_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pico_das_Agulhas_Negras&oldid=894745899
I'm not sure if other pages were affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.47.11 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting removing decent photos because the people in the photo are wearing a particular coat a person could only identify if they know the manufacturer? Do you not believe that these photos are the editor's own work? I will admit the ADAGE article is galling. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Some links: Gmortaia (talk · contribs · block log), Fhpatucci (talk · contribs · block log), Flanobre (talk · contribs · block log), Gabriel F A Rodriguez (talk · contribs · block log), Adamjonnes80 (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The users have no declaration of their affiliation with the marketing campaign or the comapny on their userpage, on the talkpage of the articles they edited, or in the edit summaries. In direct violation of the Terms of Use as per WP:PAID. The edit summaries say things like "Add a recent photography that was taken last month". The Video in the AdAge article describes their actual motivation - "we hacked the results" and "we switched the wikipedia photos for ours". The images are indeed pretty. But they are undisclosed paid advocacy. The images should be kept on commons of course - we can be quite certain they're uploaded as free-licensed works by the copyright holders! - but the users who edited them into articles are in direct breach of the undisclosed paid advocacy policy and should not be allowed to continue. Wittylama 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention:
"According to the agency, the biggest obstacle of the campaign was to update the photos without attracting attention of Wikipedia moderators to sustain the brand’s presence as long as possible."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention:
- (Non-administrator comment)Problem: I'm not certain these are, in fact, decent photos - I suspect there's some photoshopping going on. Compare File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg, for example. If that's the case, that completely taints the photos as far as I'm concerned, and I have to wonder if they do in fact have the rights to those images. creffett (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- They photoshoppped their backpack into the shot? OK, nevermind, they got to go. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- The users have no declaration of their affiliation with the marketing campaign or the comapny on their userpage, on the talkpage of the articles they edited, or in the edit summaries. In direct violation of the Terms of Use as per WP:PAID. The edit summaries say things like "Add a recent photography that was taken last month". The Video in the AdAge article describes their actual motivation - "we hacked the results" and "we switched the wikipedia photos for ours". The images are indeed pretty. But they are undisclosed paid advocacy. The images should be kept on commons of course - we can be quite certain they're uploaded as free-licensed works by the copyright holders! - but the users who edited them into articles are in direct breach of the undisclosed paid advocacy policy and should not be allowed to continue. Wittylama 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since these are freely licensed on Commons, we could keep the images, but subtly photoshop the text "Patagonia" or "Columbia" on the clothing or backpack over the "North Face" logo every time we find it. This is better than removing the image from the articleor cropping out the human, because (a) it disincentivizes the ad agency from doing it again, while (b) doing no damage to the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that the root issue here is the fact that the images have company logos on clothing or products within these images. The root of the issue here was the intended purpose that these images were uploaded and added in order to serve, which was clearly not to improve the encyclopedia but to inject advertising in a deceptive fashion and in order to avoid scrutiny and sneak it past the typical patrols and checks that are made in order to detect and remove such violations. Sure, we can use the licensing to remove the logos and we'd be completely fine in regards to copyright. I guess the questions that I'm asking myself are: Do these images serve an encyclopedic purpose? Would removing the logos serve to be beneficial? Are we rewarding bad behavior and inadvertently opening the door for more abuse in this area by leaving the images as-is and keeping them to use on articles? I don't think that we should keep the images as-is and use them on any projects by principle, because of the original reason that they were uploaded here (by "here", I mean to Commons) in the first place. However, it could be easily argued in rebuttal that we've kept content and articles that have been added by banned and blocked sock puppet users in numerous instances in the past and despite "the principle". Sorry... just rattling off my thoughts here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Also at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#North Face product placement. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Too bad ADAGE does not take comments or we could add, "GOT YA! - Wikipedia editors" to the end of the article. The company rep sound so smug. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- They do, however, have a facebook page where I've already left several comments on the thread about this article: https://www.facebook.com/AdAge/posts/10156105251185880. Wittylama 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- See also this category over on Commons. I identified at least one additional accounts involved from pt.wikipedia, Ligiamendes04. --Krinkle (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
We ran a CU in Portuguese Wikipedia and, as expected, all the accounts involved are sockpuppets. JMagalhães (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
A note about Commons: Wikipedians should appreciate that Commons does not make editorial judgements about how, whether or where images are used on Wikipedia. Likewise, Wikipedia should not make curatorial judgements about what Commons hosts. By all means comment and vote on Commons, but do so as a Commoner, appreciating what that project is about and its different values, not with your outraged Wikipedian hat on. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. I see people voting delete or recommending the images be blurred or cropped because some editors have misbehaved on Wikipedia. Commons has lots of photos donated by companies, organisations, agents, etc. Many will include a brand name or logo and we do not blur logos. Commons isn't censored for logos. If the files are believed to be copyvios then they'll be deleted by normal policy.
The suggested vandalism by Floquenbeam could lead to a block and could even result in a legal complaint by the rival firms they are suggesting to use -- trademark logos are not playthings for wiki wars. Commons policy on overwriting files disallows editors making controversial changes if overwriting. Blurring out a logo because you are pissed off about the ad agency is not acceptable. I'm sure you can find other images to use to illustrate articles. -- Colin°Talk 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Don't ping me just to make sure I see your fuckwitted accusations of vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin°Talk 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yikes, agreed, that is absolutely not an okay temperament from any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. I'll also note that the proposed swapping is a terrible idea not just because of the Common's rules, but also because of Wikipedia's. The goal here is to be neutral, not to retaliate against any entity that violates our ideals, and not to introduce inaccuracies of any sort. - Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the comment wasn't necessary on Floquenbeam's part, but I also don't see any evidence behind the accusation you made towards him with vandalism to images on Commons... where has he actually done this? Discussions or proposals regarding the modifications to images - even if the ideas are bad or even terrible - do not constitute vandalism at all. Please do not use such words to point fingers at other editors like this unless they've actually committed such edits and you have the evidence to show that they did so and with that intent or purpose. It only makes discussions like these become heated and angry (as it clearly did), which degrades everything that we're trying to work together as a community to resolve. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeahhhh... I have to step in and agree that this wasn't a comment that complies with Wikipedia's policy on civility and the principle with treating others with respect... The accusations of vandalism may be completely unfounded and silly (I haven't looked into it myself yet), but regardless - we shouldn't stoop to anyone's level and respond with incivility and heated remarks like this. It degrades the discussion as a whole and it puts a negative mark on everyone involved here. :-( Remember that this discussion involves an issue regarding a very large corporation and is gaining media attention and coverage externally... this discussion can easily be linked to from these external sources given some digging, and comments that are uncivil are definitely not things that we want to be adding to such an involved discussion... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin°Talk 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm tempted to ask for a community ban for the accounts involved, given the comments about the pt.wp checkuser results above and the fact that they were doing this because nobody on any project was paying any attention. We can't sstop it now, but this should send a strong message to anybody else considering black-hat SEO: We will make your ability to edit Wikipedia very difficult if not impossible if you refuse to act ethically. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I count six accounts that have been indeffed on both en and pt for WP:UPE violations, and one of them was also indeffed on Commons for sockpuppetry. - Eureka Lott 20:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh boy, that's not good to hear. I think we should keep an eye on this and see if more developments surface regarding sock puppetry and whether or not any of this continues. If it stops like The North Face said that it would, then it stops. If that's the case, then perfect... we can hopefully put this down as a really crappy incident on their part and begin to move on from this. If it doesn't and more issues surface, or if more accounts are created and used in this fashion, then that's obviously a completely different story and considering a formal ban would definitely be reasonable. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Article on The Verge
North Face tried to scam Wikipedia to get its products to the top of Google search
The company published their own video about how they used these photos to manipulate Wikipedia as a way to promote their products. They're basically bragging about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Register's headline is Egg on North Face: Wikipedia furious after glamp-wear giant swaps article pics for sneaky ad shots – and even brags about it in a video and the subhead is "'We hacked the results to reach one of the most difficult places: The top of the world’s largest search engine'". 92.19.26.27 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Coverage has spread to many other outlets today, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and opinion commentary at places like Fast Company. - Sdkb (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Community ban for Gmortaia and any other employees or subcontractors of Leo Burnett Tailor Made
Considering the blatant breach of trust here and the fact that they did their damnedest to try and fly under the radar as undisclosed paid editors, alongside the sockpuppetry here (to say nothing of Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia) I am proposing that any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made, including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. This is beyond unacceptable, and I don't trust them not to try it again given that it worked the first time around. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support, with modifications: Quite frankly, I still believe our policy regarding any sort of paid editing (aside from Wikipedians-in-Residence) is far too lenient. If we are a volunteer project, shouldn't everyone be, you know, a volunteer? But that's a discussion for another time. In this case, matters like this indeed warrant a community ban. If I may offer an expanded version of the CBAN, as follows, as an alternative, perhaps: [A]ny and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face, including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. Is this acceptable? (Though it was Leo Burnett that orchestrated the ad campaign, it was done at the behest of The North Face, after all.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have little objection to it. After all, the North Face did specifically commission them for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Close this thread and stop giving the ad agency more attention. They did the stupid thing, they got their 15 minutes, it's been cleaned up, it's over, let's move on. – Levivich 04:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No let's not. "Move on" is what politicians say when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, while anyone else doing that would face consequences. There should be consequences here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Help
Please someone help me to resolve this problem: User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP. Personally for me, this is a bit rude, and, continuesly trying to let me down by telling about my English or any other stuff. Improving articles is something else. Thanks. He/She may be trying to help me, but, difficult for me to response. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Shevonsilva, you need to be more specific about what you want administrators to do about your problem. If your disagreement is with Imaginatorium you need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page as the bright message says to do when you posted your comment here. This discussion can't continue until you do so. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your talk page claims there are various problems with your edit. One claim is: "
Others are plain wrong, because the[y] link to different regions. Northern Netherlands, for example, goes to a political division, which has nothing to do with COROP
". What is your response to that claim? Repeatedly editing articles in a way that introduces errors is very disruptive. Not responding to claims that the errors occur is also very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Update:
- User_talk:Shevonsilva#About_vacuous_articles
- User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuck_(unit)
- [[76]]
etc.
In above, Imaginatorium has repeatedly tried to confirm about my English language skills and placed a lot of personal opinions on it, and, was unable to point-out any Errors but criticized my English (personally I believe she/he has a difficulty of dealing with longer sentences [or may be something else due to stress, I do not know]). This is a clear disturbance for me as it is clearly letting me down, and, I find very difficult to respond those comments.
Additionally, by referring the articles below too, I suspect Johnuniq, Reyk, Reywas92 and Imaginatorium are working as a group for a common purpose in order to back up each other whether they are right or wrong.
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circular_millimetre
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_districts_of_Sughd
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Khatlon
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rest_of_Groningen
These people are always trying to delete articles: I really do not know what is really going on with them (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- What I care about is errors in articles, particularly errors that are not easy to find. Please respond to the point in my comment above at 07:56, 29 May 2019. That is one small point from the large number of issues that have been raised—why not respond? Either explain that it was not an error, or acknowledge the problem and undertake to avoid similar problems. Editors must be able to communicate when problems are raised. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have not been working in collaboration with any other users. I, like they apparently, only want to ensure that article subjects are both recognized as official places and have notability and content warranting articles. The rapid-fire mass creation of hundreds of one-line permanent sub-stubs is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, especially when they are simply phrases used in sources, not official regions. You need to slow down and put content in articles you create, not leave them as as pages that provide nothing at all to the reader and are redundant to the main article and could be expanded within the main article. If “sometimes [we] are right collectively”, what are you complaining about exactly? Reywas92Talk 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ugh. Why is it that whenever several editors individually notice errors in a source or in a series of articles, they must be somehow colluding inappropriately? Reyk YO! 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- When one says
(sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively)
, doesn't that usually mean one's view is not matching up to the consensus? --Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I dropped a wiki email to Imagitoriun: hope things can be resolved nicely; I like to pause the discussion. Shevonsilva (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Public collaboration is a requirement of editing at Wikipedia. Why is there a problem with responding on your talk page to the issue I mentioned above at 01:41, 30 May 2019? Refusing to collaborate is disruptive, and being unable to collaborate at the English Wikipedia is unfortunate. Both mean an editor is not a good fit for this project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding
I have been dealing with an online Wikipedia bully Hijiri 88. This user has used Wikipedia to WP:HARASS me and has been WP:FOLLOWING me. I told the user to stop communicating with me because the user tracks edits and makes snarky comments like this in edit summaries: Here Admits my talk page was on his watch list here The user has now reported me for copyright violations as he had earlier threatened to do. I am asking that this user be blocked for repeated harassment. If the user is not blocked I would like an IBAN which should include a ban on communication/harassment/condescension in the user’s edit summaries. And of course I would like the user to discontinue following my edits.
As an editor if I see or make copyright violations I correct them. But Hijiri 88 admists to “Compiling evidence” in regard to my edits. This goes against WP:AGF Hijiri 88 has stated that Hijiri 88 been tracking my edits WP:FOLLOWING for the purpose of “Compiling evidence” to start a case against me for copyright issues which have been corrected already. Per WP:FOLLOWING from Wikipedia guidelines - “Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.”
Hijiri 88 is WP:HOUNDING and has been WP:TENDENTIOUS. The user also took me to ANI. took me to ANI and on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds user’s talk page]. Hijiri 88 has told me to "(ask Rochelimit what happens when a good-faith editor says they are learning but then a few months later gets lazy and goes back to plagiarizing)." To me – (Hijiri 88) who is clearly following me taking notes to cause me distress: while being tendentious in areas where I contribute and in edit summaries… it reads like a threat.
The editor has been cherry picking my edits (which were long ago corrected - Many from the present Bengal cat article) Then Hijiri 88 compiles them on a list in their sandbox, Every one of the old edits and copyvios have been corrected either by me or by other editors. It is WP:HOUNDING to go through a user’s edits to get evidence for some “Gotcha” moment.
I found myself on the other side of many ivotes in regard to Hijiri88, particularly in Afd's and I tried not to respond to behavior from Hijiri 88 which I saw as baiting or condescension, however I became frustrated at one point after this user's tendentious editing and told Hijiri 88 to get out of the basement and take a walk. So Hijiri 88 immediately took me to ANI After the ANI was speedy closed but I went to the user's talk page to apologize and say that I want to look for areas that we can agree. Eventually that exchange ended with friction.
There were times when the editor specifically called me out like this time, for some perceived slight to another editor, and still I did not respond. I have questioned the WP:CONSENSUS deletions of several articles through deletion review and that also seemed to draw the ire of this user. The user was WP:TENDENTIOUS in my Deletion reviews Here.
I participate in the Article Rescue Squad which I see as a worthwhile project. From the posts this user has made on the Rescue Squad page and from comments made to me, the user is not a fan of the rescue squad. The user considers posting in that forum “Canvassing”. However the page is a call to improve an article that may be worthy of saving. Recently the article on Richard Haine was saved by the rescue squad. Hijiri 88 was adamantly against the article until the nomination was withdrawn and the article afd was a WP:SNOW keep.
One of the major problems with responding to spurious claims and harassment from Hijiri88 is that it takes time…it also takes the joy out of contributing here. Editors want to see evidence with “diffs” and links. Frankly this short response has taken a significant amount of time. Whatever shortcomings I have as an editor - I hope I make up for by being a hard working contributing editor. I endeavor to be the best Wikipedia editor I can be, and I quickly change any copyright violations which occur.. I do not “Compile evidence on other editors” as this is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. The editor claims that blanking my talk page is done to ignore and go about repeating copyright issues: this is not the case… However once I receive the message I am free to remove anything from my own page, after all it is my talk page. See WP:USERPAGE and WP:BLANKING
I know that editors will evaluate these situations and circumstances in regard to the activities of Hijiri 88 as it relates to activities which occurred in relation to my complaints. I also understand that other editors will look for WP:BOOMERANG since I have taken this action. I am willing to risk that in order to end the harassment, following and threatening behavior.
This user/editor has engaged in online behavior which runs contrary to Wikipedia’s stated goals many times.
I ask that the editors block Hijiri 88 since the pattern of harassment, hounding, threats and tendentious editing is ongoing. It seems clear that prior warnings to Hijiri 88 have not caused any meaningful change in behavior. Lubbad85 (☎) 04:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- You wrote all of that but could not figure out it goes at the bottom, you misformatted the section heading, and failed to sign your username? El_C 04:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hijiri88 has been brought to ANI several times and I'd like to see his response to your charges. Your report is longish and could be more concise. Let's hear from more editors. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment- most of these diffs are either completely benign or not related to Lubbad85 at all. But I'd like to hear more about these copyright violations, to know if scrutinising Lubbad85's edits was a good idea or not. Reyk YO! 05:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've generally been strongly critical of Hijiri88's tendency to get into disputes with other editors in a way that tends to end up on ANI several times, as well as their apparent tendency to continually bring up editors who they were in disputes in the past who were blocked. But for once, I'd have to strongly side with Hijiri88 barring some finding that the copyright concerns were completely without merit. And even then, I'd probably allow it as a once off. Copyright violation are very serious. And we have very limited ability to AGF since plenty of people act in good faith but simply do not understand copyright so make persistent violations. Even when they try their best, they still make persistent violations. And unlike more minor possible behavioural violations, copyright is something where barring ibans I don't think it's every appropriate that an editor should just let it be an wait for someone else to take care of it. (After concerns have been raised and others are looked in to it, it could be appropriate for someone to let it go if they've been in continual disputes with the editor concerned.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
My only response will be to say I have not been brought to ANI a lot recently. One thread in January is neither a lot, nor recent, and virtually all the editors who filed frivolous ANI threads on me back in 2015 and earlier have long since been sitebanned.Lubbad didn't like me scrutinizing his edits for copyvio, and has been intermittently harassing me over the past few weeks despite being warned to stop.[77] I have no intention of reading or responding to the above wall of text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I initially misread Liz's comment as saying I had "been brought to ANI several times recently". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The statement that I've been brought to ANI several times is, on its face, true, but only if one goes back four years or so, and then if one takes an objective look at what came out of those threads it clearly has nothing to do with what's going on here. Anyway, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.
- As for copyvio: If I were just throwing a copyvio accusation out at Lubbad to smear him because he's my enemy, that would be one thing, but he's not my enemy (I actually made a sincere attempt to mend fences with him, and offered to help him edit Wikipedia without violating copyright, but he refused) and the copyvio is, in my sincere belief, very real, hence why I filed the CCI. If it turns out I am wrong about the copyvio (here's the evidence -- I'll let it speak for itself), then I will sincerely apologize for wasting the community's time with the CCI filing, and for hurting Lubbad's feelings as I apparently have done -- but CCI is quite clear that filing a CCI, even if in error, is not harassment if it is done in good faith.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support I would definitely support removing him from the site immediately. While the points he makes in his defense are somewhat legitimate, Lubbad has provided a heap of proof against Hijiri. Letting the conflicts go on would only have the matter brought back time and time again to AN/I or other related noticeboards. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Demonstrable violations of copyright are light-years beyond "somewhat" legitimate, and undercut any number of "heap[s] of proof". Grandpallama (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that sort of heavy-handed response is not gonna happen. El_C 15:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comments: This user, Hijiri88 already has six IBANs with other users.
- Tristan Noir
- Catflap08
- TH1980
- John Carter
- Darkknight2149
- Dream Focus
- I am requesting a seventh IBAN in regard to Hijiri88, if this user is not blocked.
From my experience user Hijiri88 hounds the members of the Article Rescue Squad – of which I am a supporter. User Hijiri88 regularly makes confrontational posts there: One can just scroll through the repeated hounding/abrasive comments on most entries. A look at the user history of Hijiri88 will reveal that the user has friction with many members of the article rescue squadron. I will not call out the other members of the ARS but readers may look at the history of Hijiri88 on that page and make their own conclusions.
The user meant for me and others to see the very public sandbox/sub page. The user made mention of it several times both in the ANI Hijiri88 put forward and during my apology thread after the ANI. The user began compiling evidence of my old edits on April 16, So the information has been in public view for 43 days, and in fact it is still there. The evidence was not gathered for purposes of a "dispute resolution process" per the guidelines on Wikipedia. The evidence was compiled for a "Gotcha"
Per WP:UP#POLEMIC "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." I am confident that any copyright errors have been corrected and I submit that Hijiri88's CCI report against me is separate from this report of the user's harassment.
It is not honest for the Hijiri88 to say they apologized. I apologized in an attempt to get along after telling the user to, "get out of the basement and take a walk." I then discovered that the user was "compiling evidence" of my old edits in public view and WP:FOLLOWING me without good intentions. Since the user has been allowed to repeat this behavior over and over without an effective sanction - perhaps the block is the right action. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I am confident that any copyright errors have been corrected and I submit that Hijiri88's CCI report against me is separate from this report of the user's harassment.
I'm not confident of any such thing, since my uninvolved read of this is that you're clearly engaged in some retaliatory filing because you've been caught repeatedly violating copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sanction the filer. Repeated copyright violations can and should be grounds for an indef. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Spot checks going back to May 10 reveal no new copyright issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- [78] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I should probably point out how much of what Lubbad has been writing is devoted to my IBANs with other editors, including several that were imposed at my request to protect me from hounding, and two IBANs that were dissolved at my request[79][80] years before Lubbad even registered an account (!?), leaving me unable to defend myself in any detail even if I were so inclined. This is a really minor issue (a new user with poor English abilities making good-faith mistakes and violating copyright, me offering to help and being shot down, and me filing a CCI so the community can handle it and I don't have to) and I'm frankly surprised this thread wasn't speedy-closed. If someone wants to indef Lubbad for his repeated, unapologetic copyvio, that'd suit me fine, but why is this thread even still open when "soft" copyvio blocks ("Convince us you understand your mistakes and won't repeat them and we'll unblock you") are a simple matter that any solo admin can perform, and that's the only possible formal sanction that could result from this thread? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Spot checks going back to May 10 reveal no new copyright issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do have a bit of sympathy for the filer since I've been in exactly one argument with Hijiri88, I have no idea what the argument was about, but I have a memory of it being one of the more unpleasant experiences I've had on the site. That being said, I think a boomerang is entirely warranted if action were to be taken - the relevant diff here appears to be a list of good faith copyvios against the filing parties, with a lot of other diffs that are completely irrelevant and a bunch of unrelated hubbub. Perhaps the copyvio list is retaliation for a personal attack, but copyvios are incredibly serious. I don't recommend any action here, but as noted, if one were to be taken, I would support a boomerang. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing bullying behavior from Hijiri88. The editor continues to be combative and denigrating. On the most recent Article Rescue Squad’s work to improve the Trace Bundy article. Hijiri88 visited the Afd May 31st, to insult the editors who voted to keep.
The editor tracks the ARS and to show Hijiri88's very real disdain for Article rescue Squad – Hijiri88 made a userbox to represent this on April 30.
On May 28, Hijiri88 also created a userbox to mock my "try to do the right thing" userbox
The user is still WP:FOLLOWING me and now reverted one of my edits. Since I asked the user not to have communication with me, this editor antagonizes me by reverting this edit and then speaking to me in the edit summary (as if I did not know that I used a primary source). This is an album article which will likely be deleted since it has no sourcing. I wrote as much on the afd I was attempting to find sources for the article, and sometimes I use a primary as a placeholder for secondary research. In any event all are welcome to see my edits and my sourcing. Also to see that I do not follow this editor or mock/revert/antagonize.
Wikipedia editors should foster a collegial atmosphere. Hijiri88 continues to create an atmosphere which creates friction and confrontation. I ask the administrators to consider either blocking Hijiri88 or enforcing an IBAN. I regret that these fractious incidents steal valuable time from the real work on Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Notice also the one editor who voted on the ANI in support of my request is now getting followed and reverted by Hijiri88. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- When a disruptive editor makes a disruptive comment in a discussion one is following, it's natural to check their contributions to see if they have been similarly disruptive elsewhere. On a quick scan I didn't find the same kind of disruption, and the edit I reverted was not "similarly" disruptive, but reverting it was definitely a net positive for the encyclopedia. I can assure you that as long as EggRoll97 doesn't continuously push for me to be "removed from the site immediately" after this thread is closed and you are given a final warning over the copyvio and your harassment and personal attacks against me, or blocked, or issued with a one-way IBAN, or whatever, I have no intention of "following" them further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the correct diff is here: the "do the right thing" userbox has been on my page since August 2016. And there is the bogus "seven IBANs" thing above (the actual number is more like two, and going back to my interactions with editors in 2012 is seriously disturbing and creepy).
The user began compiling evidence of my old edits on April 16, So the information has been in public view for 43 days, and in fact it is still there.
is completely bogus, as the diff provide clearly dates to May 16, and I had already filed the CCI before this thread was opened. Virtually everything else Lubbad has written here is similarly disruptive and misrepresentative (I did get around to reading it due to a boring train ride yesterday, but there's no way I'm gonna dignify it with a point-by-point rebuttal). Given this continued disruption despite multiple editors telling him to knock it off, and the fact that there's no reason to believe it won't just get worse when there's not an open ANI thread, I would like to formally request that Lubbad be issued a final warning about harassment and personal attacks, including groundless accusations, and immediately and indefinitely blocked on the next infraction. It would be one thing if his content edits were good, but it seems that every single one of his non-minor article edits is a copyvio or a quotefarm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Boomerang with extreme prejudice. Copyvio is a very serious matter and until and unless the OP can demonstrate they understand what they have been doing wrong and what measures they intend to follow to prevent a recurrance they have no place in this project. - Nick Thorne talk 01:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There is an active CCI against me started by Hijiri88 - we will see what comes of it. As I will point out in this paragraph Hijiri88 does not really understand what a copyright violation is. Copyright violation reporting is a useful tactic Hijiri88 has been using lately against his perceived enemies. Here the editor threatened another active member of the ARS with copyvio reporting. and another member of ARS here. And here the editor proves that he does not really know what a copyright violation is - and he calls me creepy - here the editor goes back seven years to use copyvio as a weapon. And here. and here Anyone is free to see the articles I have started and search for copyright violations. You can also see that Hijiri88 has five active IBANS and more beyond that which expired. Hijiri88 says:
"I can assure you that as long as EggRoll97 doesn't continuously push for me to be removed from the site immediately after this thread is closed and you are given a final warning over the copyvio... I have no intention of following them further."
In other words, unless Hijiri88 gets his way and EggRoll97 stays quiet, he WILL follow them further. I know we all have wasted much time, but I encourage editors to do what user:A little blue Bori did, and spot check my edits. Hijiri88 cries copyright violations as a weapon. I am asking for the administrators to stop a bully with a proven track record of bullying, and threatening and following. I endeavor to be a collegial Wikipedian. I have shown here on this ANI that the user is a bully, and that I am not. I have wasted a lot of time combating the bully and the misinformation. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- All of the above is completely untrue, and predates any interaction I had with Lubbad by anything between several months and several years. Neither Favre1fan93 nor Adamstom.97 are "active member[s] of the ARS", and their own copyright problems have no relationship to this dispute. This troll is clearly stalking me. When is someone gonna block him? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say you've been stalking each other. And please do not refer to other editors as "trolls" — descending to personal attacks isn't in anyone's best interests. El_C 03:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict x2) @Lubbad85: I'm not sure you understand, first, how serious copyright violations actually are, and second, that digging up diffs completely unrelated to this case aren't helpful. In terms of your challenge, Christopher Kaelin came up as a copyvio on Earwig because of the overuse of a primary block quote, similar to what Hijiri 88 removed in the earlier edit, which I also would have done - I've now removed that. Dick Bacon was also flagged as a copyvio by Earwig for non-blockquote reasons, so I have to go back adn fix that. Earwig came back unlikely on John Trevena (lawyer) but flagged a quote that I don't think has any business being in the article. Matteo Mancuso was flagged as unlikely but Earwig flagged a bunch of prose that needs to be rewritten. That's three out of four with at least some copyvio issues, a terrible look. I haven't looked at the other ones. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- All of the above is completely untrue, and predates any interaction I had with Lubbad by anything between several months and several years. Neither Favre1fan93 nor Adamstom.97 are "active member[s] of the ARS", and their own copyright problems have no relationship to this dispute. This troll is clearly stalking me. When is someone gonna block him? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer A blockquote properly quoted and referenced will always alert earwig. I do understand, how serious it is and and so does Hijiri88 which is why the editor weaponizes the complaint. You have erased a properly referenced blockquote because it was primary source material, not because it was copyvio. So I think I have said enough on this thread. I have been reported to CCI by this editor, but this is about a pattern of serious harassment. I yield to the admins. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Cban proposal
Enough is enough, the multiple IBANS show a significant problem with how this user interacts with the community which needs to be fixed. Until this happens, we need to show conclusively that this behavior is not tolerated. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support - As proposer. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication
I counted ten previous warnings for unsourced material on Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s talk page, along with several other warnings for disruptive editing, unexplained deletion, etc. - none of which he has seen fit to respond to. Indeed, despite making over three thousand edits, he has never once used any talk page.
I left a "disruptive" warning for yesterday's edit: [81] which is not only unsourced but obviously false. He hasn't responded, but has since made about twenty more edits, including this unsourced one: [82]. Could someone get his attention? --IamNotU (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s behaviour is a problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I second that. At any case, they now have 2 days to master a response. El_C 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just speculating if this would count as block evasion? A very serious charge, I know. Location is Indonesia and there are historical contributions particular to Indonesia by Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs).
- List of presidents of Indonesia Lembata Javanese calendar [83] [84] [85] [86] Public holidays in Indonesia
- Surely I'm wrong? Hey, they're also interested in Finland, besides all the racing edits. Shenme (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Possibly years of unnoticed vandalism from IP range
An OTRS email pointed me to this edit, adding a list of nominees and the winner for a category of the upcoming Primetime Emmy Awards. So I decided to look at the range to see if there was any other vandalism, and, well, title of the thread. The IP is on an apparently static /64 subnet, and has been editing award-related content for years, often without sources or with sources that predate the award, and sometimes adding awards that have not been announced yet. See Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:49FD:A200:0:0:0:0/64. I think it's a couple thousand edits or so, and I really don't have a sense for how many of these were good edits, or how many of the bad ones have already been reverted. So reporting here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Admins should be reminded that an IP6 /64 subset corresponds loosely to a single device, if not precisely equivalent to a single IP4 address. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
NYC Subway vandal
This IP needs a block per the weeks of edit warring on R179 (New York City Subway car) and various other subway train articles. Note that there is almost always no edit summary. Cards84664 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Cards84664: I second this. The IP just unreverted en masse all their edits. They definitely need a block. They have been warned about this, as per on their talk page. A block is a good idea now. Thank you. The Duke 23:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would also support this block. I have been following this IP's talk page and have reviewed its contributions and it is clearly engaging in vandalism and edit warring. They have received numerous recent blocks. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Flix11 abusing a warning template
Pinging involved users: @Natureium:, @Meters:, @Thewinrat:.
For a long time now – this should have been reported ages ago – Flix11 (talk · contribs) has been abusing a warning template and biting newcomers. They routinely post an unnecessarily angry and aggressively sounding warning to newcomers' Talk pages: "You will surely be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia". This happens after newcomers' (often good-faith) first edits. On their Talk page, Flix11 has been repeatedly told to change their behaviour and start with level 1 warnings instead:
They are still at it, though. Their edit history (All contributions filtered by "Talk page") is full of these warnings. Some recent examples.
- Flix11 warns user, seemingly for three good faith edits. User responds to the warning: seemingly puzzled by the warning, never receives an explanation.
- Flix11 warns once, twice following relatively harmless changes that seem to have been made in good faith: trying to correct data giving a source in the edit summary, trying to improve sourcing. Unsurprisingly, the user feels unfairly treated as evidence by their edit summaries when removing the warnings from their Talk page.
Something needs to be done so that Flix11 stops harming Wikipedia by biting newcomers. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- So you want to block me because I jump to level-4 warning? Even for blatant vandalism? If so, alright. I will use level-1 even for those intentional vandals from now on. – Flix11 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- "revert ignorant vandal"; because the IP user removed Flix11's tweaked, over-exaggerated, wrongly-used user-warning template for what appears to be a test/good-faith edit (diff) from their own talk page. Even if the IP's edits were disruptive, this obvious personal attack is unjustifiable. —RainFall 09:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Robby.is.on, have you tried to discuss this issue with Flix11 in their talk page?. Flix11 consider using twinkle it's much easier and can help you to get different templates. Not all edits are vandalism. Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd, the only intention behind vandalising an article is vandalism. Adding unsourced content is not vandalism, disruptive edits are not vandalism, edit tests are not vandalism and so on. Use twinkle tool, it will give you all templates you need. Also please don't use uncivil words such as "ignorant". Read WP:CIVILITY--SharabSalam (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam: "
Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd
": You're wrong; vandalism edits aren't only like "ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd." Also, disruptive edits are vandalism. —RainFall 11:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- When I said "disruptive edits," I meant the intentional ones. Thought I'd mentioned that, but, apparently, I hadn't. —RainFall 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- RainFall you quoted me right but responded with a wrong response. I didn't say vandalism are only like this. I just wanted to illustrate the meaning of vandalism by giving one example. I didn't say the word only. And disruptive edits are not vandalism that's the first thing you read in disruptive edits policy. It literally says "Disruptive editing is not vandalism" Wikipedia:Disruptive editing-SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, disruptive edits are vandalism.
That is absolutely incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. Yesterday I did two goods edits about Europa League Final. this one and this one, following the previous finals of this competition. Flix11 removed my edits (maybe without reading the contents) and came in my talk page adding twice a block warning and saying that I'm a CATANIAN vandal. What's the problem if Am I a Catanian? Is this user ok or not? Now my edits are ok, because I, here on Wikipedia English version, always make goods edits. To concluding, I think Flix11 has to be quiet with people in this Encyclopedia. Best regards.--82.57.44.190 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Also, disruptive edits are vandalism." - that's a very concerning line to read, SharabSalam is completely correct that they are specifically different things. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Flix11:'s conduct on the 2019_UEFA_Europa_League_Final was very problematic. The IPs first edit was clearly good-faith, although not constructive as they linked to the wrong UEFA page. Flix11's response (a Level 4 vandalism warning, followed by replacing it with an editsummary of "revert ignorant vandal") was absolutely disgraceful. Their second revert of the IP appeared actually to be incorrect, and they then reverted the established editor who pointed it out. And what does this edit-summary mean? Flix11 has a whole user page full of people complaining about their use of warning templates - I looked at the few and they were, indeed, complete misuse. This one, for example, was in response to this edit - which was not only constructive but correct. How to proceed - well, I think we're looking at a minumum of a topic ban from Flix11 using vandalism templates, because they clearly lack the competence to do so. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd
- FWIW, if this is the first edit a new account or an IP has made, that shouldn't be treated as vandalism either - that's a perfect example of what the 'test edit' warning is for, someone mashing the keyboard to see whether they can actually edit a page - you can't judge intent from random characters, so AGF and treat as a test. (Note - this doesn't make it any more difficult in getting an account blocked - if you start at level 1 test, you can still escalate to level 2 vandalism if they persist after being warned).
- Black Kite (talk · contribs) - Absolutely agree that this extreme and indiscriminate use of templates is inappropriate and offputting for newbies. An alternative suggestion: if Flix11 was willing, I could take them through the CVUA course to explain when and how to use templates - that would not be possible if a TBAN was in place however. Would that be an acceptable approach to you, if Flix11 confirms whey are willing to hold off on templating until we are on the course, and only to do so under my guidance? GirthSummit (blether) 14:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent idea, if possible. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Having looked at this earlier, I was thinking of suggesting a TBAN from posting vandalism warnings too, as Flix11 simply does not have the competence to identify vandalism, and is far too aggressive when they think they have. But if you're prepared to take them through the CVUA course, Girth Summit, I think that's a very kind offer and I would be happy to hold off any sanctions if Flix11 is prepared to do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- No no, I did a good update. I added the good version of UEFA document showing the number of attendance on the right down page of the pdf document (51,370), but Flix after a few minutes removed my edit without reason and adding a block warning in my talk page. Why did he do that?--82.57.44.190 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, IP. At first (for about 50 minutes) the attendance did not included in the report (one only opened in a new tab instead of requesting auto download). Girth Summit I would like to take CVUA please. – Flix11 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, you're welcome. At first, S.A. Julio put another source for attendance because in pdf document there weren't. When I added the UEFA's document, attendance were already showed. Maybe you didn't see it.--82.57.44.190 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK FLix11 - I've created a training page for you here - please read through and respond there, and don't leave any further warning messages anywhere until we've covered that part of the course. Boing! said Zebedee, Black Kite - hopefully that'll put an end to the disruption, but I'll let you know if it breaks down. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK FLix11 - I've created a training page for you here - please read through and respond there, and don't leave any further warning messages anywhere until we've covered that part of the course. Boing! said Zebedee, Black Kite - hopefully that'll put an end to the disruption, but I'll let you know if it breaks down. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, you're welcome. At first, S.A. Julio put another source for attendance because in pdf document there weren't. When I added the UEFA's document, attendance were already showed. Maybe you didn't see it.--82.57.44.190 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, IP. At first (for about 50 minutes) the attendance did not included in the report (one only opened in a new tab instead of requesting auto download). Girth Summit I would like to take CVUA please. – Flix11 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think perhaps Flix11 needs to lay off on the vandalism warnings until @Girth Summit: is able to provide further guidance. They are still jumping in with inappropriate level warnings for good faith edits (e.g. a level three warning for an IP updating a page in good faith.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Ponyo. @Flix11: - sorry if I wasn't clear before, but if you want to engage with the training course, I need you to stop putting any kind of warning on other editors' talk pages immediately, and not to do it again until we've done the relevant part of the course and I have told you to do so - please confirm that you understand this. I'm not asking you to stop editing, but I think the best way for you to show willingness to engage with the course would be to agree not to revert or warn any other editor until we've done the first part of the course. If you can't agree to that, I can't train you. Looking forward to your response, GirthSummit (blether) 18:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Girth Summit Apologies before. I just can not stand when IP addresses deliberately ignore my reason to revert their premature edit (WP:LIVESCORES). But OK then. I will take a break. Flix11 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do not make any further warning to any IP before taking the training course--SharabSalam (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was offline or I would have commented on this. I am disheartened to see that Flix11 has continued leaving the customized level 4 warning as a first warning, particularly in cases where it is arguable that no warning at all was needed. The user has known that this is an issue for months. I agree that there appears to be a WP:CIR issue here, and from the user's latest response it's not clear to me that he or she understands the training offer. Just "taking a break" is not what is required, so much as avoiding leaving warnings while doing the training and learning to do things properly.
- User:Flix11 do you agree to do the training, and to stop leaving warning templates on other user's pages (IP or named) in the mean time? Meters (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do not make any further warning to any IP before taking the training course--SharabSalam (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ethnocentric vandalism edits
During the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result, ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), were conducted. All pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages to discuss disputes.SHADEGAN (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- You need to explain what you mean by Ethnocentric vandalism and why you don't reply to multiple users' questions on the talk pages, e.g. Talk: Laki language. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have added the articles to my watchlist.You can discuss the issue in talk pages. Wikipedia is not the death note. Whatever you write in Wikipedia it will not become fact in the ground. I don't know much about these lur, kurd people but I think this is part of identity politics which is controversial most of the time and we usually find reliable sources contradicting each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Just found this: "On the other hand, they themselves consider it an insult to be confounded with the Kurds, whom they call Leks."[90]
You're right this user tries to make everything to Kurds. Not just the Lurs. He also tries it with Shabaks, Zazas and Yazidis. And the sad thing is that the administrators does not want to hear or see it all, and in some cases they even support his attempt because they are not familiar with this topics. 77.245.112.237 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are once again misleading with your quotes. The text says that Lurs don't consider themselves Kurds whom they call Leks. As in, Lurs call Kurds the name "Leks". You can also use the talkpages to contest the references I have given, despite being an IP. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- What is that saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"? I think wikipedia might not have enough user knowledgeable about these subjects. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I already warned the OP about personal attacks, such as "ethnocentric totalitarian users." Focus on the content and not on the contributors. That's in everyone's best interests. El_C 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?
Tomsmith81727 (talk · contribs) is an account apparently created solely for the purpose of reverting editors; its entire history until consists of that. The account usually (always?) reverts highly established editors with tens of thousands of edits. I would suggest that at a minimum it be indefinitely blocked. I also think it looks suspiciously like a bad hand account. I'm not the only editor who has this suspicion. Jayjg (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) A block for edit warring in Jewish Ghetto Police is overdue. They have been warned twice, this month. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Seems WP:NOTHERE to me. Indef with standard offer seems appropriate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC).
My only interaction wit them was when they reinserted some non English quotation (within a ref) without justify why we need a wall of Polish text. As well as reinserting a ref that was just a quote, not even any mention of where the quote was from. Given the edit war as well I am getting a not here vibe from all of this. But by the same token they are a fairly new account. I would opt for a short block.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've tried hard to reach out to this editor - giving them time between reverts to actually read their talk page, warning them, adding a welcome template, adding a personalized message to the warning on their talk page, but the edits are not good - and we've tried to discuss on the talk page of the article why - not just explain in edit summaries. No luck. The edit today re-adding back in a long list of articles to a see also section makes me wonder if this editor is connected to the editors above under WP:ANI#MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews (added here) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, good faith only goes so far - this edit which adds "Somebody wants to hide some history very much.... But no way!" definitely seems to tie this editor to the above section. Support block of some sort. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- That comment (his very first) seems to show that the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, block.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- That comment (his very first) seems to show that the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Someone can lengthen it if they think that's too short, or we could try seeing what happens after 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I lengthened it to indef. If they have a convincing unblock request, I am willing to put the original block back in place. But we have more than a 3RR violation. I first encountered this user when they started reverting back a spelling error, which I found quite disruptive. I am troubled to learn that all that account has done since has been to revert, except for one inflammatory talk page comment. To me, they seem to be clearly not here to collaborate. El_C 17:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- My only interaction with the user is that he/she keeps removing articles from a category I recently created: Category:Collaboration with the Axis Powers. He/she has not offered an explanation. Dimadick (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. it started when K.e.coffman made this edit. Tomsmith81727 reverted that edit and then the editwar started but considering that the account is 17 days old means that they aren't yet aware of editwarring rules and stuff like that. I also blame Wikipedia itself for not making talk page message clear enough. I mean from the time you start your account you get a red notification at the top and then you don't even click on it because you don't know what is it even if you get new messages. It should be made clear that the notification button shows you the messages you receive. I think we need to not allow any editor to start editting except when they are told about everything in the interface of of Wikipedia and they should click on a button that says "Got it" when they learn something. I remember when I was a new editor I didn't know what that red button is or how to undo an edit etc. Anyway, indef block should be 24 hours block for only edit warring. I don't see any sign that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia neither I see any sign that the editor is here to build. It's still too early to tell..--SharabSalam (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly not too early and, at any rate, AGF is not a suicide pact. The user is free to compose a convincing unblock request. Somehow, I tend to doubt that this is gonna happen, though. El_C 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
User Jamesmiko and his disruptive behavior
Jamesmiko (talk · contribs) – I am reporting this user since he does not start to communicate and just ignores what is written to him. The user in question just reverts other editors' (mine included) changes/fixes/additions to sports userboxes without even discussing anything citing "consistency" as his argument and by doing so he:
- restores redirects to categories;
- restores incorrect and/or non existent abbreviations;
- restores wrong and/or obsolete color codes, which cannot be verified anywhere;
- uses strange color formations, which are supposed to comply with MOS:ACCESS;
- treats the userbox, even when the team has/uses two main colors, as a kid's coloring book by including as many colors as he likes (MOS:ACCESS again).
I posted on his talk page twice (April 2019 and May 2019), and after the last revert on 29 May 2019 at User:UBX/NHL-Penguins (see the page's history for the reverts by Jamesmiko, which are 6 in total since 15 April 2019), I decided to take the matter here after I asked Timrollpickering (who made the changes at User:UBX/NHL-Penguins) at User talk:Timrollpickering#Sports userboxes on how to handle the situation. The userboxes, which are affected with reverts, can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Ice Hockey#National Hockey League, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Basketball#American National Basketball Association, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/American#National Football League. All the mentioned userboxes (NHL, NBA and NFL) can be simply found in one place at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/US and Canadian. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is all a bit bizarre, I think a word at this stage is all that is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Whoever provides the word should probably also include a few about the many many 'orphaned non-free image' warnings on Jamesmiko's talk page, since these pointless uploads are clearly wasting peoples' time. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- 86.133.149.192, I was going to say the same thing.SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hence why I say bizarre, I am not sure if this is deliberate disruption or gross incompetence. If it is the latter a talking to might help.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- 86.133.149.192, I was going to say the same thing.SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sabbatino Please next time notify the editor involved about this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Stage-struck?
Eddaido (talk · contribs), who recently displayed some rather odd ownership issues on the Concord coach article, is currently repeatedly reverting to a version which is not supported by the cited source...or, indeed, any good source, using a cite which clearly discusses local adoption as proof of world-wide first usage. Outside eyballs appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a venue to get "more eyes" when you are in a Simple content dispute. If you find yourself in an intractable dispute with another editor you need to avail yourself of the options at WP:DR.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Neither simple, nor merely a content dispute, but ownership and competence issues going back to another article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- All I see is the two of you in a slow motion edit war at Stagecoach. Eddaido hasn't even edited Concord coach since March 8th. If you're going to make accusations of ownership and incompetence you will need to back your claims up with specific diffs demonstrating as such or it just comes off as a personal attack.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- What Qwirkle's trying to say is that Eddaido has displayed problematic behavior at Concord Coach, and is now continuing that behavior at Stagecoach. This isn't a mere content dispute; his competence problems are real and longstanding. No diffs since I'm on mobile, so sue me. EEng 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- It does not look like anyone has edited Concord_coach in a month (March/April). Is this an urgent problem? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (i see this point has been made)
- It's a chronic problem. And the locus now, as I said, is Stagecoach. EEng 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- It does not look like anyone has edited Concord_coach in a month (March/April). Is this an urgent problem? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (i see this point has been made)
- What Qwirkle's trying to say is that Eddaido has displayed problematic behavior at Concord Coach, and is now continuing that behavior at Stagecoach. This isn't a mere content dispute; his competence problems are real and longstanding. No diffs since I'm on mobile, so sue me. EEng 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- All I see is the two of you in a slow motion edit war at Stagecoach. Eddaido hasn't even edited Concord coach since March 8th. If you're going to make accusations of ownership and incompetence you will need to back your claims up with specific diffs demonstrating as such or it just comes off as a personal attack.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Neither simple, nor merely a content dispute, but ownership and competence issues going back to another article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- So is this a request for more eyes, or a request to investigate Eddiado's editing more generally? If it's the first, then Ponyo is right (although I rewarded this misuse of ANI and provided an opinion on the article talk page). If it's the second, then we need a whole lot more info than is provided here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you may have seen illustrated on the page in question, I think this a floor wax and a dessert topping. There are both issues for which ANI or ANEW are exactly the right fora, and there are some that simple visibility over a wider swath than the other usual noticeboards can give would help. If it were only the latter, it’d really not belong, except on a real slow day. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking in hypotheticals because I haven't looked at any diffs yet, but if Qwirkle's claims be accurate, this is something deserving sanctions, and it definitely belongs here. It's disruptive to add material with a source that doesn't back it up (you're claiming that the source says something it doesn't, i.e. you're adding a hoax), and while we can revert once with a kindly message, someone who does it persistently must be stopped, and a request for an enforced stop is definitely appropriate at WP:ANI. I'll start looking into the situation momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've looked at page histories and talk entries for Concord coach and Stagecoach. At the former page, I note that Eddaido repeatedly added a claim that 2500 US pounds was 2¼ US tons, which is wrong (1 ton = 2000 pounds), and problematic after you're warned once; and I see that he admitted at talk to making up numbers and throwing them in. At the latter page, I see that he's removing content, which on the face of things is different from adding a hoax. But here, the removal changes the meaning significantly — The first recorded stagecoach route in Britain started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one on a big island, while The first recorded stagecoach route started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one in the world. Since Floquenbeam has added a quote from the source, which specifically talks about it being the first on a specific island and not in the world, Eddaido is indeed causing the article to provide false information. This isn't simply removing an extraneous detail (e.g. changing "19 December 1610" to "1610"); if you delete words whose absence makes a significant change that can't be derived from the source, it's no less problematic than adding un-backed-up information in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- And now I see this comment by Eddaido: ...you say you have found a direct quote. Why has your friend never pointed this up? If I understand rightly, the quote from the source was a surprise to him, as if he hadn't consulted the source. If my understanding be correct, that's an even bigger issue: no one should be making significant changes to the meaning of a cited phrase without consulting the source or without solid evidence that the source has been misrepresented somehow. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I have not looked at the issue (which is indeffable as described above) but 2¼ US tons (short tons) is 2500 pounds, confirmed with {{convert|1+1/4|ST|lb}}. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend and Johnuniq: I think Nyttend just made a typo there, somewhere. The book states that the coach in question weighed "2-and-one-quarter-ton". Eddaido had been consistently stating this as "2.25 metric tonnes." Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you may have seen illustrated on the page in question, I think this a floor wax and a dessert topping. There are both issues for which ANI or ANEW are exactly the right fora, and there are some that simple visibility over a wider swath than the other usual noticeboards can give would help. If it were only the latter, it’d really not belong, except on a real slow day. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I ran into the reported user back at the beginning of 2018 at hearse. I removed some uncited and poorly-written information and was 'thanked' by Eddaido. He then put the information back -poorly worded and all- and cited Oxford's English Dictionary. I didn't pursue the matter because editwarring is lame. It does appear that he has a fascination with coaches and other similiar motor vehicles and exhibits ownership of them. I'm not asking for any action, but this is something I have noticed. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Sky UK's IPv6 ranges and underestimating the collateral effect of rangeblocks
I didn't quite know where else to put this, so it's gone here. If it would be more appropriate in WP:VP/P or something, please just let me know.
When I found myself a affected by @NJA's block of 2A02:C7F::/32, I did some sleuthing and found out that 2A02:C78::/29 (which subsumes that range) is the entire allocation of IPv6 addresses to Sky UK, the country's second largest ISP which accounts for 22% of the UK's internet traffic. Sky has completed its IPv6 rollout and few if any Sky connections will show up as IPv4 addresses.
This means that NJA's rangeblock should have affected one eighth of Sky users (or 1 in 36 UK residents), which already seems pretty high. Emphasis on should: A cursory glance at contributions for each of 2A02:C78::/32, 2A02:C79::/32, et cetera, reveals that only 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32 are currently in use. This means NJA's block affects half of all Sky IP addresses, amounting to 11% of UK connections. This is clearly far too much collateral damage.
This isn't a complaint about NJA, as others have previously (and recently) rangeblocked both 2A02:C7F::/32 and 2A02:C7D::/32, and this degree of disruption to UK users obviously wasn't intended. I thought this worth bringing up here to make sure blocks like this don't continue to happen.
Blocking half of the IP addresses of the second largest ISP in a large country isn't a sensible way to deal with vandalism. Yes, blocking 11% of the UK from editing Wikipedia anonymously will obviously lead to reduced vandalism, but then we might as well just turn off anonymous editing altogether. It's by sheer coincidence (Sky's allocated range and manner of allocating IPs) that so much of one country's traffic is even crammed into a blockable range (since /32 is the maximum rangeblock), thus creating far more collateral damage than should be considered acceptable.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- As the blocking admin I will say this and only this (in-law coming in an hour, will be sporadic for a while): See my talk page here on this discussion. I will add the block is not recent and expires Fri, 31 May 2019 14:05:41 GMT and was initially for 72hr, it is anon-only with account creation disabled. It was the second such short-term block to the exact range this month. If there’s a narrower range that will be as effective then I am more than happy for another admin to revise this. I do not however buy in to the sense of alarm about blocking “11% of the UK”. Apparently 100% of those “11%” had no ill effects (except Newbiepedian of course) as I’ve seen nothing on UTRS about the IP (and plus it isn’t using Autoblock). N.J.A. | talk 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- A lack of UTRS tickets isn't equivalent to "no ill effects", it just means no one has reported any. Most people who would casually edit a Wikipedia article anonymously, say to fix a typo, are not familiar with these procedures. There has been another complaint, just not via UTRS – see User talk:2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:B414:B48E:1054:DCCC.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- For a long while, WP:SIP required us to notify the Foundation whenever we blocked the IP address(es) that represented virtually everyone in Qatar. Per Demographics of Qatar and Demographics of the United Kingdom, Qatar had about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, while According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom was around 63,182,000. If this rangeblock affects 11% of Britons, that's just short of 7 million people being affected, or nearly triple the number of people affected by a block of Qatar. Barring a weird emergency (e.g. someone's spending weeks operating a vandalbot that's changing IPs every couple of seconds), I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time. Of course, we admins make good-faith mistakes, and I think it would be out of bounds to complain at NJA, who clearly wasn't aware of the number of people affected by this block — thank you, Newbiepedian, for explicitly disclaiming such a thing. However, I do think we ought to remove this block and ought to be careful to avoid something similar in the future. But how does one remove it? I don't understand rangeblocks (especially for IPv6s) and have never removed one, and neither User:2A02:C7F::/32 nor User:2A02:C7F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has a block log. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Nyttend. Do you not see a block log for the range here? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I saw nothing. I wonder if I entered the wrong IP? But I do remember doing one rangeblock (someone supplied the precise numbers, which I copy/pasted into Special:Block), so I just copy/pasted the range you supplied above (2A02:C7F::/32) into that page and blocked it for one second. (Only the latest block matters at all, so if a later block expires before an earlier block, the earlier one won't "take over" when the later one expires.) Both the resulting page and the link you just provided have the log with entries by Materialscientist, NJA, and now me. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Nyttend. Do you not see a block log for the range here? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- For a long while, WP:SIP required us to notify the Foundation whenever we blocked the IP address(es) that represented virtually everyone in Qatar. Per Demographics of Qatar and Demographics of the United Kingdom, Qatar had about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, while According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom was around 63,182,000. If this rangeblock affects 11% of Britons, that's just short of 7 million people being affected, or nearly triple the number of people affected by a block of Qatar. Barring a weird emergency (e.g. someone's spending weeks operating a vandalbot that's changing IPs every couple of seconds), I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time. Of course, we admins make good-faith mistakes, and I think it would be out of bounds to complain at NJA, who clearly wasn't aware of the number of people affected by this block — thank you, Newbiepedian, for explicitly disclaiming such a thing. However, I do think we ought to remove this block and ought to be careful to avoid something similar in the future. But how does one remove it? I don't understand rangeblocks (especially for IPv6s) and have never removed one, and neither User:2A02:C7F::/32 nor User:2A02:C7F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has a block log. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- A lack of UTRS tickets isn't equivalent to "no ill effects", it just means no one has reported any. Most people who would casually edit a Wikipedia article anonymously, say to fix a typo, are not familiar with these procedures. There has been another complaint, just not via UTRS – see User talk:2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:B414:B48E:1054:DCCC.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- FYI Nyttend has removed the block (I just checked). I still think it was an appropriate block and could not see a less perfect range to block for a short period. Two complaints and none through UTRS is hardly millions of people, but I’ll leave it alone as truthfully no one can say how many people were bothered and didn’t report it. Anyhow if this range remains an issue something else may need considered. Good evening all. N.J.A. | talk 02:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also for anyone interested EdJohnston posted this on my talk page Some more details on the /32 range used in question. N.J.A. | talk 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, NJA, you may have misunderstood my comment. I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time means that I'm normally opposed to a longer block, but a short block (maybe 12-24 hours) isn't too bad. I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm just concerned that the size of the range is skewing what we're seeing — the wider a range and the more people using it, the more vandalism we're going to see from it. (A massive amount of vandalism is committed by ::/0, but as that covers 340 undecillion short scale addresses, blocking it would be a really really bad idea.) In my opinion, if you know how to calculate the number of addresses affected by a rangeblock (I don't), it's important that you consider that number when setting block length, and block a really big range only for a short while except in those really rare situations. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks to me like IPv6 users from Sky tend to stay within the same /64 for months at a time. A single vandal switching to a new subnet during a vandalism spree could conceivably just be switching from one device in his house to another, or hopping on his neighbor's wifi, giving the appearance that his IP is dynamic over the entire /32 when it is not. It's also conceivable that an admin might see a bunch of vandals all over a /32 who are individually confined to /64s, and think they are one vandal. When casting a net that large (almost 1% of the English speakers in the world), it's very likely you'll notice more than one vandal with common interests or behaviors, since they are usually pretty basic. I have occasionally dug into the vandalism behind some broad range blocks and sometimes found that it was really just a handful of people who could be blocked individually without much difficulty. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- This. A thousand times, this.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Long-winded elaboration of the problem
As I briefly mentioned on NJA's talk page, I think the primary issue (and something I feel folks aren't quite understanding) is that this is a specific problem with this specific range which has served to demonstrate a larger (and unfortunately highly technical) issue with how people are estimating potential collateral due to unfamiliarity with IPv6. I'm going to split this explanation into several paragraphs because otherwise it will end up totally illegible. I hope this makes some semblance of sense; if not, there's a bit of a TLDR at the bottom.
IPv6 ranges currently are mostly very spread out. The /29 range assigned to Sky contains capacity for 34,359,738,368 (over 34 billion) end users. The C7F and C7D sub-ranges each contain capacity for one eighth of that, i.e. 4,294,967,296 (over 4 billion) end users. "End user" here refers to a subnet, i.e. the internet connection of a home or small business router, each having capacity to serve 18 quintillion distinct hosts. But those numbers are totally meaningless, because capacity at the moment isn't easy to relate to actual usage due to the sheer breadth of IPv6 allocation.
Sky UK has been allocated a range of 2A02:C78::/29, which as stated contains capacity for over 34 billin users. Sky UK has a market share of roughly 20% in a country of roughly 60 million people, so there are 34 billion /64 subnets to allocate to approximately 12 million people. By contrast, Comcast (US) has a market share of roughly 40% in a country of roughly 320 million people, so that's 128 million users. But how does their capacity relate? Well, Comcast has the ranges 2601::/20 (17,592,186,044,416 end users), 2603:3000::/24 (1,099,511,627,776 end users), 2001:558::/31 (8,589,934,592 end users) and 2603:2000::/20 (another 17,592,186,044,416 end users). This means Comcast's total capacity is for 36,292,473,651,200 users – over 36 trillion. Clearly, these numbers are all pretty meaningless.
Now, at a glance, Comcast has about 10 times as many users as Sky UK, but over 1,000 times as many available addresses. But it's not quite that simple. These allocations are to what is reserved to the ISP, but currently neither of these two ISPs are allocating users across their entire allocated range(s). Sky UK is only allocating across 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32. I'll call these /32 ranges "MR" (maximum range) for convenience, since that's the maximum size for WP rangeblocks. So, Sky allocates users across 2 MRs. What ranges does Comcast actually use? 2601::/32 through 2601:102::/32 (103 MRs), plus 2603:3000::/32 through 2603:3027::/32 (28 MRs), plus 2001:558::/32 and 2001:559::/32. So, in other words, Sky UK is allocating 12 million people across 2 MRs, while Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 133 MRs.
So, TLDR: IP ranges of the same size do NOT necessarily have the same level of collateral effect. As this example shows, blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 900k people, while blocking an MR belonging to Sky UK will affect up to about 6 million, almost 7 times as many. Currently what it looks like to me is that there is a broad-brush approach to figuring out the level of collateral effect which is to just assume that ranges of the same size can be treated the same, but that is unequivocally false. Before blocking an ISP-level range (which is what the /32 maximum range is; no normal organisation would be assigned one), administrators should research:
- to what ISP that range belongs
- how many other ranges the ISP owns
- what parts of those ranges are actually in use
- how many users the ISP has (roughly, from market share × population)
Then, and only then, have you obtained a picture of the potential collateral effect of your rangeblock with any semblance of accuracy.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Precedent
There's precedent for long-term blocks of ranges this wide that are used by miscreants. 2607:fb90::/32, a range widely used by T-Mobile, one of the largest mobile providers in the US, has been blocked on-and-off for the past two-and-a-half years. My major blocks were due to the dog and rapper vandal, but there were and are others. Pinging other recent blocking admins who have dealt with this range: @DeltaQuad, Oshwah, Drmies, and TonyBallioni:. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures. Graham87 04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Graham. My entry in the block log was to temporarily lower the account creation block per a valid request from a steward in private. When the reason for that was done, I restored the former block settings. In general I’m pretty conservative with IPv6 range blocks, though there are valid reasons to make wide ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Graham, this just to let you know that I ran into two longterm rangeblocks this week while trying to vandalize Wikipedia from my phone. ;) (Does your reader do that winking emoji?) Drmies (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- But yes, there is ample precedent for long and wide rangeblocks. I cannot calculate whether the woof, rap block is as wide as the UK block discussed earlier. I'll add that, like Tony, I am conservative (or like to think I am); in woof, rap case it is clear that I am guided also by earlier blocks. I also remember that a couple of months ago I was asked to make a range block more narrow, which I did. I really cannot comment on the UK block: much happened on that range and I don't have the time or the inclination to pick through a bunch of them to see how justified the block (and the range) is, but I trust my fellow admins to be as conservative as possible. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think, though, you have to be careful in deciding that something is actually "desperate" rather than "completely ordinary". If one person is vandalizing a wide variety of pages from a wide range of IPs, then yes, absolutely, those are desperate circumstances. I estimate that non-bot admins make, what, 1000 blocks a day? By numbers alone, you expect that we should be blocking 10 or so Sky users every day. That's not a desperate circumstance. Vandalism on 10 different subnets of Sky, all on articles related to British popular culture, well, that should just be a daily occurrence. Back in ancient times when vandals didn't have a choice but to use IPv4, if we saw 10 obviously distinct vandals on 10 different static IPs belonging to the same ISP, we didn't nuke the whole network. And we shouldn't be nuking an entire network just because each vandal now has a /64 instead of a single address. We also shouldn't be assuming that two vandals are the same person because they have very vaguely similar interests and live in the same countryohmygodhecanchangehisiptoanythingwhatsthechancesomanypeopleinenglandwouldbemadattheresamay? But anyway, I think I totally understand the impulse. You're manning AIV, reports keep coming in, vandal after vandal. Oh, here's clearly changing his IP, better do a range block. Oh, this vandal has a very similar address. Hmm. Not the same article, but also targeting the same topic area. And another one, and another one? Anyway, my 2p, don't block an entire ISP just because a bunch of vandals use it, if those vandals can be individually blocked. Rangeblocks are for people who can't be stopped otherwise, not for stopping several different people at once because it's faster than figuring out their individual ranges. Honestly, I think this probably needs a software solution. Most residential hookups for many ISPs have a relatively stable /64. If the MediaWiki software defaulted to treating every address in a /64 as having a unified identity - one contributions list, one talk page, one IPname - but still gave the option to see deeper in case this is wrong, I think it would clear a lot of confusion. It would also help make it obvious that what might seem like a nest of vandals is actually several individuals. Blocks would default to that subnet, and often work. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
1RR restriction violation
SNAAAAKE!! (talk · contribs) was placed on a 1RR restriction as part of their unblock conditions. Yesterday/today they violated this multiple times over.
The violation itself is pretty clear cut, but I wanted to get an uninvolved admin to handle it, as I’ve had disputes with the editor myself, and especially considering their extensive block log. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for one week. Will make it clear to the user that this is their last chance. El_C 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I was just now made aware of the issue - it happened rather quickly. Granted, SNAAAKE!! has had issues in the past but to my knowledge, it has been over a year since he has been involved in an edit war situation and has not violated anything else to my knowledge. He is a proficient editor - an excellent contributor in topics related to Arthurian Legend and various game character designs. I'm thinking perhaps he has forgotten about 1RR since it has been a tad over a year ago that it was imposed. I am asking for leniency in this matter as he has made progress over the past year, and is a valuable contributor to the project. Atsme Talk 📧 22:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is all in the context of years. But at any rate, I think this is leniency and, I'm sorry, but you can't simply forget you have a mandatory 1RR restriction applied to your account. Such a lapse in memory was not a consideration when blocking. The mentorship and progress made were weighed, however. So I chose not to go with an indef — even though that was the last block applied a year ago. El_C 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn’t initially going to come here, but his reaction to my initial mention of this was of no remorse, and it was more than just one revert over his restriction... Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- (2xec) But he went over 3RR too. With that many previous edit warring blocks, do you think he forgot about 3RR as well? (And did you really just call EL C's block a "hair trigger" block on SNAAAKE's talk page?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, El C, it is much appreciated. Flo - yes, 29 minutes seemed rather expedient for AN/I...at least, that is how it appeared to me at first. This is not 3RR or AE. I apparently have a different perspective regarding the value of quality contributors to the project when it comes to encyclopedic accuracy vs behavioral issues and edit warring to keep inaccurate information out (I have not studied the material since this is a conduct issue and not a content issue), which I (admittedly) tend to be more lenient toward. Atsme Talk 📧 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just because you write well, that means you can disregard your editing restrictions whenever you want? Am I parsing your reasoning correctly here? Valeince (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Atsme, when a report seems clear-cut to an admin, they are not obligated to wait for further discussion in order to act. Don't let various endless ANI discussions confuse you about that. At the event, it took me a lot less than 30 minutes to evaluate and act on this. I'm just as swift when it comes to AN3, sometimes to my own detriment, although not usually when it comes to AE. El_C 23:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- On one hand, I think we could extend a little leniency on the 1RR restriction; maybe a user does forget that he's under a certain restriction. But "no edit-warring" is a basic policy around here, one with which anyone with 7+ years of editing should be familiar. This wasn't a 3RR violation (there were four edits spread out over 30 hours), but it's easily blockable edit-warring, and when you've accumulated 2½ months of edit-warring blocks, you can't claim forgetfulness. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, El C, it is much appreciated. Flo - yes, 29 minutes seemed rather expedient for AN/I...at least, that is how it appeared to me at first. This is not 3RR or AE. I apparently have a different perspective regarding the value of quality contributors to the project when it comes to encyclopedic accuracy vs behavioral issues and edit warring to keep inaccurate information out (I have not studied the material since this is a conduct issue and not a content issue), which I (admittedly) tend to be more lenient toward. Atsme Talk 📧 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Syopsis seems to be certain of his version of the truth that other editors must all be "for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article", and he then removed all the tags added to the article as if by removing these tags, the article will no automatically be taken as the truth when any intelligent reader could see the excessive coverage of the US's administration with little to no mention of its Chinese counterpart. When I reverted his edit that deleted ALL tags, he instead insist on his version and said I should discuss these changes first, when already several other have questioned the POV of the article on the talk pages for a long time. He seems to be unable to make arguments beside being a wiki lawyer and make personal attacks, when others have made clear stated point. I once thought even the most pro-current-administration person should agree this article simply writes too much from a US perspective, because besides the mentioning on the retaliatory tariff, all the rest are US,US,US if not TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP. Viztor (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- User's already filed two complaints (one at the neutral point of view noticeboard and another at the Administrator intervention against vandalism . I have said everything I needed to say but it basically boils down to the user refusing to even discuss the changes he wants - there is an assumption on his part that his view is "the truth". I have said from day one that we need to discuss the kind of changes that he is making on the talk page FIRST because it is A LOT of information that he is trying to pull out. There really isn't anything partisan about it, although given the user's history....the same can't be said. Syopsis (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Viztor: See this is the kind of edit that YOU need to be making and EVERYONE can agree on. Syopsis (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Syopsis: Regarding this atrocious edit: please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to not curse needlessly in communication, and to be respectful. If someone does something you disagree with, talk about it calmly and try to resolve the issue, instead of throwing your hands up in exasperation or being rude to other editors. Also, do not make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. If you think someone is a sock, report it at WP:SPI, don't use it as a cudgel in conversation. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Viztor: I think you should read WP:CIVIL too, and also remember to not WP:FORUMSHOP. Posting an issue in one place is good enough, and ANI is the right venue. Your reports to the other boards have been removed or moved. Also, to both of you, your use of capitalization is excessive. Please tone it down. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- i'm generally quite relaxed and a all-time-lower-case person, however, it does came to my notice that this specific user were tracking and vetting the changes i make and reverted those he doesn't like, which is as if someone's scratching the back of my feet while i'm sleeping, which apparently cause reactions in my nervous system and make it quite uncomfortable to keep editing. Viztor (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ok... you have both expressed your take on what is happening... now, please sit back and let others examine the situation and comment. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is significant undue weight. If I scroll to the top of "Arguments for the US to implement tariff sanctions" and PageDown, this section occupies nearly five screens, and from "Temporary reprieve" to the beginning of the China subsection of "Influence" is a little bit over three screens. The only China-specific section is the Influence/China subsection, which is less than one screen. You can't claim balance when one side gets eight times the coverage. Hint: wait until secondary sources come out (those written after the fact), rather than using primary sources (those written at the time of the event), because reliable secondary sources will provide a good overview instead of "Here's the latest X you should care about" typical of primary sources like news reports. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Personal attacks and incivility by User:DragonKing22
DragonKing22 This user is repeatedly showing incivility to other editors. They were blocked from editing for the same reason by User:Ad_Orientem (diff). In response to the blocking template, they promised that it won't happen again
. Ad Orientem unblocked them. A month later, User:Laser brain warned them for blanking contents. His response was this. On February 14th an IP editor asked or requested him something politely here to which they responded in a very incivil manner. The IP editor's response was this. Earlier this month, User:Drmies warned him for disruptive editing. Again their response was very incivil. Also cursing someone to have them dead isn't something I would call polite. They are definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Masum Reza📞 09:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a recent incident to report? Your most recent diff is from May 5th. ST47 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @ST47: All of the diffs posted here are from their talk page history. Probably there's more like this in their contributions. Just because they lost his job three years ago doesn't mean they can behave like this. Harrasing a good faith editor isn't something that is appreciated. This might discourage new editors from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a safe environment for new users and it is a collaborative project. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza📞 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Masumrezarock100,
"they lost his job three years ago"
is that something he/she revealed by themself? I think what DragonKing22 said deserve an indef block and they should be able to request an unblock--SharabSalam (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)- @SharabSalam: Yes they revealed it in this diff. Masum Reza📞 14:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Masumrezarock100,
- @ST47: All of the diffs posted here are from their talk page history. Probably there's more like this in their contributions. Just because they lost his job three years ago doesn't mean they can behave like this. Harrasing a good faith editor isn't something that is appreciated. This might discourage new editors from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a safe environment for new users and it is a collaborative project. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza📞 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that, due to the several weeks that have passed since the most recent incident, a block would not be appropriate at this time. However, User:DragonKing22 should be aware that they are on their very last leg, and that if there are any further civility issues, that they will result in a substantial block. They seem to be off-wiki at this time, so let's wait and see how they respond. ST47 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well that's charming. Below, we establish that "fuck off" is not uncivil--but DragonKing22, "FUCK YOU MOTHERFUCKER DROP DEAD" is something completely different, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- They were handed their second block for gross incivility back in November, which was lifted when they offered a sincere-looking apology. Less than a month later and immediately below that apology they left this response when they were warned about blanking a page inappropriately. Two months later an admittedly odd request from an IP was met with "do it yourself you jackass!" And then of course we have the lovely response to the lovely Drmies above. And it's not just the incivility: the incivility is in response to good-faith users trying to notify them about ongoing and persistent problems with their editing which they're refusing to address, so the rude outbursts are just icing on this cake. So, I think I'll not wait for an explanation here. They can try with another unblock request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Bad language by Prhartcom
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think if an editor sends you a pretty normal message, you don't reply to them as "fuck off." Especially if it's been 7 days. Can any of administrators warn this editor, I would if I didn't know they'd react in the same way again. Sebastian James what's the T? 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sebastian James: Although I am not an admin, I warned this user. Masum Reza📞 09:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your allegedly "pretty normal" message was patronising to the point where "fuck off" does not seem out of place - and then giving them a templated warning is almost as inflammatory. This is a long-term editor. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention that "fuck off" has been repeatedly upheld as potentially rude, but not uncivil, particularly in usage indicating people should vacate one's talkpage. Given the number of times Sebastian James has been to ANI for their own incivility, and the reason they got the edit summary that they did, they should think about withdrawing this. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Still we must think about other's feelings. Words like these can be pretty offensive to new editors. I gave them a general note warning which is appropriate here. Masum Reza📞 13:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, a warning for "fuck off" as an edit summary when removing a patronizing template on one's own talkpage is not appropriate here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. The word fuck off means go away. It is not a personal attack or even uncivil. I see many Americans use this word (in TV) even politicians etc. Sebastian James, fuck off means go away, it is not a personal attack and it is used in American language a lot.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agreed; it's not. There was an RFC wherein the resulting consensus basically summarized, as you said, that telling someone to fuck off is not incivil.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- The transformation from "X is not necessarily uncivil" to "X is necessarily not uncivil" is very bad. There are times when saying "fuck off" should be viewed as an acceptable response to something. But there are also times when it should not be viewed as an acceptable response. Each one should be viewed on its own merits, and people should stop making the argument "X is not always sanctionable => X is never sanctionable" that is on display here.
- (In this particular case: I think using it as an edit summary to remove a condescending message from ones own talk-page is pretty defensible, and so is the comment Masum Reza left.) --JBL (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, a warning for "fuck off" as an edit summary when removing a patronizing template on one's own talkpage is not appropriate here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- That "message" was only "pretty normal" if condescension is normal. "Have a nice day"? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Truly, what a world we've come to where "have a nice day" is considered condescending and "fuck off" is considered okay!--WaltCip (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- When it's used in such a smarmy manner as the close to a rude condescending message, yes, it is. Reminds me of this: "What a lot of things you do use Good morning for!" said Gandalf. "Now you mean that you want to get rid of me, and that it won't be good till I move off.”― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit or There and Back AgainBeeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Truly, what a world we've come to where "have a nice day" is considered condescending and "fuck off" is considered okay!--WaltCip (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would probably have told you to fuck off if I was left that message, too.--Jorm (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I certainly would have. Although I'm a little bemused that people think "fuck off" isn't uncivil. It's just a kind of understandable incivility when you've been the recipient of passive-aggressive incivility first, just with no naughty words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bingo. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I certainly would have. Although I'm a little bemused that people think "fuck off" isn't uncivil. It's just a kind of understandable incivility when you've been the recipient of passive-aggressive incivility first, just with no naughty words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to improve the quality of this article and was reverted by having it called vandalism: [92]. Do I really have to put up with this? Op47 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Op47: First, this isn't the right place for this. Try Ritchie333's talk page if you must. Second, Ritchie333 is a long-standing admin, so good luck getting anyone to side with you. I can't judge the quality of the edit because not being British, I know nothing about the M25. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- By my eye it does not look like vandalism. I don't know if it is right or wrong, but it appears to be good faith, and Ritchie has been here long anough to know the difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Op47, assuming that the 2km slipway being discussed is [93] (OpenStreetMap), then it does indeed run between the M25 and the A217 (ie.
the article was correct as-was, and Ritchie333 was correct to revert). —Sladen (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)- I made the change to make it run between the M25 and A217. It was reverted to make it run between the M25 and M23 Op47 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies Op47,the diff had been mistakenly read backwards. Can see the frustration now…; hopefully Ritchie333 will be willing to **self-revert** and retract the edit statement. For future reference, please try to exhaust discussion on the relevant talk page (Talk:M25 motorway#Longest slip road) prior to escalating—then the prior discussion can easily be linked to. —Sladen (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I made the change to make it run between the M25 and A217. It was reverted to make it run between the M25 and M23 Op47 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Op47, assuming that the 2km slipway being discussed is [93] (OpenStreetMap), then it does indeed run between the M25 and the A217 (ie.
- By my eye it does not look like vandalism. I don't know if it is right or wrong, but it appears to be good faith, and Ritchie has been here long anough to know the difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Did you discuss this first? No? Then what's it doing here?
- You've made two very minor edits here, one correct (it's J8, the A217) and one clearly wrong, which you're trying to justify by resort to WP:OR (and you're still wrong). I don't know why Ritchie is quite so annoyed here, usually in such cases there's backstory the rest of us haven't seen, but I can neither explain nor excuse their response. However you need to discuss this with them, not jump straight to ANI.
- Like the M25, watch out for the way BOOMERANGS circle back on themselves too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this is not "ripe" for ANI and that direct discussion with Ritchie should've been tried first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Passwords
One user has been speading their passwords across Wikipedia such as this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899599455 at which contains a bitcoin password. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, edits were revdel'd and the editor's been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Suppressed. This content falls under being non-public information. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Lemme get that bitcoin password. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- There's gold in them thar Wikipedia edits! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Lemme get that bitcoin password. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Suppressed. This content falls under being non-public information. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)