Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs) →Jitazg and Zubeen Garg: Typo |
Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
: This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, {{replyto|Alecsdaniel}} please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, [[WP:PNSD|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]] (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. [[User:Bgkc4444|Bgkc4444]] ([[User talk:Bgkc4444|talk]]) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC) |
: This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, {{replyto|Alecsdaniel}} please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, [[WP:PNSD|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]] (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. [[User:Bgkc4444|Bgkc4444]] ([[User talk:Bgkc4444|talk]]) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! [[User:Alecsdaniel|Alecsdaniel]] ([[User talk:Alecsdaniel|talk]]) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
::Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! [[User:Alecsdaniel|Alecsdaniel]] ([[User talk:Alecsdaniel|talk]]) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: {{ping|Bgkc4444}}, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. [[User:Isento|isento]] ([[User talk:Isento|talk]]) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== United States of Banana == |
== United States of Banana == |
Revision as of 02:58, 16 December 2020
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) |
|
Saflieni's personal attacks and other disruption
- In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WP:AN3#User:Buidhe reported by User:Saflieni (Result: impasse--no good reason to block one editor but not the other)
- Talk:In Praise of Blood#Reception section and the dialog below it.
A few days ago, Drmies suggested that I to go to ANI due to this editor's behavior.[1] I try to avoid dramaboards but the disruption has continued so I feel I have no other option.
- Personal attacks: They repeatedly accuse other editors of lying, eg. "Stop making things up. It's clear that you're not interested in creating a balanced Wikipage at all ..."[2] "Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[3] (Sadly, that is not the complete list). Even an uninvolved editor politely asking them to be civil, without referring to any past incident, results in the accusation of "pollute my Talk page with false accusations"[4]
- They also seem to have issues with WP:CIR, as Drmies pointed out here[5] and here[6]
- There is also an issue of WP:OWN behavior, implying that other users need to get Saflieni's permission to make edits: "I have asked you to discuss further edits on the Talk Page. You didn't."[7] and "Restored previous version. The edits were not agreed upon."[8]
Earlier today Drmies stated, "you [Saflieni] are contributing nothing at all to this discussion or to this article"[9] which pretty much sums it up. Despite multiple warnings and requests to change their behavior,[10][11] it has gone on. Because Saflieni has become a net negative on this topic and has prevented other editors from moving forward with improvements to the article, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban from the topic of In Praise of Blood and its author, Judi Rever. (t · c) buidhe 11:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- FYI: Drmies went ballistic [12] when I tried to correct an error of judgment by using the phrase "you are wrong" before explaining the misunderstanding [13], referring to [14] [15]. It went downhill from there [16] and I've been insulted several times, him talking down at me: "As for your 'question', you can ask it until the sun goes down," and, without considering my explanations, telling me: "you may not be competent enough in working in a collaborative environment". Then when I complained on his Talk page about his jumping to conclusions and unfriendly attitude, he accused me of "gaslighting" [17]. This is not the conduct one expects from an administrator, according to [18]. But he continued on [19] where Drmies suggested a consensus on a disputed phrase by ignoring my input on what the literature says [20] and ignoring my suggestion to read the relevant section in the source. [21]. It went on by Drmies siding with the other two by deliberately misunderstanding my objections to HouseOfChange using an unverifiable twitter gossip to discredit a source and he continued to insult me by dismissing my elaborate efforts to explain content as only adding a lot of bytes [22].
- As for you: take a look in the mirror. While I was trying to edit the article based on information from reliable sources you were consistently reverting them, accusing me of misleading, dismissing an expert source as "not notable", repeatedly accusing me of POV, suggesting in the edit summary that edits discussed on Talk were "unexplained removals", "BLP violations" that weren't and finally outright edit warring [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29] [30] [31] [32]. I went out of my way to discuss content. Even a couple of factual mistakes I corrected, which were very easy to verify, took multiple discussions and unpleasantries to get accepted by you. And then HouseOfChange came along, not contributing but simply deleting my edits without discussing on the Talk page [33] [34] [35] [36], and the story started all over again. He had already flagged my edits as "this page has come under attack" and he responded to my call for a discussion by immediately accusing me of edit warring and biased editing [37]. This attitude never changed. Both now started to attack, accusing me of pushing my opinion, of misquoting the literature, of taking stabs at book reviewers, e.g. [38]; [39]; [40]. In the latter diff they lie that I had changed the text of one of Buidhe's edits to attack a reviewer, but the history makes it clear that I never touched it. It goes on and on. After some of my edits had been reverted thirteen times the page was put under protection, but I haven't seen any positive attitudes from any of you towards resolving the dispute. Saflieni (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Supporting Buidhe, Saflieni is wasting the time and patience of other editors who want to improve the article In Praise of Blood.
- He expands criticism of the book, removes positive comments, removes material that supports claims in the book, and reverts multiple edits by others to keep his own POV predominant. Some diffs: (greatly expand criticism from one source) (remove positive quote) (remove material that supports claims made in the book) (revert multiple edits claiming "due to biased uncooperative editor")
- Instead of focusing on improving the article in a collegial way, he attacks those who disagree with him. For example, "More interesting is why Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[41]
- Even a simple talk page edit request discussion, where both Buidhe and Drmies agreed with my request to remove one phrase from a sentence, and not one person agreed with him that the phrase should remain, he first generates walls of text and then does not recognize the consensus of all other editors.[42]
The book In Praise of Blood is controversial. The article about it "must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." This goal has not been advanced by a WP:POVFIGHTER working to introduce multiple examples of people referring to its author as a genocide denier, a claim the article now parrots four times, with a single pushback by Rever saying she isn't. (Her book, whose subtitle is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front," focuses on crimes of the RPF rather than on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda by Hutus killing Tutsis. But the book, in fact, devotes some space to confirming that the 1994 genocide against Tutsis did occur and was a terrible thing.) What the current Wikipedia article doesn't include is the fact that these "specialists" are using the expression "genocide denial" in a way that does not in fact mean denying a genocide-- they intend a specialized meaning that Saflieni describes on the Talk Page: "Rever's book fits Stanley Cohen's definition of implicatory genocide denial." [43] Now to me the meaning of "implicatory genocide denial" should be made clear if the article wants to accuse Rever of it four times. Many people have called Hillary Clinton the "butcher of Benghazi," but if the article Hillary Clinton included four examples of people calling her that, surely WP:BLP would give clarification beyond "Clinton says she is not the butcher of Benghazi because she did not ever own a butcher shop." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of a little wrinkle in my RfA, where I got two opposes because I wouldn't block editor X after some ANI thread or something--one from the editor who wanted editor X blocked, and one from editor X. The current timesink started with an ANEW report (and the attendant retaliatory report), which I closed saying, essentially, that there was an impasse and that there was no good reason to block one and not the other. Saflieni can't let anything go, and continued their protests/comments/insults for days--the same MO they're using on that talk page. I am not quite sure where I went "ballistic"; I did ban them from my talk page because of their incessant whining. I am convinced, by now, that they are a net negative. Nothing good can happen to that article as long as they're around, with their accusations of BLP violations, libel, and what not, with their continued harping and producing walls of texts, with their bad-faith accusations (including that buidhe and House are like tag-teaming and must be in cahoots).
After I closed that ANEW report, and after I responded to a half dozen more of Saflieni's comments in that thread, I took to the article talk page because I felt that there were mistakes made by both parties, in terms of what reviews could and could not do, etc. In that same comment I mentioned that I was not speaking or acting as an administrator, so that Safliene keeps referring to me in this regard as an administrator is really just gaslighting, an attempt to stack the deck. That's why I specifically asked for EdJohnston to look at an edit request (Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page). Again, the only thing I've done as an admin is not block Saflieni or their opponents; in hindsight I regret that since there was copious evidence of edit warring, but I thought that they were able to work things out in a collaborative way. Anyone who looks over my comments at ANEW and at the article talk page will see that I have been plenty critical of buidhe and House--but they, to a much greater extent than Saflieni, acknowledge that this is a collaborative project. Saflieni needs to be blocked from that article and the talk page, at the very least, and they deserve a block for disruption and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap. I've been accused of misquoting and POV etc. by two editors and an administrator who have not read most of the relevant documents, such as the book and several other sources. They treat a couple of layman's reviews as authoritive (because those they have read) and are skeptical about the majority view among specialized scholars, researchers and investigative journalists with decades of experience in the field, not to mention independent eye witnesses. Regarding the Epstein dispute, I have twice requested Drmies to read the relevant section of the journal article from which I have selected the quote. It's open access [44] so anyone can check if I misquote or misrepresent the author by simply reading it without bias. There's no excuse to keep accusing me even here of "Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page," based on nothing but an uninformed guess and then tell me I'm not cooperative. There still are sixteen references in the article to the reviews by Epstein and Garrett, and their praise is also still there. All I did was remove a few erroneous and contentious remarks and added a nuancing quote from a prominent scholar. I can't believe the fuzz and the hatred that these and similar honest edits have generated. And I find the highlighting of my responses to the endless reverts and obstructions and insults, which I admit should not have reflected my growing irritation the way they did, to be one-sided and unfair. Saflieni (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Despite its length, the section Talk:In_Praise_of_Blood#Edit_request is clear enough: the article contains a highly critical remark about one reviewer--but leaving out the rest of the comment, which indicates that the reviewer does need to be taken seriously. I don't know why Saflieni is claiming that somehow this is difficult: the partial quote is a misrepresentation, and "uninformed guess" is just nonsense. FWIW both Saflieni and House are very, very wordy, but at least House doesn't constantly badger and accuse people. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's not highly critical, it simply states a true fact. That whole section in Caplan's article is highly critical of Epstein [45], which is why I chose this neutral quote. Let someone else decide here. For HouseOfChange I have only this to say: I have invited you several times to go over my edits together, here for instance [46], so we could discuss them. But you have refused my offer. Now you bring those issues up again, not understanding that for instance Bisesero isn't mentioned anywhere in the book, so I removed that reference, or that Garrett's bit about witnesses at the ICTR is erroneous because Rever didn't write that and the correct version of the information is outdated, which would require adding extra information. And so on. But you all rather speculate about my ulterior motives. There's nothing I can do about that. Saflieni (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- My "MO" was to reply to the diffs in HouseOfChange's comment, this one especially: [47]. And I've inserted a diff which explains Caplan's section "Rever has a fan" to make it easy for you. Here it is again: [48]. You've been accusing me of personal attacks and other misconduct but it's the same as with the other two: the pot calling the kettle black over and over. Saflieni (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I added some links to the head of this report. This is a confusing AN3 case. At the start of the case, some admins might have considered User:Buidhe and User:Saflieni to be equally in the wrong , but in my opinion Saflieni has been digging the hole deeper by his ongoing conduct. (The page is now under full protection for a week). Though Buidhe may have some good arguments, this ANI complaint (which he opened) is so murky that I am doubtful ANI will be able to do much with it. If anyone who is concerned with the article would like suggestions of how to resolve the dispute, please post on User talk:EdJohnston since I do have some ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do hope that whoever decides on this case will check if the diffs presented by the plaintiffs really support their allegations and context, especially the ones in Drmies' comments. EdJohnston: When information is rejected before it's been considered this is not acceptable to anyone. You were there when I presented my argument on the Talk page which was then ignored and not taken into account when the "consensus" was reached. It was ignored again each of the three times I repeated it, such as here: [49]. On this page I'm still falsely accused of misquoting which is a serious accusation so I repeated my argument three times again with links to the source. See what happened. This has been the general attitude on that Talk page. Am I digging holes or are people digging them for me? Saflieni (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking as an uninvolved party: You're digging holes. Replying to every comment here looks more bludgeoning than helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm under attack from different sides but I shouldn't defend myself. Brilliant. Well, if nobody's prepared to look at the content of my arguments and it's all about how things "look" I can see where this is heading. You won't find me here again. Saflieni (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap. I've been accused of misquoting and POV etc. by two editors and an administrator who have not read most of the relevant documents, such as the book and several other sources. They treat a couple of layman's reviews as authoritive (because those they have read) and are skeptical about the majority view among specialized scholars, researchers and investigative journalists with decades of experience in the field, not to mention independent eye witnesses. Regarding the Epstein dispute, I have twice requested Drmies to read the relevant section of the journal article from which I have selected the quote. It's open access [44] so anyone can check if I misquote or misrepresent the author by simply reading it without bias. There's no excuse to keep accusing me even here of "Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page," based on nothing but an uninformed guess and then tell me I'm not cooperative. There still are sixteen references in the article to the reviews by Epstein and Garrett, and their praise is also still there. All I did was remove a few erroneous and contentious remarks and added a nuancing quote from a prominent scholar. I can't believe the fuzz and the hatred that these and similar honest edits have generated. And I find the highlighting of my responses to the endless reverts and obstructions and insults, which I admit should not have reflected my growing irritation the way they did, to be one-sided and unfair. Saflieni (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I am willingly working to get agreement on a neutral version of the article (and grateful to EdJohnston's help.) But Saflieni does not hear people's objections to his behavior at the article and on the talk page. So I hope we can wait before closing this. I am no longer asking that he be blocked from the talk page, where he does make some good suggestions, but I want to see better behavior in his actual editing of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- requesting a block I have tried to be collegial, even offering to replace my own draft of "Content" with his (subject to some consensus-based edits) but Saflieni has not moved on from rejecting ideas that change even a phrase of his own preferred content. After days of his uncivil attacks, with edit summaries like "do not pretend to know better than senior scholars please", "Contradicting is not discussing", "Please read the book properly", and most recently "No censoring essential information please," I request that somebody block him for a week. My goal here is to improve articles, not fend off accusations on talk pages. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Need some help here: To overcome the endless quarrels I have drafted a better version of the Wikipedia page that is neutral, captures the book's content, and fairly describes the responses by experts and non-experts, positive and critical, leaving the last word to the author.[50] On request I have inserted references to the bookpages where the author makes claims which are contested by the other two editors. However, HouseOfChange has come out of the closet as a superfan of In Praise of Blood and its author Judi Rever. We're still not getting anywhere because of it. HoC uses polarizing phrases such as "anti-Rever militants" to describe the experts who criticize the book (senior scholars, reputable researchers and renowned investigative journalists).[51] And even though HoC is a layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book, he keeps pushing his personal view even though the author herself contradicts it, such as on the double genocide thesis.[52][53][54][55] HoC dismisses the expert's arguments as "RPF talking points"[56] and calls experts who discuss the author's fringe theories "her angriest critics", accuses them of engaging in "groupthink" and "cherry picking", all to suggest they speak on behalf of the Rwandan government rather than analysing the book on the basis of their research and the scholarly literature.[57]. I have tried to explain everything as best I could, latest here [58] and [59]. However, HoC has now appointed himself to be the editor-in-chief of the article and proceeds to edit the article without consensus, circumventing NPOV by moving non-expert opinions to the Reference section,[60] and stealing bits and pieces from my draft that benefit his POV in the process.[61] Because we had agreed to try to make a new, neutral version and not edit without consensus,[62] I have reverted the changes that were made without prior consent, hoping that a neutral administrator will step in and rescue my efforts to create an article that is factually correct, neutral, fair, and gives due weight to the majority view amongst experts. I don't want this to backfire again. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promoting fringe theories. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Saflieni has a content dispute with me and with Buidhe. We have tried to resolve it on the talk page. Saflieni edit-wars to focus the article, including its Contents section, on controversy about the 1994 Rwandan genocide. We say, the book's topic is a decade of (alleged) war crimes starting in 1990. We do not dispute that criticism of Rever's controversial claims belongs in the "Reception" section.
- Re the current complaint: as EdJohnston suggested, first I and later Saflieni created drafts for a new "Contents" section. Saflieni has filed this complaint in response to my putting into the article a version of HIS draft (with citations added), calling this "stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission". So now after four days of work, trying to compromise and build consensus, Saflieni has reverted to the version before any change to the "Contents". This article could use a few more editors, if anyone's willing. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that User:Saflieni is going to win this argument on the basis of his personal charm. His latest remark to HouseOfChange is:
Besides, the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. What you did was badly written, biased, and showed no understanding of the subject again. Why don't you find another, less demanding project?
[63].
- It doesn't seems as though Saflieni's position enjoys support from anyone else. (So much for his demand for 'consensus'). He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier. The other main participants in this discussion are User:HouseOfChange and User:Buidhe. When HouseOfChange took some excerpts from Salfieni's version and added them to the article, Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'? Saflieni considers HouseOfChange's work to be 'badly written and biased'. He says that HoC is a 'layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book'. If Saflieni isn't able to edit neutrally about Rwanda and to avoid personalizing disputes, I question if he should be participating on this article. Either a ban of Saflieni or another period of full protection seem to be the main options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is anybody ever going to look at the content in this dispute? We're discussing a controversial book about genocide, show some respect please. Do you want to get the correct information into Wikipedia or turn it into a fanclub page for fringe theories? I doubt I would get treated like this if I was in a dispute over Andrew Wakefield's book with two anti-vaxxers... Saflieni (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Saflieni: looking at Buidhe's userpage I can imagine few editors less likely to dismiss the seriousness of genocide. But thanks for yet another demonstration that you are too emotionally-invested to try to get consensus on content, so instead you attack other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Really, after all the hours I've put in trying to educate you on this subject, which is a complete mystery to you, you have the audacity to say this. My point is that you would need at least some basic knowledge to be able to recognize the limits of your competence. You lack that basic knowledge. That is not an attack. That's the reality which has been at the heart of this dispute from the beginning.Saflieni (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Saflieni: looking at Buidhe's userpage I can imagine few editors less likely to dismiss the seriousness of genocide. But thanks for yet another demonstration that you are too emotionally-invested to try to get consensus on content, so instead you attack other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is anybody ever going to look at the content in this dispute? We're discussing a controversial book about genocide, show some respect please. Do you want to get the correct information into Wikipedia or turn it into a fanclub page for fringe theories? I doubt I would get treated like this if I was in a dispute over Andrew Wakefield's book with two anti-vaxxers... Saflieni (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that User:Saflieni is going to win this argument on the basis of his personal charm. His latest remark to HouseOfChange is:
Topic ban violated?
- Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As far as I know, User:Tillman is topic-banned for the topic of climate change. Is he allowed to do this?
Not the first time this year either: [64]. And User:JzG warned him about it: User_talk:Tillman#Warning --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Back in 2015 User:Tillman was banned indefinitely from the climate change topic per this entry in DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons". The phrase "not a climate scientist" (with earlier additional words like "by training" removed) was inserted in the lead in late 2019, later removed and re-inserted at least three times, most recently re-inserted by Hob Gadling. Since lacking formal training specifically in climate science is not the same as not being a climate scientist, this was at most a good-faith miscalculation of what would be obvious to others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Irrelevant Wikilawyering. Happer "has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy." He is not only "not a climate scientist by training", he has never done any climate science. The exception does not apply, since pointing out obvious truths is not a "violation of the policy about biographies of living persons", let alone an obvious one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious truths? Oh here we go... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think this means that I can start putting "He's obviously not a rocket scientist" into BLPs without getting into trouble. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Only those BLPs which are about people who are employed as rocket scientists in spite of lacking the qualification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think this means that I can start putting "He's obviously not a rocket scientist" into BLPs without getting into trouble. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious truths? Oh here we go... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons".
- That exception is for things like "Joe Smith is a pedophile." without citation. It is not a "get out of topic ban" for any contested statement regarding a person. Tillman should not have touched this article for anything short of clear vandalism or damaging BLP violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Irrelevant Wikilawyering. Happer "has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy." He is not only "not a climate scientist by training", he has never done any climate science. The exception does not apply, since pointing out obvious truths is not a "violation of the policy about biographies of living persons", let alone an obvious one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons". The phrase "not a climate scientist" (with earlier additional words like "by training" removed) was inserted in the lead in late 2019, later removed and re-inserted at least three times, most recently re-inserted by Hob Gadling. Since lacking formal training specifically in climate science is not the same as not being a climate scientist, this was at most a good-faith miscalculation of what would be obvious to others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- It seems this is not an isolated incident: back in April there was [65] and the associated discussion here. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by user:82.132.213.249
- Creately (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 61.216.157.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 82.132.213.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user:82.132.213.249 is violating WP:PA and WP:DE in this page. They are vandalizing the page with unsuitable tags. When reverted, they are reverting again. They accused me of sockpuppet which is never true and not willing to communicate properly at neither their talk page nor at the talk page of the page. Please intervene. --61.216.157.181 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- And you have neglected to place an ANI warning at my talk page. See the giant, red notice at the top of the page, telling you that you must do that when you open an ANI discussion? And the giant, yellow notice in the edit dialogue here? 82.132.213.249 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have any response to the accused disruptive editing? (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a nonsensical accusation, by an editor who clearly has not read and understood WP:PA or WP:DE. I added maintenance templates to the article Creately, an article for which the anon editor has a quite singular interest. I also accused them of sockpuppetry for the article's creator, which I still believe is obviously correct, and which the article creator would "neither confirm nor deny" when asked.
- Do you have any response to the accused disruptive editing? (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- On a separate matter, I did breach 3RR, having misunderstood 3RRNO, for which we've both already been warned. I was restoring maintenance templates that User:61.216.157.181 repeatedly removed on various flimsy pretexts, immediately following article creation, but I quit restoring them after the warning. 82.132.213.249 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- On the ongoing discussion, I like to draw attention to the persistent vandalism going on the page Creately 1, 2, 3 210.3.160.226 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- None of these edits are vandalism. The article is still orphaned, and you're not permitted to remove a speedy tag from an article you created. And once again, you've failed to add an ANI warning at my user talk page. Admins, may I suggest semi-protection for the page? I've asked User:Alexandermcnabb to judge whether the speedy tag they added has been improperly removed. 82.132.213.200 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- On the ongoing discussion, I like to draw attention to the persistent vandalism going on the page Creately 1, 2, 3 210.3.160.226 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- This IP appears very experienced (REALLY??) looking at their style of operation. They are dishonest and they cunningly game the system by saying I did breach 3RR, having misunderstood 3RRNO since they are habitual offender of edit warring thus can not remain unaware of 3RR. I will deal with their violating WP:AGF, WP:HA and WP:PA first- I have been reverting vandalism for a year or so now and I can say myself slightly experienced editor with good knowledge about policies. I never created an account as I never felt the need to for what I do. The IP said I never read and understood WP:PA but it should be with them who don't have any idea that personal attack includes Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. I have explicitly said that I have not created the article, but this user kept on accusing me of sockpuppet of User:Hareshamjadu. This Ip should know it is not allowable to keep on accusing false things without any proof? If I see some obvious disruptive editing from a persistent DE what will I do? I do revert the DE! They can not accuse me of sock just as I have reverted their edits. can they? Since they accuse me as a sock of User:Hareshamjadu and I have commented already I would like to ask User:Hareshamjadu to comment here. I don't know on what basis they are making the accusation but I am accusing these users - user:82.132.215.207, user:Alexandermcnabb, user:82.132.213.200, user:82.132.213.249, user:Prince of Azerbaijan as socks or meats based on behavioral evidence. Some more can be found per my intuition & will keep on adding as I get more of 'em. Anyone can see, their behavior is very impolite and uncivil violating WP:CIVIL. I demand blocking this IP with its socks and meats or equivalent measure as deemed by the admins fit for continuous lack of good faith editing, disruptive editing and habitual edit-warring with rampant speedy tags along with obvious harrassment of other editors. Let me show further how this user is creating troubles and wasting valuable time of experienced editors/admins by disruptive editing- you can find this user have a tendency to add speedy tag or prod tag in good articles which actually stays per community decisions later article1, article2, but contributes proactively on articles which are undoubtedly non notable and later found not suitable for main space. This is not the end. This IP and its socks try to deceive other editors. For example we get the edit comment - none of these mention the subject of the article. But we see the references this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this you can check more urself. If this is not disruptive editing then what is DE? Is such behavior helping wp? Its also a possible that they may be truly incapable of a simple google search for reference validating in case they're not deceiving. In any case they remind us WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE so pertinently. I have no interest on their agenda (which is very important question though) but it is for sure not compatible with Wikipedia goals. I never want to assume bad faith on others but for such an editor I must say we simply don't need these socks/meats in any form - IP or an account. They should be hunted and banned from WP. 103.152.151.20 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I, or anyone else, has the time for this. I'm also drowning in IPs. The article Creately was tagged by me for speedy while doing new page patrol because it's promotional cruft about a non-notable SAAS app. Article creator User:Hareshamjadu removed the speedy tag. Turns out User:Hareshamjadu and what would appear to be a number of their socks have been removing any attempt to place tags on the article. Creately, its creator and their createlings clearly all need to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Abusive editing
Dilbaggg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- •Accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism with no evidence whatsoever: 1 2 3 4
- •Reported me twice to administrators in under 24 hours with no evidence here and here
- •Ignoring a discussion which took place here by making this edit
- •General failure to engage in constructive debate and discussion (providing evidence, threats, refusal to do any work themselves regarding proposed RFC) here and here.
- •Reverting valid edits without any reasonable explanation, the latest being this
I've repeatedly afforded the user the opportunity to apologise for their accusations and allegations made against me, on their page, to no avail. Their last comment on their talk page to me is actually hurtful in many instances. ItsKesha (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha, to be honest, I'm seeing an awful lot of warnings at your user talk and its history. Are you sure this is where you want to be? —valereee (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really think a grand total of one warning is "a lot"? ItsKesha (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have given the entire explanation here that ItsKesha has been removing and blanking WP:RS in these two discussions: [66], [67]. i have repeatedly requested him to start a WP:RfC as he is blanking/removing valid WP:RS info, leaving WP:NOR and unsourced materials. He has been warned before by other users, but he removed those warns like [68] as he did with my request for him to stop these disruptive editing. Just check User talk:ItsKesha: Revision history. And look at the removal of all Wp:RS in WWE Music Group discography in the name of fixing overlinking, which is clear Wikipedia:Gaming the system. And the reason for the sock acquisition is the similar manner and edit summary "see ya" which this user used: [69], bot accounts made in 2020 around the same time and similar edit summary. Even if I am wrong about sock, it is clear WP:Vandal to remove and blank [{WP:RS]] contents which have been there for years despite being requested to give proper explanation, which he didnt, and despite repeatedly being urged to seek Wp:RfC from senior users of WP:PW, just see the two discussions where I rationally explained to the two 2020 accounts: [70], [71] and you can check their revision history of mine and the edit history of 2020 registered users User:Dory Funk, User:ItsKesha. I agree I breached WP:Civil, I apologize, but why after I repeatedly requested these two ids to seek Wp:RfC and let senior editors decide the outcome by voting they refuse to do so? And it is User:ItsKesha who is repeatedly blanking/removing Wp:RS and removing talk page warns (the latter allowed, but it just shows he doesnt care about the policies, doens't want a rational discussion, doesn't bother to hear comments from other users through RfC). He is blanking/removing Wp:RS and structural changes to established articles that have been that way for YEARS before he joined, and its a=only rational to request him to seek WP:RfC to get approval from senior WP:PW users before making those changes, but he doesn;t bother doing that despite infinite requests. Just see the Talk:The Streak (wrestling), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, User talk:Dilbaggg, I have repeatedly requested him to go for WP"RfC and seek consensus before removings such crucial WP:RS and WP:RS contents, destroying formats, and in the name of removing overlinking he is removing all Wp:RS from some articles like WWE Music Group discography: [72], [73] which is clear Wikipedia:Gaming the system leaving the page without any source/citation at all which is purely against Wikipedia guidlines, and if he gets questioned/warned for such behavior not just by me but other users too, he removes the warnings. User talk:ItsKesha revision history still records those. He said I dont explain myself, just check the discussions of those pages I repeatedly did, and above all whats his issue with seeking consensus by Wp:RfC instead of removing/blaninking Wp:RS contents that have been well accepted for years based purely on his personal views? I just want the opinion of senior users on that matter and thats why I kept telling him to seek RfC but he never does it and says things that "I won't bother to read", if he doesnt read my explanation why accuse me of not giving an explanation? I admit breaking civility and if I get blocked for that, I have no issues, but at least prevent the vandalism of those articles, that may be my last request here. Judge yourself. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha, you have four warnings on your user talk right now, starting with the one headed August 2020 (talk page sections headed "Month Year" are generally warnings generated by Twinkle), a section headed 'Some thoughts from an administrator', and a couple more recent that you've deleted. Yeah, that's a lot in less than
fivefour months for someone with under 1000 edits. —valereee (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- The "comments from an administrator" were regarding my username, which had received a complaint and was subsequently dealt with. The warning about Jason Orange was probably correct to be fair. The "warnings" you're counting regarding edits I made to Joe Cole, Laurence Fox, Billy Mitchell and Boris Johnson are not warnings, rather marked very clearly as "information" regarding why the edits were reverted, as demonstrated by the blue/orange question marks. So, one warning. I'm certainly not counting the warning I received from Dilbag. ItsKesha (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha, "information" is the kinder, gentler term we use when we give a warning to a user whom we believe is not trying to be problematic, especially if they're newish. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @ItsKesha: The substituted templated warnings are from the {{uw}} family, which is short for "user warning". As Valereee pointed out, the lower user warning levels use information icons as a sign of assuming good faith and are there to gently nudge the user away from the inappropriate behaviour, while the higher warning levels escalate to a more traditional warning icon. Please be aware that when filing a report here, the reported user and the filer's behaviour will be looked at, and I have seen many times where administrative action has boomeranged and been enforced on the filer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, no. Those are all warnings, and you should listen to an admin when they tell you so instead of arguing, which isn't going to help your case here. Grandpallama (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me? ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha pretty sure you received clear disruptive editing warning with warning icon and warning message from User:Mattythewhite here: [74], despite you claiming you did not receive vandalism related warning before mine, the evidence is there always recorded on your talk page history. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hence me asking "Do you really think a grand total of one warning is "a lot"?" Well done. ItsKesha (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- You claim I disrespect you, and you disrespect my valid warning of you literally destroying sources and citations, leaving totally sourceless non WP:RS pages without any citations at all and requesting you to seek consensus from senior users through WP:RfC? Let admins judge the validity of my warning, it doesn't matter if you consider it as such or not. Let admins review the whole matter themselves and give the decision. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha pretty sure you received clear disruptive editing warning with warning icon and warning message from User:Mattythewhite here: [74], despite you claiming you did not receive vandalism related warning before mine, the evidence is there always recorded on your talk page history. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me? ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The "comments from an administrator" were regarding my username, which had received a complaint and was subsequently dealt with. The warning about Jason Orange was probably correct to be fair. The "warnings" you're counting regarding edits I made to Joe Cole, Laurence Fox, Billy Mitchell and Boris Johnson are not warnings, rather marked very clearly as "information" regarding why the edits were reverted, as demonstrated by the blue/orange question marks. So, one warning. I'm certainly not counting the warning I received from Dilbag. ItsKesha (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really think a grand total of one warning is "a lot"? ItsKesha (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Dilbaggg, not sure your hands are clean here, either, so I'd stop now. ItsKesha, you can back out of this now. Both of you, I'd highly recommend you both take the chips off your shoulders, start assuming good faith of the other editor, and stop being truculent with one another. ANI should be an absolute last resort for behavioral issues that haven't been resolved after exhausting other attempts. —valereee (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- —valereee I will take your humble advice, i admit misdeeds from my part like with civility issues, i will try not to break that, I just request ItsKesha one last time to go for Wp:RfC before blanking/removing WP:RS and removing established info that have been there for years like that, I just want the views of the senior editors (which i am not either, nor is ItsKesha). I hope it is not to much to ask to resolve the matters through a clean vote on consensus. I won't say anything else here and respect the decisions of the admins. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dilbaggg, lol, you don't have to grovel quite that much. :) Seriously, though, I'm only trying to get the two of you to sincerely try to put aside your clear annoyance at one another and have a sincere discussion of the issue. If it's a content dispute, ask for a third opinion. If it's a sourcing dispute, use WP:RSN and WP:RSNP. If you need help from someone expert in...what is this, football or something?...check who edits a lot of those articles and ask for some input. But I don't actually see evidence IK is being intentionally disruptive. They just...well, need to learn, and need to take the chip off their shoulder. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will check out WP:RSN and WP:RSNP, since it is abuot multiple articles and multiple sources, not just one and are PW related, I have sought the advice ofWP:PW before taking the matter there. Also I promise not to show anymore annoyance and try to resolve the matter maturely. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dilbaggg, lol, you don't have to grovel quite that much. :) Seriously, though, I'm only trying to get the two of you to sincerely try to put aside your clear annoyance at one another and have a sincere discussion of the issue. If it's a content dispute, ask for a third opinion. If it's a sourcing dispute, use WP:RSN and WP:RSNP. If you need help from someone expert in...what is this, football or something?...check who edits a lot of those articles and ask for some input. But I don't actually see evidence IK is being intentionally disruptive. They just...well, need to learn, and need to take the chip off their shoulder. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good to discover Keir Starmer is an administrator on here. ItsKesha (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
::Ignorant Yankee here, did I just get called a fascist? —valereee (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Says it all that your instinct isn't to find out who he is, but instead to presume somebody's said you're fash. ItsKesha (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, nobody is being called fash. ItsKesha (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
What "says it all" was your original statement which is very very borderline and I would suggest you strike it. (also, "fash"? Good grief.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- If you don't know who Keir Starmer is, how can you possibly know that it "says it all"? Keir Starmer isn't a fascist, he's the leader of the Labour Party. He's been described as "forensic" and "the grownup in the room" within British politics. But you know, rush to take it as an insult rather than as the compliment it was clearly intended. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- As a further explanation, Starmer is a knight of the realm and a former human rights lawyer. Again, no fascism insult intended. Sorry you thought that, wasn't intended! ItsKesha (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha, when I checked our article, it was circumspect, as it should be. Googled, and up came fascist on multiple hits, and I thought wut? My mistake, and I apologize for ABF assumptions. Especially to Starmer. :) Can we start over? IK, I recommend you and Dilbaggg try to resolve this in another way. This is the last place two newish editors want to be hashing out their differences. —valereee (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha I extend my own apologies - I'm very used to that sort of "X here is Y" being used as an insult or dogwhistle to the point it's too easy to just assume nobody uses it as a positive thing. I'll smack myself with a {{minnow}} and pledge to do better! Still think 'fash' is silly but I'm not a fellow kid. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha Could you please stop the :I do not explain" part, as I am literally having to copy paste my explanation that you deleted from your talk page here: [75], and when you say that you won't read the explanation anyway [76]. Anyway taken matter to WP:RSN as per admin suggestion here. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that these two have been engaging in something of a rivalry. As far as I can tell, it started two days ago at The Undertaker[77] and then spilled over to its sister article, The Streak (wrestling)[78]. Recently, there was some WP:HOUNDing at the unrelated Wednesday Night Wars article.[79][80] Dilbaggg also took issue with Kesha's edits to WWE Music Group discography and engaged in a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#WWE Music Group discography's WP:RS blanking and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary Source wwe.com and WP:PW/RS acceptability? And a user blanking every source leaving non WP:V pure Wp:OR contents without ANY citations. Allegations of sockpuppetry have been raised, but as far as I can tell an inappropriate report to WP:AIV was the only report filed.[81]
It's been over two years since professional wrestling articles fell under sanctions (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling), although clearly it hasn't done much to curb this behavior. Can an admin step in before this enters another day and spills into other articles?LM2000 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- LM2000, I was hoping this wouldn't require admin action. Dilbaggg has opened a discussion at RSN, but I'm not sure that wasn't a mistake. I am really firing on all cylinders, here. —valereee (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- LM2000 the RSN was as per suggestion here, and the recent Wednesday Night Wars article.[82] has nothing to do with any personal issue, I questioned the notability tag to a well sourced and neutral editor, I would have done had it been any user, I did not specifically target ItsKesha. We did have disagreements over the The Streak (wrestling) which has been resolved, and I have left RSN to judge the fate of WWE Music Group discography which now after removal of all sources is a pure sourceless, citationless article that fails Wp:V on every ground and appears as a WP:OR due to removal of evry single sources. The issue was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#WWE Music Group discography's WP:RS blanking, but I have left it to RSN to judge it now, so I have 0 issues with ItsKesha at the moment, and every single interaction between editors cannot be taken as a personal issue as with the recent case in Wednesday Night Wars, hope that resolves your worry, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- One of the editors I accused as a Wp:Sock has infact been outed as one [83] and User:ItsKesha sure uses a lot of policy for a 2020 user seems to have so much knowledge, although I am sure its Wikipedia:Gaming the system, a clear review of edit history, removal of warnings by multiple users including a recent one by admin [84], LM2000 suspects me of socking and filed a report I am fine with it, let investigators determine, but it is undeniable the behavior of User:ItsKesha, not to mention personal attacks on me: [85], and clear borderline edit warring as more than one user disagreed and I am sure more will disagree in the coming days: [86], [87], [88], (if you think I am linked to those guys you can most certainly check) and he is removing sources listed reliable on WP:PW/RS leaving WP:OR contents, as with Bleacher Report which from 2013 can be cited and WWE.com, and as per policy ""Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." [89] And It is far better to use primary sources than leaving WP:OR contents as User:ItsKesha is doing. And when asked to seek consensus from other users about making such Blanking, illegitimate and Format Change, never doess it and just goes on editing based on personal agenda. A lot of WP:RS he removed arent unreliable in the least, anyway that's just what I have to say. If he had been more experienced users making such big changes I would have had 0 issues, but he is new so I rightfully requested him to WP:RfC but that he will never do. I am not clean I broke WP:Civil multiple times, I accept punishment, but I want [{User:ItsKesha]]'s edits to be investigated now after his personal attack on me with the talk page insult one of the guy I suspected as a sock who indeed got outed as one, I had dropped the matter entirely after giving it to WP:RSN but now after that insult I just want admins to judge the changes he is making and if they approve by all means continue. Furthermore this is my last edit on Wikipedia until User:ItsKesha case is solved, if he is clean fine go on you can improve and build Wikipedia better than, I will stop editing for good, but if he is not I want his disruptive behavior stopped [90]! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here's me, attempting to discuss the change made to the Wednesday Night War key demographic edit. Here's the user, removing my question 90 minutes later before blanking his page. Here's me having a discussion about the mass removal of content regarding a music label discography, an edit you complained about and claimed was illegitimate, but never attempted to discuss. And what does Bleacher Report have to do with anything? I removed it, it was reverted, the sources are still there, unremoved. Are you ever going to stop lying about me and spreading smears? ItsKesha (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha you are discussing on talk page only after I pointed out your mistake, and still you do not WP:RfC from senior editors before making such big changes, and actually, falsely claimed you did, linking a consensus of a different article (relating to football) to justify your edits to another article (wrestling), as here: [91] using some consensus from Arsenal article to justify the wrestling artilce. Also if your edit is challenged it is always your job to start talk page discussion and gain consensus through WP:RfC, so don[t put that responsibility on me as I am not the one changing all those established edits. Also you recently removed a source from Uproxxx [92] which is not listed unreliable on WP:PW/RS, they have a list of what constitutes unreliable, Uproxxx is not listed as such, and as per the advice of a senior 2007 WP:PW user NikiMaria: [93]. Also The Guardian is listed as one of the most reliable source ever Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but you removed that too [94] , among numerous other sources that are well established [{WP:RS]]. And your edit here was not constructive in the least, just because you "feel something is not special" [95], even though there are listed special per WP:RS, thankfully a senior editor fixed the issue [96]. You removed sources even from ESPN which have extreme reliability, listed a mainstream RS in WP:PW/RS. Its WP:RS that matters, not your personal WP:OR. Anyway you have left ANI to judge the matter, good job, if they approve your edits and removal of [{WP:RS]], (even if Uproxxx is questionable, though not unreliable, you did previously remove some reliable sources like WWE.com (I explained the primary policy in bold above incase you didn't read), Bleacher Report and others that can be viewed on your edit history), then I will have 0 objections. As long as senior users/admins agree then who am i to say anything? But don't say you did Wp:RfC without actually doing so. Take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here's me, attempting to discuss the change made to the Wednesday Night War key demographic edit. Here's the user, removing my question 90 minutes later before blanking his page. Here's me having a discussion about the mass removal of content regarding a music label discography, an edit you complained about and claimed was illegitimate, but never attempted to discuss. And what does Bleacher Report have to do with anything? I removed it, it was reverted, the sources are still there, unremoved. Are you ever going to stop lying about me and spreading smears? ItsKesha (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- One of the editors I accused as a Wp:Sock has infact been outed as one [83] and User:ItsKesha sure uses a lot of policy for a 2020 user seems to have so much knowledge, although I am sure its Wikipedia:Gaming the system, a clear review of edit history, removal of warnings by multiple users including a recent one by admin [84], LM2000 suspects me of socking and filed a report I am fine with it, let investigators determine, but it is undeniable the behavior of User:ItsKesha, not to mention personal attacks on me: [85], and clear borderline edit warring as more than one user disagreed and I am sure more will disagree in the coming days: [86], [87], [88], (if you think I am linked to those guys you can most certainly check) and he is removing sources listed reliable on WP:PW/RS leaving WP:OR contents, as with Bleacher Report which from 2013 can be cited and WWE.com, and as per policy ""Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." [89] And It is far better to use primary sources than leaving WP:OR contents as User:ItsKesha is doing. And when asked to seek consensus from other users about making such Blanking, illegitimate and Format Change, never doess it and just goes on editing based on personal agenda. A lot of WP:RS he removed arent unreliable in the least, anyway that's just what I have to say. If he had been more experienced users making such big changes I would have had 0 issues, but he is new so I rightfully requested him to WP:RfC but that he will never do. I am not clean I broke WP:Civil multiple times, I accept punishment, but I want [{User:ItsKesha]]'s edits to be investigated now after his personal attack on me with the talk page insult one of the guy I suspected as a sock who indeed got outed as one, I had dropped the matter entirely after giving it to WP:RSN but now after that insult I just want admins to judge the changes he is making and if they approve by all means continue. Furthermore this is my last edit on Wikipedia until User:ItsKesha case is solved, if he is clean fine go on you can improve and build Wikipedia better than, I will stop editing for good, but if he is not I want his disruptive behavior stopped [90]! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Question...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to WP:UP#CMT, amongst the things that a user should not remove from their page is "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." Now that was fairly straightforward when blocking was all or nothing, but should it apply to partial blocks (i.e. from one single page)? The issue doesn't appear to have been addressed as far as I can see, and there is currently an issue going on where an editor is removing such a declined unblock request and another one keeps restoring it. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a type of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, but other restrictions are logged, a partial block isn't logged, but other sanctions are not required to be posted on a user's page so why require a failed appeal of this type of restriction to remain, but such info is pertinent to removing the restriction/block. What if there was an edit filter that logs declined unblocks, and whenever a new unblock is posted the template links to the edit filter so an admin can review all unblock requests? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I get why we don't allow fully-blocked editors to remove declined unblock requests while they are still blocked: the reason is that, more or less, the only edit a fully-blocked editor is allowed to make is an unblock request (or discussion about it), so if we know an editor's next edit is going to be an unblock request, it makes a lot of sense to require the previous declined unblock request to remain visible, to save admins the time of hunting through the page history. However, this reasoning doesn't apply to a partially-blocked editor. As such, I don't see a reason not to allow a partially-blocked editor to remove a declined unblock request. However, I think it would be a good idea to require partially-blocked editors, when making an unblock request, to affirmatively identify and/or link to (if it's not on the page) all previously-declined unblock requests; again, to save admins from having to hunt in page history. Levivich harass/hound 18:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just my interpretation but the wording is pretty clear to me. It's "a currently active block", partial or full. If the block is active, and a request is made and declined, it stays there. An active block is an active block, partial or full. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ignoring WP:UP#CMT as it is, what if the active partial block message stays but a record of denied unblock attempts is kept somewhere, per Levivich's suggestion? If someone makes multiple unblock requests that are declined, not being able to remove them when others are reading/editing their talk page for other reasons would be an eyesore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- And a red badge of shame that will make partial blocks/unblocks become more of an emotional thing for the blocked editor, who will want to be rid of the red badge of shame. Turning up the heat on partial blocks by requiring declined unblock requests to remain on a partially blocked editor's talk page will have a significant negative impact on the entire project. It's really a terrible idea. A partially blocked editor is still actively and productively editing, and that makes a huge difference between a partially blocked editor and a fully blocked editor. Levivich harass/hound 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Rick. A block is a block, be it full or partial. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. And, quite frankly, if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Rick. A block is a block, be it full or partial. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- And a red badge of shame that will make partial blocks/unblocks become more of an emotional thing for the blocked editor, who will want to be rid of the red badge of shame. Turning up the heat on partial blocks by requiring declined unblock requests to remain on a partially blocked editor's talk page will have a significant negative impact on the entire project. It's really a terrible idea. A partially blocked editor is still actively and productively editing, and that makes a huge difference between a partially blocked editor and a fully blocked editor. Levivich harass/hound 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
When I think over the technical innovations of the last few years, the two I've always thought the best are (1) the Thank feature (as someone pointed out, we had so, so many one-click ways of reverting and scolding people but no fast and easy way to give out atta-boys) and (2) page-level blocks. Vandals and trolls, who needs them? -- full blocks are fine. But for everyone else, a partial block is the perfect tool for getting an errant editor out of a bad situation without making them feel unwanted and rejected. How the editor feels about the block is key, and reasoning like if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place
is counterproductive. The question isn't what the editor deserves, but what will best help them get back on track. This needs to be considered from that perspective. EEng 00:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with EEng in this respect, as the amendment to the policy appears more punitive than remedial. The policy as written doesn't say that the partial block notice itself can't be removed, but it forces the user to either resign themselves to forever being blocked from that page range or pray they're lucky enough to have it appealed on their first request to not incur a buildup of denied unblock requests, as there shouldn't be anything stopping the user from making a new one every few months(?). I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate the presence of one denied block request, but how about just the most recent one to reduce unnecessary clutter? A link can be provided to a repository of previously denied unblock requests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not saying that my clarification to UP:CMT can't be changed or discussed, but as it stands, that is what our rules seem to say. Maybe a request for comment re Tenryuu's suggestion would be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it could be a worthy venture. Would you like me to draft a sample proposal somewhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: Wikipedia talk:User pages is a good place for the RFC. There has been recent discussion there on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:User pages § RfC about unblock requests for partial blocks
- Mjroots, I've started the RfC there. Looking for input from other editors who have had an eye on this issue as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: Wikipedia talk:User pages is a good place for the RFC. There has been recent discussion there on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it could be a worthy venture. Would you like me to draft a sample proposal somewhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not saying that my clarification to UP:CMT can't be changed or discussed, but as it stands, that is what our rules seem to say. Maybe a request for comment re Tenryuu's suggestion would be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Editor not communicating
- Kanto7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User talk:Kanto7 We have a small problem with an editor that will not communicate with others about their mass change of flags and dates in infoboxes. They have been reverted all over by many ediotrs all trying to get them to engage to no avail. Some edits are OK but the vast majority are not and they will not reply to inquiries. They may even be correct in sone cases but won't talk just warring. Let's give this person a small block see if that gets there attention. --Moxy 🍁 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
- still at it. sad face.--Moxy 🍁 14:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It would help greatly, if an administrator would check in on @Kanto7:. The lad doesn't seem to be getting the message. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello.? Editors still reverting to their preferred version with no talks.....even adding fake flags. What to do?--Moxy 🍁 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
KyleJoan
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
First, let me apologize for taking up admins' times with this. User:KyleJoan encouraged me to take this to ANI, which indicates to me this is the only way that this editor will heed others.
1. KyleJoan made a change through erroneously citing one other article's local consensus as a formal, Wikipedia-wide policy change, here.
2. An editor other than myself restored the status quo, explaining, "That RFC was for that specific case. It was not at all a project wide consensus. This is a very different case…" for reasons then given. Rather than follow WP:BRD, KyleJoan began edit-warring by reverting at 02:37, 6 December 2020 and at 02:55, 6 December 2020, and told the other editor to start an RfC. KyleJoan later made a 4th revision within 24 hours, at at 3:07, 6 December 2020.
3. The other editor could have reported KyleJoan to 3RR, but instead did indeed begin an RfC here -- which within two days trended against KyleJoan's contentious edit.
4. When I restored the status quo here, KyleJoan began edit warring again, at 14:37, 11 December 2020 and at 15:06, 11 December 2020, the latter with the edit summary "File the ANI report, then."
5. With the RfC trending against them, KyleJoan then went WP:FORUMSHOPPING at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources here. Amid everything else, this was the wrong forum -- no one was debating whether the source was reliable or not, but whether a primary source of straightforward fact was allowed to supplement a secondary source. In one of KyleJoan's multiple posts on my talk page about this, I pointed out WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So I'm not sure the motivation for continually debating a settled guideline.
6. Finally, they filed a false 3RR report, the full title of which says it all: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week ). Since this is a longtime editor who knows better, it does seem harassing.
I certainly don't believe any one of these things rises to the level of an ANI. But this harrying and not letting go of the stick -- it's a behavioral pattern. I'm not suggesting anything drastic, but maybe a topic ban on this one article only? And a friendly talking-to? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support discipline His behavior is unacceptable. He's quick to accuse people of edit warring, while ignoring his own blatant edit warring. This edit suggests that he has a very combative approach to editing, which is not appropriate. I am the other editor mentioned above, and he warned me, despite the fact that he was the one to make 4 reverts, not me. He also made a comment that to me sounded like he was claiming ownership of the article here where he says "Regarding
what led her to getting [...] her own article here in the first place
, I actually created the article without including any of the materials you included, and the article underwent a review successfully." Also, the positions he's willing to edit war over makes no sense to me. Why is it a big deal using a primary source in addition to a secondary source? Why is he so against including the widely sourced and covered fact that she received attention for documenting her husband's illness and death on social media? Also his tendency to bring up article issues on user talk pages rather than the article's talk page is bizarre to say the least. He also constantly justifies edits using the summary "per this discussion" which gives the impression that there is a consensus to include one way, when usually the discussion is just a comment left by him somewhere, or at the most, just a couple editors debating, clearly not reaching a consensus yet. See [97][98][99]. I feel this type of behavior deserves some form of punishment, or at least for him to make a statement acknowledging that he was wrong in his actions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan may or may not have been behaving badly (I haven't checked that he exceeded 3RR, but am willing to assume the report is correct and that he's been combative in discussion, also; he's certainly guilty of using the awful terminology "welcomed" for having a child), but in this instance I am positive he's right on the issue: WP:BLPPRIVACY is important, and I've both removed the specifics (and the superfluous social media reference) and argued in the RfC accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, there is no longer a privacy issue when the parents themselves announce it to the media. Our job as editors is to provide publicly available information. We are not here to accuse Amanda Kloots and Nicker Cordero of being bad parents. As parents, they made the decision that they were proud to announce their son's birthdate and name. That is their right. And with those facts out in print, Web and broadcast media, available to countless millions of people, it's not a privacy issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:SOCK - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comment A previously uninvolved editor has just undermined two out of the three content-related grievances you two raised (i.e., the inclusion of a non-notable minor's name and a primary source), so let's not continue to discuss content. The two RfCs on Talk:Amanda Kloots have nothing to do with the WT:RS discussion, so there was never a FORUMSHOPPING violation. It's also interesting that Tenebrae gave credit to JDDJS for opening an RfC without giving me some for doing the same. That aside, unless my math is failing me, I never violated 3RR, as it requires four reverts; granted, neither did Tenebrae or JDDJS. I will welcome any form of punishment should an administrator believe my behavior has been chronic; if not, I'd like to ask them to read the discussions on the RS and Tenebrae's talk pages and advise me on whether I'm completely misunderstanding each one's scope. Thank you. KyleJoantalk 02:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- here 1234. That's 4 reverts. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to state that I opened an SPI into Tenebrae and JDDJS, which was closed without action. The closing administrator wrote that I was acting in a bad-faith, retaliatory
manner, which I do not accept. Any person is free to have their view about my motives for opening the SPI, but no view changes the fact that I supported my suspicions with a plethora of evidence, none of which contained falsehoods. All of that said, I do not believe I have been guiltier of not letting go of the stick
than the two aforementioned users, so I hope any action out of this report reflects that. I also believe I've been respectful to every user in every discussion related to the content disputes referenced here, and I plan to continue conducting myself that way. KyleJoantalk 09:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan Your report was ridiculously bad faith. Before Amanda Kloots, I don't even ever coming across Tenebrae before. I have been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and have made over 40,000 edits. Tenebrae has been on Wikipedia over 15 years and has made over 150,000 edits. The idea that one person can manage to keep both accounts active and sockpuppet with them and somehow not get caught is absurd. Your "evidence" that we both disagreed with you is pathetic. And us asking to be blocked as evidence was also pathetic because if we had a sock, blocking one account would do nothing. You cannot file bad faith reports and yet claim to be "respectful" in your interactions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- A serious BLP violation can be an exemption from 3RR; KyleJoan, you would have been on firmer ground if you'd claimed that exemption in the edit summary when making the fourth revert and then reported it at AN. That said, I am very sympathetic to the argument that including the name of a minor child without multiple excellent RS as sources is indeed a serious BLP privacy issue and would justify violating 3RR. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee You mean like these [100][101][102][103][104][105][106] ? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- JDDJS, I'm not actually interested in the content dispute. I'm just saying that if the reversions are over including the name of a minor child, a 3RR exemption can be claimed while the content dispute is being worked out, ideally in the edit summary and via a report at AN. —valereee (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it should be noted, User:Valereee, that you yourself brought up the content dispute. So for balance, that needed to be responded to. Please see my side note in the sub-sction below. And User:KyleJoan was actually trying to remove a BLP reference!--Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the sympathy, Valeree, but the sourcing of the non-notable child's name was never in question. The content dispute has to do with the inclusion of the name itself, which an ongoing RfC should resolve. It seems ironic, though, that I've been accused of FORUMSHOPPING when a large portion of this ANI–which was supposed to address behavior–includes other editors' content-related grievances. That aside, I'd still like to maintain that I did not violate 3RR; only two of these four "reverts" were actual reverts. KyleJoantalk 14:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Template:KyleJoan You clearly never read WP:EDITWAR then, as it states " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan I immediately undid one of those reverts myself because it was accidentally done without an edit summary. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan per the four diffs provided by JDDJS I see a removal of the child's name by you at 23:43 Dec4 and 21:37, 21:55, and 22:07 Dec5, is that incorrect? —valereee (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is correct. I do, however, would like to ask whether the edit at 23:43 on December 4 constituted a revert because I simply saw that the name was in the article and proceeded to remove it. I'm genuinely curious because it was not as if I saw the most recent edit on the article and undid it. To be honest, I didn't even see when or by whom the name was included. That aside, thank you for all of your help with this report, Valereee! KyleJoantalk 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- So you're arguing it would have taken a fifth removal to qualify as a fourth revert because the first removal was simply an edit? :D —valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the first removal was part of a standard copyedit/cleanup, as I explained in the edit summary; I genuinely did not deliberately seek out something to undo. If said removal constituted a revert, then I would have never made the revert at 22:07 on December 5. I now acknowledge that this was a lapse in judgment on my part. I should have explained the situation
in the edit summary and via a report at AN
like you said, Valereee. KyleJoantalk 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the first removal was part of a standard copyedit/cleanup, as I explained in the edit summary; I genuinely did not deliberately seek out something to undo. If said removal constituted a revert, then I would have never made the revert at 22:07 on December 5. I now acknowledge that this was a lapse in judgment on my part. I should have explained the situation
- So you're arguing it would have taken a fifth removal to qualify as a fourth revert because the first removal was simply an edit? :D —valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is correct. I do, however, would like to ask whether the edit at 23:43 on December 4 constituted a revert because I simply saw that the name was in the article and proceeded to remove it. I'm genuinely curious because it was not as if I saw the most recent edit on the article and undid it. To be honest, I didn't even see when or by whom the name was included. That aside, thank you for all of your help with this report, Valereee! KyleJoantalk 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee You mean like these [100][101][102][103][104][105][106] ? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Side note
To clarify a misconception that some above have, Wikipedia BLP does not have any blanket prohibition on naming the children if relevant to the biography, particularly when the parents are celebrities who literally announce it to the media as a news item. The children of, for instance, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have appeared on magazine covers; other celebrities literally have their publicists release the information to news organizations. And in this case we had a secondary cite and a primary cite of the parents themselves announcing. The dispute involves KyleJoan insisting on removing a pertinent BLP citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
And add a 7th cause for action
Already User:KyleJoan, who is not a newbie but a longtime editor who knows 3RR rules, deliberately filed a false 3RR. Now, as KyleJoan themself notes above, they filed a false and clearly retaliatory sockpuppet allegation that admins rightly shot down. This has reached the level of personal harassment and false accusations made through official channels. While my initial ANI statement asked for a small, measured response, KyleJoan's continued attacks on me in formal admin pages is inexcusable and crosses a line. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. The report was downright abusive. In over 10 years of editing, I think that Amanda Kloots is literally the first conversation that we both contributed to. When you compare editors with over 40,000 and 150,000 edits, of course they're is going to be some overlaps, but his claim that they were to an extreme level were completely ridiculous. He completely grasped at straws to find absolutely anything to use against us. And to claim that he has been respectful to us even after filing that report is crazy. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I don't think there's any merit to the latest accusation but, to be fair, you do have a history of sockpuppetry. You were blocked for it in March. Swatchdog (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)- Anyone who reads the facts there knows it was accidental — once, after 15 years here — which is why the censure was brief. And it has nothing to do with KyleJoan's malicious false filing. Indeed, KyleJoan has just filed a false sock report against another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: Just to be clear, are you claiming that in your 15 years here you have only used sockpuppets once? Or just that you have only been blocked for it once? Swatchdog (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)— Swatchdog (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Spoonkymonkey (talk • contribs).- @Tenebrae: this is a very confusing discussion since it apparently involves genuine socks of 2 different editors. I agree with you and the SPI admins that the SPI against you and JDDJS was clearly wrong. As for the EW thread, calling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch. It's not like there were lies about how many reverts there were or claims that the article was on 1RR when the editor knew it wasn't. Edit warring doesn't require violating 3RR as I'm sure you well know and while I don't think there was any justification for that report, that doesn't mean it's false. Admins can assess whether there's any justification for a block without violating 3RR, they correctly assessed that there was none. If EW reports keep continuing when there's no cause for action, maybe there will be cause for action against KyleJoan although frankly I suspect admin regulars at ANEW will probably take action without needing ANI. Anyway given all that, I don't think the ANEW complaint adds much the the problem SPI. You mention there is another false sock report. Where is that? The only other recent SPI by KyleJoan I can find is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethewhistle-original which is apparently not false. (The next most recent SPI seems to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actionfan365 on November 21.) I'm hoping you didn't falsely accuse KyleJoan of filing other false sock reports in your complaint about them misusing admin notice boards..... In any case, whereever this other false sock report is, I do have some sympathy with them considering the plague of socks that seem to be bothering this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I'm assuming user:Tenebrae mistook his latest sock puppet filing as another false report, since he was also involved here. It turns out that was an accurate report, but you can't blame him for thinking that after that ridiculous report he filed against the two of us. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone who reads the facts there knows it was accidental — once, after 15 years here — which is why the censure was brief. And it has nothing to do with KyleJoan's malicious false filing. Indeed, KyleJoan has just filed a false sock report against another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I know this ANI report is to scrutinize my behavior, but I believe that it bears pointing out that Tenebrae has a tendency to join different content disputes about an article together as one big cluster and that they seem to be unable to separate content disputes from conduct issues. I also believe I have now learned the reason for this behavior, which is REDACTED
The discussion I opened on WT:RS resulted in a clear consensus that favors the notion that it is not necessary to include a primary source in addition to a secondary source when the two say the same thing and that the latter is favored, despite Tenebrae's dissent based on a basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet
. When I and another editor edited the article in accordance with this consensus, Tenebrae blanket reverted and cited the two ongoing RfCs on the talk page, neither of which has to do with the inclusion of primary sources. Dislike me all you want, but adhering to a consensus should not be based on one's issue with another's conduct. It's also odd for them to say we are not to make contentious changes that are the subject of RfCs until the RfCs are concluded
; a third editor has just done so in accordance to multiple guidelines that do not mention anything about this, so I must question whether the basis of their point was journalism-related as well. That aside, the quoted user also alleged that Tenebrae was the creator of the article about themselves, which–albeit not very relevant–seems worth inspecting.
Tenebrae has also contradicted themselves in their conduct. They were terribly offended by the SPI against them, and yet they were quick to believe the SPI against me and went on to speak to the IP user alleged to have been tied to me in a dismissive way (i.e., Really, every time I think you've hit bottom, you go lower.
). Not only that, but they objected to the IP calling the SPI nonsense
while it was ongoing, and yet they called the SPI into SailedtheSeas–who is now blocked indefinitely–deliberately false
and malicious
while it was ongoing. Personally, I didn't realize SPIs were that offensive. I've been accused of being a sockmaster multiple times, and I didn't even trip once; I didn't even take offense to Tenebrae's belief that I was one, but at least have some consistency about it. And finally, you can't accuse someone of personal harassment
and then call them out of control
as well as somebody who is not reasonable or [rational
]. KyleJoantalk 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm away for a day, and User:KyleJoan tries the classic guilty-party deflection technique of trying to make it all about the accuser and not about their own behavior. KyleJoan has filed malicious false reports about me and at least one other editor, in addition to all the other poor behavior KyleJoan has shown — including now making contentious changes to an article's status quo over issue still being debated at an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, there is no consensus at the WT:RS link in KyleJoan's comment above. Anyone can go there and see for themselves. KyleJoan is falsely claiming a consensus in his favor where it factually does not exist.
- More significantly, though, KyleJoan posted a link, which I have redacted, to an 8-year-old discussion between myself and another editor who threatened to out me. Imagine the time and trouble KyleJoan must have gone through to find an 8-year-old post to now use as a cudgel. This is beyond the pale, this cannot be excused, and I'm emailing Oversight to have KyleJoan's posts with that link removed from this article's history. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan If a user is personally harassing another editor, out of control and not reasonable and rational is a perfect way to describe that editor. You can argue that it doesn't describe you, but the idea that saying one somehow negates the other is completely absurd. Also, you cannot deny the fact that an IP address immediately editing talk pages and seems knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies is highly suspicious, so even if that investigation was false, there is actually merit in believing in it. However, if you do not know how absurd your claim that Tenebrae and I are socks, you clearly do not understand sockpuppet behavior at all, and should not be filing sockpuppet reports. However, you seem to be knowledgeable on sockpuppet investigations and to be an overall intelligent editor. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that you knew that we weren't socks, but filed a retaliatory claim against us anyway, which is not okay. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can all the editors involved in this long thread please agree to stop antagonizing each other, and to stop making contentious edits? How about everyone just quietly walks away and finds something else to do? Jehochman Talk 04:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jehochman While I will respect whatever conclusion this comes to, I do not feel filing a sock investigation that you know isn't true is something that should just be ignored. Before that, his behavior was borderline disruptive, and while I wanted my opinion on the matter to be known, I was ready to walk away from this discussion after doing so, fully expecting for there to be no actual action taken. However, I don't see how someone can just file such an obviously false and retaliatory report and not face any consequences. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jehochman The idea that we don't discipline users is simply untrue, otherwise temporary blocks would not be a thing. As far as I know, posting walls of texts is not against any policy, and I have not even done that. Can you please further elaborate on how have I head hunted? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- You keep asking for this user to be sanctioned. Try leaving them alone. Hopefully they will also leave you alone. If they don’t, somebody will likely notice and take care of it. Should you need help in the future post a short request here with diffs and then walk away. I don’t do temporary blocks. Virtually all my blocks are indef. Jehochman Talk 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have great respect for Jehochman, who generously gave much time and effort in 2015 to stop a particularly concerning editor who was hounding me and others. I only want to say that my original post did not suggest a block — simply a topic ban for that one point in that one article. And this was even after User:KyleJoan had filed a false and quickly dismissed 3RR complaint against me. But KyleJoan's then filing a false SOCK complaint is continued harassment, and falsely claiming consensus over one thing and violating RfC procedure over another — I don't believe this kind of behavior can simply be overlooked. This person needs to stop doing such things. They're not right and they're highly disruptive.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for remembering that. How about this, KyleJoan is warned to stop this obnoxious behavior. Filing a frivolous SPI report is not good, but I wouldn't block them for that without a warning first. So long as they do stop, we will let it go. If they continue, bring it to my attention on my talk page. KyleJoan, do you think you can disengage from this dispute, or do you want to continue? Topic bans are not my favorite because they infantilize editors. We should all be smart enough to stay out of areas where we can't keep our cool. Jehochman Talk 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have great respect for Jehochman, who generously gave much time and effort in 2015 to stop a particularly concerning editor who was hounding me and others. I only want to say that my original post did not suggest a block — simply a topic ban for that one point in that one article. And this was even after User:KyleJoan had filed a false and quickly dismissed 3RR complaint against me. But KyleJoan's then filing a false SOCK complaint is continued harassment, and falsely claiming consensus over one thing and violating RfC procedure over another — I don't believe this kind of behavior can simply be overlooked. This person needs to stop doing such things. They're not right and they're highly disruptive.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:SOCK - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444
- Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bgkc4444 was warned in a previous report by Ivanvector to assume good faith in dealing with editors, such as myself, to which they responded, "I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that." ([111]) Having been pinged to a discussion at Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material, given my contributions several months ago, I noticed they are still making bad-faith accusations and suggestions toward other editors, Fezmar9 specifically, and I see these are similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before.
- [112] "no matter if you personally dislike those facts", is how they opened the discussion after their only series of changes to the article in recent memory was reverted yesterday
- [113] "And you do not own this page so how dare you tell me to 'leave well enough alone' because you personally don't want to accept or display these basic facts." ("own" was pipe-linked to WP:OWN)
- [114] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
- [115] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
- [116] "Watch your tone, and it would be great if you stopped with the whataboutism and actually responded to my points. And well, no. As much as you'd love it to be the truth, Swift's albums aren't the main events in surprise album history like Radiohead and Beyonce's albums."
- [117] "Again with the ignoring of my points? ... I hope you're not refusing to engage in discussion, because this isn't your article, and you should want to reach consensus to ensure it is encyclopedic." ("this isn't your article" was pipe-linked, again, to WP:OWN)
- [118] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
- [119] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
- [120] "The way editors on this page are trying to bury that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album in a "shared" paragraph really isn't helpful."
I gave own input on the content dispute, with comments focusing strictly on the editor's changes and the content, rather than the editor's conduct or intentions, and even restored a piece of information that had been undone from Bgkc4444's original edit, but with a more appropriate source. Bgkc4444 replied by quoting a remark I made several months ago about what I felt was toxic and condescending behavior by them, while accusing the editors in disagreement with them of "trying to bury" information and "hiding the significance" of a particular subject. In my own opinion, I did not see anything suggesting Fezmar9 or BawinV have behaved or intended to behave in the way Bgkc4444 has said or suggested.
Content disputes can get heated and emotional. But, considering Ivanvector's advice in the aforementioned report, for more diligence in reporting incidents, I feel obligated to report this activity. Perhaps it will deter this kind of behavior so the rest of us can feel comfortable and encouraged, rather than compelled, to comply with more civil and patient standards of discussion about content. And so potentially toxic or unfair comments do not become normalized or countered by similar accusations and suggestions in discussions that should not lose focus of the content. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, you say "similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before", but I believe you're referring to your continuous personal attacks despite final warnings from administrators, which caused you to be blocked just ten days ago. I also believe you admitted your personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said you want no further interaction with me multiple times, and called this administrators' noticeboard a kangaroo court of hypocrites, so I genuinely cannot think of a good reason why you'd join a discussion that you know I started and then complain about my actions to the same noticeboard.
- Secondly, I do not see how these are "continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions". I certainly stick by my contributions to the discussion that I had made, unless I violated Wikipedia guidelines that I am not aware of. It is certainly true that both in the previous discussion and in the current one, editors explicitly agreed to ignore my points (especially you, when you said: "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.") and then consequently claimed that consensus was reached. I am happy to go through each of the out-of-context quotes you brought here one-by-one, but I don't want to waste time and would appreciate an administrator's POV. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
My conduct has already been addressed in the previous report. I have learned from and am over it. Nor will I be baited into further behavior of that kind -- as I clearly said above, I was pinged to that discussion and had contributed significantly to the article. WP:HOTHEAD makes it clear that project[ing] negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with is wrong, and saying things like "no matter if you personally dislike those facts" or making repeated accusations of page ownership seemed to fit the bill to me. So I reported it. I think a more formal warning rather than a block is appropriate, especially since Bgkc444 responded so defensively and was quick to highlight my past transgressions rather than reflect on their own behavior. They have demonstrated a pattern of making inflammatory or unactionable accusations ([121], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [122], [123], as warned by the since-retired admin Ad Orientem). And believe they should be held accountable for it like anyone else. isento (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- How is this WP:BAIT? I believe bait would be something like - after being blocked for continuous attacks on an editor, pledging a personal intolerance of them and pleading to not have interactions with them again - joining a discussion that that editor started, "remaining superficially civil" (e.g. as you said, you "even" restored a small piece of the material that I added) and "then complain to an administrator". I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoped you had changed and wouldn't try and ruin my editing experience for me as you have continuously done for months, but unfortunately I took the bait and here we are. Fezmar9 and I were in a NPOV dispute and we both accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on both mine and Fezmar9's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here. The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not both editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday at the aforementioned discussion, while pointing out the source-integrity flaws in Bgkc4444's original edits to the article, I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail.
This editor appears to routinely attack the intentions and credibility of other editors who do not agree with their Beyonce-focused content changes, such as at Alecsdaniel's talk page here a month ago: All of this does not indicate you are acting to improve this article, and instead shows that you're trying to make the film seem "worse" ... As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles ... repeatedly trying to force your edits onto the article that you know violate Wikipedia policies related to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is another example where the editor was disagreed with and overwhelmed the other editor with WP:HOTHEAD-like accusations and suggestions, and when the other editor gave a valid response addressing the issue and then bowed out, Bgkc4444 still continued with the same line of argument, accusing the other editor of "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and "pretending to not realise why your material was removed and repeatedly blame it on my intelligence or personal agenda (it's because it violates Wikipedia's policies, by the way)" while suggesting that they have not been "engaging in constructive discussion". isento (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I can honestly say my experience with Bgkc4444 was the worst on the English Wikipedia. "Black is King", a film by Beyonce, had the 'Reception' section filled only with overly-long praises from various sources and failed to address any criticism. In order to give the article a level of objectivity, I've added reviews or points made that weren't praising Beyonce, which the user removed. Despite having a conversation and a vote on the talk page of Black is King, in which other users agreed the points I raised were valid, he continued to remove anything he didn't see as good reviews. I've tried to talk to them, but, as seen from the answers given to Isento even here, they fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar. I truly believe this kind of attitude is toxic for people to interact with, which is why I left them to their device, and there is still only praise on the "Black is King" page. Furthermore, since they lack objectivity, it is really hard to say how much their contributions value on Wikipedia, as this is not a fan page. But not everybody gets that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Isento: Seriously, are you not tired of this? And are you refusing to address my points even here?
- "I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail." - Very benevolent of you, but because Fezmar9 and I are currently in a discussion regarding this content, I did not want to add material without ensuring there was consensus on it. And I'm not having a discussion with you while you're trying your hardest to get me blocked on here. I learned my lesson from the first bait-taking.
- And seriously, why are you bringing up months-old content disputes? It's actually sad that you'd try pick out random out-of-context quotes from a content dispute I had with someone months ago while ignoring their same messages to me as well as their personal attacks on my intelligence, something you have also done for months. I'll bring it here again. Fezmar9 and I, and Alecsdaniel and I, were in NPOV disputes and we all accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on mine, Fezmar9 and Alecdaniel's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here (and, to add, a months-old discussion isn't an emergency either). The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not all editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate.
- This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, @Alecsdaniel: please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
United States of Banana
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of references to United States of Banana have been removed today? The reason given is that it is not a notable work. An example is here [124]. I don’t know anything about the work so the reason given could be valid. However, the number of deletions indicates something else may be going on. Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) For quick reference, the article in question is actually Hugo Chavez, not United States of Banana. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Given we have United States of Banana, and its talkpage has already had a discussion on that found sufficient independent notability to sustain an article, the rationale for removal fails on its face. Are any editors other than User:Carchasm (whom I have notified of this ANI discussion, per policy) involved? Ping User:Lettherebedarklight and User:DocFreeman24 who had undone some of these edits. I have mass-rollback'ed the rest of them. DMacks (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- ...and typo'ed Carchasm's username in the ES; well, at least they won't receive a ton of pings. Let me know if I should do a dummy-edit to fix that. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I was doing recent changes review and noticed this as well. I had the same reaction as others, namely that some of the removals seemed legitimate (i.e., its not really clear why the content fit into the article in the first place), while others were relatively unexplained blanking. I only reverted the latter. It sounds like you all are sorting this out above but feel free to ping if you need me for something else! DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst simply mass-removing references is unhelpful, I do wonder if United States of Banana, whilst an important work, has been pushed into too many articles. Its very nature, where it features famous real, historical and literary characters, means that it is easy to do so, but I am unconvinced that at least some of the target articles are particularly improved by it. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- This was my intention - the references had almost all been added at roughly the same time by an account that was circumventing a block for the same behavior (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LatinCultureTodat/Archive). I initially noticed it because it seemed out of place - on e.g. Alcibiades or Laches (or Hugo Chavez) which aren't closely related to Puerto Rican literaturecarchasm (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Those are definitely valid concerns. My mass-rollback is without prejudice for re-doing selectively with more-nuanced explanation, or a central consensus to remove more broadly. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll go from there then and only selectively re-do pages where I think there's an uncontroversial case that the subject material isn't signficantly closely related enough per the in popular culture guidelines. Thanks for being understanding - I'm still getting used to the procedures here! I'll watch this page and not make any of those changes for at least 24 hours or until I get guidance otherwise that it's ok - please let me know here or my talk page if I'm off base in doing so! carchasm (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Those are definitely valid concerns. My mass-rollback is without prejudice for re-doing selectively with more-nuanced explanation, or a central consensus to remove more broadly. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- This was my intention - the references had almost all been added at roughly the same time by an account that was circumventing a block for the same behavior (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LatinCultureTodat/Archive). I initially noticed it because it seemed out of place - on e.g. Alcibiades or Laches (or Hugo Chavez) which aren't closely related to Puerto Rican literaturecarchasm (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is a difference between being a notable work, and so worthy of an article, and being notable with respect to a given topic. Just because a topic happens to be mentioned in that novel does not meant that that novel is worth mentioning in that topic's article. Paul August ☎ 22:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like borderline spam to me. Over 100 incoming links is a lot for a run of the mill book. Removing the superfluous links is good editing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- From a spot check, many of the references to this book are unnecessary and the removals are justified. In some cases the entire "popular culture" section it is included in is problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Farce is a perfect example where the problem isn't that this work is listed, the problem is the fact that the article is pathetic (just a lede and a massive unsourced list). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like this is being handled so I didn't dig too deep. I do a lot of maintenance and have a disdain for severely under-sourced (multiple entire sections with one source each), unsourced, and a small amount (dictionary style) lead, with a massive and sometimes elaborate unsourced list, that bothers me more if a search gives nothing substancial. If the links are not relevant in many of the cases it seems to be promotional and even spamming. I think mass adding a link to many articles a red flag to look closer. If that is the result here, and an editor is making good faith edits to correct it, I would think an ANI turned barnstar in order. A good edit summary is a great idea and I even sometimes add (See talk) with a note on that page. Of course it seem to have turned out that being brought to ANI resulted in some extra help the editor likely did not consider. Good job on the edits, good job on looking into the suspicion of mass removals, and great job for all the help in removing clutter. I was just wondering though, if a "first step" should not have been to initiate a discussion with the removing editor? Otr500 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Farce is a perfect example where the problem isn't that this work is listed, the problem is the fact that the article is pathetic (just a lede and a massive unsourced list). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
2601:801:4100:E1F0:0:0:0:0/64
- 2601:801:4100:E1F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Entire edit history has been disruptive redirect overwrites and unsourced changes in the same subject area: mostly children's television. One of the IPs in the range has already been warned of using multiple IPs. No discussion from the IP when edits are contested, either via their User talk pages or via article talk pages. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wilkja19 marking all edits as minor
- Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wilkja19 (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2018. For an inexplicable reason they began marking all of their edits as minor beginning in 2019, without exception. Most of these edits are not minor (as described in WP:MINOR) and include significant content additions, deletions, and changes. This editor has been asked twice to stop marking all edits as minor: [125], [126]. But they continue doing so undeterred, with no attempt at communicating. I posted a notice of this discussion on their talk page, so I hope they will respond here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, it seems that this user has been marking their edits as minor in order to evade from giving an edit summary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 hours. User has not reponded here, and has continued to mark edits as minor while this report was open. Recently, they have even marked a 1,900-byte removal of content as a minor edit. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- 1,900 bytes marked as minor? Pah, an amateur. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- The block has expired without comment; let's see what happens next. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- 1,900 bytes marked as minor? Pah, an amateur. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 hours. User has not reponded here, and has continued to mark edits as minor while this report was open. Recently, they have even marked a 1,900-byte removal of content as a minor edit. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Cool a123: multiple content edit warnings and misuse of Own talk
Newish Editor is not using edit summaries,[127] article Talk,[128] or responding on own Talk.[129]
Specifically, the Editor is using User talk:Cool a123 as a sandbox, which clearly seems to be hurting communications per WP:OWNTALK ...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user.
. Editor has been asked to resolve the Talk issue (such as by moving content to /sandbox) including [130],[131],[132],[133],[134],[135]
There have been numerous content edit warnings, which continue to be blanked with "sandbox" type content then restored to their Talk: [136],[137],[138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144],[145],[146],[147],[148]
UW Dawgs (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
TheRedundancy125
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- TheRedundancy125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheRedundancy125 has edited for over 2 years and made over 9,000 edits, almost exclusively in music and film.
Despite repeated warnings ([149],[150], [151], [152], [153]) the editor continues to:
- Fail to respond to any concerns raised on user’s talk page [154]
- Remove warnings from user talk page rather than address them ([155], [156], [157], [158])
- Fail to provide edit summaries (A, B, C, D, E) despite repeated requests ([159], [160], [161], [162]) to use them.
- Misidentify about half of edits as “minor” (C, D)
- Remove sourced material without giving a reason (C, D)
- Change material without reason or reliable source (F)
- Remove Templates without addressing concerns (G,[163])
- Reintroduce articles that have already failed AfD ([164])
- Fail to provide a reliable source for additions (A, B, E)
- Use questionable sources such as (iTunes, YouTube, Self-published) (YouTubeband's promo tweet) rather than provide adequate secondary sources
The editor was previously blocked for similar behavior.
I have repeatedly tried to engage this editor and like with everyone else who has engaged him/her, there is no response.
I have the feeling this editor may be being paid, and sees following our rules a waste of time (i.e. money). When I asked in January 2020 and again recently if the editor was being paid, I got no response. Perhaps the editor is just a bot run by the music or movie industry, because the edits seem almost completely automatic in nature.
I’m not sure why, but Huggle says this user is “whitelisted”—that seems like a bad idea given this editor’s behavior.
REMEDY REQUESTED:
I would suggest the editor be blocked indefinitely from editing until s/he is willing to engage in conversation about the problematic edits, commits to learning and following our rules, and answers the question about whether or not s/he is being paid or has a COI with regard to music/film.
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Notice to editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and indef blocked them as not compatible with a collaborative project. I suspect this would have happened a long time ago, but stonewalling and removing talk page warnings is a surprisingly effective tactic, since many won't notice that the warning they're leaving is actually the umpteenth time the editor has heard it. In any case, this is a collaborative project, so occasionally talking to people is a minimum requirement. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Potential copyright issues in articles created by a fringe conversion therapist sock
At perhaps our most backlogged area, Contributor copyright investigations, I noticed a familiar name, Freeknowledgecreator (formerly FreeKnowledgeCreator), who was listed for persistent copyright issues that I believe the user never addressed or showed signs of changing from. The name was familiar as someone who I interacted with at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, where they were attempting to get a fringe-pushing article on conversion therapy through GA. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry, a real long-term abuse case documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal/Archive. The user has a positive view of conversion therapy, a Christian evangelical view that homosexuality is a choice and an incredibly specific and intense hatred of Frederick Crews. They create articles on books with names like Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?, Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography. Almost none of these articles have significant contributions by other users, based on spotchecks I've done.
Due to the user's extensive copyright violation issues, we now have a choice to either assess these articles in excruciating detail for copyright issues, POV issues, FRINGE sources and claims etc. or to mass delete them. I'm unsure why this problem has gone unaddressed for a couple of months since the sock was blocked. I attempted to CSD five such articles (checking none had any non-trivial contributions by other users) but was reverted by Genericusername57, doubtless for a sensible reason, but as the user has not been active for a week, I'm treating this as a sign that the CSDs are not uncontroversial and we need further input. I assume we can establish consensus here to speedily delete all articles and redirects created by Freeknowledgecreator under G5, as the person behind the account was blocked before the account was created. I believe that is 369 pages in total, mostly (around 300?) redirects, but if someone could work out the exact figure that would be good. I'm coming here rather than doing a bulk AfD because this is more a sock/behavioural issue than a content one. — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support mass speedy deletion of FKC creations as described in proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support either this or presumptive deletions per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The latter will see about 15 articles blanked as Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deleted after a week if a rewrite is not offered. MER-C 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, Thanks for your efforts at CCI! I could carry this out over the next few days; as someone who worked on the CCI there are a good deal of violations that mostly consist of 1 or two sentences from every one of the sources cited; given that the sources are academic journals and books and the larger articles have 15+ citations, figuring out what comes from where is kind of a waste. Note that FKC claimed to have cleaned the violations up on a few different articles and got an admin to revdel after editing some articles to "remove the violations", (User talk:Swarm/Archive 16#Thanks, and a request) yet I still found one left over at Natural Law and Natural Rights. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion of most but not all. Freeknowledgecreator was indeed a POV pusher for views about sexual orientation being learned and I've argued with him multiple times. That said, I've worked on both Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why and Sambia Sexual Culture to make them balanced. They are good now. I wasn't previously aware of the article One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, but it actually looks good and I have watchlisted it. These three, at least, should be exempted. Others, especially about books that are old (with outdated reviews) and/or by conversion therapists, should be deleted. Giving such length and isolation to fringe and outdated views violates NPOV. Possibly if any other articles are about books that are not very old and by mainstream experts, they could be stubbed instead of deleted, but that's just an idea. Crossroads -talk- 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, Crossroads. I'd be happy if we exempted those two articles you've worked on (and I think they'd actually be exempt from the scope of G5 anyway) and though I'm not convinced about keeping any of the articles that only FKC worked on as a matter of principle, I'd definitely agree to keep that and any others that people can independently assess as acceptable in the view of getting this matter dealt with by and large. — Bilorv (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
:Comment: I'd be willing to do a review of their created articles, but they don't seem to have any contributions, or even be registered on this wiki. What's going on there? jp×g 13:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Figured it out, the name is all lowercase, the link from the CCI page is just misspelled. It looks like they've only made 369 articles total (and that number includes pagemoves + redirects). It wouldn't take me that long to run them all through a copyvio search. Would be happy to do that instead of just nuking them all pre-emptively. jp×g 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not mispelled—the user later changed their username (diff). Copyvio is not the only potential issue. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- JPxG, the sources this user copied from can’t be scanned by earwig. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 18:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Figured it out, the name is all lowercase, the link from the CCI page is just misspelled. It looks like they've only made 369 articles total (and that number includes pagemoves + redirects). It wouldn't take me that long to run them all through a copyvio search. Would be happy to do that instead of just nuking them all pre-emptively. jp×g 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Lord Belbury constantly reverting my edits
I would like to bring Lord Belbury to administrator attention. They keep reverting my edits, despite me only re-implementing guidelines and previously agreed consensus which were gone against, without permission, earlier this year and then allowed to remain in this way. Justgravy (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy - when discussing another editor here you are required to notify them with a post to their Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Last week Justgravy changed "Greater London" to "South East London" on five articles, citing the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages: an RfC that was still ongoing at the time, so I reverted the edits as premature. Justgravy restored one of those edits today, which I also reverted: although the RfC has gone stale, it still hasn't been formally closed, and I assumed it was still premature to say that these edits had consensus. (In fact, as I say in the edit summary, the most recent two comments on that project page are two editors explicitly opposing the removal of the word "Greater".)
Those six lead changes are the only edits of this user that I've reverted. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Admin, if you check the page in question, you will find the RFC has now been removed by the RFC bot i.e. closed. Also, it does not matter if "two editors explicitly opposing the removal of the word "Greater"", these are the previously established guidelines and a previously reached consensus by many editors over a very long discussion, please check the archives of the aforementioned page. Earlier this year a brand new editor took it upon themselves to go against this, edited the leads of a great number of these articles and then quickly disappeared. All I am trying to do is fix what they damaged according to the Wikipedia guidelines / consensus of said pages. Going against this amounts to vandalism in my book. Justgravy (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy, whatever it is, it's very clearly not vandalism - it's a disagreement about content. Perhaps the RfC could be unarchived in hopes that more people will comment and someone will close it? GirthSummit (blether) 09:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello GirthSummit thank you for taking an interest in this. The issue is, they are going against established guidelines and consensus which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. If editors go against Wikipedia's policy they should be reprimanded. Justgravy (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy Administrators do not settle content disputes; if you are unable to resolve this between the two of you, please make use of dispute resolution channels. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your timely response. Dispute resolution is already in progress regarding this matter, but this is separate to my qualm here. I was reporting the conduct of Lord Belbury. As an administrator do you believe Lord Belbury has violated Wikipedia's policies?Justgravy (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy, people violate policies all the time - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. For example, you violated our WP:NPA policy when you implied that Lord B was vandalising - you probably didn't realise it, but that is an accusation of bad faith and therefore a personal attack. What we normally do is offer advice, rather than reprimand people, which is what I am now doing. Don't edit war about it - either of you - just continue discussing it and try to get a consensus on the best form of words to use. GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your timely response. Dispute resolution is already in progress regarding this matter, but this is separate to my qualm here. I was reporting the conduct of Lord Belbury. As an administrator do you believe Lord Belbury has violated Wikipedia's policies?Justgravy (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy Administrators do not settle content disputes; if you are unable to resolve this between the two of you, please make use of dispute resolution channels. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello GirthSummit thank you for taking an interest in this. The issue is, they are going against established guidelines and consensus which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. If editors go against Wikipedia's policy they should be reprimanded. Justgravy (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I find this a bit of a liberty. I have been temporarily banned from editing many times in the past, and although I am now a reformed character, what was done to me was reprimand. Maybe what I meant was not vandalism, but going against long established guidelines and consensus is bad faith in my book. Justgravy (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Justgravy, blocks come out when it's clear that advice and warnings aren't working. If edit warring persists after advice has been given, we will look at other solutions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I find this a bit of a liberty. I have been temporarily banned from editing many times in the past, and although I am now a reformed character, what was done to me was reprimand. Maybe what I meant was not vandalism, but going against long established guidelines and consensus is bad faith in my book. Justgravy (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Addition of unsourced content by IPs on List of Mumbai cricketers
While I was performing pending changes review, I came across the article List of Mumbai cricketers. Several IP addresses (and one registered user: WIKIIND27) were adding "Parag Moily" to this list of cricketers, without providing a reliable source. Ohnoitsjamie brought to my attention that this specific cricketer was being added so much by IPs that it constitutes long-term abuse. I would like to ask to see what can be done to prevent this article from being disrupted by IPs. So far, Jamie states that he may create an edit filter that prevents this name from being added. If that is unavailable, we can just semi-protect the article. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment). There's no Parag Moily in CricInfo, which is pretty suspicious - it isn't totally reliable, but is comprehensive; including for the cricket-mad Subcontinent. The only person by that name I could find is a NN manager at InBev, with a LinkedIn profile. Narky Blert (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Repeated/disruptive unsourced claims to Sao civilization and Sara people by User:Rtamdji
- Rtamdji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Sara people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sao civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Rtamdji is persistently adding unsourced claims to the Sao civilization and Sara people pages regarding the origins of those groups and misrepresenting existing refs (inserting their preferred unsourced theory, along with misleading and mislabelled images). (They claim without sources that said groups descend from the Medjay culture of ancient Nubia while removing actual sourced information on their ethnolinguistic origins and histories.). I have reverted their edits (I believe once on each page yesterday, and once on one page today) with explanations citing Wikipedia policies, but they have ignored me and continue to edit war. I warned then yesterday that if they continued I would report them. When they continued today, reinsating similar edits, I warned them again, but realized that they were unlikely to listen or engage (they seemed unwilling to do so), so I am filing a report here.
Some of their diffs:
To Sao:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993851354
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993852763
To Sara:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993659090
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994014309
And here are the pages' full edit histories for reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sao_civilisation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sara_people
Skllagyook (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Materialscientist - If you are from the Sara Tribe - We would love to have a discussion. Please send us your email for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtamdji (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Rtamdji This is not the place to communicate with Materialscientist; you should do so on their user talk page, User talk:Materialscientist. Wikipedia matters should be discussed on Wikipedia if possible. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- The fact the only interaction these editors have had was a revert in 2016 makes this even weirder. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: Rtamdji also posted on my user page (here [[165]]) attempting to engage me via email (which is of course against Wikipedia policy) but still reinstated their edit, contining to ignore my notes, and made no attempt to discuss on a Talk page, as can be seen in their recent edit to the Sara people page. (here: [[166]]) which was reverted by User:The Bushranger (here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994041004). Rtamdji seems to be very unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but nonetheless seems to ignore explanations and insist on reinstating disputed edits without discussion. Skllagyook (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update: @331dot: and @The Bushranger: After everything, User:Rtamdji is still edit warring, and has just now (yet again) made another unsourced WP:OR edit to Sara people (here, [[167]]) They seem entirely unwilling to listen. Thier only response to me has been (after my several attempts to explain the problems with their edits) never to engage with the issues, but rather to suggest that I am editing from a "European standpoint" and to ask irrelevant personal questions about my ethnic background on my user Talk page (here: [[168]]). To avoid edit warring, I have not reverted their latest edit (nor their edit before). Can something please be done? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
One way interaction ban requested
I wish to request a one-way interaction of GiantSnowman-DrKay. I have repeatedly asked him not to reply to, comment on or mention me on wikipedia,[169] but he just won't stop. I don't know why he's so keen on this one-man campaign but as he refuses to desist (e.g. replying and pinging immediately after being asked not to) I think a formal sanction is required. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- You posted on my talk page (out of the blue) and then have immediately taken me to ANI when I replied? Your stance and comments are entirely unsubstantiated. Where are your diffs? Where is the evidence that I "won't stop"? We disagree on interpretation of naming conventions for footballers, another editor simply raised the same concerns I have raised about your interpretation, you responded by accusing them of harassment, I replied to say it was not harassment. That was the first interaction we have had for a month. GiantSnowman 21:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Diffs are in the opening comment. The fact that you are continuing a feud a month later demonstrates that you are a long-term grudge-holder. The only question I cannot answer is what caused the original grudge. I have repeatedly demonstrated support for disambiguation by birth year when required or opposition to nationality where fluid[170][171][172][173][174]. Both you and the other editor are aggressively misrepresenting my opinion. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DrKay: I think many here may know I'm fiercely critical of those who intentionally ignore requests to stop pinging or to stay away from an an editors talk page but I'm having trouble seeing anything here close to worth of ANI. Okay I'll give it was completely stupid for GiantSnowman to ping you in their reply saying they would respect the parts of your request that were reasonable. But hopefully that was a one time thing. If GiantSnowman kept at it after that one time, then yes maybe there would be something to deal with here but you've presented no evidence of that. Note that while you can ask someone to stop posting on your talk page and to stop pinging you, you cannot ask someone to stop replying to your comments elsewhere without pinging. Likewise while someone shouldn't bring you up unnecessarily, if it's relevant to the discussion e.g. if referring to your comments in a reply, then it would be reasonable to mention you. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Currently, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) states that nationality should be used before birth year. This was changed from preferring birth year without discussion or comment in November 2019 by KingSkyLord (talk · contribs) [175]. I suspect it may have been inadvertent, as that user immediately thereafter moved Chris Turner (footballer, born 1959) and Adrián González (footballer, born 1988) to birth-year disambiguations. As the "feud" appears to simply be that both people are accusing the other of lying about what the naming conventions are, resolving what the naming conventions are seems key to determining what action is needed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: - it wasn't really changed - the 1 to 3 list there is not order of preference, it is just a list of options. GiantSnowman 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not dispute the naming conventions nor do I accuse GiantSnowman of lying about it. The convention is not to use nationality before year of birth. It is use whichever disambiguator out of nationality, year of birth and position in the case of goalkeepers is the most conclusive. It is very often the year of birth. DrKay (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this. So what's the problem, other than we have occasionally disagreed in discussions where you prefer nationality and I prefer year of birth? GiantSnowman 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Should we reverse the IBAN as a boomerang? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this. So what's the problem, other than we have occasionally disagreed in discussions where you prefer nationality and I prefer year of birth? GiantSnowman 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I tried raising an admin problem on User talk:DrKay concerning IP disruption[176] and the possible need for an SPI report, hoping that DrKay would give help.[177] DrKay had made edits to Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia but ignored obvious repeated IP disruption there. He has not so far not made any attempt to respond on his talk page, so I am responding here. I have read his report here, which seems OTT and unhelpful. Could an administrator advise on whether the relevant IP ranges should be blocked (IPs from the Melbourn area an Zurich in talk:Frédéric Chopin); an SPI report does not seem to be particularly useful, since only one registered editor is concerned. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Noname JR
- Bouïra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Noname JR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Noname JR keeps adding unsourced and (when challenged) badly sourced content to the article, while also deleting easily attributable content[178] (to make a point). When asked to explain their edit, they simply ignored my comment on the talk page and violated the 3RR rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I have added tamazight (one of two official languages of Algerie) name with a source, however, there is no source about arab name of bouira.[179]--Noname JR (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, you edit warred over original research (for which you have been warned in the past) and removed the Arabic name (easily attributable to thousands of reliable sources) just to make a point. When asked to explain why, you ignored my request and violated the 3rr rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you add a source about the Amazigh language to Moufdi Zakaria's article? Since it clearly does not support the fact that he was a Mozabite (easily sourced), which statement is your source and its questionable title meant to support?
- Why did you remove the Arabic transcription from Issad Rebrab's article? M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Please make note of the fact that Noname JR has shown no interest in answering the questions and is is now edit warring on Algeria (using the same modus operandi). M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Why do you remove tamazight language (official language same for Morocco) about Algeria, Issad Rebrab is a kabyle man, so add Tamazight transcription is more important, same for Moufdi Zakaria who has wrote some poems in Mozabite (at this period, speaking an Amazigh language was forbidden)--Noname JR (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Please make note of the fact that Noname JR has shown no interest in answering the questions and is is now edit warring on Algeria (using the same modus operandi). M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the best case scenario, I think we have a language issue here. When told that the speakers= parameter in the infobox of Standard Moroccan Berber is for the number of speakers, they edited the article to list the quantity as "Amazigh speaker". [180] —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today, while using Huggle for the first time, I saw that certain users (such as Waleed Baloch0000, 42.201.208.30, Hassam Tauqeer, and 103.255.7.30) were repeatedly posting about caliphs on the help desk. I noticed that this was almost exclusively on the help desk, the only non-help desk post I saw was on the main administrators' noticeboard. If you have already seen this incident taking place, I'd like to ask to see what can be done about this situation to prevent this from happening again. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Probably has something to do with this: [181] See Cullen328's comment. Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Caliph-related forum shopping has made it to DRN as well: [182], [183] signed, Rosguill talk 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- We're also getting a lot of chaff at -en-help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Closed discussion, but some context might be useful to those scrolling by:
Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. See Qadiani for some insight into the anger this stirs up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- (from when this came up at WP:AN earlier in the day) jp×g 08:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can we temporarily protect the pages most affected by this or would that be too much? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is really a legendary level of disruption. I have opted to protect the help desk for 6 hours. It will probably need an extension, but I'll be asleep by then. The actual pages in dispute are already under semi or ECP. What I would love is if somebody could find a way to stop them spamming OTRS. I have dealt with well over 200 tickets in the last few hours and they are just flooding in. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not just the help desk. See the talk pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad. People here don't seem to understand that we're powerless in the matter, and lots of WP:MEAT going around and a few blocks dished out for distruptive behaviour. I won't be surprised to find many more pages which have had the same treatment, maybe google should be contacted. Pahunkat (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- And WP:AN3 and WP:BLP/N. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 09:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not just the help desk. See the talk pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad. People here don't seem to understand that we're powerless in the matter, and lots of WP:MEAT going around and a few blocks dished out for distruptive behaviour. I won't be surprised to find many more pages which have had the same treatment, maybe google should be contacted. Pahunkat (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is really a legendary level of disruption. I have opted to protect the help desk for 6 hours. It will probably need an extension, but I'll be asleep by then. The actual pages in dispute are already under semi or ECP. What I would love is if somebody could find a way to stop them spamming OTRS. I have dealt with well over 200 tickets in the last few hours and they are just flooding in. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can we temporarily protect the pages most affected by this or would that be too much? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Protected WPIslam 2 days, Mirza talk already protected, gave AN3 and BLPN 3 hours each, but those will likely need extending too. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll be patrolling recent changes to see if any other pages are affected. Is it work putting notices on the users' talk pages? Pahunkat (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- From experience with users with a similar mindset, yes. The vast majority of these are drive-by users who frankly are unlikely to follow-up. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- What are they mad about? Is Google still showing everyone false information, or are they just basing this off a Youtube video which is no longer true? When I search "current caliph of Islam" I get
Mirza Masroor Ahmad / The 5th and current Caliph of the Messiah of the Ahmadiyya Community is Mirza Masroor Ahmad. After the death of Ghulam Ahmad, his successors directed the Ahmadiyya Community from Qadian, India which remained the headquarters of the community until 1947 with the creation of Pakistan. / Ahmadiyya Caliphate - Wikipedia
. Of course, the clarifying information is in the blurb, but it still shows the guy's name in bold at the top of the page. If this isn't true, it seems like an issue that Google can (and should) be loudly whined at to fix. Is it possible to put a disclaimer somewhere telling people where to go do that? jp×g 09:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- It appears that they're blaming us for this mess, because google displays that the info's taken from wikipedia - even though they've portrayed it in a misleading manner. Leaving messages like this on talk pages: "Whilst we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter." Pahunkat (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- What are they mad about? Is Google still showing everyone false information, or are they just basing this off a Youtube video which is no longer true? When I search "current caliph of Islam" I get
- From experience with users with a similar mindset, yes. The vast majority of these are drive-by users who frankly are unlikely to follow-up. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit filter appears to have worked, but can an admin protect Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate before more people catch on to the fact the protection's just expired? Pahunkat (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector got it. DMacks (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
We've got vandals hitting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Masroor Ahmad now (a six-year nom never propagated to the AfD logs that was closed); brought up on RFP, but a heads-up here too. Nate • (chatter) 05:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It happened again there so I've semi'd it for the default time...but really (since it's here and now) is there any reason old AfDs should be editable at all? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- You've got a point - but I guess we never expected people to try to edit those discussions in the first place. They've been targeting all sorts of articles, from Wikipedia:Database reports and Template:No admin backlog/doc which aren't related to the caliph at all. Pahunkat (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:2020 Ahmadiyya Caliphate information, by the way. Probably could be linked from the edit notices of any pages semi-protected in response to this. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- You've got a point - but I guess we never expected people to try to edit those discussions in the first place. They've been targeting all sorts of articles, from Wikipedia:Database reports and Template:No admin backlog/doc which aren't related to the caliph at all. Pahunkat (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It happened again there so I've semi'd it for the default time...but really (since it's here and now) is there any reason old AfDs should be editable at all? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit filter?
- We have one - developed in record time. See special:abuselog, it's Filter 1106 and set to disallow. See the filter log of the help desk, for examples of edits that have been disallowed. Pahunkat (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Why are we discussing this at all?
This "constroversy" is part of an organised opression of a religious minoroty—Ahmadiyya. Why are we not aplying the obvious recipe: Revert, Block, Ban—no questions asked?
The essay WP:NONAZIS applies perfectly well in this case; it's just an other group that's getting targeted—not the usual ones: jews, gays, blacks, and what-not. Why, exactly, are we not reacting the proper ferocity? —Wasell(T) 19:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, some admins are applying that whilst others are trying to interact with the users. Using the recipe of Revert, Block, Ban would bring up a few problems though - it would create a large backlog at WP:AIV (but I can't really comment on this since I'm not an admin), and the sheer volume of accounts they've been using is tremendous. If we wait, the storm might just blow over. Pahunkat (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how this counts as organized oppression or why "ferocity" is required in response. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that Ahmadiyya originates in India, is this within the scope of the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions? —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Possible, but introducing 0RR/1RR sanctions would make it harder to address the issue given that most of the accounts are hit and run, wheras editors are looking to revert the comments. Pahunkat (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That would just make it harder to revert/clean-up anything that slips past the filter as opposed to actually helping the problem, yeah. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's here because admins need to be aware of the situation. I think you need to carefully re-examine the main complaint. From their point of view (though it's wrong), Wikipedia is saying that Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the fifth and current caliph of Islam. That statement is clearly false, and if these people are interested in calmly and politely pointing such an error, you won't find me banning them, regardless of their religious viewpoint. I've helped implement some of the protections and edit filter so I'm not saying it isn't disruptive, and the complaints aren't always free of bigotry, but more often they're just misguided. I don't think just banning everyone is a good solution here, nor are warnings which make no sense. And also, nobody should be penalised for reverting disruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail constantly harrassing User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail has been attacking User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha on their talk pages [184][185] by accusing them of bullying, trolling, and sockpuppetry. He has also done so on his talk page and refuses to heed warnings by treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Firestar464 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- HebaAisha filed an AE report about OnlyTruthShallPrevail, and Chariotrider555 commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, an editor with "Truth" in their name is reported for misbehavior on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OWB #72 rides again. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, an editor with "Truth" in their name is reported for misbehavior on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. jp×g 07:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
BigBoy75 Disruptive editing
- BigBoy75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user systematically and over a long period of time makes edits with violations of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV in the article East StratCom Task Force. I also have every reason to believe that when editing an article, this editor promotes his own point of view. He adds only critical information and removing orpositive from the article; violates WP:RSUW. All of his Wikipedia activity is tied exclusively to this article, which makes it easy to track his actions. He constantly marks his edits as minor when they are not, especially edits that might raise questions from other editors. For example, there is a consensus on the article's talk page, that one section of the article has neutrality issue (because of the text he added) and instead of fixing it he just removed the template and marked it as a minor edit. He constantly adds unreliable propagandistic sources like RT (TV Network) (RT America) and Sputnik (news agency). And constantly reverts edits that fix issues in the article in Criticism section.
Revert of revert, considering the fact that the source used the exact wording - diff
Revert of constructive removal - diff
Reverted the same material (it contained OR) again - diff
Added OR, violates WP:V (Berlingske says nothing about StratCom producing the document, but he still adding that and claims it was StratCom) - diff
Reverted OR material again - diff
Added unreliable source - diff
Added the exact same source to make it look like its different - diff
Reverted again with no explanation. And previous removal was absolutely justified - diff
Added copy paste from a single unreliable source ReframingRussia.com - diff
Added sources that do not supports the text and some of them even unreliable (Channel One Russia, Sputnik (news agency)) - diff
Again copy paste from that ReframingRussia.com source - diff
"Minor" template removal and unreliable source addition to push his POV - diff
Some of his destructive edits are hard to show here, because they include minor citation manipulations, OR wording and so on. I see no useful activity from actions. I just wasted hours to verify text to source integrity and remove his OR. Also I noticed that he uses blogger Jesper Larsen's opinion all of the time, gives different attribution to his words, so it misleads people and at first I thought it was the opinions of different people. And he also adds self published sources of Larsen where this blogger calls himself in the third person and calling himself investigative journalist and researcher. And then this editor uses the same characteristic in the article.--Renat (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I looked at a half a dozen diffs and I don't see why you want us to step into action. A bunch of them are disagreements about content. If something is an unreliable source, as in this edit, why wasn't that brought up on the talk page, or on the user's talk page--which is completely empty? The instructions on the top of this page are clear: ANI is the last resort, not the first. Did you ever take this up with the editor? And that edit with the unreliable source--that was from January. I don't see what you want us to do if the examples are so "subtle" you can't give diffs of them; the diffs I have looked at show no disruption that admins need to act on. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
203.247.28.33
203.247.28.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing to add unsourced/poorly sourced information onto British train articles past a Level 4 warning given on 2 December. Examples;
- Using a Flickr image as a reference for a train repaint on British Rail Class 90 1, then adding it back after being reverted 2
- Changing the status of a unit on the same page to "in service" with no source, with a generic source given in the edit summary "(Source: wnxx site)" 3
- Changing the status of several units on British Rail Class 373 to "All fleets were scrapped" without providing a source, and removing sourced information in the process 4
While they have made several sourced edits on other articles, it appears they have not fully learned from the warnings on their talk page. SK2242 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Would they need a Warning 4IM? that might make them add sources to their articles. --Toaster9 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Toaster9 needs to stop adding unsourced, speculative, and contrary dates of birth to articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Persistent addition of inadequately sourced content at Matignon High School
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Matignon High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deanyoungblood1 (talk · contribs)
- 2601:18C:CC01:21A0:E92C:568A:D1CD:26C6 (talk · contribs)
- 2601:18C:CC01:21A0:2D67:7222:EA95:D6C7 (talk · contribs)
Multiple accounts adding non notable former students, and removing notable ones who weren't hockey players. Requesting page protection and/or blocks of the puppets. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:958A:EACE:C5B4:402A (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Bizarre edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure where to post this, but could someone please have a look at the following edit history? The user has vandalized some pages, but most of their edits are bizarre changes to pages outside of the article namespace, such as the creation of a nearly blank talk page for a user account with no editing history, or an apparently random edit to a script-related page. I would not be surprised if some sockpuppetry is involved, but I'm only speculating. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- The account is now globally blocked, since it's been active on multiple wikis. It might be an LTA, but I don't recognize which one. Antandrus (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ringo Starr vandal from Brazil
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can I get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2804:D4B:9A10:C500:0:0:0:0/64? Somebody using IPs from Brazil has been vandalizing personnel credits related to Ringo Starr. The /64 has been active for one month, and every single edit is bad. For instance, this series of edits removed the co-writers of the song and falsely changed a direct quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
BlameRuiner
BlameRuiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zero response to the message in the User talk [186] about canceling an edit. At the same time, the user continues to perform their activities in Wikipedia. - 93.191.77.248 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the prominent instructions at the top of this page, particularly: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Also prominent in those instructions: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Editor calling Omarosa Manigault Newman and Kimberly Klacik "tokens" and discussing their "look"
Editors User talk:Praxidicae and User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x have been making editing the Kimberly Klacik article, but they have expressed a hatred and animus against her and Omarosa Manigault Newman, based upon their "look" and have called both of them "tokens". This discussion can be reviewed here: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". This discussion between Praxidicae and S4T3C2x is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x that the comments were disrespectful and inappropriate. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x to take down the comments, have them removed. S4T3C2x should remove the comment immediately. Neither of these editors should be working on Klacik's article. This discussion shows an antipathy toward the subject of the article, an animus that is ugly and unacceptable. I asked Praxidicae a series of questions and I will ask these questions again. Why do we have discretionary sanctions on politics articles if nothing is not done some like these becomes clear to other editors? Why didn't Praxidicae tell the fellow editor, S4T3C2x not to engage in such horrible talk? User talk:Praxidicae and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing the Klacik article whatsoever since both of them seem to have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are they discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are they assuming that Klacik and Omarosa are just "tokens"? Why are they using Wikipedia to comment on Klacik's and Omarosa's looks? These editors should disengage from the Klacik article and stop using the article to attack the subject. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Both of these editors should stop editing the Klacik article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. It's this same kind of combative, unproductive behavior that got them (CharlesShirley) banned from Elizabeth Warren (referesher, since they've forgotten [187] [188])
- Now they've taken to whitewashing Kim Klacik and then attacking editors who question their edits, when they remove sourced information, then obfuscate their answer and accuse others of racism among other things.
Praxidicae No, I don't take advice from editors that engage in discussions where you and Space4Time3Continuum2x call Klacik and Omarosa Manigault Newman "tokens", which is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Sorry that I repeated such horrible, nasty talk, but how else can I call you and Space4Time3Continuum2x's behavior and attitudes to the carpet? This wording needs to be removed after we come to a way to fix this BS talk and POV editing. Afterward there is some kind of resolution of this horrible, disrespectful BS then we can just point to this edit: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". Why didn't you tell your fellow critic of Klacik not to engage in such horrible talk? I guess since you didn't tell Space4Time3Continuum2x to cutout the disrespectful talk then you clearly agree with it. You and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing this article whatsoever since both of you have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are either of you discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are assuming that they are just "tokens"? Why are using Wikipedia to comment on their looks? You should disengage and stop using the article to attack the subject. Your intentions from your comments are clear. Who put you two in charge of who and who isn't a token? Who put you in charge to discuss Klacik and Omarosa looks? Why are either one of you judging the subjects on their race? And why are working so hard to put false and defamatory information in the article? Whatever you answer is it doesn't look good. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. And both of you should stop editing the article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 9:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)
- And now, the pièce de résistance, accusing me of saying something I never said, supporting something I never said I agreed with and demanding I become the keeper of another editor? I think this warrants a boomerang in the form of an AP2 ban. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CharlesShirley: For clarity, since you've now dragged your baseless personal attacks against me to ANI, please provide diffs where I have said anything about either of the two individuals "status" or "looks". Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley, you've made very serious and unsupported accusations that Praxidicae has taken part in these comments about "token" and "look", but I see zero evidence that she has done so. I strongly suggest that you either provide evidence now or immediately retract your statements both here and on the article's talk page. I also see that your attitude on the talk page appears...less than constructive and collaborative. You need to work towards solutions, not create drama and make unfounded accusations. I'm not impressed by Space4Time3Continuum2x's comments on their talk page either, but it still does not warrant you being so combative and it does not warrant accusations towards Praxidicae. Waggie (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is apparent that CharlesShirley has no interest in collaboration in the area of AP2 topics, they are still editing and attacking other editors with baseless accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS and they've failed to substantiate anything even here. I would propose an AP2 topic ban, it's evident that they cannot conduct themselves in a civil and collaborative manner. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- The bolded quote is me voicing an opinion on my talk page where CharlesShirley didn't leave a message. There was no discussion of anyone’s looks, race, or status, and I did not make any "horrible, disrespectful comments" there or anywhere else. If I showed "hatred and antipathy" or "attacked" Klacik or inserted "false and defamatory information" in her article, CharlesShirley should point out those incidences. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's still not cool. Your opinion on your talk page is sill publically visible to anyone that happens across it. Saying "Token Black Woman" is all kinds of problematic. I thought you might be quoting the snopes article but it is not mentioned there. BLP applies to talk pages too (see WP:BLPTALK). Be more careful. Praxidicae has done nothing wrong that I can see. You are not obliged to point out bad behaviour on others talk pages. AIRcorn (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sources for my three sentences: [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, CharlesShirley has not responded to what I feel is a perfectly reasonable request for them to support or retract their accusations towards Praxidicae. Even though they are clearly active on Wikipedia. As they do not seem interested in participating in an ANI thread they started, and also seem to feel it is appropriate to continue on with similar behavior elsewhere, I think that a WP:NPA block is appropriate, or at the very least, an indefinite AP2 TBAN as suggested above. WP:BOOMERANG applies, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sources for my three sentences: [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Wiki-Hounding by Eti15TrSf
Eti15TrSf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Back in September, an image was replaced on New York City Subway. Eti15TrSf decided to step in and revert it three months later with accusations of self-promotion, along with "you are not entitled to have your pictures used everywhere". The image replacement in question is subjectively better at first glance. The issue being had here is that instead of going to the talk page to discuss said image, Eti15TrSf persisted in their accusations of bad faith. @GeneralPunger:, can you add your context to this? Cards84664 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- How is a single edit supposed to be WP:HOUNDING? Regarding the question of which image is better, that's a question for the talk page. (They seem equivalent to me.) There does seem to be a clear 3RR violation by Eti15TrSf, though, so it is edit-warring (and Cards84664 is arguably also edit-warring). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute which another editor has now split the baby with and added both images to the article, which may be a good solution, not hounding. However as noted Eti15TrSf has roared past WP:3RR and accordingly is now blocked. I'll note this is not the first time they have been blocked for editwarring. Cards84644, you are at 3RR, do not further revert. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- My angle as requested by Cards84644: As The Bushranger said, this is only one example of the edit warring ways of Eti15TrSf. Let me start from the beginning. Back in August, I replaced the R160 Z train picture on the J/Z page (currently, the old image is displayed). I did so because I found it better than the old one, which was blurry and was also compositionally similar to the R179 J train picture directly above. Mine was a different angle, better quality/resolution, and I felt it spiced the page up a bit by being underground. A few days later, Eti15TrSf reverted my edit saying the new one "wasn't any better." I poked fun and undid his revision. Ever since then, he's been reverting and edit warring many of my picture-related edits, accusing me of "promoting myself" and "treating Wikipedia as my personal album," which I found a bit hypocritical since he seems to edit war with anyone who disagrees with him about what makes a 'good photo' (his personal collection, as I'd describe it). He reverted my pictures for the L and the R143 also, edit warring me there as well (both also currently display the old image). He also accused me of personal attacks (which he promptly withdrew). I attempted to reason, basically saying that I was only doing it because, based on many factors, I (as well as some others) found my pictures to be better than the ones already there, as well as suggesting bringing it to the talk page, but all he'd do was ignore my words, revert, and basically say "it's not good and doesn't show the whole train" (for instance here). Now, not only do I find that an arbitrary and inadequate criterion, I also found (despite him coming to my talk page to "school" me on what makes a good picture, which he also didn't follow up on) he didn't follow it himself, for instance when he replaced the picture on the R46 page (which I hadn't touched, I should note) with my R46 W train image, or when he replaced in this most recent skirmish on the New York City Subway page my R46 W image with one that "didn't show the whole train." Thus, I've come to the conclusion that he for whatever reason has a grudge against me (perhaps because of my joke comment back in August) and wants my pictures in as few places as possible on Wikipedia. Sorry for the delay. GeneralPunger (talk) 04:23 (Edited 1:34), 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute which another editor has now split the baby with and added both images to the article, which may be a good solution, not hounding. However as noted Eti15TrSf has roared past WP:3RR and accordingly is now blocked. I'll note this is not the first time they have been blocked for editwarring. Cards84644, you are at 3RR, do not further revert. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We need more evidence for a pattern but Eti15TrSf very clearly targeted GeneralPunger's image here based on an unsupported claim of "self-promotion" (how, exactly?). I don't know that you can call it a content dispute; GeneralPunger's image is clearly better than the one it replaced (in terms of exposure and color). It's not remotely a close call, and no else agreed with the edit. Eti15TrSf themselves knew it was a good image because they added it to R46 (New York City Subway car) in July. Fundamentally this is a user conduct issue because Eti15TrSf is targeting GeneralPunger, and he should probably stop doing that. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've added some links to revisions as evidence in my text above. GeneralPunger (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
disruptive editing by user:Mugun.cjb
Mugun.cjb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi! I think Mugun.cjb may not be fully aware of Wiki conventions on discussion and secondary sources. LeoFrank had reverted certain edits on Coimbatore International Airport which relied on another wiki page while providing feedback. However, user:Mugun.cjb undid the edits while posting certain defensive comments on both pages of user:LeoFrank and mine.
Special:MobileDiff/994352746 Disruptive revert Special:MobileDiff/994352491 Response by Mugun.cjb Special:MobileDiff/994353150 My feedback Special:MobileDiff/994353383 Response by Mugun.cjb to me
Hope @Mugun.cjb: would spend some time to understand WP:5P and continue contributing to the project collaboratively. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Rudeness towards me and vandalism against the article
Addictedtohistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He called my article a fantasy, despite the fact that any source and article in the article did not go beyond the rules of Wikipedia. This: Everything from links to images and content is a fiction. Please investigate the purpose of this user and take the necessary action There: [195] Altun Ahmedov (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Altun Ahmedov! I went thru the link and found it to be a discussion of the article rather than of you. Have I missed something? Vikram Vincent 09:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to my notice so quickly. For this user, this article is a complete fantasy. I wrote to him that the article would be corrected soon (and I corrected it in part later) and he called the pictures and links in this article so imaginary. That user called me an anti-Armenian provocateur. I politely told him that we did not have such a goal. Maybe I don't understand right? Altun Ahmedov (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Altun Ahmedov I could not locate the phrase "anti-Armenian provocateur". Could you provide the diff please. The other comments are related to the article rather than a reflection of you. Vikram Vincent 11:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Would this article fall under WP:AA2 discretionary sanctions as a "related ethnic conflict, broadly interpreted." If so, perhaps all parties should be notified, in case things get out of hand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. The article is as stated a fictional revision of Khachkar. There is not a single example of so called Albanian crosses. It uses unrelated khachkar images (click the images in article to read the description), trying to relate images of 13 and 16 century cross stones to Caucasian Albania that ceased to exist in 8th century. It introduces alternative links to existing wiki articles, i.e. Dadivank monastery vs Khudavang monastery complex, Gandzasar Monastery vs Ganjasar Monastery, Armenian Principality of Khachen vs Albanian Principality of Khachen. Khachkars are unesco inscribed armenian cultural heritage, see [[196]]. The article is nominated for deletion [[197]]. --Addictedtohistory (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- We may not make it to DS, BMK. @Altun Ahmedov: Please provide diffs for your statements regarding Addictedtohistory's behavior. You've been blocked previously for personal attacks and if you cannot substantiate your contentions here more sanctions will follow. Tiderolls 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Altun Ahmedov: Please also notify Addictedtohistory on their talk page about this report as is required by policy posted at the top of this page and when you were submitting this report. You may use {{ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nominating an article for deletion and stating a reason is personal attack? On contrary, such baseless accusations might be considered as s personal attack. Stick to the facts Addictedtohistory (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Durifon keeps blanking my User pages
Since 12 December, Durifon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked 7 times my personal pages without asking, even my Sandbox!
See Special:Contributions/Durifon.
Pure harassment.
I asked him to stop on User_talk:Durifon on 15 December but he answered he would continue, arguing that my pages were accounts settling with Wikipedia FR I was not allowed to keep.
I disagree. My two archived pages are mostly “comments on Wikipedia matters”, in the light of my 12 years history on Wikipedia, perfectly fit regarding the rules about personal pages WP:UP.
Can my archives be protected from vandalism? Can User:Durifon be disabled to vandalize my personal pages?
--Cvrx (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, I am mainly a WP:FR user.
- I saw on a comment on the FranceSoir website [198] (against Wikipédia) that Cvrx, a long time banned WP:FR user, was using his WP:EN pages to attack WP:FR.
- I believe that it is not what those user pages are for.
- Talk pages are made for talking, not for this [199] (absolutely not a talk page, just a very very long monologue....).
- User page is to present itself and what you want to do in the Wikipedia project, not for this [200]
- I believe those pages are against WP:POLEMIC: "laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately"
- Obviously, is the WP:EN community believes otherwise, I won't touch those pages again.
- I, however, think that Cvrx should be blocked on WP:EN, because he doesn't contribute to this project, and has only modified his userpages since 2017... Obviously, he isn't here to contribute, but to cry because he was ban from WP:FR... Durifon (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Durifon: That does not explain your deleting their user talk archives. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Durifon: Mind explaining THIS. Looks to me like you've come to harass Cvrx. I will block you from their user space pending the outcome of this discussion. As always, any admin can reverse or modify as needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- HAving said that, @Cvrx: @Durifon: is correct about the content removed from your user page. However, the thing to do would have been to civilly ask on their talk page and then bring it here or to WP:MFD. I don't know what they do on the French Wikipedia, but your behavior in this natter has not been acceptable. I will refrain from partial blocking you unless you persist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I admit that I may have been to fast to act. I will obviously refrain for modifying again those pages, and let admins decide what must be done. For the talk page archive, it was not really an "archive" of his talkpage, but mainly an attack against WP:FR users [201]: See the title "Azurfrog et ses soutiens violent en toute impunité chacun des cinq principes fondateurs de Wikipedia"... I saw that there was some talk, but is was really a small part of this so-called "archive". Durifon (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- HAving said that, @Cvrx: @Durifon: is correct about the content removed from your user page. However, the thing to do would have been to civilly ask on their talk page and then bring it here or to WP:MFD. I don't know what they do on the French Wikipedia, but your behavior in this natter has not been acceptable. I will refrain from partial blocking you unless you persist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps too late. ANI threads can take on a life of their own. Cvrx, Durifon has a point. Have you made any constructive edits to the English Wikipedia since 2018? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since my painful ban from fr.wikipedia on 20 June 2017, I contributed a mere 8 time on articles, among which Lilianne Ploumen and Order of St. Gregory the Great, in January 2018. This is very little, I admit…
- Please note that out of goodwill, I archived everything of my User pages. I propose that we leave it this way and move on. --Cvrx (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Durifon, Except in cases such BLP vios, copyvios, individuals should almost always refrain from editing/deleting someone elses comments. If a user specifically asks someone to refrain from alterting their page, this needs to be respected and any issues should be brought to WP:ANI, WP:CSD or WP:MfD.
- Cvrx and Durifon, It's a very poor choice to continue disputes from one wiki to another. If you are here to contribute to en wikipedia, do so. If you are here to continue a dispute from FR, then you are WP:NOTHERE to build en wikipedia. En wikipedia has enough conflict/disputes without importing more from other wikis. Unless you can get along well enough to build en together, you should both decide to stay away from each other. If this continues it will not end happily for either editor.
- Cvrx archiving the content in question is a step in the right direction. Thanks :)
- Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User:DonkeyPunchResin
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- DonkeyPunchResin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- For an explanation of the username, see Donkey punch
- "Take your tampoon out"
- "I have a hard time resisting the urge to say ‘take yer tampoon out’ when the opportunity arises regardless of tampoon appropriateness."
- "Have you ever tried telling someone to take their tampoon out? That's one urge I haven't learned how to control yet."
Can we help this editor control their urges? (There are also UTP warnings but I haven't looked into them.) Levivich harass/hound 16:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not saying our user name policy needs to be work safe, per se., but this one does it for me. So, I soft blocked. I'm actually surprised that they have been allowed to edit with that user name thus far. Weird. Anyway, if someone else wishes to convert it into a hard block, that's fine with me. I've given this matter a cursory glance only. El_C 17:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
DPR, I'd recommend you not only choose a new username but stop using such a childish phrase. It's the kind of thing that makes you look very immature and makes other people think you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Jitazg and Zubeen Garg
- Jitazg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Zubeen Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to propose that Jitazg be disallowed from editing Zubeen Garg. The editor has a clear conflict of interest as demonstrated here where after being asked if he knows Garg, he replies "i am in his fan club , i got the privilege to talk to him , and met him many times"
.
The user has demonstrated several times that their objectivity is severely hampered by their fandom/acquaintanceship with the subject and they have repeatedly demonstrated a desire to take ownership of the article.
- In these edits from July 2020, Jitazg seems to think the
|occupation=
and|instruments=
parameters are to list every single job the guy has had and every instrument he plays. I opened a discussion about these parameters being too bloated here and Jitazg's response was to lobby that "philanthropist" be added on top of the bloat I was complaining about. - In this edit from August 2020, Jitazg makes the claim that Garg has sung 20,000 songs. It is based on a quote found in this source, where Garg, irritated at a concert organiser says:
"I will sing whatever I wish to and you cannot dictate me. I have sung 16,000 songs in the last 25 years of my career, not you"
. Now, maybe that's literal, maybe it's an exaggeration, I don't know. But Jitazg inflated the figure. When I pressed Jitazg about it, they avoided answering why they inflated the number and they didn't clarify whether this represented songs performed or songs recorded. When you say that someone sang 20,000 songs, I think most people would interpret that to mean unique songs, and probably songs recorded vs. he got on stage and sang the entire Beatles catalog over and over. So, Jitazg provided unclear information, inaccurate data, vague content, and it tends to inflate Garg's importance. - In these 9 edits, user Unforgettableid makes a series of changes, chopping down the occupation parameter and similar content from the lede, as well as cutting a list of 16 languages Garg has performed in. While maybe that was a bit of an over-pruning, Jitazg reverted the entirety of it. Unforgettableid opened a discussion and cited MOS:ROLEBIO as the rationale for some parts of the trim. Jitazg's response was
"Sir would prefer the old long occupation list because he has done this all and i think we should give him that credit what he has contributed and he deserves it."
Oh, well sure, let's keep a bloated list of languages in the lede because Garg "deserves it". - Here Jitazg describes Garg as being considered "one of the most talented and versatile artiste." Um, clearly puffery, and absurdly vague--who called him that? Most talented/versatile in the state of Assam? In India? In the world? Fortunately Jitazg included a single reference. An interview. And apparently the interviewer (assuming it's not a press release) thinks Garg is one of the most talented/versatile in "showbiz". So, a specific statement was ambiguously presented by Jitazg to make Garg look bigger and better.
- In this edit, this edit and these edits, Jitazg makes the claim that Garg "received the title 'Luit Kontho' from the governor of Assam." Well that tends to sound like it was a state-issued award, right? Like a knightship or being given the Padma Shri. But when we look into it, here at a source Jitazg provided, it looks to me like the Gov handed Garg one of the Maya Media Awards, and when looking up that organisation, it's only had 2 ceremonies, one in 2017, one in 2019. Hardly notable. But Jitazg, who is devoted to Garg, considers it a regal bestowment, notes it prominently in the lede, and uses (misuses) the
|alias=
parameter to try to use it an official state-issued honourific. I opened a discussion, where I detailed all of this, but Jitazg decided not to reply and instead here attempts to explain to me what an honourific is, but completely ignoring the other points raised, before declaring"Here's nothing to elaborate more.
They've done that a few times as well--I'll point out multiple things wrong with the content they've submitted, they'll fix one issue and think that's the end of the discussion.
I think the above demonstrates adequately that Jitazg has extraordinary difficulty editing that article objectively or constructively. Note also that at Talk:Zubeen Garg, everybody else has to open the discussion. Jitazg never does. They don't appear to be here to collaborate, at least not with regard to Garg. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I assume you mean Jitazg, as JitazG does not exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)}}
- @The Bushranger: I'm an idiot. Thanks for the tip. I have amended the above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It happens to the best of us! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I'm an idiot. Thanks for the tip. I have amended the above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User:GeorgeWilkins260
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- GeorgeWilkins260 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GeorgeWilkins260 has been attacking other editors for months on end in edit summaries. I have been the target of some attacks ([202] [203]), and have warned them twice ([204] [205]).
They have been attacking other editors in edit summaries since April 2020 ([206]), and I can’t deal with it anymore. They have gone as far as telling people to "shut the f*** up" and using other defamatory language ([207]). Too many of this user's edits contain either rude language, swearing or attacks. Examples: [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]. On top of that, they have been warned about their language and attacking for a year now. (User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#December 2019, User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#April 2020, User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#Edit summaries)
I also told them that it was their only chance to fix their behaviour in November of 2020 (User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#November 2020 (CLOSED)), stating The next time you do this I will be reporting you.
We had a talk, and as of today, they are attacking other editors and using defamatory language...again ([216], [217])
I think this user needs to be blocked for a good amount of time considering the number of times this has happened coupled with the five warnings they have received to halt this behaviour. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Doggy54321: User blocked indefinitely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism and nonsense from Thelinkster2141
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, Today, there was a now-blocked user, known as Thelinkster2141, who was making pages about certain people doing a weird action of "licking flashlights". There were articles about individuals licking, the exact incidents and even a list of people. Most pages counted as either attack pages, patent nonsense or vandalism. Shinyedit (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Shinyedit, the account is already blocked. My suggestion to use this noticeboard was meant for future cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Ohhh. Sorry. Shinyedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image at the top-right of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_carry_in_the_United_States&oldid=786375669 lacks context and depicts a manner of open carry that many would consider dangerous if practiced in public (see my section in the current talk page for details), but from June 2017 until today when I removed it, it was the first image in Open carry in the United States. It is currently the first image that appears when I search "open carry" in duckduckgo. I believe this image was chosen for its shock value but aside from the NPOV issues, it's more troubling that this was Wikipedia's "exemplar" of open carry for such a long time. For the sake of both encouraging safe firearm handling and maintaining a neutral point of view, Wikipedia should keep a closer eye on firearm-related articles, which tend to be frequent targets of POV pushing, often by editors who push against the ownership and proper use of firearms. AP295 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Legal threat from IP spamming his self-promotional books
An IP [218] who has self-identified as self-published author Karl Coyne [219] has been spamming his own books on the Vince Gironda article in the "further reading" section. The problem is that he is trying to promote his own books which are self-published, and he is trying to add 5 of them which is spam. All his books are either self-published by Lulu.com or himself [220] (Publisher: Karl Coyne) etc. His has threatened possible legal action on his talk-page [221]. I don't see how it is "defamation" to remove his self-publoshed books from Wikipedia. Any idea what to do here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- A block per WP:NLT is what we do first; that's been done. Also I see that they don't understand the difference between WP:SPS and "further reading", and also seem to think that lots of reviews equal reliability... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)